The One Thing
June 17, 2016
“If funding were not an issue, what’s the one thing you would do at the MHSAA?”
That’s the question posed late last month by a candidate for employment at the MHSAA; and I answered without any hesitancy.
I would require and pay for both initial and continuing education of all coaches, both high school and junior high/middle school, head coaches and assistants, paid and volunteer. It would occur mostly face to face, and it would be intentional in its conveyance of the meaning of educational athletics and the definition of success in school-sponsored sports.
The coach is the front line in the delivery of the core values of educational athletics and the immediate and lifetime benefits of school sports participation. More than any other person, coaches can change students’ lives and they can create a culture in their program that changes the attitudes of parents toward youth sports and the attitudes of spectators toward officials.
The well-trained coach, the purposefully trained coach, not only gives the student a better experience, that coach also gives parents a reality check and helps give officials a more sportsmanlike atmosphere in which to work. Well-trained coaches enhance almost every aspect of the school sports experience – improving participant safety and promoting a lifetime of healthy habits; teaching and demanding good sportsmanship that evolves toward good citizenship; promoting teamwork, hard work, fair play, respect for rules and others.
Delivering with purpose and passion initial and ongoing education that is research-based, student-focused and required of all interscholastic coaches, is best for kids and for the future of school sports in Michigan. And it would contribute mightily to the quality of our schools and communities.
Over the past decade, approximately 20,000 individuals have completed one or more levels of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program (CAP). The goal should be 20,000 coaches through multiple levels of CAP each year. That’s the one thing the MHSAA should do.
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.