Logo

Engagement

October 31, 2017

In addition to daily calls, texts, emails and old-fashioned mail delivery, Michigan High School Athletic Association staff engaged face to face with its core constituents in these ways from August of 2016 through July of 2017:

  • More than 350 local school visits, including:
    • Approximately 120 to attend regular season local contests to evaluate officials for MHSAA tournament readiness.
    • More than 60 to support or evaluate MHSAA pre-Final tournament events.
    • More than 60 to speak at or support MHSAA CAP sessions (plus 25 CAP sessions at the MHSAA building).
    • 12 for MHSAA.TV, NFHS Network or School Broadcast Program.
    • 6 for Second Half website features.
    • 6 for new school orientation.
    • 5 for Battle of the Fans (each involving 3 MHSAA staff).
    • 5 for officiating classes.
    • 2 for Reaching Higher (each involving 4 or more staff).

  • More than 60 local officials association visits, including:

    • 45 for rules meetings/presentations.

Plus 8 visits to officials camps,
         5 presentations to college officiating classes, and
         9 officiating recruitment events.

  • More than 50 coaches association meetings.
    • 24 for MHSAA rules meetings/presentations.
    • 6 for CAP programs.

Plus the Coaches Association Presidents dinner at the MHSAA office involving 9 MHSAA staff.

  • More than 50 league meetings, including:
    • 8 to conduct student leadership or sportsmanship events or for team captains clinics (usually involving multiple MHSAA staff).
    • 8 to provide event marketing assistance.
    • 7 to provide MHSAA information/updates.
    • 6 to provide MHSAA rules meetings/presentations.
    • 3 for ArbiterGame training (usually involving 2 or more MHSAA staff).

Plus the League Leadership Meeting at the MHSAA office involving most MHSAA staff.

  • More than 15 MIAAA meetings.
    • 10 MHSAA staff at the March conference.
    • 2 MHSAA staff at the summer workshop.
    • 2 to 4 MHSAA staff at most board meetings.
    • At least 1 staff at multiple committee meetings, strategic planning, etc.
  • More than 50 standing committees, task forces and ad hoc study groups convened at the MHSAA office, and several did so multiple times.

What is abundantly clear here is that the MHSAA staff does not operate from an ivory tower or information vacuum.

Sweating the Small Stuff - #2

June 1, 2018

Seeding of Michigan High School Athletic Association tournaments, especially basketball and ice hockey, is a topic that routinely finds its way to MHSAA Representative Council agendas.

In May of 2017, the Council rejected a comprehensive proposal to seed the District and Regional levels of MHSAA Basketball Tournaments; but the Council instructed MHSAA staff to examine ideas for limited seeding at the District level only, using an MHSAA-controlled system.

In May of 2017, it appeared there was a small number of Council members who supported the proposal submitted for that meeting by the Basketball Coaches Association of Michigan, and that there were two larger groups – one open to seeding on a more limited basis than BCAM proposed and another group opposed to seeding of any scope by any system.

MHSAA staff responded to the Council’s request by presenting in March of this year and again in May a plan for seeding only the top two teams of each District, to which teams would continue to be assigned by geographic proximity, and then placing top seeds on brackets that would assure those two teams could not meet until the District Finals.

The staff provided answers to the many obvious policy and practical questions, including the system to be used, the games to be included and the placement of teams on brackets.

The effort to arm the Council with these answers had the effect of turning some advocates into opponents of seeding. It was as if the more questions staff anticipated with answers, the more people objected to the plan.

This brought defeat to the plan to seed basketball Districts, and the same to plans to seed ice hockey Regionals and Semifinals.

The questions now are: Do we vote on a fully vetted plan, knowing the details before we move forward; or do we buy a pig in a poke, voting in a concept without details, surprising others and ourselves with how seeding would be implemented? And do we vote on anything at all until we have answered the large philosophical questions as well as the dozens of smaller practical questions that seeding requires we address.