Logo

Raising Expectations for Preparedness

February 15, 2013

Over the next four years we will be exploring for and implementing what we hope are both effective and practical means of raising expectations for coaches preparedness.  Three avenues are on our map at this time:

First, it is proposed that by school year 2014-15, all MHSAA member high schools will be required to certify that all assistant and subvarsity coaches at the high school level complete the same online rules meeting (with health and safety component) that is required of head coaches or they must complete one of the free online sports safety courses posted on or linked to MHSAA.com.

Second, it is proposed that by 2015-16, MHSAA member high schools will be required to certify that all of their varsity head coaches have a valid CPR certification prior to their second year of coaching at any MHSAA member school.

Third, it is proposed that by 2016-17, all varsity head coaches of MHSAA member high school teams have completed either Level 1 or Level 2 of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program prior to their third year of coaching at any MHSAA member high school.  The MHSAA is preparing to subsidize some of the course cost for every coach who completes Level 1 or 2.

Together, these changes will move Michigan from one of the states of fewest coaching requirements to a position consistent with the “best practices” for minimizing risk in school sports and providing students a healthy experience.

 The MHSAA Representative Council has not yet scheduled a vote on these proposals.

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.