Transfer Regulation Preserves Boundaries

December 1, 2015

By Rob Kaminski
MHSAA benchmarks editor

The conversation, speculation and anticipation begin early each July, building to a crescendo on the last day of the month. It’s the Major League Baseball trade deadline, which has come to overshadow the actual games, rendering numerous teams as quitters with more than a third of the season remaining.

Imagine a similar scene affecting not just one sport, but all sports, a month before each school year begins. Marquette is talking to Grand Haven about a left tackle. Port Huron needs a competitive cheer flyer. Detroit Pershing is looking for a point guard.

Why not? With an increasing number of school-of-choice districts statewide, those students with the means to do so could change jerseys each year.

Thankfully, MHSAA member schools agree to be bound by the rules and regulations of the Association, perhaps none more important to the pursuit of athletic equity than Regulation I, Section 9: the Transfer Regulation. Oft-changed, expanded, misinterpreted, and – at times – circumvented, the MHSAA Transfer Regulation attempts to identify and penalize athletically motivated enrollment decisions.

Origins of the rules involving transfers date to 1925, but the continual evolution has been necessitated by the erosion of geographic boundaries which once defined home turf in school sports.

One recent addition to this vital section of the MHSAA Handbook is commonly referred to as the “links” rule for athletic-related transfers, which went into effect prior to the 2014-15 school year.

“If I could summarize a global opinion from the phone calls I take from administrators around the state, it’s this: ‘enough is enough,’” said MHSAA Associate Director Tom Rashid, explaining the impetus for the most recent codicil. He estimates that 75 percent of the multitude of phone and written correspondence he entertains involves transfer issues and waiver requests.

The most recent changes include links from non-school and previous school teams; international student enrollment, and enhanced subvarsity participation. Those components, an overview of the Regulation and expansion to its current breadth and depth, and possible modifications for the future will serve to illustrate the rule’s importance to high school sports in Michigan, keeping the games local and community based, allowing people to root for the home team.

Rule That's Transferred Through the Decades

From the first Constitution of the MHSAA in 1924 through the most recent modifications in the 2015-16 Handbook in which nine pages are dedicated to student transfer issues, a regulation has been in place to govern athletic participation for students changing schools. While exceptions and details have grown, the basic premise has largely stayed the same. In 1924, students changing schools were required to sit one semester prior to participating in athletics, even those returning home from military schools such as Culver Academy in Indiana.  Over the years the rule was weakened by allowing the two school principals to make exceptions. As one might imagine, such authority proved too whimsical from situation to situation, and even-handed governance became problematic. Eventually, Michigan’s association of principals asked the MHSAA for a more stringent rule which was adopted in the early 1980s, closely resembling its current form.

“The transfer/residency rule is a legally and historically tested but still imperfect tool to control athletic-motivated transfers and other abuses.  It is a net which catches some students it should not, and misses some students that should not be eligible,” said MHSAA Executive Director Jack Roberts. “This is why all state high school associations have procedures to review individual cases and grant exceptions.”

As the old adage states, “There is an exception to every rule.” Or, in the case of the MHSAA Transfer Regulation, 15 of them, in an attempt to not penalize students who change districts for legitimate circumstances unrelated to athletic participation (See the “Exceptions” inset below).

Perhaps the most oft-used exception of the Transfer Regulation is that which involves full and complete residential changes, in which the “Rule of Four” is then applied.  When a student meets the residency requirement, he or she has immediate eligibility at the school of the new residence or closest nonpublic or charter school closest to the new home in drivable roadway miles. The fourth option is eligibility at the former school after the move.

“This ‘Rule of Four’ provides a geographic boundary for nonpublic and charter schools to even the playing field with the public school whose new student-athletes also must abide by a boundary,” Rashid said.

Other exceptions involve more extenuating circumstances, and even one which is not an exception at all in the case of first-time 9th-graders, who are eligible for the first day of activity in any sport at the school in which they enroll. The exceptions fall under three main categories: Residency, School Status and Student Status, as a way of simplifying the rule.

