Anti-Participation Fees
August 23, 2016
Last month the Michigan High School Athletic Association released results of a survey of its member high schools regarding participation fees – a.k.a., “pay for play.” This was the 12th survey since the 2003-04 school year, making this the largest and longest record of school trends on this troublesome topic.
In spite of almost universal condemnation of the practice of charging students fees to participate in school-sponsored sports, the practice is now ingrained in the fabric of educational athletics, with more than 50 percent of reporting MHSAA member high schools indicating they require at least modest payments as a condition of playing on school-sponsored competitive sports teams.
The most recent survey of 557 reporting high schools revealed 51.5 percent charging fees, the same percentage as the year before, but down from a high of 57 percent two years ago. The percentage of schools with fees exceeded 50 percent for the first time in 2010-11.
While the MHSAA believes participation fees are counter-productive for schools and communities, the MHSAA offers a guide to “best practices” where school leaders have determined there are no better choices for providing necessary financial support for the interscholastic athletic program. Click here for this guide as well as the current and previous surveys.
Among the core values of school sports is a program that is inexpensive for students to play and for families to watch. The program should have great breadth and depth, appealing to many different students and open to all who have interest and meet high standards of eligibility and conduct.
Participation fees that discourage and limit participation are antithetical to these core values of educational athletics.
Football Scheduling
December 23, 2014
The major complaint about the MHSAA Football Playoffs is not that too few teams qualify or too many, or that a five-week playoff is too long or should become six weeks, or that some worthy teams miss out while some less worthy teams get in. No; most people find a five-week, 11-player tournament after a nine-game regular season is the best that our late start to fall classes and our early start to winter weather will allow us in Michigan.
Many people appreciate being able to complete our 14-week season in the warmth of Ford Field on the Friday and Saturday of Thanksgiving weekend. Most people think that nearly 45 percent of 11-player schools is a sufficient tournament field. Many people like the excitement that the six-win threshold creates for teams that had been eliminated earlier from league championships.
The most serious and legitimate complaint about the season-ending playoffs is the stress it has placed on conferences and the struggles many schools have in building nine-game regular-season schedules. Some critics want to mess with the Football Playoffs because of the mess they believe it makes for regular-season schedulers.
Having the MHSAA provide every school a nine-game regular season schedule of the most nearby teams of the most nearly equal enrollments would shift scheduling headaches from the local level to the MHSAA.
I’m not suggesting that this solution to local problems doesn’t create new, large headaches for the MHSAA. But in fact, that is the tradition of school sports: when an issue is large enough in scope and common enough among member schools, the state high school association is asked to be the problem-solver. That’s how we got transfer rules, defined sports seasons and competitive cheer tournaments, for example. Just about every policy and procedure and program of the MHSAA arises from a common local problem looking for a statewide solution.
The 2014 Update Meeting Opinion Poll indicates that 70 percent of responding administrators do not favor the solution of the MHSAA making all schools’ regular-season varsity football schedules. Maybe the question should be narrowed to having the MHSAA complete member schools’ non-conference scheduling.
Meanwhile, we will keep watching as high school associations in other states move to statewide scheduling. For if scheduling is the problem, then scheduling itself needs to be the focus of the solution.