Inactivity Epidemic
May 27, 2016
The Aspen Institute conducted its third “Project Play” Summit in Washington, D.C., on May 17. The sold-out event was both a stimulating and frustrating experience.
There are very many people doing marvelous things to increase the quantity and quality of sport participation among youth, especially focusing on ages 6 to 12 and underserved populations. However, intriguing local initiatives do not appear to be easily scalable, and the platitudes of national organizations do not appear to be reaching their local affiliates where youth coaches pressure parents and kids into year-around specialization and promise college scholarships.
We cannot expect that those whose business is winning medals (NGBs and USOC) or those whose business is making money (major college and professional sports) will be thought or action leaders who effectively increase participation rates and frequency or reduce obesity in adolescents. These goals will be good for PSAs and niche initiatives, but will never be a part of the DNA and daily mission of these entities.
We need to seek leadership of thought and action among adults who work with youth every day and who see sport not as an end in itself but as a means to help prepare the whole child for later life. And to be more precise, we need to seek leadership where the kids are and where facilities already exist. In our nation’s schools.
When recess and physical education programs with ample opportunities for free play and sports sampling are restored to elementary schools, and broad and deep programs of interscholastic athletic programs are adequately funded in junior high/middle schools and high schools, then and only then will we begin to reverse obesity in youth and their future burden on society as adults.
The epidemic isn’t obesity; it’s inactivity.
This nation must awaken to the reality that physical literacy is as important to our future as reading and writing have been in our past. Science, technology, engineering and math are important to our nation, of course, but possibly less essential to an individual’s health and happiness than physical literacy – developing the ability, confidence and desire to be physically active and, as an intentional consequence, much more likely to live healthier and longer.
Seeking Input on Seeding
November 21, 2017
Seeding is a part of some levels of some Michigan High School Athletic Association tournaments, but no part of any level of MHSAA tournaments for other sports. The decisions are made sport-by-sport and level-by-level after sufficient understanding of a specific plan and broad support.
Seeding deals with logistics, not a fundamental value of educational athletics. It gets outsized attention for its importance, having nothing to do with the interactions that lead to learning and growing in interscholastic athletics. It’s another byproduct of the ever-increasing influence of the pervasively promoted and televised NCAA’s basketball tournaments over the past 25 years.
Michigan’s high school sport most engaged in the topic now is, in fact, basketball. Discussions and surveys have been conducted regarding seeding at MHSAA District tournaments.
We’ve learned this summer and fall that a majority of our local school athletic directors favor seeding and do not think it will make regular-season scheduling more difficult nor cause coaches to delay or diminish substituting during regular season games.
We’ve learned that a majority favor a system that maintains geographically determined District tournaments and merely separates the top two seeded teams in each District, and continues to use a blind draw to place other teams assigned to the District on the bracket.
We’ve learned that a majority favors having the best two teams determined primarily through objective criteria assessed by an MHSAA created or controlled ranking system.
We’ve learned that while the majority favors these moves toward District seeding, there are significant pockets of opposition to any seeding at all in MHSAA basketball tournaments. At two of six Athletic Director In-Service meetings and at two of seven Update meetings in September and October, large majorities in attendance opposed seeding of District basketball tournaments; and voters were nearly evenly split at several other meeting sites.
The discernible pattern is that seeding loses support as one moves out of the more densely populated areas of Michigan. We need to better understand why this is so, and what’s behind these regional or demographic preferences; then have the Representative Council make a decision at its meeting in March or May; and get this topic decided one way or the other.
There is so much else that is so much more important than seeding to the health of school-sponsored basketball that deserves the attention that seeding has been getting.