There are many common reasons for changing schools which are not exceptions to the “sit out” period.  Among these non-exceptions are “school-of-choice” enrollment after starting the 9th grade, returning to the school of residence after attending as a school-of-choice student, guardianship, being unable to afford tuition, transferring because the former school does not offer a sport or sports, or cancels a sport team. These students are not eligible for approximately one-half the school year.

Rashid conducts in-service meetings around the state each fall, in addition to hosting multiple training sessions at the MHSAA building each year for new athletic directors. Regulation 1, Section 9 receives heavy emphasis, and if attendees have one take-away from each session, it should be this: “When in doubt, sit them out and find out.”

“The energy and efforts of this office to educate administrators on the transfer rule which has become more complicated have helped to insure eligibility for those who qualify,” Rashid said. “There’s no substitute for experience, and our veteran ADs statewide are quite familiar with the rules. We attempt to give the new ADs a basic understanding and encourage them to contact our office for clarification on any issue, at any time. Our darkest days are when ineligible athletes participate and schools are required to forfeit contests.”

When schools believe they have compelling cases, requests for waivers are submitted for review by the MHSAA Executive Committee on a monthly basis. The vast majority of these requests involve the Transfer Regulation, although numbers have been on the decline in recent years. The 2007-08 school year saw 372 waiver requests for the Transfer Regulation hit the MHSAA office, with 275 cases being approved. During 2014-15, 300 such requests were received, and 213 were approved.

The recent decline can be attributed to a number of factors.

“Our Executive Committee does a wonderful job of reviewing and deciding the multitude of waiver requests while maintaining this rule which has existed for some time,” Rashid said.  “The minutes of each meeting are public, and schools will often check to see if similar cases have been approved before they go through with a request to MHSAA staff.

“I don’t think there’s been a decrease in students changing schools, but there’s better communication between MHSAA staff and schools pertaining to the rule, which might tend to decrease the number of requests for waiver.”

The apex of waiver requests might have correlated with the number of students who took advantage of Michigan’s school-of-choice landscape as its popularity grew near the turn of the century, which led to a misunderstanding of enrollment versus athletic eligibility.

In 1996, the state of Michigan made it easier for parents to choose their child's school from among those in their own and neighboring public school districts. By 2001 according to the Michigan Department of Education, 283 out of 554 districts were participating in Michigan's state schools-of-choice plan, and, without a doubt, it was the first time many were exposed to the MHSAA’s Transfer Regulation for athletic eligibility.

“Our transfer rule is sometimes difficult for the public to grasp due to school-of-choice laws,” Rashid said. “Often times, the public has school-of-choice mentality regarding enrollment. But there is a difference between enrollment and athletic eligibility. I feel badly for those who move and expect immediate eligibility at the new school without understanding the consequences.  School-of-choice legislation both respects and permits MHSAA transfer rule ineligibility.”

In fact, the MHSAA transfer rule provided for choice in athletics well before it was available in Michigan education.  Long before school of choice was popularized, the MHSAA transfer rule allowed first-time 9th-graders the choice of attending any school in Michigan which would allow them to enroll, and have immediate athletic eligibility.  Subsequent changes in enrollment would result in at least one semester of ineligibility for interscholastic athletics unless the student's circumstances complied with one of the 15 stated exceptions. 

“As school-of-choice options were expanded for students' enrollment, it has had no effect on the rules governing athletic eligibility,” said Roberts. “Those introducing and passing the bills did not want the legislation to provide a free pass for more students to change schools for sports, and effectively undermine the intended positive educational purposes of expanded parental choice in public education.”

School of choice is here to stay, certainly. However, according to a recent article in Bridge Magazine, families aren’t always finding the grass greener in neighboring school yards.

According to the story: “In 2012-13 alone, 26,305 students transferred from their home districts to school-of-choice districts (in Michigan, grades K-12). That same school year, 16,138 transferred out of school-of-choice districts, most of whom likely returned to the schools they would attend by residency.”

All of the instability keeps MHSAA member school administrators and MHSAA staff on their collective toes. Societal change continues to keep one of the oldest MHSAA rules at the forefront, and also drives further evolution of the rule.

