Making an Impact
September 11, 2012
Here’s a provocative statement by David Gergen, professor of public policy and director of the Center for Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and a frequent political analyst for CNN: “The nonprofits making the greatest impacts these days are entrepreneurial, adaptive, outward-looking, and sometimes a little messy.”
I like that, and I think using these four features or criteria to evaluate the MHSAA now and in the mid-range future would be good for those we serve.
-
Are we entrepreneurial? How could we be more so?
-
Are we adaptive? Are we flexible in how we do things?
-
Are we outward-looking? Are we impacting school sports broadly and deeply? Does the impact have staying power? Are schools better because of what we do? Are communities stronger for our doing it?
-
Are we sometimes a little messy?
I suspect that if we are the first three – entrepreneurial, adaptive and outward-looking – then messiness is a natural byproduct. There will be starts and stops, failures before successes, changes. There will be disagreements and compromises.
I suspect that we will have to tolerate a little more messiness if we are to move forward, even faster than we have, and if we are to have impact, even greater than we have.
Anticipating Collateral Damage
March 23, 2018
When major college sports sneezes, high school sports usually catches a cold.
Throughout history, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has made changes in response to problems in college sports that have resulted in harm to high school sports.
Who can argue that relieving college coaches from the burden of being members of the instructional faculty did anything but weaken the connection between intercollegiate athletics and the educational mission of the sponsoring institutions? That major college football and men’s basketball coaches are the highest paid employees at many universities demonstrates the disconnection.
Who can argue that the creation of athletic grants in aid – scholarships – did anything but raise the pressures on college programs to win and to recruit hard at the high school level? Who can argue that this process got any more upright and above board when NCAA rules were changed to push most of the recruiting process to non-school venues and corporate concerns?
Who is surprised now that the corruption has moved beyond the NCAA’s ability to control and has resulted in investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and indictments followed by player ineligibilities and coach firings?
The worry now is that the NCAA and the National Basketball Association will strike again. Aiming to solve their problems, they likely will add to ours.