Jack Roberts, on Tom Rashid: One More Call
By
John E. (Jack) Roberts
MHSAA Executive Director, 1986-2018
December 9, 2021
More than a decade ago, with his knowledge, I placed in my “Will & Instructions Upon Death” that Tom Rashid was to be the one and only person to speak at my funeral or memorial service. A short number of years later, Tom told me that I was to do the same for him. Obviously, we knew that we could not both keep our promise to the other. But I must say, if Tom does not actually show up for my funeral, that will be the first time he has not kept a promise to me.
I understand there will be a time in the future, when the weather warms and COVID wanes, when school administrators across Michigan can gather in force to show their respects to Tom, and when I will provide the eulogy that Tom asked of me. But Tom’s recent death reminds us how uncertain life can be and suggests that I say some things now, before it’s too late.
Tom was the unparalleled master of award presentations; and for more than a dozen years he wrote and delivered polished praise on award recipients at the annual conference of the Michigan Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association. My tribute now isn’t an awards presentation or hall-of-fame induction, so I won’t recount the particulars of Tom’s career; but what you will see here is the importance of Tom’s life … the themes that distinguish him from any other person I’ve known.
Tom comes from a large, complicated and compassionate family of parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces who mourn his loss at levels few of us can fathom. Over the years, and for many years, he was the caretaker for several family members; and he was generous with all of them. My hope for each family member now – and for many days, weeks and months to come – is that you are at peace. Tom’s pain is over; and his place in eternity is secure. Tom purchased a reserved seat.
Tom often joked that his only good habit was prayer. That’s not really true, of course. But for as long as I’ve known Tom, he talked to God many times a day; and I’ve always had the feeling that he talked to God the same way he talked to us: bluntly, forcefully, passionately, honestly, loudly, making very plain what he had on his mind.
Tom was a rigorous practitioner of his devout Catholic faith; and, the God whom Tom believed in is a big God … the president, general manager and head coach of a huge, diverse team whose game plan is a large, loving Gospel of limitless parameters and possibilities. I have no doubt that, both in times of need and not, members of the Roberts family – including both my parents, my sister, my wife and our children and grandchildren – have been specific in his petitions to God. I have no doubt that Tom’s daily prayers included many of you, and your loved ones as well.
In addition to Tom’s immediate family is the even larger and even more complicated family Tom developed through a long, illustrious career in Michigan school sports administration: a full 25 years with the Archdiocese of Detroit, until 2003, when I invited him to join me at the MHSAA office in East Lansing.
During my 32 years as the executive director of the MHSAA, I never saw another like Tom … never, anywhere. He talked to anybody, anytime of the day or night, about any question or problem they might have. Usually, Tom didn’t need to give me notes reviewing his telephone conversations. From my adjacent office, and given his forceful voice, I could hear Tom’s every word, very clearly.
Tom had the ability to anticipate what I might need and take care of it without my asking. It is no exaggeration to say that Tom would do anything for me. For example, Tom’s reluctance to travel and his fear of flying are well known to many of you. I believe the one and only time that Tom flew in an airplane was in 2003, when I ordered him to fly to Texas so that he might receive the highest award of the National High School Coaches Association. He had never flown before; he has never flown since.
Most remarkable was not merely Tom’s unselfish, unlimited, legendary availability to athletic administrators at any hour of the day or night, nor his experienced, learned grasp of the subject matter in answering their calls. What was more remarkable was his effort to help school administrators through their hard times. On many occasions these callers had made an error of commission or omission. They had made a mistake or an oversight; and Tom was supremely compassionate in guiding them through the local fallout from disappointed athletes and disgruntled adults. Secure in himself and our mission to be servant-leaders, Tom very often shared or completely shouldered unjustified blame so others would not. He gave cover to countless local school administrators every year of his MHSAA career so that those administrators might survive and even thrive in their careers.
Among my remarkably loyal MHSAA staff, Tom still stands out. And he earned the enduring loyalty of those with whom he worked. I think especially of his successor at the Archdiocese of Detroit, Vic Michaels: I doubt that more than two days ever passed between their almost daily telephone conversations … usually in the morning … for the full 15 years that my office was next to Tom’s at the MHSAA. I have never, ever been witness to anything like that; and I know there is no one in our good work who misses our dear colleague more than Vic.
