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!
Our Own Worst Enemies
September 26, 2017
The early history of school sports was in four phases. It began as activities that students alone would organize. Then schools saw the need to supervise. Then schools created statewide high school athletic associations to standardize. Then a national federation of those state associations brought an end to corporate and college efforts to nationalize school sports. All of this between the U.S. Civil War and World War II.
The entire history of school sports has had one overriding narrative. Inherent in the struggles that defined each phase of the early history, and every decade since, has been the struggle between those who believe competitive athletics is an asset for schools intent on educating students in body, mind and spirit, versus those who believe interscholastic athletic programs are a distraction at best and, at worst, damaging to the character development of students. There is much evidence to support both sides of this long debate.
Sometimes, the advocates for school-sponsored sports have been, and are, their own worst enemies. What the advocates of school sports must realize is that the more they do to enlarge the scope of school sports ... more games, longer seasons, further travel, escalating hype ... the more they prove that the opponents of school sports have been correct.
As they encourage the chasm between athletics and academics and between school sports' haves and have-nots to widen; as sports teams are outfitted in uniforms that are fancier and funded for travel that is further, while classroom resources are fewer; as sportsmanship declines and athletic transfers increase; the so-called “progressive” thinkers help make the case that competitive athletics is bad for students, schools and society.
Opposition to escalation in school sports is not old fashioned; it's the only way to assure the future of sports in schools ... the only way to save school sports from itself.