Unjustified
December 11, 2015
The MHSAA has taken some unjustified criticism about the last-minute cancellation or relocation of several boys basketball games scheduled for the University of Detroit-Mercy earlier this week.
Unjustified because we would have liked the event to have been successful for our schools involved and a venue (Calihan Hall) we use often for MHSAA events.
Unjustified because the failure to follow interstate sanctioning rules was not our fault.
Unjustified because those who were in charge failed to respond to several outreaches well in advance of the event that were intended to inform or remind the organizers to seek and obtain proper approvals.
Unjustified because those approvals are a required part of the sanctioning policies and procedures of the national organization to which we belong, and which applied as much to the out-of-state schools as to our own.
Unjustified because critics now blame the problem on travel distance restrictions, which was not the issue at all. The travel was well within the generous limitations that exist.
What was at issue was the requirement that interstate events that are sponsored or co-sponsored by entities other than member schools must have the prior approval of each of the state high school associations involved, as well as the approval of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS). This flows from the original purpose of the NFHS which was to bring accountability to interstate events at the high school level operated by colleges and commercial organizations.
We expect our schools to follow established rules of their state association, and we try to model that expectation by following the rules that apply to the MHSAA within its national organization.
Eight-Player Options
March 10, 2017
Put this in the category of “No good deed goes unpunished.”
In 2011, the MHSAA provided an additional playoff for Class D schools sponsoring 8-player football. This helped save football in some schools and helped return the game of football to other schools. But now that the number of 8-player programs has expanded from two dozen in 2011 to more than 60, there are complaints:
-
Some complaints come out of a sense of entitlement that all final games in both the 8-player and 11-player tournament deserve to be played at Ford Field.
-
Some complaints come from Class C schools whose enrollments are too large for the 8-player tournament. Class C schools which sponsor the 8-player game have no tournament at all in which to play, regardless of where the finals might be held.
-
Some complaints come from Class D schools which protest any suggestion that Class C schools – even the smallest – be allowed to play in the 8-player tournament.
There are now three scenarios emerging as the most likely future for 8-player football:
-
The original plan ... A five-week, 32-team tournament for Class D schools only, with the finals at a site to be determined, but probably not Ford Field.
-
Alternative #1 ... Reduce the 11-player tournament to seven divisions and make Division 8 the 8-player tournament with 32 Class D teams in a five-week tournament, ending at Ford Field.
-
Alternative #2 ... Conduct the 8-player tournament in two divisions of 16 Class D teams, competing in a four-week playoff ending in a double-header at the Superior Dome on the Saturday before Thanksgiving.
The pros and cons of these options are being widely discussed. Sometimes the discussions have a tone that is critical of the MHSAA, which comes from those who forget that it was the MHSAA itself which moved in 2011 to protect and promote football by adding the 8-player playoff tournament option for its smallest member schools. That Class D schools now feel entitled to the Ford Field opportunity and Class C schools want access to an 8-player tournament is not unexpected; but criticism of the MHSAA’s efforts is not deserved.