Changing Culture
August 21, 2012
It has made good sense that the MHSAA limit its attention to those matters of schools that are related to sports, and leave to others the problems and programs that involve all students and the entire school. But for several subjects, this general rule needs exceptions. For example . . .
Over the years we have introduced tobacco, alcohol and other drug use awareness programs through school sports programs, noting that student-athletes can be the leaders to most efficiently change the attitudes of the larger student population. This has met with modest success; but there are troubling studies that indicate male athletes are actually more likely than other students to use and abuse alcohol. So today we can justify the use of resources on tobacco, alcohol and other drug education not only because it is helpful for reaching other students, but also because the sports program itself needs this attention.
In the wake of a hazing tragedy in the marching band program of one university and the sexual abuse tragedy in the football program of another, I have been convicted to think more about programs under our watch here at the MHSAA and to think about how local school sports programs can be involved in improving the safe culture of our schools, which from time to time even here in Michigan have witnessed embarrassment and heartbreak.
Here at the MHSAA we are reviewing and plugging holes in our policies and procedures for MHSAA events where adults and students directly interact, which occurs much more now than a decade ago. This includes everything our Student Advisory Council does, our Women in Sports Leadership Conference and other student leadership events, as well as the locker room and lodging policies for MHSAA tournaments. It is likely that many local schools are years ahead of us on such policies, and we will learn and borrow from them.
Where schools might do more is to address bullying, hazing and all other forms of harassment; and it may be that – as with tobacco, alcohol and other drug education – sports not only can be used as a vehicle for changing the culture of schools, sports may also have a special need for the attention, and for a change in culture.
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.