Mixed Messages
November 27, 2013
One of the very few enjoyable aspects of waiting in an airport is the guiltless time it allows me to visit its bookstores and page slowly through some of the old classics I vaguely remember and the new releases I can’t wait to read.
Two months ago in one of the terminals of Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, my attention went quickly to a prominent display of books about football. Five titles were mostly critical of the game, focusing on the sport at the major college and professional levels. Down at the bottom of the display was one title that addressed the positive value of football to students, schools and communities.
One month ago, while I was eating breakfast, the television news reported on the results of new research about youth concussions. While the narration mentioned multiple sports, the video was mostly of football. I saw that story repeated on another television channel that evening. I wondered, how many times on how many channels did how many people get this gift of the latest youth concussion statistics for all sports presented in football-only wrapping paper?
The public is getting mixed messages about school-sponsored football. The problem of college and professional football is not the problem of school-sponsored football. And what problems of head trauma that do exist in school sports are not exclusively problems of football.
In fact, school-sponsored football has never been freer of serious injury than it is today – that’s true whether we are talking about heads, necks, knees or nicks. It’s the result of the most careful and cautious rules making, coaching and officiating ever. And it’s safer – not less so – as we ever more quickly assess and refer injuries to ever more educated and capable health care professionals.
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.