Redefining Winning (and Losing)
March 9, 2018
There’s been much media attention given to a boys basketball game in another state that turned into a brawl led by adult fans and resulted in suspension of both schools’ seasons and dismissal of both schools’ teams from the state basketball tournament.
From a thousand miles away, I can’t comment on who’s at fault or whether the penalty fits the crime. However, I shout a hearty “Amen!” to what that state’s high school association executive director had to say, according to one of the state’s major newspapers.
“We have too many people putting too much emphasis on winning, or on the wrong definition of winning. Their definition of winning is on the scoreboard only. It’s become a very big problem, and it’s not the (state association’s) definition of winning.”
He continued, “Sportsmanship has been eroded. We’re supposed to be teaching ethics, integrity and character to these kids ...”
Spot on!
The biggest challenge we face in school sports administration across the country is communicating amidst the clutter of contradictory messages that the definition of winning – the meaning of success – is very different in student-centered, school-sponsored competitive athletics than in most other popular brands of sports.
This is educational athletics. It’s about learning far, far more than about winning, which is an important goal but nowhere near the highest objective in interscholastic athletics.
If we lose this perspective, all is lost.
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.