We Must Do Better
July 16, 2012
Everybody is expressing opinions about the US Supreme Court’s various written opinions regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
However, my mind goes back to the heated debate the previous year, to a passage about this topic in a July 13, 2009 Businessweek column co-authored by Benjamin E. Sasse, US Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2007 until taking a teaching position at the University of Texas in Austin in 2009, and Kerry N. Weems, an independent consultant who previously served 28 years in federal government, most recently as the head of Medicare and Medicaid.
Sasse and Weems wrote: “. . . passionate certainty that things are broken is not the same as dispassionate clarity about how to fix them.” They were critical of people on both sides of the health care debate who were “still campaigning on the issue when what’s needed is a detailed conversation.”
What bothered Sasse and Weems on July 13, 2009, seven months into President Obama’s first term, has only gotten worse on July 13, 2012, four months prior to the next election. Many are campaigning – on health care, as well as the economy, the environment, education and every other pressing issue of our times and our children’s times – but few are truly leading on those issues.
Borrowing from the title of Bill Bradley’s latest book, which he borrowed from Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, "we can all do better." In fact, we not only can, we must. It’s a matter of will more than it is of wisdom.
Answering Seeding Questions
January 19, 2018
Seeding is a topic on the agenda of several Michigan High School Athletic Association sport committees. Last May, the Representative Council reiterated that its approach is to consider seeding on a sport-by-sport, level-by-level basis, depending on its committees and others to develop specific plans and to demonstrate wide support among schools of all sizes and types.
A recommendation by the Basketball Committee in December of 2016 to seed District and Regional basketball tournaments with one of the systems utilized by the NCAA for its men’s Division I tournament was not adopted by the Council last May, but MHSAA staff was requested to explore alternatives for seeding District level tournaments only.
Subsequently, MHSAA surveys have demonstrated significant support, especially in more populated areas, for an approach that separates on District basketball tournament brackets the top two teams of each District whose teams continue to be assigned on the basis of geography. We’ve found that historically strong programs tend to support this “simple seeding,” while middle-of-the-pack programs tend to see seeding as another obstacle to success and creating more distance between haves and have-nots.
MHSAA staff have demonstrated how similarly the results would have been if any one of the three systems had been used to perform this simple seeding of District basketball tournaments in 2017. In the vast majority of 2017 District tournaments, the team that actually won the tournament would have been the No. 1 seeded team in that District, demonstrating that simple seeding may be less about picking the winners than it is determining which two teams will play in the District championship games.
Many questions would have to be answered before any one of these systems could be adopted. However, even without answering any questions, in December 2017, the Basketball Committee recommended seeding for District tournaments as soon as possible.
At its January meeting, the MHSAA Classification Committee made a recommendation to the Representative Council that attempts to answer one of the questions. That committee agreed that if a plan is approved to separate the top two seeded teams in each geographically determined District of the Girls and Boys Basketball Tournaments, the system used should be completely controlled within the MHSAA office.
Of course, many other questions and logistical details need to be answered. Do we only use games versus member schools? What do we do with unreported scores? When is the data finalized? Should human input be added to the computer ratings? Do seeded teams automatically get a bye? How and when do we assign officials?
Answering such questions must come next.