Logo

Many Big Changes Ahead

April 25, 2014

The May meeting of the MHSAA Representative Council is usually the one that produces the most action leading to the most change in Michigan school sports. This year, however, the Council could skip this meeting entirely, and still school sports would be in for the greatest number of significant positive changes that we have ever seen over any previous two- to three-year period.
In the area of health and safety, schools will be in the second year of the “Model Policy for Managing Heat & Humidity” adopted in March of 2013 and the first year of new Football Practice Policies adopted in March of 2014. The practice policies lengthen the early season acclimatization period from three days to four and reduce collision practices to one per day prior to the first game and to two per week thereafter.
This fall, the first of three enhancements to the health and safety preparation of coaches takes effect. All high school assistant and subvarsity coaches must complete a rules and risk management requirement similar to high school varsity head coaches. In the fall of 2015, all high school varsity head coaches must be CPR certified. In the fall of 2016, all first-time high school varsity head coaches must have completed the MHSAA’s Coaches Advancement Program Level 1 or 2.
This fall brings two big changes in the transfer regulation. The athletic-related transfer rule adopted in 2013 takes full effect Aug. 1, 2014, as do rules that remove different treatment of J-1 and F-1 visa students and the disparate impact of Federal laws on public and nonpublic schools with respect to F-1 students.
Meanwhile, the MHSAA has already committed all of 2014 to a comprehensive examination of some very large junior high/middle school issues (e.g., should we be including younger grades and should there be Regional tournaments); while during the second half of 2014, there will be new looks at out-of-season coaching rules and broader application of “subvarsity” level opportunities to transfer and international students.
Even if the Representative Council makes no changes at its May 4 and 5 meetings, the fall of 2014 will be the busiest I’ve been a part of in 29 years.

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.