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.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.