With school of choice, the instance of a student’s changing schools for athletic reasons has increased and become more difficult to pinpoint. Add the increasing dependence on non-faculty coaches within schools and the related increased profile of non-school youth sports programs, and it’s the perfect storm for swelling athletic transfer issues.

Recent years have also thrown an additional curveball into the arsenal. Not only are students from neighboring communities roaming the hallways on the first day of school, but students from foreign countries have posed increased eligibility concerns.

“During the most recent decade, increasing numbers of students from foreign countries have been enrolling in U.S. schools on F-1 visas, and without being placed by approved programs,” Roberts said. “And once again questions related to unscrupulous placements and competitive balance emerged.”

Both festering issues addressed in the preceding paragraphs have led to the recent and more stringent Transfer Regulation modifications.

Mending Fences with Stronger Links

As Roberts alluded to in discussing the origins of the Transfer Regulation, it is a dragnet which serves the membership well, yet can never catch all intended targets, while sometimes reeling in those with legitimate cases. Over time, the gate can be weakened or exposed in some areas, and it’s time to reinforce the links.

On May 5, 2013, the MHSAA adopted a rule – known appropriately as the “links” rule – which advocates believe is more straightforward than the athletic motivated section of the Transfer Regulation and is a needed next step to address increasing mobility of students between schools. The rule took effect in August 2014 and links certain described activities to a longer period of ineligibility after a transfer.  It intends to catch some of the most overt and egregious of transfers for athletic reasons.

“This rule was born of frustrations expressed to  the MHSAA staff by coaches associations in wrestling and basketball,” Rashid said. “Kids were consistently changing schools after non-school, offseason contact with individuals from other districts. Under the old rule, they’d sit half the year, then play the second half, which includes the state tournament.

“It is also born from the most well publicized, ridiculous situations where students were transferring into the schools of a former coach or personal trainer who was newly hired,” Rashid said. “Except for an occasional instance when the rule hits home, ADs file this under ‘enough is enough’ and so many administrators have applauded the efforts.”

In general terms, this portion of the transfer rule Section 9(F), increases ineligibility for transfers not meeting a stated exception from 90 school days to 180 in situations as follows:

If a student has played on a team at one high school and transfers to another where he or she is ineligible, the period of ineligibility is extended to 180 scheduled school days if, during the previous 12 months, this student ...

  • Participated at an open gym at the high school to which the student has transferred.
  • Participated as an individual or on a non-school team or activity coached, coordinated or directed by any of that high school’s parents, administrators or coaches in the sport involved (this rule is sport-specific) for either gender. This includes summer basketball teams with school coaches if a student participated prior to registering to attend that school.
  • Has a personal sport trainer, conditioner or instructor who is a coach at the high school to which the student has transferred.
  • Transfers to a school where his or her previous high school coach is now employed.

Unlike Section 9(E), this new Section 9(F) does not require one school to allege athletic motivation.  If one of the four athletic related links exists, the student is ineligible for 180 scheduled school days.

After just one year in practice, the “links” component has shown strength.

“I think it’s had a few effects. I know from my phone conversations that it has certainly deterred some students from changing schools,” Rashid said. “It has clearly increased awareness of people who participate in non-school programs and then change schools. It’s heightened awareness of recruiting, which is the basis of the rule, and school-shopping because of sport.

“The rules can serve best in advance of a transfer to discourage changing schools for sports.  We encourage ADs to inform prospective transfer students and parents of the anti-recruiting rule and all parts of the transfer rule before they attempt to change schools.” 

Maxing Out the Visa

As difficult a task as it is to police meanderings from school district to school district throughout Michigan, the influx of enrollment from other countries adds an entirely new level of complexity.

Responding to the growing number of international exchange students taking classes in Michigan schools and the potential effect on equity in school sports, the MHSAA Representative Council adopted new rules for 2014-15 intended to treat J-1 and F-1 visa students similarly and to minimize the disparate impact of Federal Law on public schools in comparison to non-public schools.

“Until recently, foreign exchange students were primarily here on J-1 visas; they ‘journeyed’ here and ‘journeyed’ back after one year,” Rashid said. “We’ve seen a growing number of F-1 students who can have only one year in a public school, but then have multiple years at non-public schools. So our rule invoked two years ago said we are going to treat both types of exchange students the same. Play one year, then sit one year, no matter what kind of school.”

