Logo

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.
The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.
Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.
The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.
Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.
If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.

Penalty Points

August 26, 2016

The five years that followed the adoption of a tougher transfer rule in the early 1980s were the busiest ever for Michigan High School Athletic Association lawyers. The tough rule made sense to parents until it applied to their own children, and was defended by coaches until applied to their own players.

The most recent five years have provided the most significant toughening of MHSAA rules in the 30 years since the contentious early ‘80s, most notably (1) adopting the athletic-related transfer rule (“links law”) that doubles the length of ineligibility for some transfer students who do not make a full and complete residential change, and (2) lengthening the maximum penalty for undue influence from up to one year to up to four years for students and adults involved.

Predictably, the recently enhanced rules have led to increases in challenges to the enforcement of those rules. What were good rules in theory sometimes have been challenged when put into actual practice. Ironically, the MHSAA has received criticism from some insiders that penalties have been too severe, and from a few outsiders that penalties have been too light. Which means we are reading these situations just about right.

It is MHSAA policy not to issue statements at the time penalties are assessed unless the penalties have a direct and immediate effect on MHSAA postseason tournament eligibility or progression. This is fitting for a voluntary association of schools which have the legal responsibility of enforcing rules as to their own students, coaches and others. The MHSAA does not want to embarrass member schools; and in those rare instances when it is necessary to issue a public statement of an action taken or to clarify an MHSAA policy or procedure, the MHSAA avoids identifying minor students and most adults who are the subjects of penalties.

While these procedures have served school-sponsored sports well in Michigan since the founding of the MHSAA, it is possible that the increase of 24/7/365 electronic communications produced by decreasingly professional/experienced/ethical personnel requires change. Taking full-body slams by media who have less than half the facts is not just a nuisance to the MHSAA, it’s disparaging to the goodness of the school sports brand.