Logo

Parent Problem

October 29, 2013

For years when I have paused in presentations to ask coaches and school administrators to identify the biggest problems we have in school sports, two problems are far most frequently mentioned:

  • Too little money; and
  • Too many misdirected parents.

Other problems are cited; but far and away, the most frequently mentioned problems are under-funding of programs and over-involvement of parents.

In many aspects of the lives of youth, there is too little parent involvement and direction; but such is not the case in most places when it comes to sports. “Helicopter parents” not only hover, they also seek to rescue their children from the very situations – adversity – that sports uses to teach life lessons.

Parents have no role in decisions regarding playing time and game plans. Should parents ever believe that their child has been put at risk in a sports program, there are prompt and appropriate ways to address those situations, directly and with discretion, not gossip and guile.

And the job description of school administrators today must include the staunch defense of the jobs our committed coaches are doing.

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.

The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.

Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.

The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.

Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.

If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.