For those asking how many individuals this could possibly affect, consider this: the state of Michigan ranked second nationally in the number of exchange students hosted by its schools in 2014-15, and in years prior was No. 1 by a long shot. More than 2,500 students were here on F-1 or J-1 visas a year ago, a significant number indeed.

The tipping point for taking action was the 2013-14 school year when several high-profile situations occurred involving F-1 visa students, some of whom received the maximum penalty for a violation of undue influence (the anti-recruiting rule) – a calendar year of ineligibility.

The penalty has since increased to up to four years of ineligibility for a student or four years of suspension for a coach or disconnection of an adult associated with the school. The undue influence rule applies to all students, grades 7-12 including international students.

The key changes (applicable to international students not enrolled [attending classes] in an MHSAA member school during the 2013-14 school year) include:

  • The automatic exception which allows immediate eligibility for first-time-ever 9th-graders does not apply to international students.
  • Only those international students (J-1 or F-1) enrolled under Transfer Rule Exception 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12 or 13, or placed through an MHSAA “Approved International Student Program,” can have varsity eligibility.
  • Those international students who are placed through an MHSAA Approved International Student Program are immediately eligible for one academic year and then ineligible for one academic year (“Play One, Wait One”).
  • Other international students have no varsity eligibility. After the normal (approximately one semester) waiting period for transfer students, local schools may provide those students subvarsity eligibility, regardless of grade level and previous sports experience and without MHSAA Executive Committee approval.

A list of approved AISP organizations appears on MHSAA.com.

Subvarsity Clause Encourages Participation

One of the unintended consequences of the subvarsity component for transfers was that it failed to account for smaller schools or individual sports in which no freshman or JV teams existed. The most recent iteration of the rule now provides eligibility for such students. 

As a result of changes made for 2015-16, a transferring 9th- or 10th-grade student, who has never played in a high school scrimmage or game and is granted an Executive Committee waiver in advance of participation, may now be eligible in individual varsity heats, matches or races on a non-scoring basis. Previously, subvarsity eligibility was only for team sports with 9th-grade or JV teams. This expansion, with an approved waiver for a student who meets the above criteria, would permit some non-scoring involvement in cross country, golf, swimming & diving or track & field on a non-scoring basis where there is no separate JV team. This would not apply to relay teams in swim or track if they will be scored within the varsity race.

Eyes Forward

The three modifications related to the Transfer Regulation put into action during the last two years illustrate just how volatile, mobile and unstable boundaries and communities have become. Another way to look at it is how expansive a rule has become to regulate a part of the world that has become so small.

With that in mind, while the recent actions purport to quell the most egregious transfer eligibility issues currently brought to light, state association leadership must keep heads up and eyes forward for potential concerns on the horizon.

“There may be a large percentage of the MHSAA’s constituents who do not believe the links rule goes far enough; that this should be applied to all transfer students, not merely those whose transfer does not fit one of the 15 stated exceptions which allows for immediate eligibility,” Roberts said. “That could become the MHSAA’s next step in fighting one of the most aggravating problems of school-based sports today.”

Rashid points out that some states require that their executive staffs sign off on all transfers. For smaller states, that might be practical, but he fears that task would be unwieldly for the MHSAA, which has more than 700 member high schools.

Like Roberts, Rashid also can see a push coming for one year of ineligibility for all transfers not meeting prescribed exceptions, but warns of possible complications.

“Would such a step lead to more litigation and would it also net some who simply want to be part of a team?” he asks. “Would it also invite ineligibility for those who change schools for socialization issues? It sometime feels like the tail wagging the dog. I’d like more hard data. How many transfers are there overall, and how many transfers are even involved in athletics and to what extent?”

Future discussion could involve a combination of thoughts, according to Rashid, including a rule which is sport-specific. That is, transfers may become eligible for any sport after half a year, except for sports which they played at the former school at the varsity level. In those sports, the period of ineligibility would be a full year. Some would like to tighten the new links rule by applying 180 days of ineligibility to a transfer who has a sports connection to the new school (link) even if the student meets an exception or changes residence.

