The Complaint Department
May 26, 2015
The MHSAA office is one of the few places of business a person can telephone and still be greeted by a real live person.
Our real live person, Laura Roberts (no relation), has become a favorite of many MHSAA member school employees and registered officials because of her friendliness and command of facts. However, I recently overheard Laura say that the most frequent way she is greeted by other callers is, “I want to register a complaint.”
What is frustrating to Laura, and to the rest of the MHSAA staff, is that the caller’s complaint is so often about something the MHSAA is without authority and responsibility to fix. For example ...
- Complaints about coaches’ decisions regarding who makes the team and who gets playing time or who is playing what position are misdirected to the MHSAA. The MHSAA does not hire or supervise any coach, and has no authority to intervene in such matters as these; yet the parents’ complaints of this type come often to the state level when they should never ascend above the local school level.
- Complaints about officials’ decisions during the regular season are misdirected to the MHSAA. The hiring of contest officials outside of MHSAA tournaments is outside the authority of the MHSAA.
- The same is true regarding the days and times that regular-season contests are held.
- The same is true relative to the facilities utilized for regular-season events.
- Complaints about student conduct or training rules are misdirected to the MHSAA. Local boards of education jealously guard their sole authority to determine and enforce rules related to drinking, smoking and good citizenship.
- Complaints about all-state teams are misdirected to the MHSAA, which has never named a single all-state team in any sport. Sometimes it’s a media group which names these teams; sometimes it’s a coaches association; but it’s never the MHSAA which does so; and neither the media nor coaches associations answer to the MHSAA on such matters.
On these and other topics, the MHSAA is the misdirected target of daily complaints from those who want to better understand why things happen as they do in their niche of school sports. Because there are new constituents to school sports every year, it will be a never-ending test of our patience and professionalism.
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.