Better Late Than Never
November 8, 2013
In a matter of minutes online or a matter of an hour in a bookstore, we can locate dozens of magazine articles and full-length books that describe either the blessings or burdens of all the technology that is now at our fingertips at home, at work and in play.
Every problem we have (and many we had no idea we have) seems to have a technology solution. And, it seems every solution creates new problems: from invasions of personal privacies to compromised security of children, companies and countries. And sometimes the technology breaks down altogether.
The latest and largest failure is the government’s inability to deliver on its promised online health care marketplace. Before that, we’ve seen “glitches” close down Wall Street’s NASDAQ exchange. Technology troubles recently crippled the reservation systems of 11 airlines simultaneously. Even Internet “expert” Facebook mishandled the technology for its own initial public offering.
So it has surprised few of us that the launch of ArbiterGame to solve the scheduling issues of MHSAA member schools has had many of its own issues. But we are certain of this: ArbiterGame will be successful in providing member schools the safest, most efficient and reliable electronic athletic department management system that is available, and the least expensive, anywhere.
As we began this journey in the second half of 2011 in response to a crescendo of complaints from administrators about the then-available scheduling software, we anticipated the effort to complete the project could take twice as long and cost twice as much as projected and, even if that pessimistic prediction would turn out to be true, the result would still be worth it. It is taking twice as long, and it will be worth the work and wait.
The value will be in the low cost and high convenience for school administrators, and a platform – MHSAA.com – that presents the data in an environment that promotes the highest ideals of school sports.
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.