![](/sites/default/files/imported/DirectorSig2H.jpg)
Hurry Up and Wait
May 16, 2017
I work so far in advance of events that I’m the subject of some ribbing by my colleagues on staff of the Michigan High School Athletic Association.
I prepare agendas for winter meetings during the previous summer – to help us plan. I draft minutes of those meetings before they occur – a device I’ve found helps to expose gaps in preparation for those meetings. I keep an ongoing file of possible questions for future surveys. I have bulging files that will help us address important topics when interfering urgent matters get out of the way.
So, it feels odd that I write to suggest athletic directors and officials assigners delay some planning for the 2018-19 school year.
You may have read in MHSAA communications or elsewhere that changes in policies of the NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Tournament have made MSU’s Breslin Student Events Center unavailable to host the MHSAA girls Finals in 2018 and 2020-2022 and the boys Finals in 2019, that the MHSAA will conduct the 2018 girls Finals in Van Noord Arena at Calvin College, and that we will use the upcoming summer and fall to consider alternative venues, season calendars and tournament schedules for 2018-19 and beyond.
Decisions may be made that affect the season starting and/or ending dates of girls basketball, boys basketball or both, as well as other winter sports. Decisions could affect the end of the girls volleyball season as well.
Rather than consider this as a huge disruption, we are choosing to look at this as an opportunity to review how and when we do things, both regular season and MHSAA tournaments. Possibly there are some improvements that can be made.
On the other hand, we may find it inappropriate to upset sound scheduling and many valued traditions because of changes made in a college basketball tournament, and that we should use NCAA Division I facilities less or not at all, if necessary, to continue with our current schedules.
Nevertheless, the fact of these discussions and the potential for changes might cause leagues and local schools to delay in finalizing 2018-19 schedules and officials assignments.
![](/sites/default/files/imported/DirectorSig2H.jpg)
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.