Logo

Research

November 21, 2014

We freely admit that a state high school association is much better at running tournaments than conducting research. First as athletes and then as coaches, most of us got in the habit of processing information quickly and making fast decisions. Now as administrators, our member schools depend on us for quick answers because the contest our answer may affect is scheduled this week, or tomorrow, or tonight.
However, there is a small body of research that is unique to the MHSAA. Like our counterpoint organizations across the US, we keep the regular-season and postseason tournament records and we have the data for officials registrations, student participation and tournament attendance. Our uniqueness is in two areas.
First, the MHSAA has surveyed its member schools about participation fees (a.k.a., pay-for-play) every school year since 2003-04. This is the longest running survey and largest body of information on this topic anywhere. You can find all the results at MHSAA.com here.
Second, the MHSAA has surveyed middle school students three times – in 1997-98, 2001-02, and 2008-09 – and is doing so again this month, to assess what sports they are currently engaged in and are most interested in playing as high school students.
It is this survey that was partly responsible for the MHSAA’s addition of lacrosse and bowling tournaments in 2005 and 2006, the two most recent additions to the MHSAA postseason tournament schedule.

No. 1 Worries

December 27, 2017

Editor's Note: This blog originally was posted Sept. 21, 2012, and the theme rings true today.

Fueled by the “No. 1” syndrome, people often worry about and value the wrong things when it comes to interscholastic athletics.

For example, they worry about the eligibility of athletes more than the education of students.  They worry about athletic scholarships to college more than genuine scholarship in high school.  Faced with financial shortfalls, they use middle school athletics as the whipping boy because the No. 1 syndrome causes people to value varsity programs more than junior varsity, and high school programs more than middle school.

It is possible in the subvarsity programs of our high schools (far more than in varsity programs where crowds and media bring pressure to win) and it should be and usually is pervasive in our middle school programs, that participation is more important than specialization, trying more important than winning, teamwork more important than individual honors, and teaching more important than titles and trophies.

At the middle school level, coaches have an opportunity to look down the bench for substitutes without first looking up at the scoreboard.  The scorebook should be kept to see how many students played in the game, not how many points any one player scored.

Here is where education prevails over entertainment in interscholastic athletics.  Here is where philosophy of athletics is more in tune with the mission of the school.  Here is where the taxpayer’s dollar is spent best.

To the degree we introduce large tournaments and trophies into middle level programs, we damage the purity of educational athletics and the purpose of middle school programs.  To the degree we cut middle level programs in the face of budget crises, we succumb to the No. 1 syndrome.

We must expose the No. 1 syndrome for the sickness it is:  a cancerous growth that must be cut out of educational athletics before it leads to cutting out what is arguably the most educational parts of interscholastic athletics:  middle school programs.