Membership Growth
September 19, 2014
My last posting addressed the need for the Michigan High School Athletic Association to act like a member-based organization even though MHSAA membership is free and member-based revenue does not contribute to the MHSAA’s fiscal well-being. I cited the need to apply membership recruitment and retention principles as we work to attract and hold registered contest officials.
I might also have cited our need to attract and hold junior high/middle school members. While the MHSAA’s membership includes most of Michigan’s public and nonpublic high schools, fewer than half the state’s junior high/middle schools are MHSAA members.
We know the reason that most of the non-member schools at this level do not join the MHSAA is that they want to do their own thing – make their own rules – and they do not see enough benefit in MHSAA membership to overcome the advantages of their local autonomy.
They want to schedule more contests and/or sponsor longer seasons than is permitted by MHSAA rules. They are not much concerned with consistent application of playing rules, eligibility rules and limits of competition, which MHSAA membership requires. They are not much concerned with providing MHSAA-registered officials for their contests or MHSAA-purchased catastrophic accident medical insurance for their student-athletes.
There is no revenue incentive for the MHSAA to try to change these attitudes; but actually, the reasons for the MHSAA to do so are more important than money. In fact, the future of high school athletics depends more on what is happening today at the junior high/middle school level than at the high school level.
The less connected that junior high/middle school level programs are to high school programs today, the more problems the high school programs will have tomorrow – including controversies over conduct, confusion over eligibility and problems related to disconnected policies, procedures, philosophies and perspectives.
The MHSAA will serve school sports in Michigan best if it makes recruitment and retention of junior high/middle schools one of its highest priorities, and serves those schools with what the students and parents at that level want – which is, in fact, more school-sponsored competition, some even resulting in MHSAA-sponsored regional tournaments. Of course, both membership and tournament entry would be free of charge.
Just like most member organizations which need to look constantly for new, younger members, the enterprise of high school sports needs to be recruiting new schools which serve younger grades. It may not just be a matter of growth; it may be a matter of survival.
Correctable Error?
May 30, 2017
A decade has passed since the court-ordered change in several sports seasons for Michigan high schools. Ten years has brought resignation more than satisfaction; and yet there remains hope in some places that the new status quo is not permanent, at least for those sports seasons changes that were and are seen by many people as collateral damage in a fight over seasons for girls basketball and volleyball.
Actually, the lawsuit sought to place all girls seasons in the same seasons as boys, like college schedules. The federal court did not require simultaneous scheduling; but the court did bring the intercollegiate mindset to the case. It determined, regardless of other facts, that the intercollegiate season was the “advantageous” season for high school sports. And the principle upon which it approved the compliance plan for high school sports in Michigan was that if all the seasons were not simultaneous for boys and girls, then there should be rough equality in the number of boys and girls assigned to “disadvantageous” seasons.
So, for example, from the federal court’s perspective, fall is the advantageous season for soccer, winter for swimming & diving, and spring for tennis. As for golf, the court opined that, even though it’s not the season of the NCAA championships, maybe fall was the better season. The court began with tortured logic and ended with hypocrisy.
As a result, in the Lower Peninsula, regardless of the preferences of the people involved, girls and boys had to switch seasons in two sports to even up the number of boys seasons and girls seasons in what the court had determined were disadvantageous. Schools thought the switch of golf and tennis for the genders was less injurious than switching soccer and swimming.
In the Upper Peninsula, because swimming and golf are combined for the genders in the winter and spring, respectively, the court’s option was to switch boys and girls seasons for either soccer or tennis. The schools chose soccer as the least disruptive change.
As people count the damaging effects and think about challenging the court-ordered placements a decade later, they must understand the court was looking for balance, for having the genders share the burden of participating in disadvantageous seasons. Moving Lower Peninsula boys golf to join girls in the fall and/or switching Lower Peninsula boys and girls tennis back to what was preferred and in place before judicial interference would recreate the imbalance the federal court conjured up and sought to remedy.
Those of us involved see many advantages to conducting fall golf for both genders in the Lower Peninsula and switching Lower Peninsula tennis seasons for boys and girls, no matter when colleges schedule those sports or how impractical the court’s logic and how inconsistently it was applied. Nevertheless, correcting the court’s errors could be both contentious and costly.