Risk Minimization Reaches More
May 9, 2014
Every season – fall, winter and spring – the MHSAA launches a series of sport-specific rules/risk management meetings, completion of which has been a requirement for high school varsity head coaches and MHSAA registered officials who want to coach or officiate in the MHSAA tournament for that sport. Two significant changes will occur for the 2014-15 school year.
For the first time in 2014-15, all assistant and subvarsity high school coaches must complete the same meeting requirement as the high school varsity head coach or, in the alternative, they must complete one of seven free online health and safety courses that are posted on MHSAA.com and designated to fulfill this requirement. High school athletic directors must certify each season, three times a year, that all their assistant and subvarsity coaches for that season have completed that requirement.
Also, for the first time in 2014-15, the MHSAA will be posting content for officials that differs from the content for coaches. While coaches are being given a review of select Handbook regulations, for example, officials will be reminded of key elements of effective officiating, regardless of the sport or level of competition.
These new policies are intended to bring more relevant content to a greater number of those who work with student-athletes and to further emphasize risk minimization in educational athletics.
In 2013-14, slightly more than 20,000 coaches and officials completed the MHSAA rules/risk management meeting requirement. The number will greatly exceed 100,000 in 2014-15.
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.