Weighing Change
September 21, 2011
The national high school wrestling rules committee changed the weight classes for the 1994-95 season; and it changed them back for the 1995-96 season.
This is one of several reasons why Michigan has not adopted the national committee’s changes for the 2011-12 season. At the very least, we’re going to wait to see if the change survives.
The 14 weight classes that will continue in Michigan are as follows: 103, 112, 119, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 152, 160, 171, 189, 215 and 285.
The national rules for 2011-12 are: 106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220 and 285.
In delaying the change for MHSAA member schools, the MHSAA Representative Council listened to the overwhelming sentiments of the state’s high school wrestling coaches. Many have criticized the new weight classes because they eliminate a middle weight where most high school wrestlers are found and they add an upper weight class where many teams already have holes in their lineup.
Standing pat also eliminates the need for new expenditures for printed materials and software programs.
The greatest inconvenience of not changing is when our schools along the borders of Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin compete with schools of those states. This is creating questions related to the weight monitoring program and seeding.
The MHSAA will stay in frequent, close contact with high school wrestling coaches and their administrators as future decisions are made.
Who’s the Customer?
February 18, 2014
“If you ask your board, ‘who are your customers?’, you are likely to hear a lot of comments and no consensus.” That’s what I heard a speaker say to a group of association leaders last summer; and it has set me on a course of asking different groups this question: “Who is/are the MHSAA’s customers?” We allow respondents to allocate up to 100 points so they can give weight to their responses. Here’s what I’ve learned so far.
The board of directors of the Michigan Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association (MIAAA) rated athletic directors as the top customer of the MHSAA (by a wide margin), followed in order by student-athletes, coaches and officials.
By an even wider margin, the MHSAA Student Advisory Council named student-athletes as the MHSAA’s top customer, followed by athletic directors and coaches tying for a distant second, and officials an even more distant fourth.
And the MHSAA’s governing body, the Representative Council, agreed that student-athletes are the top customer. Athletic directors were second, coaches third and officials fourth.
I suppose that when we ask audiences of coaches or officials or principals or others who they believe is or are the MHSAA’s customer(s), there will be some variation in the order of things. But I think we can already discern a comfortable pattern so far: everyone puts a premium on student-athletes. And that’s as it should be.
The MHSAA is unique among the state’s educational groups – we’re not an association of school boards only, or superintendents only, or principals only, or athletic directors or coaches or any other single group. We’re an association of schools, undertaking to represent all those groups and student-athletes themselves.