Logo

Educating for Educational Athletics

October 11, 2013

Michigan’s educational tradition of local control (which the MHSAA has respected) and Michigan educators’ distaste for unfunded mandates (which the MHSAA has consistently opposed) have had the result of keeping Michigan schools in neutral while schools in many other states have been in high gear to enhance training for interscholastic coaches.

Multiple levels of coaching education and even licensing or certification of coaches is now standard operating procedure in many other places. In contrast, Michigan has had almost no requirements for school-sponsored coaches.

However, in measured steps, change is coming to Michigan to promote an interscholastic coaching community better equipped to serve student-athletes, with special attention to health and safety:

  • As a result of an MHSAA Representative Council vote last March, all high school level assistant and subvarsity coaches must complete the same rules and risk minimization meeting requirement as high school varsity head coaches or, in the alternative, must complete a free health and safety course linked to or posted on MHSAA.com. This takes effect in 2014-15.
  • In December, the Representative Council will vote on a proposal to require all high school varsity head coaches to hold valid (current) CPR certification. This would take effect in 2015-16.
  • In March, the Council will vote on a proposal to require all persons who are hired for the first time as an MHSAA member high school varsity head coach after July 31, 2016, to have completed Level 1 or 2 of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program.

Implementing these policies over the next three years will not advance Michigan schools to the head of the class with respect to assuring school coaches receive ongoing education in the critical coaching responsibilities dealing with participants’ health and safety. This will, however, move our schools from a near failing grade to average, from D- to perhaps C.

Ultimately, we will need to overcome legitimate concerns for adding to the difficulty of finding and affording coaches, and do much more to assure the programs we sponsor deserve the label “educational athletics.”

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.

The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.

Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.

The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.

Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.

If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.