Continuing Education
February 17, 2012
Eight MHSAA staff devoted an entire Friday late last month to discussions with a visitor from another statewide high school association. The focus was on what that association was doing, how and why in the areas of electronic media, marketing, merchandising and branding and the dozens of sub-topics these categories spawned.
Two weeks earlier, five MHSAA staff joined staff of ten other similar associations for two days of meetings in Chicago. There was sharing on topics ranging from student leadership programs to information technology.
A few days before that, I joined my counterparts from 45 other states for discussions of a variety of topics important to school sports in general or the administration of our serving organizations. I amassed 13 pages of notes from comments made by speakers and colleagues over three days.
Meanwhile, the MHSAA office hosted 12 MHSAA committee meetings during January. Each committee focused on a particular sport, or on a specific topic that affects all sports. Their recommendations will be vetted this spring and considered by the Representative Council by May.
Ideally, every month presents opportunities for us to learn, but last month provided a particularly broad and deep curriculum.
Not Right for Us
March 7, 2017
The proposal to utilize KPI Rankings to seed the District and Regional rounds of the MHSAA Boys and Girls Basketball Tournaments should not be adopted by the Michigan High School Athletic Association.
This is no criticism of KPI Rankings per se, or of its creator who is assistant athletic director at Michigan State University; but it’s not the right thing to do for our statewide high school basketball tournaments.
The KPI rankings is one of a half-dozen means used by the NCAA to seed its Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament. But the proposal before us is that KPI rankings become the one and only system for seeding the MHSAA’s tournaments. There would be no other criteria and no human judgment.
The result would be seeding that misses important details, like which teams are hot and which are not at season end, and which teams have recently lost players to injuries or ineligibilities and which have had players return.
KPI ranks teams on a game-by-game basis by assigning a value to every game played. A loss to an opponent with a poor record is considered a “bad loss” and has a negative point value. A win over an opponent with a good record is considered a “good win” and earns a positive point value. Margin of victory is a factor.
This is a nice tool for the NCAA to use, along with a variety of other tools and considerations that its billion-dollar budget can accommodate, but none of which is proposed for seeding the MHSAA tournaments. KPI Rankings is not sufficient as the one-and-only seeding criterion for MHSAA tournaments.
Moreover, dependence on a seeding system owned by a single individual, who is outside the MHSAA office, and who has the potential to move from MSU to anywhere across the USA, is a poor business strategy.
If there is to be seeding, there are more appropriate ways to do it for the high school level. But first there needs to be clearer consensus that seeding is a good thing to do, philosophically and practically. In the MHSAA we do this sport by sport, and level by level. And the jury is still out for seeding in Michigan high school basketball.