A Backhanded Compliment
April 17, 2012
A year ago this month I listened to the attorney for another statewide high school athletic association pose this question: “Why is it that people quite readily accept inflexible age limitations over a broad spectrum of American life, including sports, but presuppose it is wrong for school sports?”
This attorney was in the middle of a controversy that more recently has visited the MHSAA: an overage student seeking relief from a universally applied maximum age rule. The speaker was perplexed and frustrated by the double standard.
Part of the reason for the double standard rests in the reality that people value the school sports experience so much more than other parts of life, including other sports experiences. Because they want the opportunity to play, they resort to litigation in an attempt to create the right to play.
Another part of the reason school sports is challenged on an issue on which other programs get a free pass is that school sports has a centralized authority, close to home. State high school associations are readily accessible targets, easier both to find and to fight with than most other entities with age restrictions.
And, of course, part of the reason for the double standard is the proximity of interscholastic athletics to academics – the former extracurricular, the latter curricular – the former a privilege for most teenagers, the latter a right of all citizens to age 26.
The reasons school sports are attacked on this issue while other entities are not are reasons really complimentary to school sports: the program is popular, accessible and connected to education. None of these features of school sports, or its age limitation, should change.
Penalty Points
August 26, 2016
The five years that followed the adoption of a tougher transfer rule in the early 1980s were the busiest ever for Michigan High School Athletic Association lawyers. The tough rule made sense to parents until it applied to their own children, and was defended by coaches until applied to their own players.
The most recent five years have provided the most significant toughening of MHSAA rules in the 30 years since the contentious early ‘80s, most notably (1) adopting the athletic-related transfer rule (“links law”) that doubles the length of ineligibility for some transfer students who do not make a full and complete residential change, and (2) lengthening the maximum penalty for undue influence from up to one year to up to four years for students and adults involved.
Predictably, the recently enhanced rules have led to increases in challenges to the enforcement of those rules. What were good rules in theory sometimes have been challenged when put into actual practice. Ironically, the MHSAA has received criticism from some insiders that penalties have been too severe, and from a few outsiders that penalties have been too light. Which means we are reading these situations just about right.
It is MHSAA policy not to issue statements at the time penalties are assessed unless the penalties have a direct and immediate effect on MHSAA postseason tournament eligibility or progression. This is fitting for a voluntary association of schools which have the legal responsibility of enforcing rules as to their own students, coaches and others. The MHSAA does not want to embarrass member schools; and in those rare instances when it is necessary to issue a public statement of an action taken or to clarify an MHSAA policy or procedure, the MHSAA avoids identifying minor students and most adults who are the subjects of penalties.
While these procedures have served school-sponsored sports well in Michigan since the founding of the MHSAA, it is possible that the increase of 24/7/365 electronic communications produced by decreasingly professional/experienced/ethical personnel requires change. Taking full-body slams by media who have less than half the facts is not just a nuisance to the MHSAA, it’s disparaging to the goodness of the school sports brand.