MINUTES OF THE IHSA BOYS/GIRLS GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
December 1, 2010
The IHSA Boys/Girls Golf Advisory Committee met at the IHSA Office, Bloomington,
Illinois, on Wednesday, December 1, 2010, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Committee members
present were: Beth French, Petersburg (PORTA); Mike Karoski, West Frankfort
(Frankfort); Jim Kurotsuchi, Chicago (Payton); John Stock, St. Charles (East); Steven
Carr, Westmont; and Paul Heitkamp, Rockford (Boylan). IHSA Associate Executive
Director Kurt Gibson; Assistant Executive Director Stacey Lambert; Rick Anderson and
Chuck Weigle girls state finals managers; and Chris Neville, President of the Illinois
Coaches Association, were also in attendance. Not in attendance was Mary Jo Bell,
Bloomington (Central Catholic).
TERMS AND CONDITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Eliminate VIII. E. 1 - Observers
Recommendation: Eliminate observers at the state finals (only at State Tournament)
Rationale: The committee believes that coaches will be better able to police and
assist with the administration of the tournament if the use of observers is eliminated at
the state finals. Currently, many coaches are unable to coach their players during the
boys’ state finals due to their use as observers. By allowing coaches to stay with their
players and teams, the need for observers at the state finals will be unnecessary.
approved
2. Replace VII. C. Sectional to State Final Advancement - Class 1A/2A/3A Boys
and Class A/AA Girls
Recommendation:
Members of the first two teams (and ties) shall automatically
advance. The next four teams to advance shall be the next four teams (and ties) in all
sectionals with the four lowest scores in relation to the Course Comparison Index
(CCI). Additionally, the first seven individuals (and ties) from each sectional shall
automatically advance. The next twenty individuals to advance shall be the next twenty
individuals (and ties) in all sectionals with the lowest scorer, again in relation to the CCI.
Rationale: After increasing the number of advancing teams from 10-12 last year, the
committee believes it is time to do the same with individuals. This modest increase
will allow more qualifiers to experience the state tournament. The committee
believes the current system is unfair in some instances to teams and individuals in
highly competitive Sectionals. Golf is scored based on par, and this new structure
will take that into consideration.
Not
approved
3. Amend VIII. L- Pace of Play
Recommendation: Players who fail to meet the predetermined pace of play times for
the regional, sectional, and state finals courses may be subject to penalty for slow
play. Tournament managers will establish the pace of play times for each tournament
and provide them in advance to competitors. The Rules Committee will be
responsible for player warnings and observing groups as needed to determine which
players will be penalized.
Rationale: The current Pace of Play procedure isn’t being consistently implemented
and it creates disparity between courses and events. The committee believes this
procedure is less harsh and may encourage more people to apply the Pace of Play
policy. The updated policy could also promote player education to learn to play a
more even paced game of golf.
approved
Administrative Recommendations:
1. Review Policy 18- Classification System
Recommendation: The committee requests that the Board of Directors review Policy
18- Classification System to adjust percentages to create more balance in the 3 class
sports, particularly Boys’ Golf.
Rationale: Right now there is a discrepancy in the number of teams in each class; the
committee hopes the board review will show this and help bring the classes closer
together in terms of schools in each class. In boys’ golf, for example, there is
significant disparity between the number of competing schools in each class. After a
number years in the 3 class system, the committee believes it is time to review the
policy.
ITEMS OF GENERAL DISCUSSION:
1. The committee heard reports on both the recently-completed girls’ and boys’ state
final tournaments. Rick Anderson and Chuck Weigel, girls’ state final managers,
were in attendance to share reports from the state finals. Kurt Gibson, administrator
for Boys’ Golf shared reports from the state final.
2. The committee reviewed 2009 Minutes
3. The committee discussed eliminating Circle 10 for 2011 season due to perceived lack
of participation. It was decided to keep Circle 10 and investigate its usage.
4. The committee discussed moving the List of Participants due date up. No motion
was made.
5. The committee discussed seeding teams in all 3 classes of boy’s golf. Motion died
due to lack of second.
6. The committee discussed making sure spectator rules are provided at all tournaments.
IHSAS staff will make sure to include these instructions are provided to schools in
their state finals qualifying on-line packet. Additionally, starters at each state finals
course will go over an abbreviated version prior to the start of play for each group.
7. The committee discussed location of regionals and sectionals due to geographical
location.
8. The committee discussed its desire that to assist with pace of play, each of the state
final courses should be set up in a challenging, yet fair, manner. Of concern were the
green speeds at one of this year’s state final venues.
9. The committee discussed their hope that IHSA staff can announce up-coming state
series venues in advance of the preceding school year so that players can have an idea
of what their possible regional and sectional courses might be. Currently, IHSA staff
does this, but sometimes a handful of courses/schools have not responded by the midMay release. IHSA staff indicated a willingness to work more ahead in order to
hopefully have all courses announced by mid-May.
