Bowl Games Are Bad
October 6, 2014
A misguided marketing firm is trying again, this time attempting to bribe schools and state high school associations to bend or break their rules. A national media chain is trumpeting the plan to give some legs to its foolish national rankings. So there is some buzz about the plan, but no brains.
At a time when concerns rage for excessive head contact and concussions in football, no responsible party would for a single second think seriously about adding more football practices or games for school-age players.
Well before late December, high school football has ended, and winter sports are well underway with practices and competition that are far more important than several more weeks of practice and another game of football.
How could we ever allow one team to have an extra month more of football practice than all others? How is that fair to all the other football teams?
The answer is that it’s not fair to the football programs of other schools; it’s not fair to the other sports at the school involved; and it’s not healthy for the football players involved.
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.