Logo
Second Half by MHSAA

None of This is New

October 31, 2011

Those commenting on national affairs keep saying that our political processes are too polarized to get anything done; but political parties were every bit as divided in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as they are today, and public debate was even more strident than the lack of civility we see today.

The grilling of Supreme Court nominees, Wall Street bankers and British Petroleum executives can seem sensational, but this has been nothing like the early 1950s when Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin conducted hearings into Communist sympathies of employees in government and Hollywood.

It is almost laughable to assert that modern political debate is disintegrating.  Heck, in 1804 our nation’s vice president, while in office, challenged a critic to a duel.  And shot him dead!  Now that’s discord!

My point is that the political process didn’t break recently.  If it’s broken, it’s always been broken, always contentious and acrimonious – from the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to the War Between the States, until today:  corrupt politicians, polarized political parties, bitter debates, contentious elections.

None of this is new, except for the increased media coverage.  None of this alone is to blame for today’s inability to solve problems.  And all of this together is not to blame for today’s problems.

Perhaps closer to the heart of the problems today in Michigan and our nation is a lack of heart in “we the people.”  A lack of passion, principle and – most of all – common vision and purpose.

Maybe we’ve just had it so good for so long that we’ve forgotten to dream for better days and fight for a better future.

Maybe these tough times will refresh our dreams and reignite the fight.

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.