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.
“Tournacation”
February 9, 2018
Here is one of several gold nuggets from Tom Farrey, executive director of the Aspen Institute, in a piece commissioned by the British Broadcasting Company and published in late December.
A study by George Washington University found that what children wanted most from sport was the chance to play and to try their best, guided by a coach who respects them.
Of the 81 reasons they gave for why sports were fun, “winning” came 48th, “playing in tournaments” 63rd, and “traveling to new places to play” 73rd.
Children’s wishes, however, are not always put first, as parents compete to provide what they believe are the best opportunities.
In the U.S., for instance, there may be no better example of the state of play than the growth of the “tournacation,” a term merging “tournament” and “vacation.”
At one of the nation’s largest children’s football (soccer) tournaments, in rural New Jersey, a drone in flight is best positioned to see the scale of such an event.
Up there, you can see the 75 pristine pitches that will host more than 600 teams of children aged nine to 14, chasing shiny balls, in shiny uniforms.
The cars of thousands of parents mass at the playing fields’ edges.
A two-day event such as this is an opportunity for organizers to make serious money, in this case up to $1,250 per team.
That’s on top of travel and hotel costs of as much as $500 and the $3,000 or more many parents pay each year to their child’s club.
It is an industry built on the wallets of parents, and the chase for opportunities to play in college, perhaps with a scholarship.
What the drone can’t see is how many other children – those who aren’t early bloomers, or whose families don’t have the funds, or time, to take part – have fallen away from the game.
They are often unable to join the best teams, which have the best coaches, training environments, and access to college scouts.
Football (soccer) has declined among those left behind, with fewer children joining either local teams, or playing informal games in the park.
Since 2011, the number of six- to 17-year-olds who play football (soccer) regularly has fallen nine percent to 4.2 million, according to the Sports and Fitness Industry Association.
The number of children who touch a football (soccer ball) at least once a year, in any setting, was down 15 percent.
For more, please click here.