Logo

Shared Responsibility

March 26, 2013

My counterpart in Georgia has a nice way with words, and recently used that talent to add his perspective to topics like those we’ve been addressing here in Michigan.  In the March 2013 Georgia High School Association newsletter, under the title “All of Us Must ‘Pay the Price’ for Student-Athlete Wellness,” GHSA Executive Director Ralph Swearingin writes:

“In ‘History and Philosophy of Education’ courses many of us learned that an early concept in the American educational system involved the school operating ‘in loco parentis’ – in the place of the parent.  During those early days, that concept was applied to the authority of school personnel to regulate the behavior of students.  Over time, however, the application of that concept to school discipline has diminished.

“It is interesting to note that school personnel are called upon to fulfill parental roles in ways that were not prevalent in the past.  Over time there has been an evolution of responsibilities placed on the educational system to provide services that used to be provided by the family.  One such area involves the responsibility to be the ‘health and safety guardians’ of our students.  Debates about whether it is the school’s responsibility are non-productive.  This responsibility has been thrust upon member schools and state association staff members, and it is doubtful that this trend is reversible . . .

“The very nature of athletics makes it impossible to guarantee the safety of every student in every sport.  The goal is to minimize the risk to these students with prudent preparation and vigilant supervision.  While the American culture may be thrusting this responsibility on the school personnel, there are productive ways to send some of that responsibility back to the students and their families.

“. . . Students and their families need to be informed about all of these issues.  Preseason meetings with players and parents or guardians should involve the dissemination of information about relevant health and safety considerations . . .

“But education of players and their families is not enough.  Coaches must be certain to teach techniques that minimize risks, and to be certain that all equipment used in the sport are in good repair and are being used properly.  School personnel need to be certain that published guidelines and protocols are being followed.  Doing these things involves the expenditure of time and money, but the well-being of our students dictates that we ‘pay the price.’ ”

Questions for 8-Player Football

November 22, 2016

Two things happened during the 2016 football season that were not unexpected but which now require discussion leading to action:

  1. The 2016 football season was the first during which the number of Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D high schools sponsoring 8-player teams exceeded the number of Class D schools sponsoring 11-player teams: 48 playing 8-player football; 40 playing the 11-player game.

  2. The 2016 8-Player Football Playoffs was the first to exclude a six-win team ... in fact, two of them ... from the 16-team field and four-week format.

The original plan for the 8-player tournament called for expansion to a 32-team field and a five-week format when the number of MHSAA Class D member schools sponsoring a full season of the 8-player game exceeded 40 for several years. Having now reached the point of expansion, many questions are being raised. For example:

Are Class D schools served well by a 32-team field and a five-week format, like the 11-player tournament? Or, would two 16-team divisions and continuing the four-week format be best?

The two 16-team divisions would have the benefits of smaller enrollment differences between the largest and smallest schools of each division, as well as a one-week shorter season – both of which might be preferred from the standpoint of participant health and safety.

Under neither format is it likely that the championship game(s) would be held at Ford Field. The facility has a long-standing commitment for the Friday and Saturday before Thanksgiving, when the four-week format concludes; and there is not room for a fifth game on either Friday or Saturday after Thanksgiving when the eight championship games of the 11-player tournament are conducted.

These discussions regarding the 8-player tournament field and format will invite other discussions. For example, Class C schools that sponsor 8-player teams which are ineligible for the 8-player tournament that is limited to Class D schools only, will ask for a tournament opportunity; but their inclusion in the 8-player tournament will be resisted by Class D schools.

There are people who will advocate that the 11-player tournament should be reduced from eight divisions to seven; and that Division 8 be for the 8-player tournament, with 32 teams and a five-week format concluding at Ford Field on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Of course, this reduces by 32 the total number of teams that will qualify for the MHSAA Football Playoff experience.

We must keep in mind that every enhancement of the 8-player experience invites more conversions from the 11-player to 8-player game, and every conversion makes life a little more difficult for remaining 11-player teams, especially for smaller schools. For example:

  • Remaining Class D 11-player schools have fewer like-sized opponents to schedule during the regular season, and they must travel further to play them.

  • Some remaining 11-player schools in Classes D, C and B find themselves playing in playoff divisions with larger schools than was the case a few years ago.

The reintroduction of 8-player football in Michigan high schools in 2011 was generally praised; but we knew even then that the day would come when the new benefits for some would create new hardships for others. The discussions needed now will require coaches and administrators to examine the effects of change on others as well as on themselves, and to be fair with their responses and recommendations.