Logo

Correctable Error?

May 30, 2017

A decade has passed since the court-ordered change in several sports seasons for Michigan high schools. Ten years has brought resignation more than satisfaction; and yet there remains hope in some places that the new status quo is not permanent, at least for those sports seasons changes that were and are seen by many people as collateral damage in a fight over seasons for girls basketball and volleyball.

Actually, the lawsuit sought to place all girls seasons in the same seasons as boys, like college schedules. The federal court did not require simultaneous scheduling; but the court did bring the intercollegiate mindset to the case. It determined, regardless of other facts, that the intercollegiate season was the “advantageous” season for high school sports. And the principle upon which it approved the compliance plan for high school sports in Michigan was that if all the seasons were not simultaneous for boys and girls, then there should be rough equality in the number of boys and girls assigned to “disadvantageous” seasons.

So, for example, from the federal court’s perspective, fall is the advantageous season for soccer, winter for swimming & diving, and spring for tennis. As for golf, the court opined that, even though it’s not the season of the NCAA championships, maybe fall was the better season. The court began with tortured logic and ended with hypocrisy. 

As a result, in the Lower Peninsula, regardless of the preferences of the people involved, girls and boys had to switch seasons in two sports to even up the number of boys seasons and girls seasons in what the court had determined were disadvantageous. Schools thought the switch of golf and tennis for the genders was less injurious than switching soccer and swimming.

In the Upper Peninsula, because swimming and golf are combined for the genders in the winter and spring, respectively, the court’s option was to switch boys and girls seasons for either soccer or tennis. The schools chose soccer as the least disruptive change.

As people count the damaging effects and think about challenging the court-ordered placements a decade later, they must understand the court was looking for balance, for having the genders share the burden of participating in disadvantageous seasons. Moving Lower Peninsula boys golf to join girls in the fall and/or switching Lower Peninsula boys and girls tennis back to what was preferred and in place before judicial interference would recreate the imbalance the federal court conjured up and sought to remedy.

Those of us involved see many advantages to conducting fall golf for both genders in the Lower Peninsula and switching Lower Peninsula tennis seasons for boys and girls, no matter when colleges schedule those sports or how impractical the court’s logic and how inconsistently it was applied. Nevertheless, correcting the court’s errors could be both contentious and costly.

Questions for 8-Player Football

November 22, 2016

Two things happened during the 2016 football season that were not unexpected but which now require discussion leading to action:

  1. The 2016 football season was the first during which the number of Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D high schools sponsoring 8-player teams exceeded the number of Class D schools sponsoring 11-player teams: 48 playing 8-player football; 40 playing the 11-player game.

  2. The 2016 8-Player Football Playoffs was the first to exclude a six-win team ... in fact, two of them ... from the 16-team field and four-week format.

The original plan for the 8-player tournament called for expansion to a 32-team field and a five-week format when the number of MHSAA Class D member schools sponsoring a full season of the 8-player game exceeded 40 for several years. Having now reached the point of expansion, many questions are being raised. For example:

Are Class D schools served well by a 32-team field and a five-week format, like the 11-player tournament? Or, would two 16-team divisions and continuing the four-week format be best?

The two 16-team divisions would have the benefits of smaller enrollment differences between the largest and smallest schools of each division, as well as a one-week shorter season – both of which might be preferred from the standpoint of participant health and safety.

Under neither format is it likely that the championship game(s) would be held at Ford Field. The facility has a long-standing commitment for the Friday and Saturday before Thanksgiving, when the four-week format concludes; and there is not room for a fifth game on either Friday or Saturday after Thanksgiving when the eight championship games of the 11-player tournament are conducted.

These discussions regarding the 8-player tournament field and format will invite other discussions. For example, Class C schools that sponsor 8-player teams which are ineligible for the 8-player tournament that is limited to Class D schools only, will ask for a tournament opportunity; but their inclusion in the 8-player tournament will be resisted by Class D schools.

There are people who will advocate that the 11-player tournament should be reduced from eight divisions to seven; and that Division 8 be for the 8-player tournament, with 32 teams and a five-week format concluding at Ford Field on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Of course, this reduces by 32 the total number of teams that will qualify for the MHSAA Football Playoff experience.

We must keep in mind that every enhancement of the 8-player experience invites more conversions from the 11-player to 8-player game, and every conversion makes life a little more difficult for remaining 11-player teams, especially for smaller schools. For example:

  • Remaining Class D 11-player schools have fewer like-sized opponents to schedule during the regular season, and they must travel further to play them.

  • Some remaining 11-player schools in Classes D, C and B find themselves playing in playoff divisions with larger schools than was the case a few years ago.

The reintroduction of 8-player football in Michigan high schools in 2011 was generally praised; but we knew even then that the day would come when the new benefits for some would create new hardships for others. The discussions needed now will require coaches and administrators to examine the effects of change on others as well as on themselves, and to be fair with their responses and recommendations.