MSCA Advisory Meeting Minutes
Monday, April 27, 2015
1:00 to 3:00 PM
MSHSL Office, 2100 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center
Speech Advisory: Jill Lofald (AA), Travis Rother (AA), Kathy Martin (A), Cal Vande Hoef (A)
MSCA President: Scott Sieling
MSHSL Rules Clinician: Cliff Janke
MSHSL Director: Chris Franson
I. MSCA appointed State Jury (Administrative: doesn’t need to be proposed.)
A. Well-received last year.
B. Tweak it so there is a rotation like Discussion so not all 3 leave at the same time.
C. Proposal: A rotation will start with the 2015-2016 school year. At the 2015 Fall MSCA
meeting, a new Jury member will be elected to replace the at-large member, followed by
replacement of the Class A member in the Fall of 2016, followed by replacement of the Class
AA member in 2017. This cycle will continue to repeat into the future. (Unanimously
approved at the Fall 2014 MSCA Meeting)
II. Poetry Rule Revision: (Proposals due by May 15) Reviewed by September 30. Voted on in
October Board meeting. Send out to Administrative Regions.
A. Current rule: Selections for poetry may include one poem or several clearly-identified poems
B. Proposal to add this language: The titles and authors of each poem must be stated either in
the introduction of throughout the performance. (Passed at the Fall 2014 MSCA Meeting:
109 for, 3 against
C. Look at a session at CTAM on cutting for interpretation events
III. Time Limit Proposal:
A. Revise time limits for MSHSL Categories so that all non-draw events are 10 minutes and all
draw events at 7 minutes. The grace period would be eliminated.
B. This proposal was approved by a vote at the Fall 2014 MSCA Meeting:
75 for (48 “AA” and 27 “A”) and 37 against (10 “A” and 27 “A”)
C. Rationale: Having only two time limits would provide simplicity and consistency to
tournaments. The 10 minute time limit in non-draw categories would put Minnesota in line
with the national standard of 10 minutes.
D. Send the time limit information to Chris electronically.
IV. Other items raised
A. Check published rules on the MSHSL website to make sure they are up-to-date
1. Music rule? This is up-to-date online
2. Duo rule of allowing students to look at each other during intro? Clean up duo language
to show that they can only look at each other during intro (not transitions)
3. Coaches need to make sure they are accessing rules from the MSHSL website for the most
recent set of rules.
B. Check wording of set-up and timing for Informative.
1. How does current wording affect enforcement
2. Is clarification/rewording needed? Travis is doing a session at CTAM. Cliff will update the
FAQs before that. Section managers need to be informed that set-up of informative needs
to be timed with signals.
C. Tiebreaker idea for State Finals
1. “Preponderance of 1’s” rule: A student who earns two 1’s in finals cannot be beaten
unless a student who places higher than him/her has the other 1.
2. This would prevent students who get a 1, 1, 7 or 1, 1, 8 a better chance for the
championship.
3. What about only ranking to 5 and using actual ranks for the tie-breaker?
4. Bring this up at CTAM.
D. Judges at State.
1. Hiring and placement ideas: Have a hiring committee for this? No voting process? Rep.
from each section? Not many are voting. Can we get more people to vote? We need more
to register to judge. Add something on the registration if coach is actively
judging/coaching.
2. Numbers in finals? Leave a slot open in finals? Chris could put five in finals with the
number that we have now. Let’s discuss at CTAM.
E. Team Trophies at State (top 3 teams)
1. Do we count all finalists? Yes. 8th=1 pt, 7th=2 pts., 6th=3pts., etc. Keep it as is.
2. Suggestion to only count the top 10. (Try it as it is and then tweak in the future if
necessary. )
F. Section Tournaments
1. DQ offenses not enforced. Chris suggested having section manager meetings online
before section tournaments to review rules, etc.
2. Discussions tasks and Ex. Speaking questions. Mike Worcester said he and Rachel will
divide up tasks in the future to make sure others don’t see tasks ahead of time. Ex.
Speaking: have topics by round to prevent students from seeing ideas from other
students.
G. Prose and Drama cuttings
1. Should we allow more than one piece?
2. Do we need a rule about this? CTAM session?
H. Plagiarism and Youtube issues
1. Slam Poetry online
2. How much is too much? Discuss at CTAM.
V. Discussion of future consideration items: (These items might be good for CTAM sessions. We are looking for individuals to host sessions on these topics.)
A. Can a student write their own piece, publish it online under a pseudonym, then
perform it in a category other than creative expression?
B. For state finals tie-breaking, in the case of a 3-way tie, does finals recips have to be the
first tie-breaker used?
C. Should Rules and Criteria for judging Discussion be revised to make the event
more consistent with “real world” group problem-solving activities?
D. Should the name of (and perhaps also the Rules for) Great Speeches be
revised?
E. Should the "quoted word" limits for Original Oratory and Informative Speaking
be increased? Should submitting a Works Cited be required for these
events?
F. Should the requirements regarding writing critiques at the State Contest be
changed? Should critiques be written for Final Rounds? Should critiques be
eliminated entirely or revised for all rounds? Maybe just a half sheet with a reason
for decision listed.
G. Should MSCA consider naming Academic Champions in speech, much as is
done by athletic coaches’ organizations? We are already an academic activity
and Jill added that any speech team students who have a 3.0 or higher get a
certificate from the MSHSL. Give a list to your A.D. of your students who can
get these from the league.