But most remarkable of all was Tom’s ability to turn an adversary into an ally. He could have a knock-down, drag-out argument with a person one day, and by the next day, and for years to come, that person was Tom’s greatest advocate and admirer.
Well … maybe second-greatest advocate and admirer. Because no one in athletic administration – no one – loved Tom more than I. And no one in our work told him this more than I did.
I have written often about my admiration and affection for Tom. I have spoken both publicly and privately of it, on many occasions. But let me say it one more time, here, as we celebrate his life, and mourn our loss …
Tom and I provide proof that opposites attract, and we tag-teamed MHSAA’s leadership. One of us was very outgoing and vocal, the other more reserved and reticent. One of us was loud, the other more subdued. One of us was more comfortable on the phone, the other with the pen. One of us had no idea what to do with apostrophes, while the other would put them in the correct places. One of us was more spontaneous and extemporaneous, the other a more detailed planner and measurer of consequences. One of us hated to travel, the other sent messages to him from distant oceans and continents every year on Christmas or New Year’s Day to thank him for his life and service. But in our hearts, where one’s core values are harbored, we were almost identical twins.
I doubt that any two people who were side-by-side in the workplace for 15 years expressed their gratitude for each other more than we did, nor any two co-workers who said “I love you” to one another as often as we did. We each felt in deep debt to the other for myriad gifts and gestures that improved our careers and our lives.
Over the years, Tom and I developed the strategy of making one more telephone call before we made a final decision in a difficult matter … making one more call that sometimes made a difference in the controversial decision we had to make or in how that decision was accepted by those it affected. Tom loved to be the one to make those calls. And, sometimes, that “one more call” made all the difference.
Throughout my adult life, whenever I’ve attended a funeral or memorial service, I’ve found myself asking what it is I should learn and try to emulate from the life of the deceased. If you should find your mind and heart doing anything like that now, may I suggest these two answers.
First, Tom’s life and death remind us that we should not delay a single day in telling those with whom we work that we appreciate them and are grateful for what they do. And, if it is true and you are able, say you love them. Tom did this more often than anyone I’ve known.
And the second message is this. Tom’s life stands for faithfulness … faithfulness to his God, faithfulness to his family, faithfulness to his colleagues and friends, and faithfulness to his work and the mission of not just amateur athletics, but particularly school-operated, educational athletics. His was a steadfast faithfulness, never-a-day-off faithfulness, you-come-first faithfulness.
So Tom, my dear friend, once again I say, “I love you.”
And, “Rest in peace, Tom. God knows, you rarely rested in life.”
I would give anything for just one more call.
‘Tis (out of) the Season
April 2, 2015
By Rob Kaminski
MHSAA benchmarks editor
Those who live in close proximity to high schools throughout Michigan don’t even need a calendar to know what time of year it is when a new sports season begins.
Whistles piercing through the hum of their air conditioners on the first Monday morning in August mark the start of fall from nearby football facilities. The ping of aluminum as sidewalks and grass re-appear from winter’s grip signifies the start of spring.
Office supply stores could see calendar sales soar in those households – or occupants might at least do a double-take when checking smartphone calendars – in the near future if MHSAA out-of-season coaching regulations are modified. The familiar sounds of the seasons could resonate in non-traditional months as well.
A major topic of the recent MHSAA Update Meetings and AD In-Services in the fall was the possibility of revamping the regulations regarding out-of-season contact for school coaches with school teams during the school year. The Summer Dead Period would remain in place and has been largely supported by membership since it was implemented for the 2007-08 school year.
It should be noted that out-of-season revision is not a certainty, but simply in the exploratory stage at this point.
Yet, the time was ripe to initiate discussion on this topic in the fall. The growth of non-school athletic programs and demands placed upon students by such entities in recent years was one factor. The difficulty the MHSAA has enforcing – and schools have interpreting – current out-of-season coaching regulations is another factor.