Those are topics for another day, but ones which the MHSAA is sure to keep in the forefront as it discusses and monitors the most recent upgrades – just as its leadership has done since 1924.

15 Exceptions for Immediate Eligibility

8 RESIDENCY EXCEPTIONS

  • Student moves with the people he/she was living with previously (full & complete)
  • Not living with either parent moves back to them +
  • Ward of the Court, placed with foster parents
  • Students from an Approved International Student Program (AISP on  F-1 or J-1 visa) placed with host family in district.  Play 1 year, wait 1 year. Non-AISP may have subvarsity only for all years without waiver after sitting out (through Martin Luther King Day or Aug. 1 depending on when enrolled)
  • Married student moves into school district
  • Student moves with or to divorced parent +
  • An 18 year old moves without parents +
  • A student resides in a boarding school +

5 SCHOOL STATUS EXCEPTIONS

  • School ceases to operate, not merged (Handbook Int. 64 & 90)
  • School is reorganized or consolidated
  • School Board orders safety or enrollment shift transfer
  • Achieved highest grade available in former school
  • New school established; enrolled on first day

2 STUDENT STATUS EXCEPTIONS

  • Incoming 9th-grader not here on an F-1 or J-1 visa
  • Expelled student returns under pre-existing criteria

+Four exceptions are allowed once in grades 9-12.

Transfers and Subvarsity Status

The Executive Committee has the authority to approve immediate eligibility at the subvarsity level for transferring 9th or 10th-grade students (after entering 9th grade, before completing 10th grade) who have not previously participated in an interscholastic scrimmage or contest in any MHSAA sport at the high school level (whether MHSAA member schools or not) and who do not qualify for one of the 15 stated exceptions to the transfer regulation and have transferred for reasons having nothing to do with athletics, discipline or family finances and would not require Executive Committee evaluation or comparison of school demographics or curriculum.

Note: Subvarsity eligibility under this Section permits participation in the following scrimmages or contests (but not in MHSAA tournaments):

  1. Non-varsity team sports: Teams consisting primarily of 9th- and/or 10th-graders and against other teams primarily of 9th-and/or 10th-graders.
  2. Individual sports subvarsity level: Races or heats, designated as subvarsity for all participants in that heat or race and not scoring within a varsity meet.
  3. Individual sports without a subvarsity level: On a non-scoring basis in the same events and even in the same heats/foursomes/rotations of those events designated as varsity level competition. Participation in relays would not be permitted if it is intended that the relay score within a varsity contest.
  4. In 1, 2 and 3 above:
  • This is not an opportunity for ineligible students to participate; it is only for those students who are eligible by rule or by MHSAA Executive Committee action.
  • This does not require schools to conduct non-scoring events or sub-varsity competition.
  • This does not create opportunities for “exhibitions” in sports where such is not permitted.

Turnaround Coaches: Study their Steps

April 27, 2016

By Scott Westfall
MSU Institute for the Study of Youth Sports

Turnaround leadership is often a popular topic within sports conversations, as many coaches are revered for their ability to transform a struggling team into a “winner.”

Turnarounds often are discussed in platitudes such as, “That coach has what it takes to turn this program around.”

While often talked about during the offseason, especially in the face of coaching vacancies, turnarounds are difficult to achieve. After all, if transforming a failing team into a successful one were an easy task, there would not be such an abundance of teams that struggle year-in and year-out.  

As much as turnaround coaches are celebrated for their abilities to turn a losing program into a winner, very little scientific research has been devoted to analyzing coaches who have proven themselves as turnaround specialists. The steps and intangibles necessary for achieving a coaching turnaround have remained undetermined as this topic had never been examined from a scientific perspective – until now.

For the past year and a half, I have devoted the majority of my time to researching turnaround leadership in high school coaching, undertaking this study as the topic of my doctoral dissertation project. Research participants in this study included 11 high school football coaches from the state of Michigan who led dramatic turnarounds at their high schools within the last decade. The criteria for participant selection were:

• Prior to the coach’s arrival or appointment as head coach, the team finished (at least) three of the previous four seasons with a losing record (below .500 winning percentage), including a losing season immediately before the coach’s arrival or appointment.

