The Multi-Sport Difference
July 26, 2016
If there was ever a poster child for what it means to be a high school athlete, recent Williamston High School graduate Renee Sturm might be the person to feature. She has said and done exactly what we would hope.
In an era when increasing numbers of high school athletes are graduating midway through their senior year in order to get an early start with the college teams that have recruited them, Renee is a breath of fresh air.
After four years of volleyball and basketball at Williamston High School, Renee just hadn’t had enough of the high school sports experience. So she joined the school’s girls soccer team this past spring.
Now bound for Ferris State University where she is scheduled to play only basketball, Renee had this to say to the Lansing State Journal about why she decided to play soccer to conclude her high school sports career: “I wanted to do something different because playing different sports helps me grow ... I was just hoping to come in and play some.”
She didn’t seek to star, but to play ... to be a part of a different sport and team and group of teammates who would help her develop as an athlete and person.
The richest school sports experience is found in multi-sport participation, both starring and subbing, both losing and winning. That’s what best prepares young people for life.
I suspect this young lady is ready.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.