Inside Information
September 25, 2015
The source you choose selects your news.
If your source is Fox News, you will get different stories than from ABC, CBS and NBC, and different slants on the same stories.
If your source is publicly supported radio, the news stories will be different than on commercial radio stations; and if you choose Public Radio International, you will hear some topics that are much more frequently and deeply covered than by National Public Radio.
PRI is, for example, where I was following the crisis of refugees fleeing from Northern Africa to Europe long before that story became headlines for other news sources. Did you know, for example, that there are more displaced people in the world today than at any time except World War II?
Similarly, if I were to listen only to coaches of one sport or another, I’m likely to learn about issues that affect that sport, but not much about issues that affect other sports, or affect schools as a whole. Our sources must include input from all sports.
Our sources must also include the perspective of principals who deal with academics more than athletics and who are as attentive to the essential needs of harassed, homeless, displaced and disabled students as they are to the athletic desires of gifted and talented students.
And our sources must include the even broader perspective of superintendents who are fighting for the financial life of their districts. Sometimes that means they are throwing open the doors of their schools and recruiting students from far and wide to replace the dwindling school age children of their local population.
Ours is an association of schools. Not an association of football coaches, or of all coaches. Ours is an association of schools whose directions are determined by blending top-down with in-the-trenches views.
From our vantage point at the Michigan High School Athletic Association we do not learn about everything happening in our state’s secondary schools. But from the myriad calls, emails and letters we receive and the many meetings we have with administrators, coaches, officials and students, we know much more than those who are on the outside looking in.
More is Not Better
September 30, 2016
Michigan is generally considered the first state to conduct high school sports tournaments in different classifications based on the enrollment of participating schools, but the Michigan High School Athletic Association may be the last statewide high school organization you will ever hear say "More is better" when it comes to tournament classification. In fact, the MHSAA argues against the classification expansion virus that infects many other states.
While still far from the "Everyone gets a ribbon" philosophy of some youth sports programs, the number of classifications is increasing and the number of schools in each classification is decreasing in the state tournament structures of many states.
While media will opine that increasing classifications waters down the tournament, our arguments are more practical. For example, the more classifications a tournament has, the greater the distance teams must travel for early round games, which is expensive and time consuming for teams and fans alike.
While some people believe more classifications might enhance their favorite team's opportunity to taste success in tournament play, reducing the number of teams in each classification actually leads to more repeat champions, which reduces rather than increases tournament excitement and attendance.
The more classifications there are, the harder it is to find a single venue to host the finals of all the divisions and the less likely that all divisions will enjoy the same services and support. Media are spread thinner, leading to less coverage of tournaments. Audio and video networks find it impossible to cover multiple venues adequately.
The most efficient and economical tournament is a single-class format. Nevertheless, a format that serves a membership where some schools are 100 times larger than others requires separate classifications. But there is a point of very diminished benefits.