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 To more certainly assure that future role, we should be doing more than merely adjusting our outdated junior high/middle school programming to fit the modern world where children begin to play at younger ages and compete at higher levels than is currently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

Scheduling Controversy

November 14, 2017

A dozen years ago, I asked our counterpart organizations in other states if they scheduled their schools’ regular-season varsity football games. Very few did so.

More recently, I’ve realized that I didn’t ask enough questions. It turns out that few statewide high school associations tell schools who they play each week of the regular season. However, many more give schools the group of opponents they may schedule. They place schools in leagues and/or districts and/or regions and instruct schools to schedule from among those schools only or predominantly.

I have been waiting for the tipping point where a sufficient number of high schools in Michigan are sufficiently stressed over scheduling football games that they would turn to the MHSAA to solve the problem.

I’m anticipating this might occur first among schools playing 8-player football, and that success there will lead to our assistance for 11-player schools.

One approach – the simpler solution – would work like this:

  • All 8-player schools within the enrollment limit for the 8-player tournament would be placed in two divisions on the basis of enrollment in early March. About 32 schools in each, based on current participation.

  • At the same time, each division would be divided into four regions of about eight schools.

  • In April, the schools of each region would convene to schedule seven regular season games for each school.

  • Based on current numbers, schools would still have two open weeks to fill, if they wish, for games with schools in other regions or of the other division or in neighboring states.

A second option – the date-specific solution – would provide every school its weekly schedule for all nine dates, or weeks 1 through 8, or weeks 2 through 8, depending on local preferences. This would not be difficult in concept once there is agreement on what criteria would be used and what value each criterion would have.

For example, one important criterion would be similarity of enrollment; another of great value would be proximity. Perhaps league affiliation would be a factor with some value. Perhaps historic rivalries would be another factor with a value. Then the computer spits out schedules for each school for every week for two years, home and away.

I don’t campaign for this task because, frankly, it will produce complaints and controversy. But if this organization exists to serve, then this is a service that today’s chronic complaints tell us we should begin to provide soon.

I suggest we do this for 8-player football for the 2019 and 2020 seasons (with a paper trial run for 2018). If it proves successful, we could expand the service to 11-player schools as soon after as they are satisfied with our efforts for 8-player schools.