MHSAA Tournament Sports
April 25, 2017
It is far from a rare occasion that the Michigan High School Athletic Association receives correspondence from a constituent – and most frequently from students – to provide an MHSAA-sponsored and conducted tournament for a sport they love, but which is not yet among the 14 sports for girls and 14 for boys which the MHSAA currently serves and supports with a statewide tournament.
The most recent additions to MHSAA tournament sports were boys and girls bowling and boys and girls lacrosse tournaments during the 2004-05 school year. In each case the MHSAA joined a small list of states with tournaments in those sports and quickly became one of the leading states in terms of the number of sponsoring schools and participating students, even as the sports spread to an increasing number of states across the U.S.
In neither case has the assimilation of the sport been problem-free. Lacrosse has struggled with travel limitations, and bowling with rules related to amateur status. Lacrosse has experienced issues related to game officials, and bowling has had to overcome venue challenges.
At the end of each school year the MHSAA asks its member high schools to report what sports they officially sponsored on a competitive interscholastic basis and how many students participated. This is one of the indicators of what might be added next to the lineup of MHSAA tournament sports. The most popular non-MHSAA tournament sports on last year’s survey (2015-16) were as follows:
|
For girls . . . |
For boys . . . |
MHSAA policy advises the Representative Council to consider serving and supporting sports that are sponsored by 64 or more member high schools. It’s always a two-way street. Do those involved in the sport desire an MHSAA tournament and all the services and restraints that entails, and does the Representative Council believe the MHSAA can provide unique and necessary guidance and assistance? That mutual agreement occurred with bowling and lacrosse; it did not occur with equestrian; and there have been no conversations as yet regarding weightlifting.
We know that MHSAA tournament sponsorship gives a sport a bump – it leads to more schools sponsoring the sport. We know that students benefit – and with that, so does society – when schools provide a broad array of sports with which to engage students. But we also know there are limits – time, money, facilities, personnel – which are local realities that moderate our idealism.
The Fourth Option
February 27, 2018
Throughout the years, schools of this and every other state have identified problems relating to school transfers. There is recruitment of athletes and undue influence. There is school shopping by families for athletic reasons. There is jumping by students from one school to another for athletic reasons because they couldn’t get along with a coach or saw a greater opportunity to play at another school or to win a championship there. There is the bumping of students off a team or out of a starting lineup by incoming transfers, which often outrages local residents. There is the concentration of talent on one team by athletic-motivated transfers. There is friction between schools as one becomes the traditional choice for students who specialize in a particular sport. There is imbalance in competition as a result. And there is always the concern that the athletic-motivated transfer simply puts athletics above academics, which is inappropriate in educational athletics.
All states have developed rules to address the problems related to school transfers. In some states, it is called a “transfer rule” and in other states a “residency rule,” because linking school attendance to residence is one of the most effective tools for controlling eligibility of transfers. None of the state high school association rules is identical, but all have the intention of helping to prevent recruiting, school shopping, student bumping, team friction, competitive imbalance and sports overemphasis. The goal of promoting fairness in athletic competition and the perspective that students must go to school first for an education and only secondarily to participate in interscholastic athletics is paramount.
The transfer/residency rule is a legally and historically tested but still imperfect tool to control athletic-motivated transfers and other abuses. It is a net which catches some students it should not, and misses some students that should not be eligible. This is why all state high school associations have procedures to review individual cases and grant exceptions; and why all state high school associations have procedures to investigate allegations and to penalize violations where they are confirmed.
Over the years, state high school associations have considered four options to handle transfers. The first two options are the easiest courses: either (1) let schools decide themselves about transfers, as Michigan once did, but this leads to inconsistent applications and few states now subscribe to such an approach; or (2) make no exceptions at all, rendering all transfer students ineligible for a period of time, but this becomes patently unfair for some students and no state high school association subscribes to that extreme, although it would be easy to administer.
The third option – the ideal approach, perhaps – would be to investigate the motivation of every transfer and allow quicker eligibility or subvarsity eligibility to those which are not motivated by athletics, but this is very time consuming if not impossible to administer. No state high school association has sufficient staff and money to consider every detail and devious motive of every transfer.
This is why a fourth option has been most popular with most state high school associations. This is a middle ground which stipulates a basic rule, some exceptions (we have 15 exceptions in Michigan), and procedures to consider and grant waivers – a primary role of the Michigan High School Athletic Association Executive Committee.