Logo

Program Priorities

January 10, 2014

Many school districts face more requests from their constituents for sports programs than they have the resources to accommodate, so they are forced to make very difficult decisions. For three decades, when I’ve been consulted, I have offered and stood by this advice.

First, I advance the premise that if the activity is educational, there is just as much potential for the education to occur at the junior high/middle school and subvarsity levels as at the varsity level. Just as we would not discriminate against one race or gender, we should not disadvantage one age or ability level. In fact, with a little less pressure to win, it is likely to see more education at subvarsity levels and more reason to sponsor them.

Second, I advocate the position that schools should avoid sponsorship of any activity for which a qualified head coach cannot be secured. Qualified personnel are, in order of priority:

  1.  a teacher within the building who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  2.  a teacher within the district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  3.  a teacher in another district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  4.  a certified teacher from the community who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  5.  a non-certified person who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.

I urge schools not to descend lower than this for program leadership. Coaches are the delivery system of the education in educational athletics; they are the critical link in the educational process. More problems occur than are worth the effort if the program is in the hands of an unqualified coach.

Next, I urge that schools rank sports on the basis of cost per participant, and give higher priority to sports that spread funds over the greatest number of participants.

Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports that cannot be operated on school facilities and create transportation, supervision and liability issues, and give higher priority to those conducted at or very near the school.

Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports which are most readily available in the community, without school involvement. If resources are precious, then duplicating school programs should be a low priority; doing what the community can’t do or doesn’t do should be given a much higher priority.

While I’m a fan of school sports, I recognize that an athletic program has as much potential to do harm as to do good. Programs without qualified coaches that are conducted for small numbers of students at remote venues and without comprehensive school oversight and support may create more problems for schools than the good they do for students.

Bare bones budgeting will require brutally honest assessments based on priorities like these.

Answering Seeding Questions

January 19, 2018

Seeding is a topic on the agenda of several Michigan High School Athletic Association sport committees. Last May, the Representative Council reiterated that its approach is to consider seeding on a sport-by-sport, level-by-level basis, depending on its committees and others to develop specific plans and to demonstrate wide support among schools of all sizes and types.

A recommendation by the Basketball Committee in December of 2016 to seed District and Regional basketball tournaments with one of the systems utilized by the NCAA for its men’s Division I tournament was not adopted by the Council last May, but MHSAA staff was requested to explore alternatives for seeding District level tournaments only.

Subsequently, MHSAA surveys have demonstrated significant support, especially in more populated areas, for an approach that separates on District basketball tournament brackets the top two teams of each District whose teams continue to be assigned on the basis of geography. We’ve found that historically strong programs tend to support this “simple seeding,” while middle-of-the-pack programs tend to see seeding as another obstacle to success and creating more distance between haves and have-nots.

MHSAA staff have demonstrated how similarly the results would have been if any one of the three systems had been used to perform this simple seeding of District basketball tournaments in 2017. In the vast majority of 2017 District tournaments, the team that actually won the tournament would have been the No. 1 seeded team in that District, demonstrating that simple seeding may be less about picking the winners than it is determining which two teams will play in the District championship games.

Many questions would have to be answered before any one of these systems could be adopted. However, even without answering any questions, in December 2017, the Basketball Committee recommended seeding for District tournaments as soon as possible.

At its January meeting, the MHSAA Classification Committee made a recommendation to the Representative Council that attempts to answer one of the questions. That committee agreed that if a plan is approved to separate the top two seeded teams in each geographically determined District of the Girls and Boys Basketball Tournaments, the system used should be completely controlled within the MHSAA office.

Of course, many other questions and logistical details need to be answered. Do we only use games versus member schools? What do we do with unreported scores? When is the data finalized? Should human input be added to the computer ratings? Do seeded teams automatically get a bye? How and when do we assign officials?

Answering such questions must come next.