Planning & Doing

January 31, 2012

One of the MHSAA’s counterpart organizations in another state recently asked to see the business plans of other statewide high school associations.  Some of the states supplied their detailed budgets, but most had nothing to offer.

Of course, a budget is a much different thing than a business plan.  A budget is built more on past performance, while a business plan looks more to the potential of future problems and opportunities.  A business plan is much more than numbers.

Since 2007 we’ve been using a “Mission Action Plan” (MAP) at the MHSAA.  It was developed to deal with the opportunities and obstacles of three powerful trends:  (1) growth of non-school youth sports programs; (2) expansion of educational alternatives to traditional neighborhood schools; and (3) proliferating technology.

While not a typical business plan or a classic “strategic plan,” the “MAP” has become increasingly useful to point the way for the MHSAA both in terms of program and finance.  The MAP states a single “Overarching Purpose;” it identifies four “Highest Priority Goals;” and it lists four multi-faceted “Current Strategic Emphases,” many of which have quantifiable performance targets, including financial goals.

Next to each Current Strategic Emphasis are two boxes.  The first is checked if we’ve gotten started, and the second is checked when we’ve completed the task or are operating at the level we had established as our goal.  At this point, every MAP strategy has been launched, but only a portion have earned the second checkmark.

Quite efficiently, the MAP keeps us both strategic and businesslike without the formality of purer forms of strategic or business plans.    

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.