10. The committee discussed By-law 2.060 regarding the timing of practice rounds at
regional and sectional sites during the state series. The committee was reminded that
if a school is going to go to a regional or sectional site and practice early because the
are out of school, that school should call the host school first and let them know they
are out of school early and are going to try to get an early tee time. This way, the host
school AD can call course to let them know that school A is out early and will be
calling to get an earlier practice tee time.
11. The committee recognized and thanked Mary Jo Bell, girl’s golf coach at
Bloomington (Central Catholic) High School, Jim Kurotsuchi, girl’s golf coach,
Chicago (Payton); and Steven Carr, Principal at Westmont High School for their
service to the committee.
IHSA
Golf
Advisory
Committee
Course
Comparison
Index
(CCI)
Course Comparison Index (CCI) =
1. Take the Player's score and subtract the Course rating
2. Multiply that answer by 113 (USGA Slope Rating for an "Average Course")
3. Divide that answer by the Course Slope
The result is the CCI. The committee recommends rounding any decimals to the nearest
tenth. The smaller the number the better. Some examples.
Player 1
Player's score = 85
Course Rating 69.3
Course Slope 117
CCI= 85-69.3 =15.7
15.7 times 113=1774.1
1774.1 Divided by the Course Slope (117) =15.16 (Rounded to the nearest tenth) = 15.2
Player 2
Player's Score =85
Course Rating 71.9
Course Slope 124
CCI = 85-71.9=13.1
13.1 times 113=1480.3
1480.3 Divided by the Course Slope (124) =11.93 (Rounded to the nearest tenth) =11.9
Thus, Player 2 would advance even though he shot the same Gross Score (85) as Player 1.
This seems to makes sense in that Course B had a tougher rating and had a higher slope.
Some more examples from "Real Courses"
Lick Creek
Blue Championship Tees Rating 73.5
White Regular Tees Rating 71.6
Naperbrook Gold Championship Tees rating 72.0
Blue Regular Tees Rating 70.5
Slope 137
Slope 133
Slope 127
Slope 124
INDIVIDUALS
Lick Creek CCI
Blue Tees Score 77 77-73.5=3.5
Blue Tees Score 76 76-73.5=2.5
Times 113=395.5
Times 113=282.5
Divided by 137 = 2.88= 2.9
Divided by 137 = 2.06= 2.1
Naperbrook CCI
Gold Tees Score 75 75-72=3
Gold Tees Score 76 76-72=4
Times 113=339
Times 113=452
Divided by 127 = 2.66 =2.7
Divided by 127 = 3.55 =3.6
Some scenarios:
1. Players shooting 76 at BOTH courses, the player from Lick Creek would advance due
to a lower CCI. (2.1 at Lick Creek versus 3.6 at Naperbrook). Lick Creek has a higher
rating and higher slope.
2. Player at Lick Creek shooting 77 and player shooting 75 at Naperbrook would favor
the NAPERBROOK player (2.9 versus 2.7). Lick Creek is not QUITE 2 strokes more
difficult.
3. Player at Lick Creek shooting 76 and player shooting 75 at Naperbrook would favor
the LICK CREEK Player (2.1 versus 2.7 ). Lick Creek is a little more than 1 stroke
more difficult.
TEAMS
Team 1 Lick Creek
75
CCI=1.2
76
CCI=2.1
76
CCI=2.1
79
CCI=4.5
305 CCI TOTAL 9.9
Team 2 Naperbrook
75
CCI=2.7
75
CCI=2.7
76
CCI=3.6
77
CCI=4.4
303 CCI TOTAL 13.4
The Team at LICK CREEK would advance (Lower total CCI). This makes sense because our
individual CCI showed Lick Creek played a little more than 1 stroke more difficult.
Golf is a wonderful sport in that it is based on the handicap system. Handicaps are
universally recognized. A player that has an 8 handicap must give 2 stokes to a player that
has a 10 handicap. This is a way to recognize that one course is more difficult than another.
The CDGA had used the Course Rating System for a long time. The USGA has used the Slope
system for a long time. Thus, there is history, consistency and fairness in this system.
Teams finishing first or second would NOT be concerned with CCI and individuals finishing in
the top seven would NOT be concerned with the CCI. We can make a chart with the CCI’s
ahead of time, so that it would take very little time on Sectional evening to identify the “atlarge” teams and players. It would take someone on Sectional evening to identify the next 4
teams and the next 20 individuals with the lowest CCI’s. A coach could also accomplish this
task. We would need to make sure the course ratings and corresponding tees are used and
that this is known ahead of time. This system recognizes that courses have different ratings
and slopes and adjusts the results for that.