BOTF
March 14, 2014
When MHSAA staff asked our Student Advisory Council, “How do we have a sportsmanship program that isn’t boring?,” the answer that emerged was the MHSAA’s Battle of the Fans.
On Feb. 21 we announced the winner of the 3rd Battle of the Fans - Beaverton High School (see related story). But all five finalists, and dozens of applicants, demonstrated that attendance at high school sporting events can become THE thing to do, and it can be done with both great spirit and high standards of sportsmanship.
On Feb. 16 the Student Advisory Council reviewed the finalists’ videos and the reports of site visits by SAC members and MHSAA staff; and I listened to the discussion. Here’s what I discovered they were looking for . . .
- Authenticity and consistency – not just a one-night thing; but spirited, sportsmanlike support all season long, for multiple sports.
- Not only the absence of poor behaviors, but great originality in demonstrating good behaviors.
- Inclusiveness – conducted in ways that invite all kinds of students to be involved, encourage middle school students to learn good sportsmanship and is welcoming to adults as well.
- Change. Which school and community was most changed since getting involved with the BOTF this year or over the past two or three years?
I have said often that we want the BOTF to be great fun. But it’s also intended to make a great positive difference in school sports in Michigan. And it is. Crowds are both much larger and much better behaved where the BOTF has become important. And the positive change in one school/community is helping to change neighboring districts and entire leagues.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.