Bouncing Basketball Around
November 17, 2017
We can educate kids in school sports just as well with or without elegant venues. That doesn’t mean we won’t miss The Palace of Auburn Hills for the Michigan High School Athletic Association Individual Wrestling Finals, but people are more important than places in educational athletics. Values are more critical than venues.
Nevertheless, when we think and talk about sites for MHSAA Girls and Boys Basketball Finals in 2019 and beyond, as we have been forced to do because of increasing costs and decreasing availabilities at Michigan State University’s Breslin Student Events Center, it draws more public and media attention than the fundamental importance of the topic.
Our discussions across the state and our surveys have given us some insights.
One is that using Michigan’s larger NCAA Division I university arenas is not considered a high priority by a majority of our constituents. Nor is utilizing the same facility for both genders a necessity.
It appears most people like WHEN and WHERE we’ve conducted our tournaments the past eight years (the Breslin Center, on consecutive weekends for girls and boys); but most people seem to value the schedule more than the site ... they appear to prefer that we keep the calendar we’ve enjoyed for many years, even if the venue must change to make that possible.
It appears that many people prefer a smaller venue than Breslin’s nearly 15,000-seat arena for the girls tournament, some reflecting fondly on the exciting, often near-capacity atmosphere that Central Michigan University’s Rose Arena provided in 1996 through 2003. They should get that atmosphere for this year’s Finals at Calvin College’s Van Noord Arena in March, the largest NCAA Division III arena in the country, which has twice hosted the Division III Women’s Basketball Final Four.
We had hoped to be able to announce this December the decisions that would inform everyone when and where we will be staging Girls and Boys Basketball Finals for the next four years; but it is becoming increasingly apparent that we may be making decisions on a year-to-year basis for a while, hoping eventually to sort things out and establish new traditions that we come to value as much as the schedule and site stability that ended in 2017.
Leadership Road
May 22, 2015
Earlier this month, the small portion of Michigan voters who bothered to vote at all resoundingly rejected the so-called road fix – Proposal One. It was no surprise, and provides at least these two leadership lessons.
First, people expect their designated leaders to lead. From everything I’ve read, heard and felt personally, voters were upset that their elected officials could not or would not fix our state’s crumbling roads and bridges. They punted; and the voters punted the ball right back to the people they expect to have the wisdom and will to craft and compromise their way to workable solutions to tough problems.
The second lesson is that people expect straightforward solutions. Again, there is every indication that Proposal One was too complicated and a far more comprehensive package than people could comprehend. By trying to do more than fix roads and bridges, the proposal wasn’t able to get the support needed to do anything at all.
The creativity and courage to prepare and promote the most direct remedy for road repair is a top issue for the State of Michigan. Taxpayers of the state want their elected officials to run an offense to move the ball across the goal line, with little razzle-dazzle and no punts.
That’s the preferred and probably necessary approach for addressing the major problems of any enterprise, including ours.