Sportsmanship and Success in Soccer

August 16, 2012

Ralph Polson, president of the National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA), reports in the July/August 2012 Soccer Journal that there is a strong statistical link between sportsmanship and success in intercollegiate soccer.  He cites the work of Tim Lenahan, head men’s coach at Northwestern University, who compiled total fouls, yellow cards and red cards for the 2011 season to create a “Fair Play Rating” (FPR).

Polson reports that 12 of the 20 teams with the top FPR made the NCAA tournament, while only one of the teams in the bottom 20 did.  Of course, this is a statistical link, not necessarily cause and effect.  But here’s how Mr. Polson concludes his column:

“How should we interpret this data?  One direction is toward more disciplined teams.  It seems to me the more a culture of sportsmanship and fair play is established, the more likely any team is to demonstrate the consistency needed for success.  The data suggests those teams without entrenched standards, with respect to on-field behavior, should anticipate a higher likelihood of failure in today’s highly competitive environment.

“Play within the spirit of the game and more than just a win may be gained; play against the spirit of the game and much more than just a game may be lost.”

Dr. Brian Crossman, chair of the NSCAA Ethics Committee, contributes this to the discussion in the same issue of Soccer Journal:

“A five year study from 2007 to 2011 of almost 4,700 intercollegiate soccer matches in which only one player was red-carded during the match showed a strong likelihood that the player’s team would lose.  Teams that had one player red-carded lost 67 percent of the matches, tied 10 percent of the matches and won 23 percent of the matches.  In other words, a team that had a player red-carded at any time during the match was three times more likely to lose the match than win it.  Taking steps to encourage clean and fair play, and thus to reduce the likelihood of having players ejected, will pay dividends in sportsmanship and should improve your team’s won-loss record.”

For more, go to www.nscaa.com.

Cooperative Concerns

July 12, 2016

When an organization receives positive media attention for a policy change, it’s probably best to accept the praise and get back to work. But that could be too easy and miss some teachable moments.

This summer, the Michigan High School Athletic Association has been the recipient of unqualified praise for allowing two or more high schools of any size to jointly sponsor sports teams at the subvarsity level, and for relaxing enrollment limits so that two or more high schools of the same school district could jointly sponsor varsity teams in all sports except basketball and football.

Media seemed to think that this was something revolutionary in Michigan. In fact, the concept of what we call “cooperative programs” in Michigan was borrowed from other Midwest states and began in Michigan during the 1988-89 school year when seven cooperative programs were first approved. Those seven co-ops involved 13 of the MHSAA’s smallest high schools.

Over the next almost three decades, policies have been revised over and over to assist students in schools of larger enrollments, sports of low participation and schools with special circumstances. All of this is admirable; but to be frank, not all results are positive.

The idea of cooperative programs is to increase opportunity. That has often occurred. But increasingly, schools are entering into co-ops not to create new opportunities for participation where they did not exist, but to save opportunities for participation where existing participation is declining – or worse, to combine two viable teams into one to save money.

This trend, and the slight softening of the fundamental principle of educational athletics – that each student competes for his or her own school’s teams – should soften the praise for our most recent expansion of cooperative programs in Michigan.

Entering 2016-17, the MHSAA has nearly 300 high school cooperative programs for nearly 500 sports teams, and nearly 100 junior high/middle school cooperative programs for approximately 340 sports teams. A growing number are not being created with the lofty goals of 1988-89. Instead of the word “create,” we more often see the word “survive” in the cooperative team applications.