Why We Do What We Do
March 24, 2017
The vast majority of daily activities of Michigan High School Athletic Association staff revolve around communicating the meaning of educational athletics. That’s why we do most of what we do.
That’s the No. 1 duty of John Johnson in all things broadcasting for the MHSAA. It’s the No. 1 duty of Geoff Kimmerly in managing the MHSAA’s Second Half website with hundreds of positive stories about kids, coaches, officials and administrators. It’s the No. 1 duty of Rob Kaminski in managing MHSAA.com, in producing souvenir programs for MHSAA tournaments and publishing benchmarks magazine.
Communicating the meaning of educational athletics is the No. 1 reason I post 104 blogs every year. It’s the “why” of our Scholar-Athlete program, of the Student Advisory Council, of the Battle of the Fans, of our social media presence, of our Captains Clinics and Sportsmanship Summits, of the Coaches Advancement Program, Athletic Director In-Service programs and both MHSAA.tv and the NFHS Network.
When we conduct MHSAA tournaments, two things happen: (1) kids and coaches get an opportunity to shine; and (2) we get the opportunity to tell the story of school sports.
When we enforce rules, two things happen: (1) we pursue fairness and safety in competition in that case particularly; and (2) we promote the principles of educational athletics generally.
The job we have is event management, and it’s eligibility management; but most of all, the job is message management.
Student-Centered Coaching
August 1, 2017
The November 1929 Bulletin of the Michigan High School Athletic Association includes this editorial reprinted from the Oct. 7, 1929 Grand Rapids Herald which invites discussion about what more we might do to promote leadership and sportsmanship in school-sponsored sports today.
“Football teams of Greenville and Ionia high schools Saturday introduced an innovation the nature of which challenges consideration of other Michigan schools. From the time the first whistle blew for Saturday’s game until its close the professional coaches employed by the two schools had no contact with players. Between the halves the usual harangue by the coach was dispensed with in favor of a review of play by players. * * * The result of such a policy is unsullied amateurism along the lines we often have urged. The players are on their own. They do their own thinking as well as playing. Under the system as usually followed the coach sits on the sidelines. If he sees an opportunity for a plan of play differing from that being followed he sends in a substitute who carries instructions: ‘Stick to forward passes. Bang away at their left end,’ etc. Between the halves the coach points out faults and emphasizes opportunities for the final half. In net effect the coach directs the play. The initiative of captain or quarterback is permitted only so long as the coach approves. Under the Greenville system the captain is the only recognized leader of the team. He directs substitutions, orders plays, advises players, etc. At Greenville school boys played against school boys. On other western Michigan gridirons a coach is the 12th member of every team. * * * The plan adopted at Greenville was suggested by President Angell of Yale in his annual report for 1927-28. He urged that, ‘There is a wide and well-grounded sentiment that the control of our games should be put back more fully into the hands of the players.’ Yale has not heeded Prexy Angell’s advice, but the New York State Public High School Athletic Association has adopted it as also have some Detroit high schools. It takes the sting of professionalism out of the scholastic game. The able coach still has ample opportunity to prove his worth in teaching the fundamentals of the game and in developing ‘football brains’; but when the whistle blows it is high school team against high school team. What’s the matter with trying that in Grand Rapids? What, if any, are the arguments against it?”