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.
Travel Football
July 15, 2016
The University of Michigan will host a high school football game on Sept. 2, 2016. That would not make news, except that the game is between two out-of-state high school teams.
The teams are from New Jersey and Maryland, likely chosen to assist the Wolverines’ recruiting efforts in those states, and to help them make more waves in the college football world. Both high school teams are private schools, and each comes with heavy baggage.
Some public schools in New Jersey have boycotted playing the New Jersey school in football; the Maryland school is not a member of the MHSAA’s counterpart association in that state. One school is flaunting the rules; the other school has no rules to follow.
That major college football has been in an uncontrolled spiral of excess is not news; but its insidious damage to high school sports is finally making headlines.
NCAA rules have recently been robbing schools of winter and spring sports athletes as college coaches entice high school seniors to graduate at the end of their seventh semester and start practicing football with their future college teammates several months early. We are grateful to see Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby question the practice of enrolling players before their scheduled high school graduation.
Now, NCAA rules appear to invite universities to select high school football teams from anywhere there’s a great prospect or two, and transport the teams across the U.S. to compete in a nearly empty stadium, save for recruiting “gurus,” athletic apparel reps and a few media. We are hoping to see some college sports leaders step up to question this practice.
All of this leads to the rich getting richer – on both the college and school levels. All of which induces another updraft to the spiral of excess in what are supposed to be education-based programs.