The Trump Card
August 30, 2013
The cardinal principles for those preparing the playing rules of school sports are these:
- Preserve the sound traditions of the sport.
- Minimize risk.
- Provide for orderly administration.
- Maintain balance between offense and defense.
These were recited frequently when I was an employee of the National Federation of State High School Associations early in my career, when I was the staff liaison to the rules committees for ice hockey, soccer, swimming & diving and volleyball. These principles have been repeated many times over many years as the filter for proposals to modify contest rules in all sports.
A serious student of playing rules has known that the high school rules – enforced by part-time officials – generally have fewer exceptions than the rules on higher levels where officials have more time and training. NFL football, for example, will have exception upon exception to general principles of rules enforcement, which high school rules makers avoid. In other words, ease of administration has been more important for the high school level than a perfect balance between offense and defense in every circumstance of the contest.
It is clear now that the rules makers on all levels – from the pros to peewees – have concluded that “player safety trumps competitive advantage.” Exactly that phrase was used by some of the nation’s highest profile sports officials and supervisors of officials at high school, college and professional levels during a panel discussion closing the National Association of Sports Officials Summit in Grand Rapids last month.
More than perfect balance between offense and defense, more than ease of administration, even more than preserving the sound traditions of the sport, the rules makers are demanding player protection. In subtle ways in some sports, and smack between the eyes in football.
Go to the MHSAA Health & Safety Page, or the Football Page for more.
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.