December 1st is a Big Deal
November 10, 2017
One of the two or three most important Michigan High School Athletic Association Representative Council meetings of the past three decades will occur Dec. 1. Here’s why this is so.
The Council must decide where MHSAA Basketball Finals will be held for girls and boys, and make related decisions regarding both regular season and tournament schedules so schools can get on with confirming game schedules and officials assignments for at least 2018-19.
The Council must decide whether the enrollment limit for the 2018 MHSAA 8-Player Football Tournament will be fixed or floating, and if fixed, at what number. Of greater consequence in the long run, the Council will launch a discussion into the MHSAA’s responsibility for determining varsity 8-player football opponents for schools during the regular season.
The Council must consider changes in the policies and procedures for administering the new pitch count in baseball, and if the new pitching limitations should continue to delay what were thought to be improvements in the MHSAA Baseball Tournament structure and schedule.
The Council will examine input regarding proposals to fundamentally change the MHSAA transfer rule and determine which components of the proposal should advance as action items for its meetings in March or May.
The Council will examine input on proposed changes at the junior high/middle school level for contest limitations for several sports, as well as liberalization of the limited team membership rule for all team sports except football. Of even greater consequence, the Council may determine how aggressively, if at all, to advance MHSAA-sponsored regional invitational events for the junior high/middle school level in selected individual and team sports, with action on such possibly occurring in March or May.
The Council will engage in a discussion of what may be fading and what may be emerging in youth and school sports over the next decade and what that may mean in terms of sports for which MHSAA services and support should be provided, including what MHSAA tournaments may be added and which dropped at the high school level.
The Council will examine input on seeding of MHSAA District Basketball Tournaments and determine what the scope of actions could be at its March or May meetings.
Typically, the December meeting of the Representative Council tees up a big topic or two for action in March or May. This year, the December meeting requires that some specific actions be taken and sets more than the usual number of big topics on a course for action before this school year ends.
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.