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.
News Cycle is Downward Spiral
January 15, 2016
I’ve come to distrust most of what I read, hear and see in the news.
This is the result of reading, hearing and seeing reports about topics I know a lot about. When I read, hear and see how badly the facts are mangled and otherwise misrepresented by media reporting about my world, I figure the same must be true of news coverage of most everything else.
It is rare that coverage is factually accurate, fair and free of bias. I have to confess, this can be true of the complimentary stories about school sports; it is not only true of the critical stories.
The loss of long-form reporting by professional media who have spent many years with the topics and persons involved has affected all news reporting; but nowhere have the cuts been deeper than the always under-funded programs of lower profile, like media attention to school sports as compared to college and professional sports.
Into the void created by cutbacks in professional media coverage at the local level are newcomers with self-appointed titles and self-made websites and little relationship to the history of the topic, rationale for the rule or respect for people who gained authority by devoting lifetimes to that which the neophyte has discovered expertise overnight and without effort.
And now, fueled by social media, misinformation goes viral. Often without understanding of or accountability to facts. And usually with anonymity.