One-Case Causes
August 27, 2013
One of the characteristics I look for in leaders is the ability and courage to ignore certain problems. To not get worked up about every little thing and even some bigger things. To stay focused on long-term goals and objectives in the midst of fad and frenzy. To distinguish the merely hot topics from the much more important topics.
“One-care causes” – projects or campaigns launched to address an isolated incident, even of high profile – can drain the resources and distract an organization from the larger and longer lasting issues that demand even more attention than we may be devoting to them.
We must not confuse one incident with a trend. We shouldn’t assume that an isolated situation demands an immediate solution, or that every single problem needs a top-down, systemic remedy.
Sometimes a problem – ineligibility, forfeit, unsportsmanlike act – really is limited to a particular student or school, or confined to a single coach, contest or community. And in those situations, leadership means leaving them alone and letting the matter be handled by people closer to those situations.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.