What We Do

August 16, 2012

It is not infrequent that suggestions are made that the MHSAA do something it is not presently doing, the something being a project or problem that conforms to the special interest of the one making the suggestion. That person will usually be incredulous when we respond that the project or problem is beyond the authority of the MHSAA or beyond the capacity of the MHSAA’s resources. The criticism is at least implied that if the MHSAA really cared about kids, it would do this thing that is important to the critic.

So, how does the MHSAA decide what it will do?

  • The first criterion is to determine if the subject matter is a school district-wide concern or is sport-specific. If the former – like sexual harassment sensitivity training – then it is school districts’ responsibility to provide the service for all their faculty, including athletic personnel.  If the subject matter is sport-specific – like weight control in wrestling – then the MHSAA should consider the possibility that it is the organization uniquely positioned to assist by providing leadership and support services to its membership in this narrow area of athletic-related concern.
  • The second criterion is to determine if there are any other agencies, institutions or organizations better positioned or more capable to provide the service.  For example, the American Red Cross is already in place with programs and personnel to provide first aid, CPR and sports safety training to athletic personnel throughout Michigan.  So even though it is sports-related, it might create wasteful duplication for the MHSAA to start doing what the American Red Cross is fully capable of, prepared to do and already doing.

  • The third criterion for determining what the MHSAA will do is to ascertain what its member schools want the association to help with. Schools have asked for assistance in establishing a minimum rule for the eligibility of transfer students; therefore, the MHSAA has promulgated such a standard for local adoption.  But school districts have not asked for assistance in establishing rules regarding eligibility after tobacco and alcohol use or after allegations or convictions for crimes or misdemeanors; therefore, no MHSAA minimum standards exist.

The MHSAA provides services in the sports sub-set of issues with which schools must deal, and only after the MHSAA membership identifies the need and the MHSAA leadership prioritizes all of the identified needs and provides the resources necessary to address the needs of highest priority.

Correctable Error?

May 30, 2017

A decade has passed since the court-ordered change in several sports seasons for Michigan high schools. Ten years has brought resignation more than satisfaction; and yet there remains hope in some places that the new status quo is not permanent, at least for those sports seasons changes that were and are seen by many people as collateral damage in a fight over seasons for girls basketball and volleyball.

Actually, the lawsuit sought to place all girls seasons in the same seasons as boys, like college schedules. The federal court did not require simultaneous scheduling; but the court did bring the intercollegiate mindset to the case. It determined, regardless of other facts, that the intercollegiate season was the “advantageous” season for high school sports. And the principle upon which it approved the compliance plan for high school sports in Michigan was that if all the seasons were not simultaneous for boys and girls, then there should be rough equality in the number of boys and girls assigned to “disadvantageous” seasons.

So, for example, from the federal court’s perspective, fall is the advantageous season for soccer, winter for swimming & diving, and spring for tennis. As for golf, the court opined that, even though it’s not the season of the NCAA championships, maybe fall was the better season. The court began with tortured logic and ended with hypocrisy. 

As a result, in the Lower Peninsula, regardless of the preferences of the people involved, girls and boys had to switch seasons in two sports to even up the number of boys seasons and girls seasons in what the court had determined were disadvantageous. Schools thought the switch of golf and tennis for the genders was less injurious than switching soccer and swimming.

In the Upper Peninsula, because swimming and golf are combined for the genders in the winter and spring, respectively, the court’s option was to switch boys and girls seasons for either soccer or tennis. The schools chose soccer as the least disruptive change.

As people count the damaging effects and think about challenging the court-ordered placements a decade later, they must understand the court was looking for balance, for having the genders share the burden of participating in disadvantageous seasons. Moving Lower Peninsula boys golf to join girls in the fall and/or switching Lower Peninsula boys and girls tennis back to what was preferred and in place before judicial interference would recreate the imbalance the federal court conjured up and sought to remedy.

Those of us involved see many advantages to conducting fall golf for both genders in the Lower Peninsula and switching Lower Peninsula tennis seasons for boys and girls, no matter when colleges schedule those sports or how impractical the court’s logic and how inconsistently it was applied. Nevertheless, correcting the court’s errors could be both contentious and costly.