“The fundamental question is how to allow more contact between coaches and students out of season without encouraging single-sport participation,” MHSAA Executive Director Jack Roberts said.
Can this be done? Can trends toward specialization and away from multi-sport participation be reversed through greater contact periods for each sport within the school year?
Proponents of this school of thought believe that time otherwise spent with non-school coaches would be best served with education-based coaches who, in theory, would be on the same page with peers at their school, all encouraging multi-sport participation.
“Part of the explosion of AAU and club involvement has been the perpetuation of the notion that without additional training and competition, students will not reach their potential nor maximize their chances of being recruited by colleges,” said Scott Robertson, athletic director at Grand Haven. “When our high school coaches have the ability to provide a similar experience, but with an education-first mindset regulated by athletic directors, the expectations of student-athletes by coaches can be tempered.”
It is a lively debate that will be picking up momentum for the remainder of this school year and into the next.
Following are some of the concepts and comments from the fall, with key points from a statewide survey to be published later this week. The MHSAA's Representative Council discussed these results at its March meeting, and action is possible during its final meeting of the school year in May.
Let's begin
Perhaps the most criticized, misinterpreted, ignored, and/or difficult to enforce rule in the MHSAA Handbook resides in Regulation II, Section 11 (H): the three- and four-player rule for coaches out of season during the school year. (See bottom of this page.)
Debate has long spiraled in dizzying circles around definitions such as “open gyms,” “under one roof,” “conditioning,” “drills,” and other components.
“One of the problems is the MHSAA finds this specific rule difficult to enforce and interpret,” MHSAA Associate Director Tom Rashid said. “Another perceived problem is that there might be a disconnect between school coaches and students out of season, which might be driving students toward non-school programs.”
It’s simple to recognize lightning rods, but quite another to construct a device for harvesting the sparks in a productive manner. To that end, Rashid prepared an outline for discussion on the topic as he hit the trails around Michigan this fall for Update Meetings and AD In-Services.
“We felt we needed to see if we could do better,” Rashid said. “Rather than say to 600 ADs, ‘What do you think about out-of-season coaching rules?’ we asked about a new concept. We created a starting point for discussion.”
The basic premise brought forward to the masses was this: a voluntary contact period of one month to six weeks with a limit of 10 or 15 days of contact in that period – and perhaps three in any one week – between a coach and his/her athletes out of season with any number of students, grade 7-12. Due to large participation numbers in football, some consideration was given to limiting the number of players in any one out-of-season session to 11, thus not creating “spring football.”
A straw poll from the gatherings in the fall indicated nearly 70 percent of attendees in favor of “contact periods” versus the current rule, prompting a detailed survey to all member schools sent in October to further measure the climate and hone in on specifics for desired changes.
“It was a very open process with great discussion,” Rashid said. “All size schools, all demographics, and all corners of the state weighed in.”
As always, the devil is in the detail, and the October survey yielded plenty of detail.
Numbers favor no numbers
As mentioned earlier, nearly 70 percent of attendees at MHSAA fall gatherings indicated that they might prefer a rule that specified coaching contact periods outside their sport during the school year, as opposed to limiting the number of student-athletes per session.
The ensuing survey sent to member schools in late October reflects that sentiment in schools of all sizes, and in all zones of the state. On the topic of counting contact days out of season with no limit on the number of students involved, more than 72 percent of 514 responding schools favored the plan. Class A schools led the way with nearly 76 percent in support. Class D schools chimed in at 69 percent in favor. Support was strong across the zones of the state as well, led by the Detroit metro area (Zone 3) at 76.5. The middle of the state (Zone 5) was the low, but still found close to 60 percent in favor of such a revision.
The survey revealed consistencies across the board relative to the amount of three- and four-player sessions currently utilized by schools of different sizes, and the support and opposition to questions regarding revised regulations on the topic. For instance, nearly 50 percent of Class A schools indicate that their coaches work with students under the current rule most every week during the offseason, while 40 percent of Class D schools report that most of their coaches never utilize the three- or four-player rule at all out of season. Not surprisingly then, in questions posed where three-and four-player stipulations might still exist, the larger schools favored such changes at a higher rate than the smaller schools.
