THE TOURNAMENT TO LEADERS - The Purpose

A Tournament to Leaders

A competitive format application toward (s)electing leadership of our country

Part 1 A - The Purpose

Again, here, I will not apologize for my love of sports and its apparent dominance of this concept. Professionally and personally I have an easier time connecting with individuals who grew up participating in sports. In fact, I’d go so far as to say I prefer to connect with those people. Individual sports, team sports, or coaching of any kind...these individuals just understand the world differently. You learn to work toward a common goal. You learn the value of practice and dedication. You learn commitment, and loyalty, and teamwork. You learn how to “be the man” or you learn how to support the man. You learn how to play your part, and play it to the best of your ability, because the team is “only as strong as the weakest link”. You learn how to maximize your strengths while leaning on others to help cover your weaknesses. Everything goes out the window when you compete, everything goes out the window when you connect. Race, gender, sexual preference, socio-economic standing...none of these things exist when you are between the lines. If they do, you haven’t quite learned that sports and competition transcend. (I recommend you join a bowling league with your friends...or something of the sort). 

That being said, I look to the greatest sports event that exists for inspiration: the single-elimination bracket. 

You can put a lot of effort into convincing me that there are merits to other formats, and I may agree with you on points, but there is nothing as pure and essential to the essence of sports. As a basketball fan...nay, connoisseur...for as long as I can remember, March Madness has been the pinnacle of...well, existence.

So my bias, again, is obvious, but let’s look at why this format supersedes all others. 

1. A single elimination tournament pits strengths against weaknesses internally. A singular match-up requires each participant to decide if they are going to play to their strengths, or prepare for those of their opponent. It’s a rarity to be able to focus on both. This inspires a strategy of knowing what you do best, and trusting all the work you have put into its improvement toward mastery. Every team has weaknesses, and it can be very tempting to try to exploit those of your opponent. Is there more success found in doing this than relying upon your own strengths? Unlikely. 

2. A single elimination tournament is about matchups. This format pits individual strengths and weaknesses up against each other in an immediate fashion. If you have no answer collectively to an isolated strength, you may find yourself struggling to keep up. 

3. A single elimination tournament is opportunistic. Getting “hot” at the right time, being led by one piece of the puzzle that is simply dominant, peaking as a collective unit, outlasting an unbeatable foe, beating all odds...everyone loves an underdog, and when the stars align, all can celebrate and appreciate that moment. It just takes one perfect extended moment. Now, everyone “loves an underdog” just as much as a great majority “hates a dynasty”. I’m trying to find ways to account for this in the following setup. 

4. A single elimination tournament combines performance and preparation. The structure of the NCAA tournament combines games played in close proximity and games with a gap of time between them. This highlights some games as simply performing to the best of your ability on a given day and others as having time to prepare for your next opponent(s). Not only is strategy important, but sometimes it demands you simply do what you need to do to win, adjusting on the fly, and adapting in the moment. Those teams with an advantage of stamina and endurance, those with expert planning and preparation, those with a combination of the two, all are subject to the changing demands of their matchup. 

5. A single elimination tournament is won by the most deserving team. How could one argue otherwise? With a melting pot of all the previously stated attributes and demands, requirements and expectations, dreams and realities, where is the support for saying “that team didn’t earn it”? Sure it’s about momentum, it’s about peaking at the right time, but isn’t that what sports are all about, playing your best when your best is required? 

So, what does this all have to do with...anything...political? 

My “recommendation” is a single elimination tournament bracket of candidates that would progress toward the highest of elected officials. 

Now, slow down with objections and questions - there are probably a lot of both. I understand that. I will do my best to explain the constructs of this, but know that I am also actively thinking through the components and pitfalls. I will not claim it’s a perfect system because I know that it isn’t, but, as said before, it’s a hypothetical...it’s an idea. 

Before jumping into the How and the Who, here’s a simple list of the Why in light of our enlightenment of the single-elimination bracket format. 

• Candidate matchups will focus on personal strengths, not opponent weaknesses. 

• Some matchups will provide time for preparation, while others will force candidates to “just be” in the moment. 

