Summer School Sports
October 14, 2014
We are talking statewide about changes in MHSAA policies that some constituents think are overdue but that many other constituents find are over the top. For example:
- Permitting MHSAA member junior high/middle schools to engage students prior to the 7th grade, and to schedule longer contests, more contests and even MHSAA Regional tournaments; and
- Permitting member school coaches to engage more with their student-athletes outside their defined school sports seasons.
From my perspective, these are the kinds of moves to make to assure a future for school-based sports, for wherever and whenever we have paused or imposed a restriction, there and then non-school coaches, programs and “handlers” have moved in; and some of them have not played nicely. And the more I’ve seen non-school currents pollute the waters of school sports, the less I’ve wanted to restrict the engagement of school coaches out of season or confine school sports to traditional seasons.
What we are talking about today are not only overdue changes, they are insufficient if we really want to return school sports to the central, most coveted and compelling sports experience for youth. To more certainly assure that future role, we should be doing more than merely adjusting our outdated junior high/middle school programming to fit the modern world where children begin to play at younger ages and compete at higher levels than is currently allowed for MHSAA member schools. Our 1950s philosophy for the junior high/middle school level does not fit 2014 reality.
But we shouldn’t stop there. We should also be rethinking and retooling the high school level with an innovative school-sponsored and conducted summer season that includes school seasons and MHSAA tournaments in ...
- Coed team tennis.
- Coed golf in the Ryder Cup format.
- Non-contact 7-on-7 football for boys, and flag football for girls.
And there obviously could be much more that would be fun and engaging and educational for our students.
Certainly, there will be objections, and most will center on finances. But if non-school sports have figured out ways to finance programs in what are now our off seasons, we too can figure out ways to pay for our new summertime programs.
Correctable Error?
May 30, 2017
A decade has passed since the court-ordered change in several sports seasons for Michigan high schools. Ten years has brought resignation more than satisfaction; and yet there remains hope in some places that the new status quo is not permanent, at least for those sports seasons changes that were and are seen by many people as collateral damage in a fight over seasons for girls basketball and volleyball.
Actually, the lawsuit sought to place all girls seasons in the same seasons as boys, like college schedules. The federal court did not require simultaneous scheduling; but the court did bring the intercollegiate mindset to the case. It determined, regardless of other facts, that the intercollegiate season was the “advantageous” season for high school sports. And the principle upon which it approved the compliance plan for high school sports in Michigan was that if all the seasons were not simultaneous for boys and girls, then there should be rough equality in the number of boys and girls assigned to “disadvantageous” seasons.
So, for example, from the federal court’s perspective, fall is the advantageous season for soccer, winter for swimming & diving, and spring for tennis. As for golf, the court opined that, even though it’s not the season of the NCAA championships, maybe fall was the better season. The court began with tortured logic and ended with hypocrisy.
As a result, in the Lower Peninsula, regardless of the preferences of the people involved, girls and boys had to switch seasons in two sports to even up the number of boys seasons and girls seasons in what the court had determined were disadvantageous. Schools thought the switch of golf and tennis for the genders was less injurious than switching soccer and swimming.
In the Upper Peninsula, because swimming and golf are combined for the genders in the winter and spring, respectively, the court’s option was to switch boys and girls seasons for either soccer or tennis. The schools chose soccer as the least disruptive change.
As people count the damaging effects and think about challenging the court-ordered placements a decade later, they must understand the court was looking for balance, for having the genders share the burden of participating in disadvantageous seasons. Moving Lower Peninsula boys golf to join girls in the fall and/or switching Lower Peninsula boys and girls tennis back to what was preferred and in place before judicial interference would recreate the imbalance the federal court conjured up and sought to remedy.
Those of us involved see many advantages to conducting fall golf for both genders in the Lower Peninsula and switching Lower Peninsula tennis seasons for boys and girls, no matter when colleges schedule those sports or how impractical the court’s logic and how inconsistently it was applied. Nevertheless, correcting the court’s errors could be both contentious and costly.