Logo

Thank Roosevelt for Football Weekends

December 20, 2013

By Rob Kaminski
MHSAA benchmarks editor

The next time you find yourself immersed in a tense crosstown football rivalry on a Friday night followed by a Saturday pilgrimage to the nearest college campus and a Sunday afternoon with a remote and your favorite snacks and beverages, take a moment to consider what the weekend would be like if it weren’t for Teddy Roosevelt.

The man who became our 26th President shortly after the turn of the 20th Century following the assassination of William McKinley in 1901 was a football fan like you. Maybe more so.

Today’s game of football has reached a critical crossroads. Player size and speed have increased across the board. Savage use of equipment as weapons rather than protective gear has been glorified on television networks and social media. Leaders of the game at all levels have recognized the need for change, employing new rules and widespread educational efforts to aid in preserving the sport.

History, as they say, is repeating itself.

In an ironic twist, it was Roosevelt who saved the then-brutally violent game of football from itself more than 100 years ago. Yes, the same “Rough and Ready Teddy” who led the charge up San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War and often sparred in the boxing ring while in office from 1901-09 opined that football was becoming so gruesome that he delivered an ultimatum: clean up the game or it would be outlawed.

The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players. Football deaths suffered by younger players were reported on a nearly weekly basis, as outraged citizens called on colleges and high schools to banish football outright.

In stepped Roosevelt, who called head coaches and representatives from Harvard, Yale and Princeton – college powers at the time – to the White House in 1905 urging them to eliminate excessive violence and set an example of fair play for the rest of the country. When the casualties actually rose by one during the ensuing season, Roosevelt reacted with greater resolve and convened leading football authorities for the purpose of authoring drastic rules changes. What emerged was an intercollegiate conference which was the predecessor of the NCAA.

Among the most effective changes for the 1906 season were the legalization of the forward pass, the elimination of mass formations, and the creation of a neutral zone. Football fatalities fell to 11 in each of the next two seasons, and severe injuries fell drastically.

Thanks to the introduction of protective equipment and ever-evolving rules changes, football during the 100-plus years to follow has become an exponentially safer game. Yet, the game’s leaders always will need to adjust and react to scrutiny that comes with the territory.

So, as the game once again undergoes rules modifications in the name of safety, give a tip of the cap to President Roosevelt while you enjoy college bowl season and the NFL playoffs and begin to think ahead to the first high school practice of 2014.

Scheduling Controversy

November 14, 2017

A dozen years ago, I asked our counterpart organizations in other states if they scheduled their schools’ regular-season varsity football games. Very few did so.

More recently, I’ve realized that I didn’t ask enough questions. It turns out that few statewide high school associations tell schools who they play each week of the regular season. However, many more give schools the group of opponents they may schedule. They place schools in leagues and/or districts and/or regions and instruct schools to schedule from among those schools only or predominantly.

I have been waiting for the tipping point where a sufficient number of high schools in Michigan are sufficiently stressed over scheduling football games that they would turn to the MHSAA to solve the problem.

I’m anticipating this might occur first among schools playing 8-player football, and that success there will lead to our assistance for 11-player schools.

One approach – the simpler solution – would work like this:

  • All 8-player schools within the enrollment limit for the 8-player tournament would be placed in two divisions on the basis of enrollment in early March. About 32 schools in each, based on current participation.

  • At the same time, each division would be divided into four regions of about eight schools.

  • In April, the schools of each region would convene to schedule seven regular season games for each school.

  • Based on current numbers, schools would still have two open weeks to fill, if they wish, for games with schools in other regions or of the other division or in neighboring states.

A second option – the date-specific solution – would provide every school its weekly schedule for all nine dates, or weeks 1 through 8, or weeks 2 through 8, depending on local preferences. This would not be difficult in concept once there is agreement on what criteria would be used and what value each criterion would have.

For example, one important criterion would be similarity of enrollment; another of great value would be proximity. Perhaps league affiliation would be a factor with some value. Perhaps historic rivalries would be another factor with a value. Then the computer spits out schedules for each school for every week for two years, home and away.

I don’t campaign for this task because, frankly, it will produce complaints and controversy. But if this organization exists to serve, then this is a service that today’s chronic complaints tell us we should begin to provide soon.

I suggest we do this for 8-player football for the 2019 and 2020 seasons (with a paper trial run for 2018). If it proves successful, we could expand the service to 11-player schools as soon after as they are satisfied with our efforts for 8-player schools.