No Super-Sizing Needed

March 23, 2013

Airline travel today presents a confusing array of frequent flyer and credit card loyalty programs:  Premier Access; Silver, Gold or Platinum Elite; etc.  They allow a traveler to check bags without cost, visit airline club rooms free of charge, and board planes ahead of the rest of the herd.

The problem is that the airlines have established so many levels of elitism that the result is a confusing, meaningless mess.  Which reminds me of other efforts to distinguish good, better and best, especially in youth sports.

In basketball, ice hockey, soccer, volleyball and other youth sports there are now so many programs that promote themselves as more elite than others, and so many tournaments that advertise themselves to be above others in terms of status or the presence of college recruiters, that the efforts to distinguish themselves are not at all meaningful, and almost laughable if they were not fooling and fleecing so many children and parents.

In contrast, school sports is not engaged in the never-ending addiction to add layers of competitions and levels of championships.  We are just fine with league, district, regional and statewide tournaments and trophies.  We do not need national-scope tournaments and all-star events.

In school sports, the titles don’t need super-sizing, and the trophies don’t need to be taller than the participants.

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.