• Some matchups will involve individuals on the same side of an argument, creating appreciation and variation of primary messages. 

• Fundraising will not be as prominent a part of campaigns, and barriers to entry may be slightly lowered. 

• Affiliations will naturally arise within the personality of the individual, but they will be mostly representing him/herself.

• The matchups may be manipulated in location and broadcast to maximize viewership and thus exposure. 

• Broadcast companies would obviously benefit from the televising of matchup debates/events, but allocation of a percentage of advertising dollars to a large number of organizations in need is possible. (Done behind the scenes and released at the end so that the dollars don’t drive any ratings-thus-dollars-thus financial biases for more marketable candidates...again, I’m still thinking this through). 

• If such a large number of US citizens fills out a March Madness bracket while knowing nothing about college basketball, this same baseline interest/investment/involvement (when they naturally fill out their Presidential Bracket) get politics in front of an even greater number. 

• Voters will have the luxury of focusing on matchups in small, chewable chunks. Instead of having to play “pick your poison” in the bigger picture, individuals will be able to prioritize strengths of candidates and face difficult personal “this or that” decisions progressively. 

Are there negatives to this approach? Of course. Anytime there is human involvement in a process that awards power, control, stability, etc...there will be negatives. Questions like, “Who gets to be on the bracket?”, and, “Who chooses who gets to be on the bracket?”, and, “Who gets to choose those who choose those who get to be on the bracket,” are all natural and necessary. These are those “What ifs” that need to happen for us to grow. 

Part 1 B will explore more deeply the Who of the tournament.

THE TOURNAMENT TO LEADERS - The Pre(r)amble

Disclaimer: 

There will be plenty of disclaimers throughout this series. Not only because we live, we communicate, we write, in a sensitive time, but also because some people receive information better after multiple deliveries. So there will be a disclaimer for this Pre(r)amble, there may actually be two disclaimers for Part 1 - The Purpose, (which includes The Players), there will be a disclaimer for Part 2 - The Bracket, and there will most definitely be a disclaimer for Part 3 - The Example, where this whole hypothetical is actualized. (That is, actualized only in that it becomes a completed hypothetical with examples, not actualized, in any way, as a real practice). What I embark upon here is simple: it is an exercise in creative thought. That is it. This is not a creed, nor declaration, nor claim. This is not meant as an “educated political stance”, nor a “commentary on past, present, and future”, nor an “exhibit of perceived intelligence or status”. I enjoy creative outlets, and this is one that I have frequented. 

With that said, Reader, you must keep in mind my limited scope in the greater realm of society. I am who I am at each progressive moment, but who I am now is a result of previous experience. I do not claim to be an expert on anything, I do not claim to be able to represent the thoughts and interests of any individuals outside of myself. ESPECIALLY in Part 3, where I place examples of real human beings into this theoretical structure, I admit here and fully that my knowledge of certain subjects, and individuals, and my lack of knowledge of certain subjects, and individuals, is going to fully play into the sample I lay before you. None of this is meant as offensive, none of this is meant as inclusive or exclusive - I simply do not have the knowledge or education to fully represent accurately.

As a coach, a fan, and a participant in athletic and competitive endeavors, it is what my mind turns to for answers. Where can I make a connection, where is the metaphor or anecdote I can use to make sense of the world around me? This will be completely apparent in all parts. I do not apologize for this, and I admit its limitations. 

Hopefully you are able to table any pre- and post-sensitivities to see this as simply me thinking out loud. More so, I hope that it sparks some reflection, thought, and insight into your own ideas about what could or could not work in the arena of politics. The more of us that spend time in reflection, first on a personal level, then a familial, and even designate some moments to think about how we currently live and some of the “What ifs?”, the better educated and considerate of all we will become. 

A Tournament to Leaders

A competitive format application toward (s)electing leadership of our country

The Pre(r)amble- Winners write history rights winners

I am a fan of History as a subject and a casual “fan” of politics. My enjoyment is often tied back to my interest in Leadership, in Sociology, and ultimately the application of all the ins-and-outs to my careers as both a teacher and a coach. There are rarely “right answers”, and any answer at all is subjective. There are endless opinions, both in-the-moment and retrospectively, biases of the history writers and interpreters, and viewpoints to every scenario, every event, every moment. 

