Reality Check
July 29, 2016
In Garrison Keillor’s fictional Lake Wobegon, Minnesota, “all the children are above average.” The greater fiction is that most parents believe their children are way above average, especially when it comes to sports. On that topic most parents are badly in need of a reality check.
A colleague at the MHSAA showed me a letter from the CEO of the Amateur Athletic Union to my colleague’s eight-year-old daughter announcing that she had been selected for a national publication that would identify the brightest future stars of women’s basketball, for a fee of course. A scam certainly; but how many other people might be taken in by this, or contribute to it “just in case” because they wouldn’t want to do anything to discourage their child’s ascension to stardom?
The MHSAA’s Task Force on Multi-Sport Participation has identified delusional parents as one of the greatest contributors to athletic specialization that is too early and intense, forcing some children out of sports too soon and leading them toward a life of inactivity and obesity, while leading the chosen youth toward overuse injuries that can be equally damaging to adult fitness.
This task force is developing strategies to help inform parents of elementary children that their children will almost certainly not participate in either college or professional sports but, with adequate attention to physical fitness, nutrition and sports sampling, most children can be involved in interscholastic athletics and remain active and fit for life after high school.
Among several task force strategies are a “Reality Check” video for parent meetings and printed pieces on “What Parents Should Know” with units by medical personnel, physical educators and coaches.
These efforts won’t change the world. They are, however, a small part of what we can do, have an obligation to do and will do to promote the health and safety of this and the next generation of young people.
The Usual Suspects
December 30, 2016
It is difficult to find a year when the 11-player Football Finals of the Michigan High School Athletic Association involved more teams from southeast Michigan than appeared at Ford Field in 2016. In fact, just two counties (Oakland and Wayne) produced seven finalists. But then two counties on Michigan’s west side (Kent and Muskegon) supplied four of the 16 finalists.
Four of Michigan’s 83 counties producing 11 of 16 finalists in the 11-player championship games doesn’t’ feel like a statewide event; but one team from the Upper Peninsula, another from the Leelanau Peninsula in the northwest portion of the Lower Peninsula, and a team located along the Michigan/Ohio border remind us how large and diverse our state really is.
The 2016 MHSAA 11-player Football Finals consisted of many of the “usual suspects,” including two teams pursuing their fourth straight titles and one team seeking its third consecutive championship. Four of the eight 11-player champions from 2015 returned in the attempt to defend their titles in 2016, and two of the runners-up in 2015 were back to try to reverse their fortunes from 12 months earlier.
What is being demonstrated here in Michigan high school football is the trend seen in many other states. That is, as the number of classes or divisions of tournaments expands, the more often you see the same teams in the final rounds.
The surest way to have the “usual suspects” on championship day is to put them in tournaments with fewer schools. And of all MHSAA tournaments, the football playoffs have the most divisions with the fewest schools in each. The result is predictable.
This is a cautionary tale for those who desire that the number of classifications and divisions be expanded in MHSAA tournaments for other sports.
Meanwhile, we are keeping an eye on the tournament format in a neighboring state that places schools into divisions for larger schools after they are too successful over consecutive years in the classification that fits their enrollment. Those in Michigan who have been assigned to review such policies have complained that such “success factors” penalize future students because of the achievements of previous students and/or because such factors do nothing about “chronic success” by schools in the largest classification.