Logo

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 To more certainly assure that future role, we should be doing more than merely adjusting our outdated junior high/middle school programming to fit the modern world where children begin to play at younger ages and compete at higher levels than is currently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.

Questions for 8-Player Football

November 22, 2016

Two things happened during the 2016 football season that were not unexpected but which now require discussion leading to action:

  1. The 2016 football season was the first during which the number of Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D high schools sponsoring 8-player teams exceeded the number of Class D schools sponsoring 11-player teams: 48 playing 8-player football; 40 playing the 11-player game.

  2. The 2016 8-Player Football Playoffs was the first to exclude a six-win team ... in fact, two of them ... from the 16-team field and four-week format.

The original plan for the 8-player tournament called for expansion to a 32-team field and a five-week format when the number of MHSAA Class D member schools sponsoring a full season of the 8-player game exceeded 40 for several years. Having now reached the point of expansion, many questions are being raised. For example:

Are Class D schools served well by a 32-team field and a five-week format, like the 11-player tournament? Or, would two 16-team divisions and continuing the four-week format be best?

The two 16-team divisions would have the benefits of smaller enrollment differences between the largest and smallest schools of each division, as well as a one-week shorter season – both of which might be preferred from the standpoint of participant health and safety.

Under neither format is it likely that the championship game(s) would be held at Ford Field. The facility has a long-standing commitment for the Friday and Saturday before Thanksgiving, when the four-week format concludes; and there is not room for a fifth game on either Friday or Saturday after Thanksgiving when the eight championship games of the 11-player tournament are conducted.

These discussions regarding the 8-player tournament field and format will invite other discussions. For example, Class C schools that sponsor 8-player teams which are ineligible for the 8-player tournament that is limited to Class D schools only, will ask for a tournament opportunity; but their inclusion in the 8-player tournament will be resisted by Class D schools.

There are people who will advocate that the 11-player tournament should be reduced from eight divisions to seven; and that Division 8 be for the 8-player tournament, with 32 teams and a five-week format concluding at Ford Field on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Of course, this reduces by 32 the total number of teams that will qualify for the MHSAA Football Playoff experience.

We must keep in mind that every enhancement of the 8-player experience invites more conversions from the 11-player to 8-player game, and every conversion makes life a little more difficult for remaining 11-player teams, especially for smaller schools. For example:

  • Remaining Class D 11-player schools have fewer like-sized opponents to schedule during the regular season, and they must travel further to play them.

  • Some remaining 11-player schools in Classes D, C and B find themselves playing in playoff divisions with larger schools than was the case a few years ago.

The reintroduction of 8-player football in Michigan high schools in 2011 was generally praised; but we knew even then that the day would come when the new benefits for some would create new hardships for others. The discussions needed now will require coaches and administrators to examine the effects of change on others as well as on themselves, and to be fair with their responses and recommendations.