As a writer, I would be remiss if I did not first comment on the power of Communication. Without it I would not be able to share my thoughts. However, the resource of Audience has proven, historically, to determine the “success” of Communication. Without this I would not be able to reach beyond my immediate social circle. 

When Language was first developed, it was done so out of a mutual understanding of context. Early humans could assign sounds and movements to items in their environment that their audience was already familiar with. Fast forward, the spoken language followed very much the same concept: familiarity of environment, consistency of audience, and shared goals all promoted the development of linguistics. Here, mankind began to establish itself. Expression, personality, individuality is not possible without the early steps of language toward communication. Now we have stories that teach, warn, and remember; we have songs that celebrate, entertain, and enrich. This all before anything is ever written down. 

Written language was the game changer, for better or worse. While some groups began to leave their marks, literally, others did not, whether by choice, lack of necessity, or a different developmental path as a culture. Though none of those developing tribes and communities knew it at the time, a considerable gap was created that would be taken advantage of centuries...millennia later. 

As it developed, the exclusivity of learning and using the written language was almost immediate. This was a class separator. A select few knew the symbols and their use, leaving a majority in the dark, and leaving them to the mercy of the interpretation of those with that “gift”. It often represented and created a cultural divide, within societies and across them. At some point in time, somewhere in the world, one of those individuals with the power and resource of understanding a written text, or perhaps even the writers of the text themselves, used this in a way that the benefit to his individual person, or his immediate circle, outpaced the benefit to the whole of the group. Once written words outlived the authors, and interpretation was left, again, to those with the resource and power of being the few who could read the text, there was even less of a defense against the misinterpretation, and often the misuse, of the original words and intentions. 

Winners write history rights winners. Those elite few with the control of the written history told the story they wished to tell. Narrowed even more considerably by conflict identifying a victor, only the transcendent of historical figures could be trusted to keep the records of their conquered foe or tell an honest, true to life account of anything that came to pass. Having a written history didn’t MAKE one culture more powerful than another, but it gave them the power to SEEM more powerful to those who would eventually read the stories. The ability to craft and create truth was too tempting a call. Why not leave out that detail? Why not fudge the statistics? Why not write myself as a hero and savior? 

Of course, this wasn’t the only written practice, but it is the one that carries a lot of weight for students of history. We can find primary sources to try and balance out our understanding of a specific history, but this ultimately creates a debate that we must investigate and reflect upon. There were also figures throughout history committed to the truth and the honest description of mankind. There were also figures that wrote not with the intention of controlling their perception in the present and future, but providing a gift to others in the present and future. 

Language was used as a pedestal. Language was used as a reason to differentiate and claim superiority. As education and access to a common language began to increase, language was used to influence and persuade. The gap in education created an even greater reliance upon an unspoken truth of the writers, and unspoken trust in the writers. At this point in the development of man, as a species, there were some that had spent generations abusing the power and writing their own narrative. 

Fast way forward to present day. Again, my bias and commentary will be nationally-focused as that is what I have access to. We live in a society where a common language exists to many extents and the resource of an audience is entirely unlimited. We live in a society that has recaptured the hieroglyphs in smiley faces. We live in a society where anyone with internet access can reach millions. We live in a society where education is not a necessary precursor to use of language that everyone else will understand. To bridge historical gaps callously, the “village idiot” can now record his manifesto and everyone will understand what he is saying to some extent. 

This has caused a problem. Unforeseen, unpredictable, but still undeniable. Now, in essence, done correctly, this is the greatest thing a Democratic society could hope for. A place where everyone is capable of communicating with one another allows for the sharing of ideas, the conjunction of culture, the effort to grow together. Unfortunately, what seems to have happened is that the access to a common language driven by “likes” and a quick kick of dopamine has compromised the value of that language. Reference the transformation of a woman’s name into an insult of how one conducts his/herself publicly. Reference the transformation of a generational marker into an insult of anyone older than a certain age. 

