The End is Near
December 10, 2013
From time to time we are confronted with print or broadcast media reports, or articles in scholarly publications, that criticize schools’ sponsorship of competitive athletic programs. Some authors have gone so far as to predict that the day is coming when schools are forced by the strength of intellectual argument or the shortage of resources to disassociate from competitive sports and to discharge that responsibility to local community groups and private clubs, as is the custom of most other nations.
For 50 years the “end is near” prophecy has been present among our critics. Today the prediction also can be overheard among cash-strapped school administrators, especially if they ascended to leadership without involvement in school sports.
It’s my sense that these dire predictions are not likely to come true for the reasons usually cited – e.g., that the programs dilute focus or divert funds of schools from their core mission. What is more likely is that these predictions will come true because those in charge ignore basic human needs and responses, and they fail to implement programs that meet those needs.
Our response should not be to lower sports’ profile in schools and offer less to students. It should be just the opposite. We should even more boldly proclaim the value of competitive athletic programs; we should provide more sports and levels of teams for high school students; and we should provide junior high/middle school students with more and longer contests, beginning at earlier ages.
We need to go on offense, as my next postings will prescribe.
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.