This would be very tuff to add the Canadian schools into the NCAA division 1 program because there would be so much that would need to be changed according to the rules and guidelines of the NCAA. It would almost have to be totally revamped in order for it to work. There becomes a lot of issues when this is brought up because it trying to fit two different countries into a collegiate organization that is totally based on the United States. You have to look at how many Canadian schools there are also because that becomes a factor when you are trying to put the schools in different conferences. How would you determine which school went into which conference if its a totally different country. There would be great trouble i believe in making this happen because some parts of Canada are very far away from places in the lower states of the U.S. This leads to people not being able to attend the game and possibly not being able to play on there own ice. With that there would have to be a neutral location that is in the middle of the two places. That being said I believe they should just make a organization like the NCAA in Canada and have exhibition games at the beginning of the season like some of the programs at the U of M do. I know the hockey team plays British Columbia every year and that is most defiantly reaching out and getting places like that involved. It takes a lot of strategy to make a merger like this and sometimes when you try to make something as big as this happen there comes many flaws and kinks that need to be worked out. With that I don't think he NCAA can have those kinks happen to them at this point when they are just getting there feet back on the ground. According to Slack & Parent, the structure of an organization can determine the strategy (125). I think if this could happen it would really be great for the two different countries to come together and play some different teams but right now I really don't believe this is humanly possible to make happen. Its just to big of a deal and would need to much reforming of the NCAA for it to happen.The three core values of strategy are power, capacity for change, and interest. Who has the power to make this happen? Would you get everyone in the NCAA to agree that its ok to have Canadian schools added to the organization or would that upset a lot of people? Also the capacity for a change, can this really happen or would there be many more bad then goods? I think these three things are very good things to ask yourself when your looking at doing something of the magnitude and also they need to be looked at very closely. What would make it easier to involve the Canadian Schools into the NCAA without officially bring them in? What do you think the athletes would think about something like this?
jorge301: September 2009 Archives
1.What are the common goals of the NESCAC -Academic Success -Student Personal Growth -Competing players are to be representatives of the student body. -Academic authority to control intercollegiate academic policy -Largest # of participants in a wide variety of sports coached by quality people. 2.How is the presidents compromised decision in line with the common goals. -They decided to only allow the conference champion to pursue post season play in one venue deemed appropriate normally. This allowed less strain on the academic scheduled there was more room for academic success. -If the team goes to the championship, they are more than likely to bring in the bigger recruits. -When students have a better academic success it gives the institution a better image. 3.Major Stakeholders -Alumni, Main Stream Media, Faculty, Athletic Staff, Conference Officials, Trustees, Athletic Director 4. -Athletes have potential to go to postseason play. -The school could bring in better sport programs and resources to help out. 5. - For coaches and players it would limit there success on a national level. -From the NESCAC cutting the teams down that make it to conference play. The main stream media is missing out on all those other games that they could of been a part of and interviewed people. 6. - With the presidents decision it is more of a centralized decision. So you would decentralize the organization so there would be more power to the other stake holders to make decisions throughout the organization. It would thus spread the power out instead of just having one person make all the decisions like what is happening now. We believe the divisionalized one would work the best in this case because it brings the power more to a middle line instead of a high power. 7. Yes there should be a playoff system so you could keep the players involved and if you did not have a playoff system the league would be pointless and there would be no end goal. Like we talked about in earlier chapters goals are a very important part to a successful system. This way it does not take away to much from the school and its academic accomplishments and academics could still be the main focus of the organization with a successful sports system. It allows the players that want to get recognized the chance to and also the chance to strive for something. If your team wins its only going to help you out in the long run! It also takes away from the universities ultimate goal from strictly sticking wit academics and not athletics. 8. As we indicated in #6 the best structure to deal with conference playoff structure and future policy issues would be the divisionalized form which is the middle line part of the organization.
