Logo

Anytime, Anywhere

July 28, 2014

The MHSAA’s Coaches Advancement Program (CAP) is like no other high school level coaches education program in the US.
In an online world, including many other ways here at the MHSAA, CAP still trades purposefully in face-to-face learning; and the MHSAA Is committed to delivering sessions “anytime, anywhere” – any time a school, district, league or coaches association will sign up 20 coaches, the MHSAA will deliver one or more of the six CAP levels the group requests.
About 60 percent of those who complete CAP Levels 1 through 5 do so as a part of their course work at one of seven colleges or universities in Michigan (Central Michigan University, Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Lake Michigan Community College, Muskegon Community College, Northern Michigan University, Oakland County Community College and Western Michigan University).
The other 40 percent of those who complete CAP – and this will be a growing percentage – do so through sessions facilitated by a group of people who have committed many evenings and weekends to CAP’s “anytime, anywhere” approach to ongoing, adult education. During 2013-14, Jerry Haggerty, athletic director at Hamilton High School, led all presenters, teaching 25 sessions. Among other of the busiest presenters were Tony Moreno of Eastern Michigan University; retired athletic administrator Jim Feldkamp; Ken Mohney, athletic director at Mattawan; and Hally Yonko, athletic director at Ann Arbor-Gabriel Richard High School.
The leader of boundless energy and enthusiasm for CAP is MHSAA Assistant Director Kathy Vruggink Westdorp. In 2016-17, CAP Level 1 or 2 becomes a requirement for all persons hired for the first time at any MHSAA member school after July 31, 2016 as a high school varsity head coach. Kathy and a growing cadre of presenters are eagerly awaiting that challenge.
The team closed the 2013-14 school year by presenting eight levels of CAP at six different sites over six days, June 9-14, and then conducted CAP Levels 1, 2 and 3 on three consecutive days, June 19-21, at Clinton High School.

The Seeding Disease

May 1, 2018

I have yet to hear one satisfactory reason to advocate for seeding an all-comers, 740-team high school basketball tournament. But this I do know: Advocates of seeding are never satisfied.

Seeding high school basketball tournaments has become the rage since the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament, still just a 68-team affair, became a billion dollar media business. Many people assume that what is used for this limited invitational college tournament is needed and appropriate for a high school tournament that involves 11 times as many teams.

The NCAA pours millions of dollars into the process of selecting and seeding its 68-team tournament, combining a variety of data-based measurements with the judgments and biases of human beings.

One of this year’s questionable selections to make the 68-team field was Syracuse ... which sent our more highly touted and seeded Michigan State Spartans back home early in the tournament.

Meanwhile, low-seeded Loyola-Chicago upset four teams on its way to the Final Four, and became the favorite of fans nationwide. Which argues for upsets. Which argues for randomness.

Which argues against seeding. Why pick the No. 1 seeds of four regions and have all four glide to the Final Four? What fun would that be?

A local sports columnist who is an outspoken advocate for seeding our state’s high school basketball tournament actually wrote a published column advocating for “more Loyolas” in the NCAA tournament, and he explained how to make that happen. Which, of course, seeding is designed to not make happen, but instead, to grease the skids for top-seeded teams.

When the NCAA Final Four brackets for San Antonio resulted in two No. 1 seeds on one side, playing in one semifinal game (Kansas and Villanova), while the other side of the bracket had a semifinal with a No. 3 seed (Michigan) and a No. 11 seed (Loyola), there was a call for more finagling ... for reseeding the semifinals so that the two No. 1 seeds wouldn’t have to play until the final game.

It was poetic justice to watch one No. 1 seed clobber the other No. 1 seed in a terrible semifinal mismatch.

The point is this: Seeding is flawed, and advocates of seeding are never satisfied. If we take a small step, they will want more steps. If we seed the top two teams of Districts, they will lobby for seeding all teams of the Districts. If we seed all teams of Districts, they will ask for seeding Regionals. And, if we seed the start of the tournament, they will want a do-over if it doesn’t work out right for the Finals.

Seeding is a distraction, and an addiction.