Logo

Seeding Thoughts

December 9, 2014

The 2014 MHSAA Update Meeting Opinion Poll asked for constituent attitudes about two ideas for seeding MHSAA tournaments; and each idea received support from approximately two-thirds of more than 500 survey respondents.
The slightly more popular idea is to seed at the highest level of team tournaments where all finalists are gathered in one place, as we do at present for the MHSAA Team Wrestling Tournament.
Nearly as popular is the idea to seed at the lowest or entry level of team tournaments, placing the best two teams of each of the geography-based entry level tournaments (usually the District level, sometimes the Regional level) on the top and bottom lines of the tournament bracket, followed by a blind draw to fill the other bracket lines.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about seeding. It’s possible that seeding is good for one sport, but not another. If it can be done without too much controversy and if it has the potential to increase crowds without increasing travel costs for schools and the MHSAA, then seeding may make sense.
The constituents involved in one sport may see value in seeding, while those in another sport may not. Different decisions have been made in boys lacrosse and girls lacrosse; the same may occur in softball vs. baseball, for example.
The route to seeding is through the MHSAA Classification Committee for general review and through each respective sport committee for detailed analysis and development of specific proposals to the Representative Council.

Anticipating Collateral Damage

March 23, 2018

When major college sports sneezes, high school sports usually catches a cold.

Throughout history, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has made changes in response to problems in college sports that have resulted in harm to high school sports.

Who can argue that relieving college coaches from the burden of being members of the instructional faculty did anything but weaken the connection between intercollegiate athletics and the educational mission of the sponsoring institutions? That major college football and men’s basketball coaches are the highest paid employees at many universities demonstrates the disconnection.

Who can argue that the creation of athletic grants in aid – scholarships – did anything but raise the pressures on college programs to win and to recruit hard at the high school level? Who can argue that this process got any more upright and above board when NCAA rules were changed to push most of the recruiting process to non-school venues and corporate concerns?

Who is surprised now that the corruption has moved beyond the NCAA’s ability to control and has resulted in investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and indictments followed by player ineligibilities and coach firings?

The worry now is that the NCAA and the National Basketball Association will strike again. Aiming to solve their problems, they likely will add to ours.