Logo

Moving Forward

December 28, 2012

Coaches will often convey to their teams a variation of this theme:  “If we’re not moving forward, we’re falling behind.”  And with such immediate feedback – the next contest – coaches can measure their team’s progress quite easily. Progress is harder to measure for the organizations that serve and support coaches and athletes.

If we are doing our jobs well, we will have both an “inside game” and an “outside game.”  We will create our own opportunities to improve our services and we will be alert to opportunities to improve ourselves when they are handed to us or forced upon us from outside sources.  Both types of change can be positive.

  • Change from inside has the benefit of institutional knowledge.  This change can be informed, measured and careful to avoid unintended consequences that hurt more than help customers.
  • Change from outside can be less rational but also less restrained by history and culture.  It can be more disruptive in a positive sense, perhaps more innovative in origin and more expansive in impact.

It’s my sense that, as the calendar turns from 2012 to 2013, the MHSAA is at the merging of two lanes of traffic – an inside lane of change combining with an outside lane change – which will modify some services and move them forward at unprecedented speeds during the new year and the next.

  • This has been obvious as we have partnered with ArbiterSports to prepare the ArbiterGame scheduling software for our member schools.  Hard work internally that’s about to show results to schools and their publics.
  • This may become obvious as we expand our schedule of inexpensive camps for inexperienced officials.  This could be an antecedent to additional training requirements for MHSAA tournament officials.  The public expects better, and we can do better.
  • This may also become obvious as we expand offerings and then add requirements for coaching education focused on maximizing good health and minimizing risk.  There is a gathering parade of experts and evidence advocating for much more training for many more coaches; and we must find our way to the head of that column.

5 Questions for 8-Player Football

April 10, 2017

The 2017 8-Player Football Playoffs will be conducted over four weeks in two divisions of 16 teams each for the 60-plus teams sponsored by Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D schools.

That much was decided by the MHSAA Representative Council on March 24.

There are five questions (at least) that the Council still must answer:

  1. How should teams qualify? Since the first 8-player tournament in 2011, teams have qualified by playoff point averages – the 16 highest qualified for the tournament. Should this be changed to a system of automatic qualifiers on the basis of wins, plus additional qualifiers on the basis of playoff points to complete the field – like the 11-player tournament operates?

  2. When should divisions be determined? Should it be in late March when division breaks for other “equal divisions” tournaments are set? Or should divisions be determined nearer the start of the season – say, September 1 – so all late additions, deletions, and cooperative program changes can be factored in before the two divisions, based on enrollment, are determined?

  3. Where will the championship games be played? Should the Council designate a doubleheader at the Superior Dome in Marquette so the MHSAA can focus all its resources on one climate-controlled facility? Or should two sites be designated now (perhaps the Superior Dome in Marquette and Legacy Field in Greenville), and the specific games and times assigned as the playoffs progress in an attempt to reduce travel times for teams and spectators?

  4. Should the maximum enrollment for the 8-player tournament be the moving target of the Class D maximum (203 in 2017) or a fixed number – for example, 215, the Class D maximum in 2011 when the 8-player tournament began? This decision could be deferred to the Council’s meeting in December.

  5. Should there be a “grace period” for schools that are eligible for the 8-player tournament one year but have enrollments that exceed the 8-player limit the next year – for example, eligible only the following year and only if the enrollment does not exceed the 8-player enrollment limit by more than 12 students? This decision could also be delayed to the December meeting of the Council.

As our excitement builds for the expanded 8-player tournament, so do the questions.