Monday, April 27, 2015
1:00 to 3:00 PM
MSHSL Office, 2100 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center
Speech Advisory: Jill Lofald (AA), Travis Rother (AA), Kathy Martin (A), Cal Vande Hoef (A)
MSCA President: Scott Sieling
MSHSL Rules Clinician: Cliff Janke
MSHSL Director: Chris Franson
I. MSCA appointed State Jury (Administrative: doesn’t need to be proposed.)
A. Well-received last year.
B. Tweak it so there is a rotation like Discussion so not all 3 leave at the same time.
C. Proposal: A rotation will start with the 2015-2016 school year. At the 2015 Fall MSCA
meeting, a new Jury member will be elected to replace the at-large member, followed by
replacement of the Class A member in the Fall of 2016, followed by replacement of the Class
AA member in 2017. This cycle will continue to repeat into the future. (Unanimously
approved at the Fall 2014 MSCA Meeting)
II. Poetry Rule Revision: (Proposals due by May 15) Reviewed by September 30. Voted on in
October Board meeting. Send out to Administrative Regions.
A. Current rule: Selections for poetry may include one poem or several clearly-identified poems
B. Proposal to add this language: The titles and authors of each poem must be stated either in
the introduction of throughout the performance. (Passed at the Fall 2014 MSCA Meeting:
109 for, 3 against
C. Look at a session at CTAM on cutting for interpretation events
III. Time Limit Proposal:
A. Revise time limits for MSHSL Categories so that all non-draw events are 10 minutes and all
draw events at 7 minutes. The grace period would be eliminated.
B. This proposal was approved by a vote at the Fall 2014 MSCA Meeting:
75 for (48 “AA” and 27 “A”) and 37 against (10 “A” and 27 “A”)
C. Rationale: Having only two time limits would provide simplicity and consistency to
tournaments. The 10 minute time limit in non-draw categories would put Minnesota in line
with the national standard of 10 minutes.
D. Send the time limit information to Chris electronically.
IV. Other items raised
A. Check published rules on the MSHSL website to make sure they are up-to-date
1. Music rule? This is up-to-date online
2. Duo rule of allowing students to look at each other during intro? Clean up duo language
to show that they can only look at each other during intro (not transitions)
3. Coaches need to make sure they are accessing rules from the MSHSL website for the most
recent set of rules.
B. Check wording of set-up and timing for Informative.
1. How does current wording affect enforcement
2. Is clarification/rewording needed? Travis is doing a session at CTAM. Cliff will update the
FAQs before that. Section managers need to be informed that set-up of informative needs
to be timed with signals.
C. Tiebreaker idea for State Finals
1. “Preponderance of 1’s” rule: A student who earns two 1’s in finals cannot be beaten
unless a student who places higher than him/her has the other 1.
2. This would prevent students who get a 1, 1, 7 or 1, 1, 8 a better chance for the
championship.
3. What about only ranking to 5 and using actual ranks for the tie-breaker?
4. Bring this up at CTAM.
D. Judges at State.
1. Hiring and placement ideas: Have a hiring committee for this? No voting process? Rep.
from each section? Not many are voting. Can we get more people to vote? We need more
to register to judge. Add something on the registration if coach is actively
judging/coaching.
2. Numbers in finals? Leave a slot open in finals? Chris could put five in finals with the
number that we have now. Let’s discuss at CTAM.
E. Team Trophies at State (top 3 teams)
1. Do we count all finalists? Yes. 8th=1 pt, 7th=2 pts., 6th=3pts., etc. Keep it as is.
2. Suggestion to only count the top 10. (Try it as it is and then tweak in the future if
necessary. )
F. Section Tournaments
1. DQ offenses not enforced. Chris suggested having section manager meetings online
before section tournaments to review rules, etc.
2. Discussions tasks and Ex. Speaking questions. Mike Worcester said he and Rachel will
divide up tasks in the future to make sure others don’t see tasks ahead of time. Ex.
Speaking: have topics by round to prevent students from seeing ideas from other
students.
G. Prose and Drama cuttings
1. Should we allow more than one piece?
2. Do we need a rule about this? CTAM session?
H. Plagiarism and Youtube issues
1. Slam Poetry online
2. How much is too much? Discuss at CTAM.
V. Discussion of future consideration items: (These items might be good for CTAM sessions. We are looking for individuals to host sessions on these topics.)
A. Can a student write their own piece, publish it online under a pseudonym, then
perform it in a category other than creative expression?
B. For state finals tie-breaking, in the case of a 3-way tie, does finals recips have to be the
first tie-breaker used?
C. Should Rules and Criteria for judging Discussion be revised to make the event
more consistent with “real world” group problem-solving activities?
D. Should the name of (and perhaps also the Rules for) Great Speeches be
revised?
E. Should the "quoted word" limits for Original Oratory and Informative Speaking
be increased? Should submitting a Works Cited be required for these
events?
F. Should the requirements regarding writing critiques at the State Contest be
changed? Should critiques be written for Final Rounds? Should critiques be
eliminated entirely or revised for all rounds? Maybe just a half sheet with a reason
for decision listed.
G. Should MSCA consider naming Academic Champions in speech, much as is
done by athletic coaches’ organizations? We are already an academic activity
and Jill added that any speech team students who have a 3.0 or higher get a
certificate from the MSHSL. Give a list to your A.D. of your students who can
get these from the league.
RSS Feed
