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.

Improving Concussion Data

August 18, 2017

The Michigan High School Athletic Association’s 750 member high schools reported nearly 500 fewer concussions for the 2016-17 school year than the year before – 11 percent fewer.

That’s good news, but it’s not a trend we can bank on. It’s too soon to do that. There are too many variables that might explain or contribute to the decline from 4,452 to 3,958 concussions.

Related Story | 2016-17 Summary Report

But of this we are certain: Schools are taking head injuries seriously. It is not a lack of concern or a lack of care in reporting that has led to the 11 percent decline.

It’s more likely the second year’s data is just better than the first year. The process was better understood. The numbers are more accurate.

Our data will become most reliable and useful when we have several years to compare and analyze. Only then will we really know where the trouble spots remain; and only then can those areas be most effectively addressed.