Improving Over the Long Run
October 22, 2013
A participant in a 5K run told me recently that when she first entered races, her goal was just to finish. After those early successes, her goal in entering races was to improve her personal best time.
It was only after several years of consistent improvement that she entertained the thought of actually trying to attain a spot in the top 20. Eventually, a “Top 10” and then a “Top 5” finish became the goal. And only recently has she made it a goal to try to win one of these races.
This is a wise way to approach sports. Engage at first to improve your health and fitness. Then to enhance your speed, coordination and/or endurance. Then to test the limits of your abilities. And only then to test yourself against others.
Adults might look to this as a natural, healthy way to improve themselves in almost any endeavor. And adults who are coaching youth should look to it as a healthy way to lead young people to improve both as athletes and as human beings.
Making Matters Worse
March 17, 2017
For many years there have been complaints that the MHSAA Football Playoffs make it difficult for some teams to schedule regular season football games. Teams that are too good are avoided because opponents fear losses, and teams that are too small are avoided by larger schools because they do not generate enough playoff point value for wins.
Recently the MHSAA has learned, only indirectly, that some among the state’s football coaches association are recycling an old plan that would make matters worse. It’s called the “Enhanced Strength of Schedule Playoff System.”
Among its features is doubling the number of different point value classifications from four (80 for Class A down to 32 for Class D) to eight (88 for Division 1 down to 32 for Division 8).
What this does is make the art of scheduling regular season games even more difficult; for the greater variety of values you assign to schools, the more difficult it is to align with like-sized schools.
The “Enhanced Strength of Schedule Playoff System” makes matters even worse by creating eight different multipliers depending on the size of opposing schools. Imagine having to consider all this when building a regular season football schedule.
When this proposal was discussed previously statewide in 2012, it was revealed that it would have caused 15 teams with six regular season wins to miss the playoffs that year, while two teams with losing records would have qualified. How do you explain that to people? It was also demonstrated in 2012 that larger schools in more isolated areas would have to travel far and wide across the state, week after week, to build a schedule with potential point value to match similar sized schools located in more heavily populated parts of our state and have many scheduling options nearby. How is that fair?
The proposal is seriously flawed, and by circumventing the MHSAA Football Committee, its proponents assure it is fatally flawed.