Injecting Sports Medicine

May 13, 2014

We are receiving the proper dosage of sports medicine advice in Michigan.

The Sports Medicine Advisory Committee of the National Federation of State High School Associations advises the NFHS and its member associations on medical and safety issues and conditions as they relate to interscholastic athletics. With nationwide expertise representing a broad range of sports medicine disciplines, the SMAC meets over three days, two times each year. It issues advisories and position statements and publishes a comprehensive manual which is provided without charge to each member high school in Michigan. 

The MHSAA has had direct representation on the SMAC for two separate four-year terms; and we depend on the SMAC to monitor, evaluate, filter and disseminate current sports medicine information that is of practical use at the interscholastic level.

The SMAC and the Michigan Department of Community Health are the voices the MHSAA listens to most in the often over-hyped cacophony of sports medicine opinion. What makes the SMAC even more unique than its prestigious panel of experts is that it has direct input into the rules-making process of the NFHS which dominates the publishing of high school playing rules. The MHSAA adopts those rules in every MHSAA sport for which rules are prepared by the NFHS.

The MHSAA has sometimes been criticized for not having its own sports medicine committee. However, we believe there is no need to create another committee to duplicate the work of the NFHS Sports Medicine Committee. And when we have needed extra attention to a unique in-state topic, we have found the Michigan Department of Community Health to be a willing and able partner.

Considering the Unrepresented

November 22, 2011

When I interviewed for the job of MHSAA executive director in the spring of 1986, I was asked about my administrative philosophies and approaches to problem solving.  I don’t recall now all I said then, but I do clearly remember saying I would “err in favor of kids.”  I meant that, when a difficult situation presented an unclear choice, I would give the benefit of doubt to kids.

That was somewhat naïve, I suppose; but I still do bring that mindset to situations that appear to be a toss-up.

Over the years I’ve stumbled upon or consciously cultivated other lessons for myself, and I have shared some of them with my dedicated colleagues at the MHSAA.  Of many, here’s the first of six (the other five will be presented in subsequent blogs):  Consider those not in the room or not at the table.

When people propose a change in a rule, consider where they are coming from, and consider those who are not present who may have different circumstances, perspectives and needs.

If the proposal is from large schools, consider how it might affect small schools.  If from southern schools, how it might affect northern schools.  If from suburban schools, how it might affect urban or rural.  If from football coaches, how it might affect other sports; if from a winter sport, how it might affect fall or spring sports.

When people seek from the Executive Committee waiver of a particular rule on behalf of one student, ask how that waiver would affect those not present against whom this student would compete.

When someone seeks relief from a penalty, ask how that will affect those not present, including those who have received the penalty in the past or should receive the penalty in the future.

Considering those who are not in the room who may be affected by a proposal by those who are in the room has been a gift given to me by Keith Eldred of Williamston who served on the Representative Council over 25 years ending in 2008.