Logo

What's Ahead

February 10, 2012

A dozen years ago I sat in on a presentation by a futurist who was speaking with a special committee of the National Federation of State High School Associations, called the “New Paradigm Task Force.”  During the presentation the speaker provided a list of the 10 magazines a person should read regularly to keep alert to what’s ahead in our world.  Here’s the list:

• Christian Science Monitor
• Science News
• Business Week
• Popular Science
• Utne Reader
• Atlantic Monthly
• Mother Earth News
• Technology Review
• The Economist
• In Context

Since that time I’ve carried the list with me in my pocket planner, and I’ve often purchased and read one or more of the magazines when I’m traveling through airports.  Over the years I’ve subscribed to four of these publications.

Some of you will chuckle that this futurist was recommending print publications and not the World Wide Web.  Others may note that several of these recommended publications failed to survive modern technology and no longer exist.  So it goes with predictions, even for professionals.

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.
The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.
Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.
The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.
Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.
If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.