Organizational structure is a very big thing in an organization when it comes to making sure everything runs smoothly in every different field and level. There are 3 main things that you focus on when your talking about organizational structure. They are complexity, formalization, and centralization, these 3 things need to occur at the highest standing to make sure you have a well structured organization. Complexity is the naming of job titles all the way from the owner to a regular staff member. This is important because you need to have people with certain roles and higher powers then others. This is something that needs to be taken in consideration so when you grant someone a job title that person does not go overboard with the title they just received because that can lead to a very non structured organization. In the book complexity is described as one of the most readily apparent features of any sport organization. It goes on to say that any time you look at a sport organization, you are always looking at the job titles and the way it is sorted out between hierarchy and positions. Formalization is defined as the extent to which mechanisms such as rules and regulations, job descriptions, and policies and procedures govern the operation of a sport organization. What this means is that the more formalized a organization is the more detailed it is throughout the organization especially dividing down into sub units between the different levels in the organization. An organization does not necessarily have to be very formalized to be a well structured organization. Like one of my examples I brought into class monday was a organizational chart of the Canadian Hockey League. This was a very formalized organization with all kinds of different sub units and lines going everywhere. With that it is very easy to loose communication within the organization and even though it is very strongly formalized it may not be such a greatly structured organization because it got to formalized. Centralization is defined in the book as if decisions are being taken place at the top of the organization then it is centralized and if they are not then its considered to be decentralized. This can be a good thing or in other cases it can be a bad thing. It is great when you have a smaller organization that is not very formalized but still is very structured because of the small size. In this case I like that the owner or the president of the organization is the one that is making decisions. On the other hand if you have a very formalized organization with several sub units in each different level then to have the highest man on the pole make the decision all the time is pointless to me. They should report to there leader of the subunit and that leader or manager should make the decision and should not have to go all the way to the owner. I still believe you can be a very structured organization with out doing these three tasks very well but you will struggle internally between units if you don't. After reading this section it really sums everything up and makes ties to last chapter about how an organization is effective. After reading the chapter and then finding examples of an organizational chart for sport team it gave me that picture or example of all these terms that I was looking for. Can an organization be all these 3 terms which lead to a structured organization and not be an effective organization like we talked about in the last chapter?
A effective organization has to start from the the top of the ladder and work its way down. The manager of the organization is a huge part in how effective and organization will be. That is why you see some many managers being fired or dropped down because if they are not making things effective then you need to get someone in there that can. This starts by working with every different level in the organization and making sure that they have set goals of what they want to see achieved. Communication is a huge role in an effective organization simply for the fact that if you have no communication between the different fields in the organization, the status of these set goals and other important things will for one never get achieved and two will apply for a very in effective organization. The book by Slack and Parent says that effectiveness refers to the extent to which an organization achieves its goals. With what was just said I believe that communication has a huge deal of how effective a organization is. If you cant communicate there will be no goals set and there in turn will equal to a less effective organization. There are many ways an organization can be very effective its just how you want to take on the phrase of "what is an Effective organization"? Cameron points out that organizations lacking a competitive advantage in their choose market or unsuccessful in acquiring the best resources can still be very effective (Slack and Parent 45)." Like the book explains the Seattle Supersonics were a very "no-name" team who in 1977 an 1978 were unable to obtain any super stars for their team, thereby the lost a competitive advantage. Yet with all that and lower quality resources they still made it to the NBA finals and went on to win it all (Slack and Parent 45). To have an effective organization I believe you need to start with a solid and very spoken communication based organization which therefor leads you to goal setting at the very high level as overall organization goals, but also goals in each field that surrounds the organization. When you make these goals they need to be very structured of what you want to accomplished. At the same time make them where you feel like if you go out of your way they can be accomplished. With these goals being set it gives the employees something that they can work for to better than organization besides the team try to win or lose. There not to easy and there not to extreme like "Swimming Nation Canada". As a result you can see that with to high or expectations you tend to not succeed. It comes down to you don't have to win the gold medal or go undefeated as a team to be an effective organization you just need communication and everyone working together from the top down with the manager piecing everything together. To sum it all up the book says that "effective organizations are those with absence of internal strain, whose members are highly integrated into the system, whose internal function is smooth and typified by trust and benevolence towards individuals, where information flows smoothly both vertically and horizontally (Slack and Parent)." There are so many ways to go about what is and is not an effective organization, but these are some of the things that I believe are in any effective organization. 1). Can you be an effective organization without winning an 2). What approach out of the book do you think works best in an effective organization?