Educating for Educational Athletics
October 11, 2013
Michigan’s educational tradition of local control (which the MHSAA has respected) and Michigan educators’ distaste for unfunded mandates (which the MHSAA has consistently opposed) have had the result of keeping Michigan schools in neutral while schools in many other states have been in high gear to enhance training for interscholastic coaches.
Multiple levels of coaching education and even licensing or certification of coaches is now standard operating procedure in many other places. In contrast, Michigan has had almost no requirements for school-sponsored coaches.
However, in measured steps, change is coming to Michigan to promote an interscholastic coaching community better equipped to serve student-athletes, with special attention to health and safety:
-
As a result of an MHSAA Representative Council vote last March, all high school level assistant and subvarsity coaches must complete the same rules and risk minimization meeting requirement as high school varsity head coaches or, in the alternative, must complete a free health and safety course linked to or posted on MHSAA.com. This takes effect in 2014-15.
- In December, the Representative Council will vote on a proposal to require all high school varsity head coaches to hold valid (current) CPR certification. This would take effect in 2015-16.
- In March, the Council will vote on a proposal to require all persons who are hired for the first time as an MHSAA member high school varsity head coach after July 31, 2016, to have completed Level 1 or 2 of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program.
Implementing these policies over the next three years will not advance Michigan schools to the head of the class with respect to assuring school coaches receive ongoing education in the critical coaching responsibilities dealing with participants’ health and safety. This will, however, move our schools from a near failing grade to average, from D- to perhaps C.
Ultimately, we will need to overcome legitimate concerns for adding to the difficulty of finding and affording coaches, and do much more to assure the programs we sponsor deserve the label “educational athletics.”
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.