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.
Scheduling Controversy
November 14, 2017
A dozen years ago, I asked our counterpart organizations in other states if they scheduled their schools’ regular-season varsity football games. Very few did so.
More recently, I’ve realized that I didn’t ask enough questions. It turns out that few statewide high school associations tell schools who they play each week of the regular season. However, many more give schools the group of opponents they may schedule. They place schools in leagues and/or districts and/or regions and instruct schools to schedule from among those schools only or predominantly.
I have been waiting for the tipping point where a sufficient number of high schools in Michigan are sufficiently stressed over scheduling football games that they would turn to the MHSAA to solve the problem.
I’m anticipating this might occur first among schools playing 8-player football, and that success there will lead to our assistance for 11-player schools.
One approach – the simpler solution – would work like this:
-
All 8-player schools within the enrollment limit for the 8-player tournament would be placed in two divisions on the basis of enrollment in early March. About 32 schools in each, based on current participation.
-
At the same time, each division would be divided into four regions of about eight schools.
-
In April, the schools of each region would convene to schedule seven regular season games for each school.
-
Based on current numbers, schools would still have two open weeks to fill, if they wish, for games with schools in other regions or of the other division or in neighboring states.
A second option – the date-specific solution – would provide every school its weekly schedule for all nine dates, or weeks 1 through 8, or weeks 2 through 8, depending on local preferences. This would not be difficult in concept once there is agreement on what criteria would be used and what value each criterion would have.
For example, one important criterion would be similarity of enrollment; another of great value would be proximity. Perhaps league affiliation would be a factor with some value. Perhaps historic rivalries would be another factor with a value. Then the computer spits out schedules for each school for every week for two years, home and away.
I don’t campaign for this task because, frankly, it will produce complaints and controversy. But if this organization exists to serve, then this is a service that today’s chronic complaints tell us we should begin to provide soon.
I suggest we do this for 8-player football for the 2019 and 2020 seasons (with a paper trial run for 2018). If it proves successful, we could expand the service to 11-player schools as soon after as they are satisfied with our efforts for 8-player schools.