Logo

Physical Literacy

April 26, 2016

Dr. Tony Moreno has been on the faculty of Eastern Michigan University since 2004, and he has worked with the Michigan High School Athletic Association coaches education program since 2000. He met recently with the MHSAA’s Task Force on Multi-Sport Participation. This paraphrases some of what he shared:

  1. Young people who do not learn physical literacy (learn how to solve movement problems), are less likely to be physically active and, therefore, less likely to be physically fit (and more ultimately costly to society).

  2. Specialization leads to silos of ability that hinder competence and confidence in other activities, and these deficits last a lifetime. Sports done right creates a culture of problem-solvers.

  3. Research is inconclusive if specialization is the path to the elite level of sports, but it is conclusive that specialization is the path to chronic, long-term negative effects.

  4. The root of today’s problems is the loss of physical education from schools. The result today is “privatized PE” available for the “haves” (not the “have-nots”). It’s a free market, capitalized experience for those able to pay for it; but it’s no longer just for country club sports, but all sports, and it’s even coming to football (7 on 7).

  5. Those who want to reintroduce multi-sport participation or return schools to the center of the youth sports experience must learn how to compete with non-school, commercial offerings for the hearts and minds of parents and coaches, which is where the “cash and control” of youth sports resides.

  6. To educate means “to draw out.” Our purpose in school sports is to draw out the hidden abilities in youth and help them build confidence and competence to become healthier problem-solvers. Specialization is an expensive health issue for society that balanced participation can help to mitigate.

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.