Logo
Second Half by MHSAA

In Search of a Quarterback

October 6, 2011

As America works and wanders its way through the messiness of choosing its presidential candidates, I look around for ones that I wish were available, and I find the choices quite limited and disappointing.  Seems I’ve always tended to favor those who were least electable.

One of those “losers” of years gone by was Jack Kemp who, ironic for the times we now live in, was considered a little too conservative for the national ticket.

Actually, Kemp – the former NFL quarterback, U.S. Congressman and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the first President Bush – appears more balanced and bright than any in the field of candidates the Republican Party will offer this time around.

Kemp’s platform circa 1992 was to be “optimistic, inclusive and ready for change.”  That was his personal style and his prescription for America.

I wish we’d have that choice today for quarterbacking our nation.

But regardless, his approach – “optimistic, inclusive and ready for change” – remains a perfect prescription for organizational leaders, including those who are responsible for schools and school sports.

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.