Participant Celebrations

March 13, 2012

I was born and raised in Wisconsin; and I hope that I’m forgiven for cheering for our Lions in all but two games each year – when they play the Green Bay Packers.  I just can’t shake that long loyalty.

I’m a lifelong Packer fan, one who was actually present when Don Chandler’s disputed field goal beat the Baltimore Colts (that’s right, Baltimore) on a day when running back Tom Matte was pressed into action as the Colts’ quarterback.

I was also present when Bart Starr followed Jerry Kramer’s block on the Cowboys’ Jethro Pugh to win the 1967 “Ice Bowl” in 17-below-zero weather in Green Bay.

For all these reasons and more, I’ve loved the “Lambeau Leap” which celebrates Packer touchdowns.

But, I don’t want such acts in high school sports.

The national high school rule makers have done a terrific job of controlling participant celebrations in high school sports.

      • After a tackle or quarterback sack, there’s no strutting or pointing in high school football.
      • After a touchdown, there’s no prancing or end zone dancing in high school football.

Pick any sport:  High school athletes will be the best behaved athletes on any level of the sport.  It’s one of our trademarks.  Our brand.  And something we can be proud of.

(We do have one participant conduct problem, but that’s for next time.)

Anticipating Collateral Damage

March 23, 2018

When major college sports sneezes, high school sports usually catches a cold.

Throughout history, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has made changes in response to problems in college sports that have resulted in harm to high school sports.

Who can argue that relieving college coaches from the burden of being members of the instructional faculty did anything but weaken the connection between intercollegiate athletics and the educational mission of the sponsoring institutions? That major college football and men’s basketball coaches are the highest paid employees at many universities demonstrates the disconnection.

Who can argue that the creation of athletic grants in aid – scholarships – did anything but raise the pressures on college programs to win and to recruit hard at the high school level? Who can argue that this process got any more upright and above board when NCAA rules were changed to push most of the recruiting process to non-school venues and corporate concerns?

Who is surprised now that the corruption has moved beyond the NCAA’s ability to control and has resulted in investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and indictments followed by player ineligibilities and coach firings?

The worry now is that the NCAA and the National Basketball Association will strike again. Aiming to solve their problems, they likely will add to ours.