Bet On It
May 22, 2018
In 1991, Michigan became the first state in the nation to pass legislation to prohibit a state-sponsored lottery from including games based on the results of sporting events. A bill introduced by Representative Keith Muxlow of Brown City passed both the Michigan House and Senate without a dissenting vote and was signed by Governor Engler Dec. 18, 1991.
The effort was assisted by the Michigan Coalition to Ban Legalized Sports Betting, a broad-based group of athletic, educational, religious and civic organizations which then turned its attention to helping pass federal legislation needed to fully protect Michigan’s professional and amateur sporting events from the influences of gambling in other states.
The federal legislation that resulted, on the books for 25 years, was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 14, 2018.
There are currently eight bills pending in the Michigan Legislature that would expand gambling in the state of Michigan, including several that would legalize sports betting or fantasy sports wagering and allow the Michigan Lottery to handle those bets.
It is impossible to know all the consequences – positive and negative – of expanding legalized gambling in our society generally and on sports particularly. However, we can imagine that as every decision and action of players, coaches and officials influences statistics and determines winners and losers of both contests and wagers, fans will become increasingly cynical of individual and team performances where sports betting is allowed.
And, more than ever, school-based sports will stand apart from the charade or corruption of sports on all other levels by all other sponsors. You can bet on it.
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.