Slow to Seeding
April 11, 2016
While it is an inevitable topic of discussion, it is not inevitable that the MHSAA Girls and Boys Basketball Tournaments will involve seeding of any significant scope.
The fact that there was no seeding proposal even considered by the MHSAA Basketball Committee this year is indicative of two facts:
There are many people who are totally against seeding the MHSAA Basketball Tournaments; and
Those who favor seeding cannot agree on how to do it.
It is possible that someday there will be limited seeding that does not involve margin of victory or cause additional travel for participating teams – perhaps placing the top two teams of a geographic District onto opposite District tournament brackets, or perhaps seeding the four teams that reach the Semifinals in each class.
Proposals that encourage teams to run up scores during the regular season or send teams to Districts outside their geographic area and/or involve the Regional tournament level are less likely to win favor. And, of course, the devil is in the details of the criteria for determining which teams are better than others.
The MHSAA Representative Council has taken the position that if seeding is to occur in MHSAA tournaments, it will be considered on a sport-by-sport and level-by-level basis. While some MHSAA tournaments already have seeding at one level or another, the Council knows that seeding for some sports and some tournament levels of other sports may never be acceptable.
The MHSAA Representative Council is also wise enough to know that seeding is really not an important topic, at least in comparison to the compelling health and safety issues to which the Council has been devoting great time and money during this decade.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.