Political Fallout
April 22, 2016
It has been my long-held belief that there is a link between the quality of sportsmanship in our schools and the quality of citizenship in our society ... that if we made our games more respectful, society would tend to be more civil.
I’ve held this belief even though I’ve watched deteriorating standards of behavior in almost all aspects of society drag down the standards we’ve raised up for school sports. And frankly, I’ve admired that the standards of school sports have declined so little in comparison to the standards of society that have plummeted so far.
But now I read that the lack of decorum in this year’s presidential campaign has infected conduct at school sports events in at least three states, two of which border Michigan.
Student spectators would not shout chants about building walls to keep immigrants out of America if politicians had not created such slogans and campaigned on such themes.
Shallow, spiteful politics is doing deep damage to America, even to school sports. Of course, our coaches and administrators will attempt to use these ugly incidents as teachable moments.
But why should they have to? Why can’t those who claim they should lead the nation act like leaders? Why can’t they try to lead us to a higher level of humanity instead of inviting us to such hurtful or even hateful behavior?
Student-Centered Coaching
August 1, 2017
The November 1929 Bulletin of the Michigan High School Athletic Association includes this editorial reprinted from the Oct. 7, 1929 Grand Rapids Herald which invites discussion about what more we might do to promote leadership and sportsmanship in school-sponsored sports today.
“Football teams of Greenville and Ionia high schools Saturday introduced an innovation the nature of which challenges consideration of other Michigan schools. From the time the first whistle blew for Saturday’s game until its close the professional coaches employed by the two schools had no contact with players. Between the halves the usual harangue by the coach was dispensed with in favor of a review of play by players. * * * The result of such a policy is unsullied amateurism along the lines we often have urged. The players are on their own. They do their own thinking as well as playing. Under the system as usually followed the coach sits on the sidelines. If he sees an opportunity for a plan of play differing from that being followed he sends in a substitute who carries instructions: ‘Stick to forward passes. Bang away at their left end,’ etc. Between the halves the coach points out faults and emphasizes opportunities for the final half. In net effect the coach directs the play. The initiative of captain or quarterback is permitted only so long as the coach approves. Under the Greenville system the captain is the only recognized leader of the team. He directs substitutions, orders plays, advises players, etc. At Greenville school boys played against school boys. On other western Michigan gridirons a coach is the 12th member of every team. * * * The plan adopted at Greenville was suggested by President Angell of Yale in his annual report for 1927-28. He urged that, ‘There is a wide and well-grounded sentiment that the control of our games should be put back more fully into the hands of the players.’ Yale has not heeded Prexy Angell’s advice, but the New York State Public High School Athletic Association has adopted it as also have some Detroit high schools. It takes the sting of professionalism out of the scholastic game. The able coach still has ample opportunity to prove his worth in teaching the fundamentals of the game and in developing ‘football brains’; but when the whistle blows it is high school team against high school team. What’s the matter with trying that in Grand Rapids? What, if any, are the arguments against it?”