Don’t Look Back

November 23, 2011

In August of 1986, at the end of the one week of overlap between the previous MHSAA executive director, Vern Norris, and the start of my tenure, I found an envelope on my desk from Mr. Norris that read:  “No words of advice.  Just make your decisions and don’t look back.”  That’s Lesson No. 5 of six in this series of blogs.

In our work, time is of the essence.  We don’t have the luxury of long deliberations.  The next game may be today; the next round of the tournament tomorrow.

In our work, staff is limited.  We don’t have subpoena power.  We have few staff spread thinly over many responsibilities.

In our work, because it’s in a competitive arena, people are sometimes disingenuous.  Some have personal agendas, impure motives sometimes. They care who wins and loses; we don’t.

And most people have miserable memories.  I’m skeptical that people recall well the details of events; and people are even worse when recalling details of conversations.

So, in our work, we make one more call and then, with good intentions and reliance on rules, we get on with the decision and try not to look back.

It’s hard to do, but a good deal healthier if we can.

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.

The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.

Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.

The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.

Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.

If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.