Survey data also reveals a reason for such opposition at lower-enrollment schools: a simple numbers game. In Class C and D, the majority of schools report that 60-80 percent of their student-athletes participate in more than one sport. So, with more students busier year-round than at their larger school counterparts, there are fewer people to attend out-of-season sessions.
Similarly, the concept of extending the current preseason down time for all sports was supported more in Class C and D schools than Class A and B.
“It is always a challenge for individual schools to see things from the other schools’ perspectives,” Rashid said. “It’s hard for people to say, ‘It might be different for us, but for the greater good, we might have to change our culture here.’”
But, that line of thinking is certainly understood at Chelsea High School, a Class B school of more than 800 students. Athletic director and football coach Brad Bush is an advocate of multi-sport participation, regardless of school size.
“The current three- or four-player rule benefits kids by developing skills, but does not force kids to feel pressure to be at a full practice,” Bush said. “Changing this rule could reduce the number of multiple-sport athletes. Our staff and league is united in believing that changing this rule could be a big mistake.”
Outside influence
Part of the balancing act in attempting to revise out-of-season rules is to encourage greater participation on school teams, while not promoting specialization.
Interestingly, a number of schools in the survey reported that they have policies in place limiting in-season athletes from attending sports-specific training from out-of-season coaches. The percentages ranged from 27.6 percent in Class D to 41 percent in Class B.
Most schools allow weightlifting during the season, followed in decreasing order by three- or four- player workouts, conditioning and open gyms. However, more than 40 percent of responding schools have in place a policy prohibiting non-school competition for in-season athletes. The message seems to be that if activity is taking place, the preference is for it to be under supervision, and for that supervision to come from school coaches.
“If a coach is going to hold three workouts per week out of season, a student may leave another sport to play in the offseason of their preferred sport,” Rashid said. “As such, many ADs identified that it would be the role of each school to regulate out-of-season coaching. Right now, the ADs have to keep a handle on out-of-season activities and if the rules change, depending on their demographic, they might need to be involved even more.”
With advance planning, an environment can be created in which all of a school’s sports can exist in harmony and encourage multi-sport membership.
“Athletic directors can guide all coaches on their staffs to work together to create 12-month calendars that focus on the needs of kids and respect the desire of many to participate in multiple sports,” Robertson said. “In doing so, coaches can work to avoid overlaps in important opportunities where kids may be put in win-lose situations. With careful planning student-athletes will be afforded more opportunities to train and develop with their classmate peers and within their own communities.”
Chris Ervin, athletic director at St. Johns High School, is one of many in the camp that believes the current system accomplishes a school’s missions when properly supervised.
“Our coaches have ample opportunities to coach in the three- or four-player setting, and our athletes have plenty of opportunities to improve their skill sets through open gyms which are not coach-directed,” Ervin said.
Others agree that any change might introduce unwanted consequences. One source, an administrator in a strong football community, speculates in that town and others like it, football programs could smother other sport programs by scheduling full workouts on top of other in-season sports. Voluntary or not, it is opined that kids would gravitate toward the out-of-season football workouts if that’s the signature sport in town.
Ervin can see the same point. “I don't see this affecting my role too much, but I do believe this could lead to even more specialization. For example, if football coaches are able to work with their players 11 at a time in the offseason, I believe athletes will feel more pressure to be part of that football workout while they are in-season with another sport.”
Under another scenario, school coaches might someday be allowed to coach non-school teams during the school year. The rationale is that if students are participating outside the school campus anyway, wouldn’t it be better that they are coached by school personnel so that the educational message is delivered appropriately?
Add to this the fact that 100 percent of surveyed schools reported conducting open gyms in basketball and 66 percent in volleyball – the two most high-profile AAU sports – would it benefit schools to have trained personnel in those non-school leadership roles?
“This would connect our coaches to school kids but also could have the unintended consequence of specialization,” Rashid said. “However, the coaches in place would be our coaches, whereas currently we don’t have a say in the AAU coaches of our students.”
