Logo

Making Participation Valuable

October 23, 2012

Boiled down, the role of state high school associations is to both protect and promote school sports, the second of which I comment on here.

It’s my experience that the most effective promotions speak for themselves.  The most effective promotions promote the fundamentals of school sports, like scholarship and sportsmanship and safety.  The most effective promotions provide tools to the membership at the grass roots level.

In Michigan we have a few initiatives whose primary purpose is to promote the value of participation, but we have many initiatives that encourage and equip those who make participation valuable.

For example, we administer the Coaches Advancement Program (CAP) all year long around the state to assist in the preparation of coaches for their important responsibilities.  Across the state during August through October we conduct Athletic Director In-Service programs.  Like many states, we conduct rules meetings for coaches and officials year-round, statewide. 

Each spring we have a training program for local officials association trainers and for their officers and leaders and assignors.  We conduct an annual Officials’ Awards and Alumni Banquet.

Every other February we conduct a Women in Sports Leadership Conference; and in the off years we provide mini-grants to support similar efforts on a more local level.

We conduct Sportsmanship Summits and provide mini-grants to leagues and local school districts to implement sportsmanship efforts at the local level where they can be most effective.  We conduct Team Captains Clinics and other student leadership events, and we provide mini-grants to support similar efforts on the league or local level.

None of these initiatives promotes the value of participation per se.  All of these initiatives encourage and equip those who make participation valuable.  That’s where I think our promotional efforts are best made.

 

A Can-Do Response

January 5, 2015

Michigan has a tradition of some of the nation’s most lenient out-of-season coaching rules, especially in the summer; and yet, the few rules we have are sometimes blamed for driving students to non-school programs.

Nevertheless, there is some validity to the criticism. It is observably true that non-school programs seem to fill every void in the interscholastic calendar. The day after high school seasons end, many non-school programs begin. The day a school coach can no longer work with more than three or four students, a non-school coach begins to do so.

The challenge is to balance the negative effects of an “arms war” in high school sports against driving students toward non-school programs. It’s the balance of too few vs. too many rules out of season.

The out-of-the-box compromise for this dilemma could be to not regulate the off season as much as to conduct school-sponsored off-season programs in a healthier way than they normally occur, i.e., to move schools back in control of and in the center of the non-school season. To not merely regulate what schools and coaches can’t do, but actually run the programs they can do and want to do.

Of course, this would require more of what schools have less of – resources. School administrators who may be in agreement that schools should operate off-season programs to keep kids attached to in-season programs still balk because they lack resources. At a time when resources are being cut for basic support of in-season programs, how could they justify spending more for out-of-season outreach?

Ultimately, in discovering the sweet spot for out-of-season interaction between school coaches with student-athletes, we need to give at least as much attention to providing more opportunity for what they can do together as for what they can’t do.