Alignment
November 22, 2011
During a question-and-answer period following a speech in 2006 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts spoke about communication, and he did so in terms that are important for us to hear today. Judge Roberts said in 2006: “People talk of him (Ronald Reagan) as ‘The Great Communicator.’ He was a great communicator . . . because he communicated great ideas with the sincerity of a deeply felt and abiding belief in those ideas.”
It was great ideas and great belief in those ideas that generated the great communication.
The Chief Justice continued: “It’s vitally important to examine ideas that underlie your conduct and actions, and to make sure you’re content with those and then stick with them.”
I firmly believe that the happiest among school sports leadership today, the most content and fulfilled among us, are those whose beliefs and actions are in alignment. They are those people who have examined the ideals of educational athletics, the core values of school sports, and allow them to guide their actions.
Because they believe in the ideals of school sports, they are content in their work, and are able to stick with it and survive it even in these most difficult times. Difficult times reveal durable leaders, and durable leaders believe in what they’re doing.
Making Matters Worse
March 17, 2017
For many years there have been complaints that the MHSAA Football Playoffs make it difficult for some teams to schedule regular season football games. Teams that are too good are avoided because opponents fear losses, and teams that are too small are avoided by larger schools because they do not generate enough playoff point value for wins.
Recently the MHSAA has learned, only indirectly, that some among the state’s football coaches association are recycling an old plan that would make matters worse. It’s called the “Enhanced Strength of Schedule Playoff System.”
Among its features is doubling the number of different point value classifications from four (80 for Class A down to 32 for Class D) to eight (88 for Division 1 down to 32 for Division 8).
What this does is make the art of scheduling regular season games even more difficult; for the greater variety of values you assign to schools, the more difficult it is to align with like-sized schools.
The “Enhanced Strength of Schedule Playoff System” makes matters even worse by creating eight different multipliers depending on the size of opposing schools. Imagine having to consider all this when building a regular season football schedule.
When this proposal was discussed previously statewide in 2012, it was revealed that it would have caused 15 teams with six regular season wins to miss the playoffs that year, while two teams with losing records would have qualified. How do you explain that to people? It was also demonstrated in 2012 that larger schools in more isolated areas would have to travel far and wide across the state, week after week, to build a schedule with potential point value to match similar sized schools located in more heavily populated parts of our state and have many scheduling options nearby. How is that fair?
The proposal is seriously flawed, and by circumventing the MHSAA Football Committee, its proponents assure it is fatally flawed.