Sorting It Out
February 4, 2014
The MHSAA has a good relationship with the high school coaches associations of Michigan in spite of the fact that the MHSAA sometimes befuddles and frustrates some associations’ leaders and members. This occurs, for example, when a coaches association’s board of directors votes unanimously in support of a change in policy or procedure which fails to be adopted by the MHSAA Representative Council. Every so often over the past 25 years, I’ve had to provide reminders of why this occurs – in fact, why it must occur.
First, a coaches association is just that – an association of coaches; and coaches are but one of the many important voices to whom the MHSAA pays regular attention. The MHSAA also must hear the opinions of athletic directors, principals, superintendents, boards of education, contest officials and others. Typically, coaches desire more of everything: contests, classifications, trophies and medals. Just as predictably, most administrators seek reasonable limits on such things and can often be heard to say, “Enough is enough.”
Second, the makeup of many of our state’s high school coaches associations’ boards of directors, and even the associations’ members, do not reflect the MHSAA’s full membership. Understandably, many coaches associations’ board members are disproportionately from large schools in the southern or even southeastern part of Michigan.
And third, by their nature, coaches associations advance proposals for a single sport, which could impact other sports positively or negatively. There is no question that if one sport “gets” something, like another tournament classification or division, other sports will seek the same consideration which may or may not be practical for or beneficial to other sports.
When considering a proposal from a coaches association, MHSAA Representative Council members will almost always ask themselves: “Who’s not in the room? Who are we not hearing from? Is there another side of the issue? How does this play out among small schools, or urban schools, or northern schools? How will this affect other sports?”
We look to coaches associations for sport-specific advice; and we urge them to seek input from a constituency that is as large and diverse as possible. We look to other stakeholders to add their advice and counsel to the process; and we depend on the Representative Council to sort it out and seek the proper balance.
Transfer Tools
February 7, 2014
On Oct. 15 I used this space to talk about “Transfer Trends”; and I took that topic on the road, including it in MHSAA Update meetings throughout the state. I described an “epidemic.”
As I have said and written before (including in this space on Sept. 27, 2011), our transfer regulation is an inadequate tool for the fight ahead of us. It has failed to slow the growth of athletic-motivated transfers even after adoption of a rule for that purpose in 1997. Too few schools have wanted the hassle of alleging and documenting that a transfer was primarily for athletic reasons. In 2012, the leadership of the basketball and wrestling coaches associations, observing that current rules permitted several high-profile transfers in their sports, asked for a much tougher transfer rule – one that would subject most transfer students to a full year of ineligibility. Recognizing its legal responsibility to enforce the most narrow proscriptions possible, the Representative Council responded with more precision.
The new athletic-related transfer rule adopted last May extends the period of ineligibility from one semester to two for those students whose circumstances do not fit one of the existing 15 exceptions to the transfer regulation and where the student has engaged in certain activities during the previous 12 months that link the student to the new school’s athletic program.
If a student played high school sports during the previous 12 months and did one of the activities that linked that student to the new school athletically, the new rule doubles the period of ineligibility. If, for example, this transfer student attended an open gym at the new school, played summer or non-school sports on a team coached by one of the coaches of the sport at the new school, or received instruction in strength or conditioning from a personal trainer who coaches at the new school, then the period of ineligibility would double.
In addition to narrowly tailoring the new rule to the most obvious and egregious examples of an athletic-motivated or -related transfer, the Representative Council also provided necessary notice. The rule has not been “sprung” on students who may have done things before the rule change that would have made them ineligible. Because the rule has a 12-month run-up to consider, the Council provided almost 15 months’ notice. The rule takes full effect Aug. 1, 2014.
This is another example of defining a problem and designing the policy with precision. It’s both most educationally sound and judicially defensible.