Fed press release link

[HLin NC]

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...-changes-2017/

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...-changes-2017/

Beat me to it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...-changes-2017/

Thanks. Now I'm wondering why Fed even cares about who advertises on game balls. Their "Rationale" isn't a rationale at all, just an elaboration.

[HLin NC]

Probably a preventative measure. Someone has either proposed it or it has been done. Imagine a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag. Fed may just be trying to get out in front, for once.

[CT1]

I'm truly bothered that the Rules Committee has taken the time to adopt a rule concerning the loss of a prosthetic limb, yet still refuses to define the IB/OB status of an airborne player.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Probably a preventative measure. Someone has either proposed it or it has been done. Imagine a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag. Fed may just be trying to get out in front, for once.

Doesn't make sense, considering they allow the leagues & schools themselves to advertise there, just not to rent the space out to others. If a state ass'n wants to do so, why would Fed care?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Doesn't make sense, considering they allow the leagues & schools themselves to advertise there, just not to rent the space out to others. If a state ass'n wants to do so, why would Fed care?

Not EVERYTHING that turns out to be good for the goose, is automatically good for the gander. I have yet to see, or hear of, league or school advertising that comes anything near, "a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag" that could easily become problematic to the extent of negatively affecting the game.

Lets, "not just go there", although there are likely "some" that would sell their soul for advertising revenue..

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Not EVERYTHING that turns out to be good for the goose, is automatically good for the gander. I have yet to see, or hear of, league or school advertising that comes anything near, "a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag" that could easily become problematic to the extent of negatively affecting the game.

Lets, "not just go there", although there are likely "some" that would sell their soul for advertising revenue..

But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do? I could understand if Fed itself were licensing its logo & didn't want it slapped on certain things, but this measure is not about separating those. Rather, Fed is dictating to member organiz'ns what they can put logos on.

This is not like a governing body wanting to keep professional players out of their game. It's not like ad space is going to give anybody a competitive advantage in games. It's also not going to provoke bad sportsmanship, like face paint that disses the opposing team or whatever it was they were trying to pre-empt previously.

Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do?
Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?

Assuming, "One size fits (or doesn't fit) all" rarely, if ever, proves smart. Advertising related to HS athletic activities has a place, BUT it's not EVERY place, and NFHS has considered, and decided, the "game ball" is NOT an appropriate place for optional advertising.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do?
Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?

Assuming, "One size fits (or doesn't fit) all" rarely, if ever, proves a worthwhile idea. Advertising related to HS athletic activities has a place, BUT it's not EVERY place, and the NFHS has considered, and decided, the "game ball" is NOT a suitable place for additional commercial advertising, which seems a reasonable and rational restriction.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do? I could understand if Fed itself were licensing its logo & didn't want it slapped on certain things, but this measure is not about separating those. Rather, Fed is dictating to member organiz'ns what they can put logos on.

This is not like a governing body wanting to keep professional players out of their game. It's not like ad space is going to give anybody a competitive advantage in games. It's also not going to provoke bad sportsmanship, like face paint that disses the opposing team or whatever it was they were trying to pre-empt previously.

Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?

Because the ball is an implement of the game and it makes sense to have some reasonable standards on appearance to ensure at least some consistency, even if both teams use their own. Just like HS uses a white stripe football vs the non-stripe used in other levels. I don't think there was some spate of ad-filled balls out there - which would be a very poor spend of ad $ anyway, since no one in the stands could see it - but this seems like an eminently reasonable pre-emptive measure.

I don't see any logic whatsover in extending that past the point of absurdity in tying standards for the major game implement to an ad on the fence or stadium ticket policies. There has to be a line, and the ball and player uniforms seem well within that line.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do?

The NFHS, commonly referred to as "The Fed" or "The Federation" is made up of 1 voting member from each member state. You can find the list of member state names on Page 4 of your 2016 NFHS Rules Book.
Rules changes are proposed by member states and voted on by member states. If a super majority of the members votes in favor, a rule is changed, if not, it remains unchanged.
Restated, NFHS Members propose changes and vote on changes as the federation is simply made up of members representatives from member states.

It is for this reason that your statement - "But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do?" is foolhardy and a bit askew!

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If a state ass'n wants to do so, why would Fed care?

Again, there is no mystery or shroud of secrecy as only state associations members a rep from the Officials association and a rep from the coaches association make up the federation. In this situation, One (or more) of the member states "cared" and presented a Rule Proposal to not allow advertising on the ball. They defined advertising, it was voted on and adopted. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps you may want to factor in and adjust to some facts before continuing to make your assumptions and/or "conspiracy theory" type objections to NFHS rule changes you continue to publish on this and other chat boards.

But then thats just My 2 cents

[slick rick]

Need to make it the same for all involved!