Logo

Research

November 21, 2014

We freely admit that a state high school association is much better at running tournaments than conducting research. First as athletes and then as coaches, most of us got in the habit of processing information quickly and making fast decisions. Now as administrators, our member schools depend on us for quick answers because the contest our answer may affect is scheduled this week, or tomorrow, or tonight.
However, there is a small body of research that is unique to the MHSAA. Like our counterpoint organizations across the US, we keep the regular-season and postseason tournament records and we have the data for officials registrations, student participation and tournament attendance. Our uniqueness is in two areas.
First, the MHSAA has surveyed its member schools about participation fees (a.k.a., pay-for-play) every school year since 2003-04. This is the longest running survey and largest body of information on this topic anywhere. You can find all the results at MHSAA.com here.
Second, the MHSAA has surveyed middle school students three times – in 1997-98, 2001-02, and 2008-09 – and is doing so again this month, to assess what sports they are currently engaged in and are most interested in playing as high school students.
It is this survey that was partly responsible for the MHSAA’s addition of lacrosse and bowling tournaments in 2005 and 2006, the two most recent additions to the MHSAA postseason tournament schedule.

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.