Logo

Focus on Fun

June 2, 2017

Thousands of hours of professional development programs have been devoted to the topic of change and how to cope with what has changed, what is changing and what will change. But I’ve been impressed recently that it is more worthwhile to focus on what has not changed, is not changing and is unlikely to ever change.

John O’Sullivan, author and creator of Changing the Game Project (see changingthegameproject.com), brought this most powerfully to my mind in an article he wrote for the Spring/Summer 2017 edition of Midwest Sports Planner, titled “Some Things Never Change: Applying the Amazon Business Model to Youth Sports.”

While I can think of several things about the Amazon business model that could corrupt youth sports, the point Mr. O’Sullivan makes is based on this answer Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos gave in an interview. Mr. Bezos said:

“I almost never get the question: ‘What’s not going to change in the next ten years?’ And I submit to you that question is actually more important (than what is going to change) because you build a business strategy around the things that are stable ...”

Mr. O’Sullivan asks: “What if we did the same thing in youth sports? What if we stopped worrying about everything that changes and instead focus on the one thing that does not?”

That one thing, according to O’Sullivan, is why kids play sports. “The answer, according to every piece of research I have ever read, in nearly nine out of ten athletes surveyed, is this: ‘Because it’s fun. I play sports because I enjoy them.’”

This squares with all the research we’ve received at the Michigan High School Athletic Association, and it admonishes local, league and state leaders of school sports to search for and deliver policies, procedures and programs that will keep fun foremost in school sports.

Fun does not mean frivolous or inconsequential. It doesn’t mean there can’t be high standards of eligibility and conduct. It doesn’t mean there are not aches and pains or highs and lows or lessons to be learned.

When properly focused, competitive interscholastic athletics trades in difficult fun, devoted friendships and dedication to fitness throughout life. And we should market ourselves accordingly.

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.