Outside View
October 4, 2011
Steve Jobs’ departure from Apple and then his death on Oct. 5 has caused just about every newspaper and business and technology magazine and online newsletter to provide its take on what Jobs meant to Apple, and to the world we live in.
Among the analyses I’ve read that could be most helpful to those in leadership of school sports is that of Cliff Kuang, before Jobs' death, in the October 2011 issue of Fast Company. In “What Steve Jobs Can Still Teach Us,” Kuang comments on Jobs’ “ability to see a company from the outside, rather than inside as a line manager.”
Over his career, observes Kuang, “He (Jobs) became less enamored of tech for tech’s sake. He blossomed into a user-experience savant.” He took the “outside view of a user.” Ultimately for Jobs, “usability was more important than capability.”
I suspect it would do us all well to take the same approach to school sports at the local and state levels; that is, to keep thinking about how the programs appear from the outside. How they appear to the end-user.
It’s all well and good that our rules are correct in their philosophy; but if they don’t make sense to end-users or don’t work in practical application, we may have problems. Same is true for our events, and for our technology.
It is impossible to expect complete understanding of all the policies and procedures of school sports or to avoid all controversy when the competing interests of partisans are involved as is the case in athletics. Remembering, therefore, that the task is not to please but to serve is a necessary mindset, because service in this work often means saying “No” or citing violations and requiring forfeits.
But even as we do these necessary but unpleasant things, which we know in advance will not be universally understood and supported, it is good to be mindful of how it all looks from the outside. It is most important that those in the necessary positions of doing these things be professional and consistent, with a steadfast commitment to apply policies and procedures uniformly. When people view the organization from the outside, even if they don’t fully understand or agree with a decision, they must see that each rule is applied identically to every school, without favoritism, and that rules are not just made up as we go along to relieve a pressure point or grease a squeaky wheel.
No Further Review
December 15, 2015
The rise of instant replay came with the hope if not the promise that errors by officials could and would be corrected. Now we know those expectations are not being realized.
In many cases this fall, we have watched college and professional football instant replay officials stand by helplessly because the rules of replay would not permit them to change the call on the field. In many other cases, we have watched instant replay officials make wrong calls from the replay booth.
We have always known that the high school level would not be able to perform extensive instant replay review – we don’t have the number and quality of camera angles at our games to judge the plays. But now we know that the existence of such technology does not assure the accuracy of decision-making.
So, let the so-called higher levels interrupt and prolong their games with questionable procedures that are resulting in as much acrimony as accuracy. Turns out that on this matter, the high school level is lucky to lack the resources of the college and professional game. For us, there’s no need for further review of further review.