In his article for the New York Times, Jeré Longman describes a fight over metrics, specifically use of the metric system in American track and field events. The Florida High School Athletic Association has decided to measure track and field events using the metric system, which would align the state’s version of the sport with the rest of the world’s rather than the rest of the country’s. Supporters argue that not only would using the metric system change the sport to match the Olympics, its most watched event, but it would also mean simpler and more accurate measurements. Not everyone supports the change, however, with many people in and outside of the sport resisting the change. Those who wish to keep the imperial system make the argument that the change will confuse fans. As the title suggests, the change could be confusing and unwelcome to fans who enjoy the sport how it is now. Ken Brauman, a well-known Florida track coach, expressed concern that announcing distances in metric will be confusing. He used the example of the long jump: “If they announce that a long jump is an 8-meter jump, people in the stands don’t understand that,” while announcing a jump of 26 feet 3 inches is widely understood in the US. The article alludes to other sports as well: the 45.7 meter field goal, rather than a 50 yard kick. Longman used an example of a Steph Curry buzzer beater being called 10.67 meters, rather than 35 feet. As you might imagine, this could leave fans unfamiliar with the metric system scratching their heads, unsure if the shot was from 3 or somewhere in the paint. Despite the pushback, the Florida High School Athletic Association hopes that two decades from now they are known for starting the push towards the metric system in the US. What do you think, will the US will embrace the metric system that soon, or even within our lifetimes?
Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/sports/floridas-high-schools-field-events-metric.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/sports/floridas-high-schools-field-events-metric.html
This is a great summary of a great article.
I think the answer to the question you posed at the end, whether if it is the US or a team who makes the decision to adopt metric, depends on their ability to reconcile the needs of different stakeholders.
On one side, administrators, organizers, and some trainers can rely on the standardized metric system to make better measurements and decisions on how to represent achievements of their teams. On the flip side, you have spectators and coaches who are familiar with the imperial system, for whom a change will create some hefty costs.
This points out the an aspect of metric that we haven’t touched on in our readings: it seems the value of a metric is also dependent on the network effect. However, in the case of metric vs imperial, there are just two different networks.
Unless something major happens to change the way Americans use the measuring system, I do not believe the US will be embracing the metric system any time soon. This goes back to the concept of “see, feel, change” that we learned in MIS 3535. To create lasting change, the US audience needs to see why the metric system is better, which will make them feel like a change is needed to improve the measurement system. In this case, I believe that there is no major benefit in changing it to the metric system to compel the US to make the change; it is just two different ways of measuring distance.