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.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.