South Dakota Delays Decision on Sanctioning High School Baseball

SDHSAA cites budget concerns and low survey support as reasons to hold off; South Dakota remains one of only two states without sanctioned high school baseball

The excitement and competition of state sanctioned high school baseball in South Dakota remains on hold as the SDHSAA failed to approve the sport for varsity status at this time. / Donn Parris

High school baseball in South Dakota will remain unsanctioned—for now. As reported by Keloland.com, the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) board of directors decided Wednesday morning not to add the sport at this time but agreed to revisit the idea in the future.

Survey Results Show Mixed Support Across Schools

“I love baseball. It would be great to sanction it,” SDHSAA Executive Director Dan Swartos said in a public meeting on the subject, according to Keloland.com.

Despite acknowledging his personal support for the sport, Swartos pointed to statewide survey results from high schools that indicated now is not the right time.

Small Schools and Budgets a Key Concern

Board members, who spoke but did not identify themselves during the meeting’s livestream, but the echoed feedback from the schools, raised concerns about financial strain and the challenge smaller schools would face in fielding teams consistently.

Swartos estimated that the base cost to start a baseball team, without transportation, would be $15,000 per school.

South Dakota, Wyoming Remain Outliers

South Dakota and Wyoming are the only two states that do not offer state-sanctioned high school baseball among the 50 U.S. states and Washington D.C.

Swartos said he will monitor developments in Wyoming during this summer’s national high school activities association meetings to see if other rural states are exploring similar issues.

SDHSAA Baseball Survey Results

Survey to all member schools, conducted Spring 2025

Sent to Superintendents and Athletic Directors- 100 Responses

1. Using the assumptions provided to you (Spring season, similar format and allowable contests to softball, state tournament around or coinciding with the state track meet, five year period of allowable dual funding, similar classification structure as softball, startup costs of $10,000-$15,000 plus transportation and varied levels offered), what would be your preference regarding the sanctioning of high school baseball in South Dakota?

a. Do not sanction at this time, but continue looking at it for the future
depending on future funding and economic outlook- 42%
b. Beginning in 26-27, with the first season being spring 2027- 22%
c. Do not sanction high school baseball- 19%
d. Beginning in 27-28, with the first season being Spring 2028- 14%
e. Beginning in 28-29, with the first season being Spring 2029- 3%

2. What are your top three concerns regarding the sanctioning of high school baseball?

a. Funding/budget constraints/enrollment decline- 70%
b. Optics- adding sports while we cut/absorb teaching positions and/or give small raises to staff- 53%
c. Student numbers/ability to field a team- 47%
d. Scheduling- 41%
e. Facilities- 32%
f. Title IX Compliance issues- 24%
g. Athletic Director workload- 22%

3. What do you see as the greatest benefits of sanctioning high school baseball?

a. Giving all kids the ability to play, regardless of financial status of family- 55%
b. Giving students the opportunity to compete for the same championship as
other sports (50%)
c. Oversight of SDHSAA/NFHS rules as opposed to SDHSBA rules- 27%
d. More formal classification structures/transfer rules- 25%

4. Using the assumptions above, if high school baseball were to be sanctioned
beginning with the 26-27 school year, with the first season being spring 2027, how
likely would your school be to sanction a team?

a. Very unlikely- 27%
b. Unsure- 24%
c. Unlikely- 19%
d. Likely- 18%
e. Very Likely- 12%

5. Using the assumptions above, if high school baseball were to be sanctioned
beginning with the 27-28 school year, with the first season being spring 2028, how
likely would your school be to sanction a team?

a. Very unlikely- 23%
b. Unsure- 21%
c. Unlikely- 17%
d. Likely- 17%
e. Very Likely- 17%

6. What other information do you want SDHSAA staC and Board to know regarding this
topic? (Broad overviews included below, actual responses provided to Board)

a. We need to consider looking at lost time in the classrooms
b. Scheduling- many baseball games now on Wednesdays and Sundays.
c. If you sanction we will be pressure to add it, regardless of our ability to afford
it.
d. Our resources are already under pressure, cannot bear anything else.
e. Title IX will be an issue, especially for large schools.
f. Optics and timing are not ideal currently.
g. Small schools will struggle to field teams.
h. Continuing to add sports puts school boards in a diCicult position.
i. This would be beneficial for students in small schools who don’t have the
opportunity to play at the school level.
j. If there is interest and we can do it, we should look at it.
k. If we do this we should move B golf to the fall.
l. Softball has been a successful transition, baseball can do the same.
m. It should not conflict with state track.

Of those who indicated a preference to start in 26-27 and indicated they would be likely or
very likely to sanction a team, this is what we would have: AA- 2 schools, A- 6 Schools, B- 3
Schools.

Same conditions but 26-27 or 27-28: AA- 4 schools, A- 12 schools, B- 4 schools.

Schools by class who indicated likely or very likely for 26-27, regardless of their preference
on when it should happen: AA- 5 schools, A- 25 schools (some would be co-ops), B- 9
(several would be co-ops).