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.

Improving Concussion Data

August 18, 2017

The Michigan High School Athletic Association’s 750 member high schools reported nearly 500 fewer concussions for the 2016-17 school year than the year before – 11 percent fewer.

That’s good news, but it’s not a trend we can bank on. It’s too soon to do that. There are too many variables that might explain or contribute to the decline from 4,452 to 3,958 concussions.

Related Story | 2016-17 Summary Report

But of this we are certain: Schools are taking head injuries seriously. It is not a lack of concern or a lack of care in reporting that has led to the 11 percent decline.

It’s more likely the second year’s data is just better than the first year. The process was better understood. The numbers are more accurate.

Our data will become most reliable and useful when we have several years to compare and analyze. Only then will we really know where the trouble spots remain; and only then can those areas be most effectively addressed.