Logo

Lacrosse Logic

March 6, 2012

Sometimes the administrators of school sports will be heard to say, “Is ours the only sport program that cares about kids’ well-being?”  Or, “Are we the only folks willing to both make and enforce rules to protect the program and its participants?”

So, there are feelings of vindication and validation when we read about other sports programs which see and do some things somewhat our way.  And it appears US Lacrosse is one of those groups.  Here’s some of what is included in its Oct. 30, 2011 Position Statement:  “Boys’ and Girls’ Youth Lacrosse Participation Recommendations.”

“1. Athletes at all level of play should have 1-2 days off per week from competitive athletics and training to allow for recovery.
“2. Athletes at the U-9, U-11, U-13 and U-15 level should have at least 2-3 months away from sport specific training and competition during the year.
“3. Athletes at the U-9, U-11, U-13 and U-15 level should play on only one lacrosse team during a season.  If an athlete is playing on more than one team in the same season, they should not participate for more than 16-20 hours per week.”
“6. Encourage participation in multiple sports throughout the year and avoid sports specialization before the U-15 age group (high school).  Those athletes who choose to specialize in the sport of lacrosse in high school will need to take extra precaution with regard to overuse injuries and burnout.  While there may be potential benefits to extra training, the risks of becoming one-dimensional at a young age needs to be evaluated on a seasonal basis.  Furthermore, specialization does not guarantee improved play or college acceptance and only an estimated 5 percent of high school senior athletes progress to play some form of collegiate sports.  Some researchers believe there is a benefit to multiple sport participation throughout high school.”

A Change Narrative

October 13, 2017

Here are five points to describe the essence of possible changes being processed by the Michigan High School Athletic Association for its transfer rule.

  1. We would move from a rule designed years ago for three-sport athletes to a rule that’s equally effective for regulating single-sport athletes.

  2. We would be treating all sports the same, regardless of season – fall, winter, spring. No longer would the transfer rule have a greater impact on winter sport athletes than fall or spring sport athletes.

  3. We would be getting out of the way of more “school of choice” parents who want to move a child from one school to another. If the student has not played a particular high school sport before, then eligibility is immediate in that sport ... at any level, and without any MHSAA Executive Committee action.

  4. We would be causing students who have played a high school sport (and their parents) to pause before they transfer. They would miss the next season in that sport unless one of the 15 stated exceptions to the transfer rule applies. (There is significant sentiment that this apply only to students who have played previously at the varsity level – i.e., if the student has participated previously only at the subvarsity level in a sport, that student could transfer and remain eligible at the subvarsity level; but this would be allowed one time only.)

  5. We would make it even tougher on students (and their parents) to circumvent the athletic-motivated and athletic-related transfer rules by eliminating the automatic residency exception in those special cases. (This is the most hotly debated of the changes being considered.)

The theme is “get out of the way of the benign transfers and get still tougher on the really bad ones.”