Wakeup Call
January 8, 2016
For many years we have observed and heard about the negative effect of non-school basketball on the high school game – the emphasis on offense more than defense, competition more than practice, fast-breaks more than fundamentals, etc.
It has also been widely reported that the atmosphere surrounding non-school basketball feeds undue influence and athletic-related transfers that trouble high school basketball and tarnish the trophies of some of the teams advancing in MHSAA tournaments.
We also observe that an increasing number of high school games are being arranged in a format that is typical of non-school basketball. It’s a steady stream of games from early morning to late at night, arranged by outside entities who spare local high school athletic directors the work of administering the game, but who retain all of the revenue for themselves, sharing none with schools.
The promoters say they don’t need to provide revenue to the school because they are providing a platform for the players. So, as with non-school basketball, it’s becoming less about school and team and more about a few star players and the next level.
This is not really school-sponsored, educational athletics. It’s becoming a recruiting service.
Schools better wake up, and take back their program!
Transfers
January 10, 2017
When it comes to transfers, the staff of the Michigan High School Athletic Association gets lots of advice, but it comes from opposing directions.
One camp thinks MHSAA rules are inadequate. This group suggests that we expand the basic period of ineligibility from approximately 90 days to 180 days and/or it wants the MHSAA to eliminate most or all exceptions that allow for immediate eligibility of a transfer student.
This first camp is so frustrated with high-profile athletic-motivated or related transfers that they want to clamp down on all transfers.
The other camp thinks parents have the right and responsibility to send their children to any school they wish and have immediate access to the full benefits of that school’s curricular and extracurricular offerings.
This second camp is encouraged by the laws of Michigan which have gradually extended “schools of choice” as an option that all school districts may exercise. And this camp will be emboldened if the Secretary of Education under the new regime in Washington, D.C. is the long-time schools of choice advocate who has been nominated by the President-Elect for this position.
This second camp is on the right side of history, no matter how much I dislike it and no matter how convinced I am that the better way to have improved public education would have been to invest more in neighborhood schools. Improving them builds most communities. Ignoring them, as we have for 25 years, sends surrounding communities into downward spirals that worsen poverty and public health.
The ill-advised efforts to improve education by enticing students out of their neighborhoods to attend schools elsewhere has undermined “local ownership” in schools; and it has had the side effect of encouraging more transfers motivated by or related to athletics. Monitoring and managing such transfers is made more difficult by these educational reforms; but the new world will not tolerate transfer rules that are seen as too broad and contrary to what has become public policy, however poorly conceived and executed.
The fact is, the future of the transfer rule will be less about extending its reach and more about retaining its existence.