But, enough of the dwelling on the negative. Access to communication IS a powerful tool and valuable to our growth as society if used appropriately. Where some could not tell their story, or write their story, or have an audience that would believe their story, or would have to watch devastated as those with control of the language changed their story, we now have a linear account of historical events in real time. Not only the account, but the reactions to those events have become almost immediate. History is much less written now as it is lived. Historical Figures are much less remembered now as they are celebrated. History is experienced. 

The intention of my use of the power of written communication here is to respectfully present an alternative, a modification, a change to the system of electing national leaders. Were the Founding Fathers transcendent? Yes. Was the Declaration of Independence historical? Yes. Could those men writing that document have foreseen the social changes that would happen over the next 250 years? Absolutely and resoundingly no. This is not a condemnation of them or their efforts. This is not a claim that a structural change needs to happen. Again, this is just me brainstorming with present day in mind.

What will follow is a series of thoughts of establishing a different protocol for officials elected to the highest positions in society. I will lay out the positions, the roles, and my reasons for them. Will I have the resource of an audience? My guess is one or two of you will make it through all three parts. But I am that type of writer: if I can reach one or two and inspire them to even think “What if?”, I have used my talents appropriately. In the end, History will right the “winners”. When we have had a chance to think, to reflect, to reevaluate and revalue, we have the power to acknowledge the differences of the past while preparing the way for a brighter future. 

What will follow is a blueprint, a map, a...playbook...for the election of the highest seat of power in our country, in the form of one of the greatest competitive inventions of all time….

Making it Personal vs. Taking it Personally

On the heels of “The Last Dance” documentary about Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls of the 90’s, we were all left with a very distinct sense of Jordan’s motivation and/or his ability to turn almost anything into motivation: it became personal.

Almost laughable at times, (and since made into numerous, hilarious memes), when Jordan was slighted, felt slighted, or decided that he could have possibly been or felt slighted, he went somewhere in his mind that few of us will ever experience. He was able to throw gas on the flames of a fire that was burning on imaginary wood…worst/best case scenario. His depth of competition went to the core of the very existence of himself and those who opposed him. His own personal Thunderdome.

This theme also arose while watching a show about Michigan State’s 2000 Men’s Basketball Championship team. After a Final Four loss in the previous season, there was rioting in East Lansing on the MSU campus. Mateen Cleaves, point guard of both of those teams, said that they felt responsible for the chaos, that, had they won, it never would have happened, and they used it as motivation leading into the following year.

Now, from the outside, this doesn’t seem healthy…at all. It is definitely not a strategy that I will be teaching to young students and athletes, nor do I condone teaching. However, many young, impressionable minds will begin to add this to their approach to competition. Since the docs-series didn’t come with a user’s manual, my goal is to help make a very clear, very necessary distinction:

There is a difference between making it personal and taking it personally.

(Just read that again and let it sink in).

The worst thing that we can do, or allow, for children is let them wander into the next level of development unprepared. Immature athletes, immature people, could easily READ this “making it personal” strategy but ACTIVATE this “taking it personally”.

Anger. Anger is the difference. Pain is the difference. Offense is the difference. All of these things are detractors from performance. How many “angry athletes” have you seen perform well-below their ability? Especially in the ranks of elementary through high school sports, an angry athlete is a useless athlete. Taking something personally taps directly into insecurities, self-doubt, and fear, none of which are a part of the recipe for success.

Making it personal, on the other hand, is a controlled management of emotional response, a catalyst for focused effort, and a contributor to high performance. Watch an action film! As soon as “it’s personal now”, the afflicted character goes into a hyper-focus montage before single-handedly dispatching numerous enemies against all odds, and then, ONLY then, do we really see an emotional outpouring after the job is done.

Whether making it personal or taking it personally, it will reach our emotions, whether we acknowledge that or not. Exhaustion is the constant outcome.

Like anything else, this takes practice, this takes training, and this takes commitment. From a competition or motivational standpoint, it can be an asset. This isn’t the only way to motivate yourself. It won’t work for everyone. Michael Jordan was one of the greatest competitors of all-time, in any arena, and he found what worked for him.

What will work for you is personal, so take it that way and make the most of it.