Mission Control
May 5, 2015
As we survey all that might be done in the future to improve the health and safety of student-athletes, it is good discipline to look to the past and recall when hype or hysteria caused well-intentioned people, and some not-so-well-intentioned people, to campaign for solutions to problems that either did not exist or could not be effectively addressed through mandates on school sports.
Over the years, school sports has been asked to address much more than what occurs on the practice or playing field. We’ve been asked to address drunk and then distracted driving; bulimia and bullying; texting and sexting; hazing and homelessness; seat belt use and steroids, which provides a perfect example of the limitations of fixing societal problems through mandates on school sports programs.
After more than a decade of voluntary educational efforts and just about the time when steroid use in schools began to trend downward, state legislatures caught wind of the “problem” and perhaps of potential political gain.
The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research reports that steroid use has been declining since 2005, which was just before the first state – New Jersey – enacted a law requiring schools to test high school athletes. Undaunted, the Texas legislature followed suit three years later. Undeterred, the Florida legislature followed the next year, and then Illinois lawmakers acted.
Florida discontinued its mandated drug testing program after just one year, and Texas is about to end its program, after spending nearly $10 million. Florida conducted 600 tests. Texas ran more than 60,000. Florida had one positive test. Texas reported less than one percent positive tests.
Because leaders of school sports have the statistics to link sports participation with improved attendance, achievement and attitude at school, we make our programs vulnerable to assault by passionate people who want our good programs to fix their bad problems. We have to be careful to avoid a situation where, in trying to address so many of society’s problems, we actually solve none; and worse, become distracted from our core chore of conducting safe, fair and sportsmanlike programs that make schools a happier, healthier place for student academic achievement.
Taking Our Half in the Middle
September 22, 2015
When there is a rule that is as frequently criticized for being too weak as for being too harsh, it’s likely the rule is just about right.
For every administrator and coach who complains that the transfer rule misses a situation where there is no question the student transferred for sports participation, there are as many administrators and coaches – and many times more parents – who plead for leniency under the transfer rule.
For every congested community in Michigan that offers students multiple school options, and some of those who participate in interscholastic athletics shop for the situation that best fits their needs or desires, there are many more communities in Michigan where few options exist, and transfers by student-athletes are both low in number and logical in nature.
For every call for a mandatory year-long, no-exceptions period of ineligibility to penalize athletic-motivated transfers, there are dozens of transfers by low-level, low-profile student athletes who do not deserve such draconian consequences.
For every statewide high school association in the U.S. that has a tougher transfer rule than Michigan, there are as many that have a weaker transfer rule; or, they have no rule at all because the state’s legislature intervened, usurped the association’s authority and overturned its over-reaching regulation.
The MHSAA transfer rule is not perfect and likely never will be, which is why it is among the two most reviewed and revised rules of the MHSAA Handbook. But the MHSAA transfer rule is on the right path. A dramatic detour will serve school sports badly.
What most negatively affects the administration of the existing transfer rule is the reluctance of administrators and coaches to report directly the violations they observe personally. If these people won’t do their part, they have no right to critique the rule or to criticize the rule makers.