Not yet. This topic on the survey was favored by roughly 60 percent overall, but an equal 20.4 percent were at opposite ends of the spectrum strongly in favor and strongly against, with the highest percentage falling just above lukewarm.
By Class, the C and D schools were slightly more opposed to this idea than Class A and B. Why? Very often, in the smaller communities, there are no non-school opportunities; school sports are the only option.
Robertson believes that incorporating a revised out-of-season coaching plan could assist families financially in the long run.
“By having the ability to include larger numbers of kids in development activities and allowing for a limited number of competitions, there is a strong likelihood that students and their families will choose the out-of-season activities offered by their schools over the AAU/club activities that exist,” Robertson said. “In doing so, there will be no rental of outside gyms, no mandatory club fees, and reduced costs to families.”
Not all ideas have elicited opposing views. One item on the docket that schools uniformly opposed was the possibility of scrimmages within the out-of-season contact period. Most schools indicate a preference for these periods to be instructional only.
Just a tweak
Perhaps the current rule just needs a splint and not a full cast. Maybe it’s not broken after all.
The most popular proposal to emerge from the survey was simply the removal of three little words in the current regulation: “under one roof.”
More than 80 percent of schools favored removing the phrase “under one roof” from Regulation II, Section 11(H) 2. a., which means as long as only three or four students are receiving coaching, then others may be in the facility working on conditioning, or in groups on their own.
Receiving close to 70 percent support from schools is the prospect of removing the portion of Handbook Interpretation 237 which currently prohibits schools from setting up rotations. This would allow a coach to work with dozens of players, three and four at a time.
And, Robertson says, in less time than coaches are currently expending.
“Most high school coaches already commit an enormous amount of time to the offseason development of student-athletes,” he said. “By removing the limit on number of athletes they can have contact with at one time and by placing a limit on the number of dates they can actually have this direct instructional contact, the net gain will be fewer dates, but with a greater impact.”
Rashid forecasts slight modifications of current rules rather than wholesale changes, at least in the near future.
“It wouldn’t surprise me if a few changes come sooner than later,” Rashid said. “One, allow rotations in the three- or four-player rule. Two, allow more than three kids under one roof as long as only three kids are receiving coaching. These two are a broader interpretations of our current rules.”
Simpler could be the answer. Perhaps over the course of time, in trying to be everything to all schools, the rule became more difficult for schools to follow, and for the MHSAA to oversee. Outside influences that could not have been predicted a generation ago have crept into the picture as well.
“These rules are very old, and that doesn’t mean not good,” Rashid said. “They were written at a time when the majority of students played multiple sports; before students began playing in 3rd and 4th grades, and before the non-school sports explosion.”
Even with the current trends and abundance of choices for some athletes, there are strong feelings from various leaders to leave things status quo.
“Our staff and league believes there needs to be a greater emphasis on the current rules with stronger punishments,” Bush said. “The answer is to enforce to current rules that we have, and not change the rules.”
There is a certain irony to this topic in front of athletic administrators and coaches, who spend so many hours in the here and now; in-season, in practices, in games.
“Who would think that what you do out of season could be the most critical piece of school sports discussion that we’ve had?” Rashid ponders. “It’s not what happens during the season, but in the offseason, that might be at the core of encouraging and maintaining school sports participation.”
Current Out-of-Season Rule (Three- or Four-Player Rule)
From MHSAA Handbook, Regulation II, Section 11(H):
2. These limitations out of season apply to coaches:
a. Outside the school season during the school year (from Monday the week of Aug. 15 through the Sunday after Memorial Day observed), school coaches are prohibited from providing coaching at any one time under one roof, facility or campus to more than three (or four) students in grades 7-12 of the district or cooperative program for which they coach (four students if the coaching does not involve practice or competition with students or others not enrolled in that school district). This applies only to the specific sport(s) coached by the coach, but it applies to all levels, junior high/middle school and high school, and both genders, whether the coach is paid or volunteer (e.g., a volunteer JV boys soccer coach may not work with more than three girls in grades 7-12 outside the girls soccer season during the school year).