Logo

Educating for Educational Athletics

October 11, 2013

Michigan’s educational tradition of local control (which the MHSAA has respected) and Michigan educators’ distaste for unfunded mandates (which the MHSAA has consistently opposed) have had the result of keeping Michigan schools in neutral while schools in many other states have been in high gear to enhance training for interscholastic coaches.

Multiple levels of coaching education and even licensing or certification of coaches is now standard operating procedure in many other places. In contrast, Michigan has had almost no requirements for school-sponsored coaches.

However, in measured steps, change is coming to Michigan to promote an interscholastic coaching community better equipped to serve student-athletes, with special attention to health and safety:

  • As a result of an MHSAA Representative Council vote last March, all high school level assistant and subvarsity coaches must complete the same rules and risk minimization meeting requirement as high school varsity head coaches or, in the alternative, must complete a free health and safety course linked to or posted on MHSAA.com. This takes effect in 2014-15.
  • In December, the Representative Council will vote on a proposal to require all high school varsity head coaches to hold valid (current) CPR certification. This would take effect in 2015-16.
  • In March, the Council will vote on a proposal to require all persons who are hired for the first time as an MHSAA member high school varsity head coach after July 31, 2016, to have completed Level 1 or 2 of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program.

Implementing these policies over the next three years will not advance Michigan schools to the head of the class with respect to assuring school coaches receive ongoing education in the critical coaching responsibilities dealing with participants’ health and safety. This will, however, move our schools from a near failing grade to average, from D- to perhaps C.

Ultimately, we will need to overcome legitimate concerns for adding to the difficulty of finding and affording coaches, and do much more to assure the programs we sponsor deserve the label “educational athletics.”

5 Questions for 8-Player Football

April 10, 2017

The 2017 8-Player Football Playoffs will be conducted over four weeks in two divisions of 16 teams each for the 60-plus teams sponsored by Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D schools.

That much was decided by the MHSAA Representative Council on March 24.

There are five questions (at least) that the Council still must answer:

  1. How should teams qualify? Since the first 8-player tournament in 2011, teams have qualified by playoff point averages – the 16 highest qualified for the tournament. Should this be changed to a system of automatic qualifiers on the basis of wins, plus additional qualifiers on the basis of playoff points to complete the field – like the 11-player tournament operates?

  2. When should divisions be determined? Should it be in late March when division breaks for other “equal divisions” tournaments are set? Or should divisions be determined nearer the start of the season – say, September 1 – so all late additions, deletions, and cooperative program changes can be factored in before the two divisions, based on enrollment, are determined?

  3. Where will the championship games be played? Should the Council designate a doubleheader at the Superior Dome in Marquette so the MHSAA can focus all its resources on one climate-controlled facility? Or should two sites be designated now (perhaps the Superior Dome in Marquette and Legacy Field in Greenville), and the specific games and times assigned as the playoffs progress in an attempt to reduce travel times for teams and spectators?

  4. Should the maximum enrollment for the 8-player tournament be the moving target of the Class D maximum (203 in 2017) or a fixed number – for example, 215, the Class D maximum in 2011 when the 8-player tournament began? This decision could be deferred to the Council’s meeting in December.

  5. Should there be a “grace period” for schools that are eligible for the 8-player tournament one year but have enrollments that exceed the 8-player limit the next year – for example, eligible only the following year and only if the enrollment does not exceed the 8-player enrollment limit by more than 12 students? This decision could also be delayed to the December meeting of the Council.

As our excitement builds for the expanded 8-player tournament, so do the questions.