Pilot Programs 2.0
May 10, 2016
Two sideline concussion detection pilot programs launched with 62 schools at the start of the 2015-16 school year will continue in 2016-17, with several significant modifications.
For the upcoming school year, a smaller number of schools will be invited to participate, training will be both earlier and longer, and the focus will be on those sports which the MHSAA’s mandated concussion reporting by all high schools has identified as having the highest risk for head injuries.
The primary purpose for the MHSAA to initiate, drive and monitor these pilot programs is to emphasize the removal-from-play phase of the concussion care continuum, and to encourage more care, consistency and courage during that decision-making process.
Data from the most recent fall and winter seasons tends to demonstrate that schools in the pilot programs reported more concussions than non-pilot schools and they withheld students from activity longer than schools which did not participate in the pilot programs.
These tendencies are supported by both systems being tested, King-Devick and XLNTbrain, both of which have significant improvements in store for pilot schools in 2016-17.
The purpose of the pilot programs is not to select a single system to be recommended to or required of all MHSAA member schools, but to demonstrate to vendors how to serve the needs of our diverse constituency and to help our schools serve their student-athletes better. Further progress toward these purposes is a certainty during 2016-17.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #2
June 1, 2018
Seeding of Michigan High School Athletic Association tournaments, especially basketball and ice hockey, is a topic that routinely finds its way to MHSAA Representative Council agendas.
In May of 2017, the Council rejected a comprehensive proposal to seed the District and Regional levels of MHSAA Basketball Tournaments; but the Council instructed MHSAA staff to examine ideas for limited seeding at the District level only, using an MHSAA-controlled system.
In May of 2017, it appeared there was a small number of Council members who supported the proposal submitted for that meeting by the Basketball Coaches Association of Michigan, and that there were two larger groups – one open to seeding on a more limited basis than BCAM proposed and another group opposed to seeding of any scope by any system.
MHSAA staff responded to the Council’s request by presenting in March of this year and again in May a plan for seeding only the top two teams of each District, to which teams would continue to be assigned by geographic proximity, and then placing top seeds on brackets that would assure those two teams could not meet until the District Finals.
The staff provided answers to the many obvious policy and practical questions, including the system to be used, the games to be included and the placement of teams on brackets.
The effort to arm the Council with these answers had the effect of turning some advocates into opponents of seeding. It was as if the more questions staff anticipated with answers, the more people objected to the plan.
This brought defeat to the plan to seed basketball Districts, and the same to plans to seed ice hockey Regionals and Semifinals.
The questions now are: Do we vote on a fully vetted plan, knowing the details before we move forward; or do we buy a pig in a poke, voting in a concept without details, surprising others and ourselves with how seeding would be implemented? And do we vote on anything at all until we have answered the large philosophical questions as well as the dozens of smaller practical questions that seeding requires we address.