Peddling Influence
February 28, 2012
The Sports Business Journal published in December its annual list of the 50 most influential persons in sports business. No person from the ranks of high school sports is included, causing some to criticize the oversight. I don’t.
If ever a person from the high school level were to make this listing, it likely would be for behaving like those at the college, professional and international levels. No one will make the list for doing the job he or she is supposed to do, which is to assure that the business excesses of those other levels do not visit school sports, and to actively oppose those initiatives that would undermine educational athletics.
I understand fully that there are important business aspects to the administration of interscholastic athletics. But I also understand that these business tasks must be managed within the cozy confines of the educational mission of the sponsoring institutions – schools.
We know how to make a lot more money for school sports from networks, sponsors and promoters. But we also know why that wouldn’t be right for educational athletics. Contests on any day at any hour for broadcast purposes, at any location no matter how far. Highlighting big schools, highly ranked teams and highly rated/recruited players, to improve broadcast ratings and advertiser demands. Brilliant minds and bullying personalities couldn’t avoid this happening in college athletics. Once started, we could not fare better in controlling things on the high school level.
We have the potential to aggregate school sports content very attractively for producers, distributors and sponsors. But it’s best that we don’t. And just fine that we continue to be overlooked by business trade journals.
Eight-Player Options
March 10, 2017
Put this in the category of “No good deed goes unpunished.”
In 2011, the MHSAA provided an additional playoff for Class D schools sponsoring 8-player football. This helped save football in some schools and helped return the game of football to other schools. But now that the number of 8-player programs has expanded from two dozen in 2011 to more than 60, there are complaints:
-
Some complaints come out of a sense of entitlement that all final games in both the 8-player and 11-player tournament deserve to be played at Ford Field.
-
Some complaints come from Class C schools whose enrollments are too large for the 8-player tournament. Class C schools which sponsor the 8-player game have no tournament at all in which to play, regardless of where the finals might be held.
-
Some complaints come from Class D schools which protest any suggestion that Class C schools – even the smallest – be allowed to play in the 8-player tournament.
There are now three scenarios emerging as the most likely future for 8-player football:
-
The original plan ... A five-week, 32-team tournament for Class D schools only, with the finals at a site to be determined, but probably not Ford Field.
-
Alternative #1 ... Reduce the 11-player tournament to seven divisions and make Division 8 the 8-player tournament with 32 Class D teams in a five-week tournament, ending at Ford Field.
-
Alternative #2 ... Conduct the 8-player tournament in two divisions of 16 Class D teams, competing in a four-week playoff ending in a double-header at the Superior Dome on the Saturday before Thanksgiving.
The pros and cons of these options are being widely discussed. Sometimes the discussions have a tone that is critical of the MHSAA, which comes from those who forget that it was the MHSAA itself which moved in 2011 to protect and promote football by adding the 8-player playoff tournament option for its smallest member schools. That Class D schools now feel entitled to the Ford Field opportunity and Class C schools want access to an 8-player tournament is not unexpected; but criticism of the MHSAA’s efforts is not deserved.