Taking Back Their Game
December 15, 2017
Editor's Note: This blog originally was posted August 30, 2011, and the message still rings true today.
Grayling High School’s Rich Moffitt is one of our many fine high school basketball coaches, and a good portion of the heart and soul behind the MHSAA/BCAM “Reaching Higher” experience for our state’s students aspiring to play college basketball. Rich shared with us a recent article in Basketball Times written by Billy Reed, a long-time basketball writer for the Louisville Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader and Sports Illustrated. In this piece Reed urges high school basketball coaches to take back their game from the corrupting influences of street agents and summer coaches. He writes:
“I’d like to see the high school coaches publicly challenge university presidents to stop sacrificing academic integrity on the altar of the almighty sports dollar. I’d like to see them petition the NCAA to do everything possible to rid college football and basketball of the slimy street agents, summer coaches, pimps, hustlers and con artists who undermine the authority of their high school coaches and teachers.
“I’d like them to urge the NCAA to start running its own summer games instead of leaving it to the shoe companies and NBA stars, and I’d like to see them work with their state high school athletic associations to adopt rules stipulating that only certified high school coaches can coach summer teams.
“I’d also like to see the high school coaches rededicate themselves to teaching humility, civility and respect for the opposition, the public and the media instead of letting young superstars grow into rude, selfish, egotistical adults who think the same rules that apply to the rest of society don’t apply to them.”
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.