Going to the Mat
October 4, 2016
Somewhere I heard a speaker say: “The most exciting thing in life is to be shot at ... and missed.”
In a real sense, I wouldn’t know; but metaphorically, that’s somewhat how we’ve felt after a federal district court judge tried unsuccessfully to cripple the Michigan High School Athletic Association in the aftermath of a lawsuit over the placement of sports seasons in Michigan.
Plaintiffs wanted the high school sports seasons for boys and girls to coincide and to mirror the seasons the National Collegiate Athletic Association established after our high school seasons were adopted. With the urging of its member schools, the MHSAA battled for nine years to attempt to retain a sports seasons schedule that allowed schools to use their resources (facilities, coaches and officials) in ways that they could demonstrate promoted higher participation rates by both genders.
Plaintiffs did not get all that they sought in the case, and neither did schools; but the judge ordered the MHSAA to pay $7.9 million, much more than the organization’s assets at that time.
But rather than being the death knell for the MHSAA, these events breathed exciting new life into the organization, the positive effects of which continue today.
The judgment – reduced significantly through negotiations, early payment incentives and insurance and paid off in 18 months – set in motion a review of internal operations that reduced expenditures by $600,000 over 12 months, while sponsorship and broadcast revenue grew by a combined $600,000 during those 12 months.
Eight years later, many of the operational savings continue, and non-tournament revenue is now more than double what it was in the first year following the judgment.
While complaints still come to us from students and citizens in local communities regarding the court-ordered changes for sports seasons, and participation has declined significantly in several of the affected sports – especially girls basketball, girls volleyball and boys tennis – the MHSAA office still continues to enjoy many efficiencies, as well as some euphoria, from the shot-at-but-missed experience.
This comes from the knowledge that we went to the mat for what our schools wanted, fought long and hard, paid a high cost, and came out of it with schools’ respect. In the aftermath, the MHSAA staff and Representative Council came together, and came through it stronger.
Cooperative Spirit
May 13, 2016
The 2016-17 school year will be the 29th since “cooperative programs” were first approved for MHSAA member high schools; and in that first year, it was but a modest step: two or more MHSAA member high schools whose combined enrollment did not exceed the maximum for a Class D school (then 297) could jointly sponsor a team. The intent, of course, was to help our very smallest member schools generate enough participants to have a viable program in one or more sports that was of interest to some of their students.
Over the years, the cooperative program concept has expanded to member schools of larger enrollment and to member junior high/middle schools. As of April 7, 2016, there were 260 cooperative programs at the high school level involving 450 teams, as well as 88 cooperative programs at the junior high/middle school level for 331 teams.
During the 2016-17 school year, there will be two new opportunities for MHSAA member schools to consider with respect to cooperative programs.
First, cooperative programs will be an explicitly stated option at the subvarsity level in any sport.
Second, maximum enrollments have been eliminated to help public multi-high-school districts start and complete competitive seasons in communities that have struggled to sustain programs in baseball, bowling, girls competitive cheer, cross country, golf, soccer, girls softball, tennis and wrestling. This is a three-year experiment.
It is declining enrollment more than a desire to save money that the MHSAA Executive Committee looks for when approving cooperative programs. Combining enrollments to create new or preserve existing programs is the intent; co-oping to reduce expenditures is not.