• Within five seasons of the coach’s arrival, the team enjoyed (at least) three winning seasons (above .500 winning percentage).

Before their turnarounds occurred, these high schools had not experienced a winning season (on average) in 7.2 years, while five of the 11 schools had never qualified for the MHSAA Playoffs. However, upon being hired, the average time it took the coaches to achieve a winning record was 1.73 seasons. Moreover, the average time it took the coaches to qualify for the MHSAA Playoffs was 1.82 years. On top of this, each of the 11 teams qualified for the playoffs within three years of hiring their new coach.  

The circumstances these coaches faced when they arrived were challenging to say the least, as all of the coaches entered a negative situation with poor team culture. These situations were characterized by losing streaks, cancelled seasons, dilapidated facilities, poor role models on the previous coaching staffs and a significant amount of parental pushback. Players and community members often were embarrassed by their football program. One coach described the situation by recounting, “During that time they were a doormat; everybody’s homecoming, a laughing stock. They were like the Bad News Bears.” Additional problems included low numbers, very little player development, and a low amount of commitment to the overall program.

One coach that I interviewed compared entering a turnaround situation to building a well. He stated, “You may not have success on the surface initially, but if you dig nice and deep and build the well right, there is water down there. It’s going to be some work and it might not come up right away – it takes some pumping. But if you build it right, it will happen.” In this article I will attempt to encapsulate 16 months of research, 191 pages of interview transcriptions, 2,278 miles driven across the state of Michigan, and countless hours spent with 11 turnaround coaches, in order to present to you the nucleus of what it takes to turn around a failing high school program.

The coaching philosophies of the majority of the coaches were characterized as “educational athletics.” This involved coaches striving to do things the right way, viewing their job as an extension of the classroom, implementing a character development program, and using football as a vehicle to teach life skills to players. Furthermore, their greatest strengths were revealed to be coaching/leadership skills, along with the ability to develop strong relationships with their players.

Coaches unanimously agreed that upon their arrival immediate changes needed to be made to the team’s culture. These changes included prioritizing team workouts, altering visible elements like the organization of practices, offensive and defensive schematics, team logos, along with placing positive role models in front of the players. Other changes to team culture happened through improved coach-athlete relationships, giving players a better football experience, and purging the program of negative people. One coach used the term, “Weeding the roses,” which means getting rid of the negative people in the program in order to let the better parts grow and prosper.

All of the coaches developed some type of vision for their program. The most common visions involved transforming their team into a top-level program, and for their players to conduct themselves as quality human beings. Winning games, competing with the best teams in their division, and playing for MHSAA championships marked becoming a top program. While winning was a major component of the coaches’ visions, developing quality human beings was revealed to be just as essential. This was evident as several coaches remarked that their most well-behaved kids were also their most productive players, and that doing things right in school and in the community often equates to wins on the football field.

To build upon their visions, each of the coaches formulated some type of plan or “blueprint” to execute their turnarounds. The majority of the coaches’ plans were constructed around developing positive coach-athlete relationships and employing off-season strength and conditioning programs. While all of the coaches’ plans eventually yielded a great amount of success, not all parties bought into them initially. Some of the players needed to see proof that the team could win games before they were completely sold. In order to create buy-in, the coaches used various approaches to connect with players and sell their plan. These methods included team activities, cultivating relationships with players, continuously selling their vision, hiring/retaining quality assistant coaches, and entering the situation with some sort of previous expertise. Although it may take time, the coaches stressed the importance of the players buying into their vision. As one of them decreed to his team, “The quicker you buy in, the quicker we win.”

Early indicators that a turnaround was commencing included winning games or making significant strides off of the field through positive coach-athlete relationships. Sources of sustained changes included a win streak or an increased level of commitment from the players. Clear indicators that the program had undergone a turnaround included the players adopting a new mentality filled with trust and confidence, along with the program reaching unprecedented levels of success, such as competing with the best teams, completing an undefeated season, and/or making the playoffs consistently.

