We Get It

November 4, 2011

Participation in high school sports, both nationally and in Michigan, increased in 2010-11 versus the year before.  It was the 22nd consecutive year of increases nationally, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations.

The National Federation also conducted a first-of-its-kind attendance survey that tells us in 2009-10 that there were more than a half billion spectators at high school sporting events across the country.  There were more than two and a half times as many fans attending high school basketball and football contests as attended college and professional contests combined in those sports.

We should be excited about our programs and encouraged by their historical popularity and continuing growth.  But clearly, we are not.  In fact, we are a discouraged bunch.

We are discouraged because, behind the good numbers that are reported, we see serious erosion – a subtle “slip-sliding away” of the principles and the popularity of school-based sports.  In spite of the good numbers, we sense that all is not well in educational athletics.

In many places athletic directors are losing their full-time dedicated positions, which are essential to oversee a program of high participation, large crowds, great emotion and some risk of injury.  In many places students are losing participation opportunities, which are essential components of a complete education necessary to prepare young people for the increasingly complicated and competitive world which they are about to enter.

We get it at the MHSAA.  We know what’s happening.  Not only do we get it, we also get the hundreds of calls from coaches who don’t have an athletic director available to answer their questions.  And we get the hundreds and hundreds of calls from parents and others who can find neither a coach nor an athletic director available to address their concerns or answer their questions.  Almost every time a school district dials down its oversight of the interscholastic athletic program, its constituents dial up the MHSAA to answer their questions and address their concerns.

Less money for and less oversight of school sports is a combination tailor-made for problems – for ineligible students and forfeits, for crowd control and sportsmanship problems, and for injuries; and in all cases, for the controversies that follow.  There are smarter places to make cuts in our schools and still turn out smart kids.
 

Questions for 8-Player Football

November 22, 2016

Two things happened during the 2016 football season that were not unexpected but which now require discussion leading to action:

  1. The 2016 football season was the first during which the number of Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D high schools sponsoring 8-player teams exceeded the number of Class D schools sponsoring 11-player teams: 48 playing 8-player football; 40 playing the 11-player game.

  2. The 2016 8-Player Football Playoffs was the first to exclude a six-win team ... in fact, two of them ... from the 16-team field and four-week format.

The original plan for the 8-player tournament called for expansion to a 32-team field and a five-week format when the number of MHSAA Class D member schools sponsoring a full season of the 8-player game exceeded 40 for several years. Having now reached the point of expansion, many questions are being raised. For example:

Are Class D schools served well by a 32-team field and a five-week format, like the 11-player tournament? Or, would two 16-team divisions and continuing the four-week format be best?

The two 16-team divisions would have the benefits of smaller enrollment differences between the largest and smallest schools of each division, as well as a one-week shorter season – both of which might be preferred from the standpoint of participant health and safety.

Under neither format is it likely that the championship game(s) would be held at Ford Field. The facility has a long-standing commitment for the Friday and Saturday before Thanksgiving, when the four-week format concludes; and there is not room for a fifth game on either Friday or Saturday after Thanksgiving when the eight championship games of the 11-player tournament are conducted.

These discussions regarding the 8-player tournament field and format will invite other discussions. For example, Class C schools that sponsor 8-player teams which are ineligible for the 8-player tournament that is limited to Class D schools only, will ask for a tournament opportunity; but their inclusion in the 8-player tournament will be resisted by Class D schools.

There are people who will advocate that the 11-player tournament should be reduced from eight divisions to seven; and that Division 8 be for the 8-player tournament, with 32 teams and a five-week format concluding at Ford Field on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Of course, this reduces by 32 the total number of teams that will qualify for the MHSAA Football Playoff experience.

We must keep in mind that every enhancement of the 8-player experience invites more conversions from the 11-player to 8-player game, and every conversion makes life a little more difficult for remaining 11-player teams, especially for smaller schools. For example:

  • Remaining Class D 11-player schools have fewer like-sized opponents to schedule during the regular season, and they must travel further to play them.

  • Some remaining 11-player schools in Classes D, C and B find themselves playing in playoff divisions with larger schools than was the case a few years ago.

The reintroduction of 8-player football in Michigan high schools in 2011 was generally praised; but we knew even then that the day would come when the new benefits for some would create new hardships for others. The discussions needed now will require coaches and administrators to examine the effects of change on others as well as on themselves, and to be fair with their responses and recommendations.