Guarding the Gate
February 24, 2012
More slowly than I would like, because it’s not a field in which I’ve had formal training or extensive practical experience, I’ve been learning about the world of startup companies and venture capitalists that discovered the sports world in the 1990s and have proliferated during the past decade.
Usually with their founder making the contact, many of these young companies have reached out to the MHSAA, hoping we will embrace and endorse or utilize their new product or service. Almost all owe their existence to the World Wide Web and to the passion of their founder, either for sports or for a concept they think solves some need of athletes, coaches or fans . . . or advertisers and sponsors.
And almost every one of these startups is looking for an exit; looking for a bigger fish to swallow them whole. And paying them handsomely for consuming the young guppy. A lucky few make what the industry calls the “Big Exit,” like a major network buying the startup for many millions of dollars.
We hear from many of these startups that the advertisers are clamoring for this or that they are promoting, but we usually see one of two things happen. Either the advertisers show so little interest that the startup fails, or what support the advertisers do provide goes to the venture capitalists and not to those providing the content.
As we screen the plethora of proposals to capitalize on high school sporting events in Michigan, we look for two kinds of assurances. First, that the suitor doesn’t have an exit strategy; and second, that the initiative will have direct benefit in terms of both money and message to those providing the content: i.e., schools.
Most of the initiatives we screen will assist schools with neither money nor message, and some of them would actually provide a message that is contrary to the mission of educational athletics.
So we’re guarding the gate, in both directions – controlling the entrance to the high school sports market in Michigan, as well as the escape of those who are in our market for a fast buck and quick exit, big or small.
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.