Character development emerged as a strong component of this study, as 100 percent of the coaches reported that it played a significant role in fostering turnarounds. The coaches also indicated that they deliberately teach character in practice and use coaching as a platform for character development.

In hindsight, an outside observer may assume that these coaches were destined to succeed and their plans were met with little resistance. However, after examining their roads to turnaround success, most of them met several barriers along the way. Early obstacles included widespread mental challenges among players such as a lack of confidence and/or trust. Other early barriers included parental pushback and some cases of overt interference. After the turnarounds were complete, the coaches’ problems did not disappear; they simply changed form, as complacency became the new problem on the team. A potential root of this complacency was the addition of younger players who thought that success would happen automatically simply because of the program’s prior achievements.

The coaches were quick to acknowledge that the turnarounds would not have been possible without the excellent support they received. Their greatest source of help came from their assistant coaches who contributed both tangible and psychosocial support. Tangible support was seen through the assistants performing administrative duties and overseeing strength and conditioning sessions. Meanwhile, psychosocial support came in simple ways, such as listening, giving advice, and showing belief in the head coach. As one coach stated, “You’re only as good as the people you have around you.”

Team turnarounds are not officially complete until a team maintains the success it has built. In order to avoid complacency and sustain momentum, the coaches recommended that coaches and players find ways to keep reaching higher. In order to do this, coaches recommended talking to players about their team goals and what they want their legacies to be. To help sustain momentum, coaches stressed that it is often the little things that matter the most, such as effort, team discipline, player accountability, and positive attitudes.

The strongest theme that emerged from this study was the importance of coach-athlete relationships. All of the coaches believed that relationships are imperative to fostering turnarounds. It was also emphasized that relationships are crucial for sustaining long-term success. In essence, coaches may experience some momentary success by taking shortcuts with superior talent, however, strong relationships are the “X-factor” that will sustain the program over the long run. While the approaches of building relationships were diverse, what mattered most was coaches spending time with players in both structured and unstructured team activities, and simply showing players that they cared about them as people as much as they did as football players.

Steps of a Turnaround

(When turnarounds happen, they usually happen in this order)

1. Establish new leadership

2. Assemble a staff of positive role models

3. Gather information about the program

4. Create the vision

5. Make a plan and communicate it

6. Create buy-in from players and other key people

7. Change behavior – This is the impetus of the turnaround

8. Create and celebrate early wins

9. Don’t let up – Keep setting new goals and reaching higher

10. Complacency is the enemy: Make sure change sticks!


Intangibles Checklist

(These are the little things that people cannot see or do not talk about, yet they often matter the most)

1. Positive relationships between coaches and players. Build these by spending time with players and showing them you care about them as a person.

2. Establishment of a strength and conditioning program. All successful turnarounds were led by coaches who implemented a respectable offseason training program.

3. Display an undeniable belief that your vision and the plan will produce successful results. Continuously sell your plan and give players the reasons behind why you do what you do. Be prepared to stand tall and adhere to your vision when adversity strikes.

4. Generate player buy-in through team activities. Remember that sports are supposed to be FUN. Plan structured and non-structured activities to generate fun, excitement and team cohesion!

5. Demand excellence of your players off the field. Promote educational athletics and use your platform as a coach to teach character and life lessons to your players.

6. Outwork your opponents in everything you do. Arrive earlier. Stay later. Go above and beyond what your competitors are doing. Set the tempo that hard work is the new norm and it starts with you.

7. Remember that the little things matter. Take the time to ensure that your team always has the right effort, attitude and discipline, as well as accountability to the program and each other. 

Scott Westfall spent 10 years as a teacher, coach, and athletic director in Fort Collins, Colo. He is currently finishing his Doctorate at Michigan State University, with an emphasis in Sport Psychology and Athletic Administration, and assisting the MHSAA with its student leadership programs. Westfall is a former athlete who participated in football, wrestling, tennis and cross country at the high school level, and rugby at the collegiate level. Please feel free to contact Scott if you would like a copy of his full dissertation. Scott also performs speaking engagements at conferences on various topics within educational athletics. He can be reached at [email protected]