Attendance Trends
March 27, 2015
Media across the US have been reporting the decline in attendance at intercollegiate football and basketball games. “It’s a national epidemic,” according to a Charleston (SC) Post & Courier column this month.
This should surprise no one. And it’s the latest proof that it is possible to get too much of a good thing. And when it comes to college football and basketball games, there is far too much indeed –
- A few too many football games during the regular season, far too many of those games televised, and an absurd number of postseason bowl games of zero significance.
- About two times too many basketball games during the regular season, far too many televised, and too often with absurd starting times and post-midnight conclusions.
The over-exposure of the college product began to suck the life out of high school football and basketball attendance two decades ago. And as the higher profile college programs have done more and more to promote their events, lower profile college programs have paid the price. Higher profile programs are now gnawing on each other’s bones.
All of this makes life tougher for us at the interscholastic level; but at the MHSAA, we’re not merely whining – we’re working to increase the attendance and enhance the spectators’ experience. A staff task force has been generating ideas, and the Representative Council has been generous with encouragement and support to implement changes in the MHSAA tournament atmosphere.
Perhaps we can pick up a few of those fans who have defected from the high price of college tickets and the slow pace of their televised games.
Transfers
January 10, 2017
When it comes to transfers, the staff of the Michigan High School Athletic Association gets lots of advice, but it comes from opposing directions.
One camp thinks MHSAA rules are inadequate. This group suggests that we expand the basic period of ineligibility from approximately 90 days to 180 days and/or it wants the MHSAA to eliminate most or all exceptions that allow for immediate eligibility of a transfer student.
This first camp is so frustrated with high-profile athletic-motivated or related transfers that they want to clamp down on all transfers.
The other camp thinks parents have the right and responsibility to send their children to any school they wish and have immediate access to the full benefits of that school’s curricular and extracurricular offerings.
This second camp is encouraged by the laws of Michigan which have gradually extended “schools of choice” as an option that all school districts may exercise. And this camp will be emboldened if the Secretary of Education under the new regime in Washington, D.C. is the long-time schools of choice advocate who has been nominated by the President-Elect for this position.
This second camp is on the right side of history, no matter how much I dislike it and no matter how convinced I am that the better way to have improved public education would have been to invest more in neighborhood schools. Improving them builds most communities. Ignoring them, as we have for 25 years, sends surrounding communities into downward spirals that worsen poverty and public health.
The ill-advised efforts to improve education by enticing students out of their neighborhoods to attend schools elsewhere has undermined “local ownership” in schools; and it has had the side effect of encouraging more transfers motivated by or related to athletics. Monitoring and managing such transfers is made more difficult by these educational reforms; but the new world will not tolerate transfer rules that are seen as too broad and contrary to what has become public policy, however poorly conceived and executed.
The fact is, the future of the transfer rule will be less about extending its reach and more about retaining its existence.