Exploring Esports
May 18, 2018
One of the liveliest topics of discussion during the May 6-7 meetings of the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association was “esports.”
Some Council members, sensing an opportunity to connect with additional students, are intrigued; and they wonder how long we can dissect the topic before the train leaves the station without our involvement and influence.
Other Council members, seeing the violent nature of many of the popular games and the lack of physical activity by participants, question what authentic place electronic gaming could ever have in educational athletics.
Where money drives the enterprise, there has been little hesitation to become involved. Most professional sports leagues and/or franchises are already heavily invested. The only value judgment being made is the return on investment dollars.
Intercollegiate athletics is not far behind. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) sponsors events. The NCAA has a powerful work group developing strategies. More than 100 colleges are providing scholarships, including Michigan institutions.
At least a half-dozen of our counterpart organizations across the US will conduct or endorse esports seasons and tournaments for high schools during 2018-19. The MHSAA has organizations both within and outside Michigan looking for our leadership.
The industry has lots of hype and cash behind it. But before it will be educators who will question how shoot-and-kill games have a place in schools.
There may be many beneficial outcomes for participating students: e.g., improved hand-eye coordination, problem-solving skills, concentration, multi-tasking, memory – even team-building skills. There also may be negative outcomes, including too much of what might be a good thing, leading to insomnia and addiction.
PlayVS, an esport upstart company aiming at the high school level, promotes esports with the slogan, “It’s not a sport; it’s our sport.”
Arthur Piccolo, CEO of New Sports Group in New York, counters, “So-called esports is not a sport, it is computer game playing.”
I delight in the debate because it is rare that something comes along that so quickly drives discussion to defining issues of school-based sports ... to searching for the sweet spot that expands student engagement without abandoning what makes school sports a force for good in students, schools and society.
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.