MHSA(Q&)A: Football Coaches Jim Ahern and Brad Weber
August 31, 2012
Pewamo-Westphalia football coach Brad Weber and Lansing Catholic's Jim Ahern had experienced plenty of success long before the end of last season.
But this month marked the first time either had returned to the sideline after a trip to the MHSAA Finals.
Their teams faced off on opening night at Holt Junior High, the Cougars' home field. Gone were Lansing Catholic's all-state quarterback-receiver tandem that helped the Cougars finish Division 5 runner-up last fall, as well as the large group of standout se
niors who guided the Pirates to the Division 7 Final.
But the coaches are back for more, and we caught up briefly with both after Lansing Catholic's 45-21 win. (Lansing Catholic fell to 1-1 this week with a loss at Saginaw Nouvel, while P-W improved to 1-1 with a win over Potterville.)
This has to be the most unfamiliar group you've had at Lansing Catholic?
Ahern: They're a good group from the standpoint that they have a lot of team chemistry. They're a close-knit group, and they've worked extremely hard in the offseason. I know every coach says that. But this, probably of all the groups I've had, has really worked hard. We were a little nervous. We had a lot of kids playing in spots where they hadn't been there, but they settled down a little bit.
Have the players approached things differently because of how you ended up last year?
Weber: A little bit. But it's still football, and they've been playing football since sixth grade. It shouldn't be too different.
Are you (as a coach) approaching some things differently?
Weber: Yes and no. We're still getting down to business. Practices are the same. We still have a lot of energy at practice. But you do. You're looking for a little bit of the senior leadership to step up because it was so good last year. These guys kinda took it for granted, and they rode on their coat tails, and it's time for them to step up and be leaders of this team. It's 2012 now.
Ahern: Not really. Every year I tell everyone the same thing. Our goal is to win the league. If we do that, good things will happen. That's our goal -- to win the conference. ... We're still running the same stuff pretty much. We haven't changed a whole lot.
Do you have to say things to certain guys who are replacing (all-staters), like 'Do you know what you're stepping into?'"
Ahern: You don't have to remind them about it. They know it. They don't need to hear it. I think that's why they work so hard in the offseason. The bar's set pretty high for them, so they want to continue that.
Playoff Proposal Pauses
May 10, 2013
During the MHSAA Football Finals at Ford Field last November, I was approached by representatives of the Michigan High School Football Coaches Association with a request to have the MHSAA’s computing capabilities crunch the numbers for a concept that a couple of the coaches association’s members had for revising the MHSAA Football Playoff point system.
Within a few weeks the MHSAA hosted a meeting that brought together the coaches who introduced the concept with our numbers crunchers; and within a few days our staff had outlined the principles, revised the point system and retrofitted it to show how the system would have affected the 2012 playoffs.
There was initial excitement that we might be onto something, but that brief infatuation began to wane as we dug deeper and discussed the plan more widely.
The key ingredients of the proposal are (1) that a school would gain playoff points for every game its opponent wins, whether or not that school defeated that opponent, and (2) that the number of automatic qualifiers would be reduced in favor of a larger group of additional qualifiers based on a revised playoff points system that would favor schools which schedule larger and more successful opponents.
In spite of our staff’s helpfulness in bringing this proposal forward, we’ve lost optimism that it will accomplish what is hoped. Rather than making regular-season scheduling easier, it could make it harder as the “six-wins-and-in” mindset is replaced by the even worse “seven-wins-and-in” mindset. And any system that ignores a minimum number of wins and relies entirely on playoff points is even less fair than the current system to schools in the less densely populated areas of Michigan.
From our retrofitting of the proposed concept to the 2012 season, we know that teams with 6-3 records would be displaced in the playoffs by teams with 4-5 records, which is certain to go down badly and be difficult to explain to those communities. The revised point system would make it even more difficult than the current system for schools in less populated areas to find opponents of the size and strength to generate high playoff point averages without these schools driving 100, 200, 300 or more miles, one way, several times each season. For individual schools and some entire leagues, this will make football scheduling tougher, not easier. It is likely to add stress to those league affiliations, and to football scheduling generally.
In any event, there is no need to rush to 2013 or 2014 a proposal that’s called “Enhanced Strength of Schedule System” because schedules are 99 percent set for 2013 and nearly so for 2014. Even if adopted today, few schedules would be impacted before 2015. If a change like this one is to be implemented, schools must have ample notice, and our technology department must have enough time to program the new point system and then test it through an entire season.
The Representative Council acted wisely on May 6 when it paused the progress of this proposal. Some elements of it may be discussed at the MHSAA’s scheduled meetings this summer and fall.