Raising Expectations for Preparedness
February 15, 2013
Over the next four years we will be exploring for and implementing what we hope are both effective and practical means of raising expectations for coaches preparedness. Three avenues are on our map at this time:
First, it is proposed that by school year 2014-15, all MHSAA member high schools will be required to certify that all assistant and subvarsity coaches at the high school level complete the same online rules meeting (with health and safety component) that is required of head coaches or they must complete one of the free online sports safety courses posted on or linked to MHSAA.com.
Second, it is proposed that by 2015-16, MHSAA member high schools will be required to certify that all of their varsity head coaches have a valid CPR certification prior to their second year of coaching at any MHSAA member school.
Third, it is proposed that by 2016-17, all varsity head coaches of MHSAA member high school teams have completed either Level 1 or Level 2 of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program prior to their third year of coaching at any MHSAA member high school. The MHSAA is preparing to subsidize some of the course cost for every coach who completes Level 1 or 2.
Together, these changes will move Michigan from one of the states of fewest coaching requirements to a position consistent with the “best practices” for minimizing risk in school sports and providing students a healthy experience.
The MHSAA Representative Council has not yet scheduled a vote on these proposals.
Not Right for Us
March 7, 2017
The proposal to utilize KPI Rankings to seed the District and Regional rounds of the MHSAA Boys and Girls Basketball Tournaments should not be adopted by the Michigan High School Athletic Association.
This is no criticism of KPI Rankings per se, or of its creator who is assistant athletic director at Michigan State University; but it’s not the right thing to do for our statewide high school basketball tournaments.
The KPI rankings is one of a half-dozen means used by the NCAA to seed its Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament. But the proposal before us is that KPI rankings become the one and only system for seeding the MHSAA’s tournaments. There would be no other criteria and no human judgment.
The result would be seeding that misses important details, like which teams are hot and which are not at season end, and which teams have recently lost players to injuries or ineligibilities and which have had players return.
KPI ranks teams on a game-by-game basis by assigning a value to every game played. A loss to an opponent with a poor record is considered a “bad loss” and has a negative point value. A win over an opponent with a good record is considered a “good win” and earns a positive point value. Margin of victory is a factor.
This is a nice tool for the NCAA to use, along with a variety of other tools and considerations that its billion-dollar budget can accommodate, but none of which is proposed for seeding the MHSAA tournaments. KPI Rankings is not sufficient as the one-and-only seeding criterion for MHSAA tournaments.
Moreover, dependence on a seeding system owned by a single individual, who is outside the MHSAA office, and who has the potential to move from MSU to anywhere across the USA, is a poor business strategy.
If there is to be seeding, there are more appropriate ways to do it for the high school level. But first there needs to be clearer consensus that seeding is a good thing to do, philosophically and practically. In the MHSAA we do this sport by sport, and level by level. And the jury is still out for seeding in Michigan high school basketball.