Wisconsin High School Sports | Wisconsin Sports Network | WisSports.net

The issue of competitive equity in high school sports is certainly not new. In fact, it has been around for decades, dating back to the early discussions of separating schools into divisions or classes for postseason play based on enrollment, something that wasn’t done for good in boys basketball until 1972. 

Competitive equity roared to the forefront several years ago when a group of schools from the Six Rivers Conference circulated a petition for a private school multiplier, though that and several other proposals failed to gain enough support at the WIAA’s Annual Meeting.

What is often forgotten in the discussions around competitive equity is that it goes well beyond public versus private. In fact, some of the biggest discrepancies in equity can be found amongst public schools themselves.

Proposals from the hockey and gymnastics associations to address the over-sized co-ops that have been formed in those sports made the rounds last year, including discussion at this year’s WIAA Area Meetings. There was no consensus from administrators in attendance on whether there is even an issue, let alone how to address it.

However, it is beyond time that co-op programs that have ballooned to include as many as 13 different schools and 13,000 students are addressed by the member schools of the WIAA.

It’s not a fun topic however, and in fact, a very difficult one. No one wants to be the one to say, “no”. It is easier to just maintain the status quo. After all, many schools in the association are involved in these multi-community co-op programs. Those principals and AD’s don’t want to be the one to tell the one or two athletes that are part of a co-op program that they no longer can do it.

And there’s a legitimate concern that if co-ops are limited, the athletes will be pushed further towards club teams.

But aren’t the behemoth co-op programs just glorified club teams anyways? The stated goal of the WIAA and most schools is to provide education-based athletics. To me, part of that mission is to make the athletics program an extension of the school and community. How does a co-op program with more than half a dozen schools separated by miles and miles qualify as an education-based program, or an extension of the community? What tie to the “community” is there when schools send just one or two athletes to participate on a co-op team? Some schools provide little to no financial support to the programs anyways, with many of them being self-funded by the athletes and their families. The only “school” part is the name and the athletic code.

It would be a difficult pill to swallow and a challenging message to communicate, but if athletes lose school-based opportunities because of a limit on co-ops, there are always the non-school options they can pursue. It is an uncomfortable idea, but everyone isn’t guaranteed an option to play a sport at their school just because they want to. There may just not be enough interest in the community to support it.

It was way back in 1982 that the WIAA membership first voted to amend its Constitution to allow for cooperative programs. It was meant to be a lifeline to allow schools to maintain programs and opportunities, and hopefully one day, build the programs strong enough that they would not have to co-op. 

In the first year, there were fifteen co-ops total in ten sports. Six of them involved Blair and Taylor, who would consolidate school districts just a few years later. 

It is interesting to read some of the dissenting comments back then about the negatives of co-op teams. In Matt Otte’s wonderful WIAA historical book “More Than A Game”, he quotes the April 30, 1982 WIAA bulletin, “...a significant number expressed concern that some combined teams may be designed primarily for the purpose of developing winning programs.” 

The idea of co-ops becoming avenues to more successful programs instead of a lifeline to continue opportunities has created controversy in recent seasons. The Six Rivers Conference voted against the continuation of what had become a successful Benton and Shullsburg girls basketball program, which led to a lawsuit from the schools, though the vote did hold and the teams have participated as separate programs the last two years. Some wrestling co-ops in the suburban Milwaukee area have come under scrutiny as well.

However, the largest co-ops exist in the sports of hockey and gymnastics. That isn’t surprising however, as they are two sports that require very specific and specialized equipment and venues. It isn’t just everyone who has the thousands of dollars of gymnastics equipment. Not every town has an indoor ice rink.

However, the co-op issue has become big enough that the coaches associations have chosen to take action and push for change, as the size of the teams has swelled to enormous numbers.

In girls hockey, there are just 31 programs sponsoring the sport. Only four of them are standalone programs however. The other 27 programs are made from 160 different schools. The average girls hockey co-op team consists of six different schools. The Brookfield Central co-op teams features 13 different schools that have a combined enrollment of 13,341. All to provide one team. 

All four teams that qualified for the 2017 Girls State Hockey Tournament were co-op programs. They featured a combined 26 schools and represented a combined enrollment of 28,481. In fact, the last time a standalone program made the state tournament was Northland Pines in 2008. 

Northland Pines is the prime example of how inequitable the co-ops in girls hockey have become. The Eagles feature an enrollment of 407, yet are competing against programs with combined enrollments of more than 13,000. 

In boys hockey, 18 of the 87 teams (20%) feature at least five schools in a co-op. One of the most sizable ones is the Greendale co-op, which includes 10 schools and a combined enrollment of 10,567. Meanwhile, teams like McFarland, Northland Pines, Tomahawk, Oregon, Monona Grove, New Richmond, and many others are standalone programs with enrollments one-tenth the size of that.

Co-op programs have played an important part in maintaining and expanding participation opportunities for thousands of athletes over the years. They continue to be valuable and necessary in many places. But they have gotten out of control in others.

The proposals circulated by the coaches associations would potentially limit co-ops to no more than two schools, or perhaps an enrollment cap related to the largest standalone school. There would be a waiver process to allow co-op programs with more schools however.

It remains uncertain just how much support these proposals will get, and they were not on this year’s WIAA Annual Meeting agenda. However, the discrepancies in enrollment, the glorified club nature of many co-ops, and competitive equity challenges they present must be addressed by the schools of the WIAA.