“Just A Spectator”
July 6, 2016
I have often employed one of two strategies for my attendance at MHSAA tournaments.
The one I have used least frequently is to stand where spectators enter and welcome them or, after the events, position myself at exits and thank spectators for attending. I’m an introvert, so this doesn’t come naturally and I don’t do this often, even though I’m gratified by receiving a “Thank You” from nearly every spectator who responds.
The strategy I have used more often is to be “just a spectator” – to stand in line to purchase a ticket, find my unreserved seat and listen to the people around me – folks I don’t know and who don’t know me. I’m more comfortable with this anonymous undercover approach, and I tend to learn more.
I learn that there is a general appreciation for the differences between school-sponsored sports and sports on all other levels by all other sponsors.
The spectators appreciate the inexpensive admission prices, but they complain about the cost of concessions at the college and professional venues in comparison to the school venues which host MHSAA tournaments.
I see that, generally, girls compete with more obvious joy than boys. I see that injuries are few; but, when they occur, they are taken seriously and attended to professionally. I see that the players exhibit better sportsmanship than anyone else at the venue.
The spectators expect and generally accept that mistakes will be made – by players, coaches and officials. They are hardest on officials; but many parents are hard on players, coaches and officials alike. I find this the most discouraging aspect of attending high school athletic events, which otherwise re-energizes me for the MHSAA’s work.
And I see that the MHSAA has much work to do, and that our work of the past several years to enhance the spectator experience is important, and that our work is far from finished – not just at our most high profile finals, but also (maybe especially) at lower profile championships and earlier round tournaments of many sports. This is a priority for which the MHSAA is getting more help in 2016-17 – engaging professional expertise to enhance our amateur events.
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.