Questions
September 9, 2014
Sometimes leadership looks at questions as a challenge to its authority, or as a way to obstruct progress. Both can be true.
But a better way to view a good question is as a valuable gift. It can provide an opportunity to learn, to consider details that hadn’t been addressed or alternatives that hadn’t been raised.
And a better way to look at a leader than the one with all the answers is to view the leader as a collector of questions.
The quality of those questions can have a direct relationship on the quality of ideas and initiatives that form, and a direct effect on programs and services that follow.
During August and September, MHSAA Associate Director Tom Rashid has been meeting with athletic administrators at their league meetings. Among several objectives has been to ask these front line administrators to think about some new approaches to some old topics – like out-of-season coaching limitations and policies and programs for junior high/middle school students. He has been asking questions, and then he’s been listening to questions, both of which are preparing us for more in-depth discussions on these topics throughout the remainder of the 2014-15 school year.
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.