Better Late Than Never
November 8, 2013
In a matter of minutes online or a matter of an hour in a bookstore, we can locate dozens of magazine articles and full-length books that describe either the blessings or burdens of all the technology that is now at our fingertips at home, at work and in play.
Every problem we have (and many we had no idea we have) seems to have a technology solution. And, it seems every solution creates new problems: from invasions of personal privacies to compromised security of children, companies and countries. And sometimes the technology breaks down altogether.
The latest and largest failure is the government’s inability to deliver on its promised online health care marketplace. Before that, we’ve seen “glitches” close down Wall Street’s NASDAQ exchange. Technology troubles recently crippled the reservation systems of 11 airlines simultaneously. Even Internet “expert” Facebook mishandled the technology for its own initial public offering.
So it has surprised few of us that the launch of ArbiterGame to solve the scheduling issues of MHSAA member schools has had many of its own issues. But we are certain of this: ArbiterGame will be successful in providing member schools the safest, most efficient and reliable electronic athletic department management system that is available, and the least expensive, anywhere.
As we began this journey in the second half of 2011 in response to a crescendo of complaints from administrators about the then-available scheduling software, we anticipated the effort to complete the project could take twice as long and cost twice as much as projected and, even if that pessimistic prediction would turn out to be true, the result would still be worth it. It is taking twice as long, and it will be worth the work and wait.
The value will be in the low cost and high convenience for school administrators, and a platform – MHSAA.com – that presents the data in an environment that promotes the highest ideals of school sports.
The Usual Suspects
December 30, 2016
It is difficult to find a year when the 11-player Football Finals of the Michigan High School Athletic Association involved more teams from southeast Michigan than appeared at Ford Field in 2016. In fact, just two counties (Oakland and Wayne) produced seven finalists. But then two counties on Michigan’s west side (Kent and Muskegon) supplied four of the 16 finalists.
Four of Michigan’s 83 counties producing 11 of 16 finalists in the 11-player championship games doesn’t’ feel like a statewide event; but one team from the Upper Peninsula, another from the Leelanau Peninsula in the northwest portion of the Lower Peninsula, and a team located along the Michigan/Ohio border remind us how large and diverse our state really is.
The 2016 MHSAA 11-player Football Finals consisted of many of the “usual suspects,” including two teams pursuing their fourth straight titles and one team seeking its third consecutive championship. Four of the eight 11-player champions from 2015 returned in the attempt to defend their titles in 2016, and two of the runners-up in 2015 were back to try to reverse their fortunes from 12 months earlier.
What is being demonstrated here in Michigan high school football is the trend seen in many other states. That is, as the number of classes or divisions of tournaments expands, the more often you see the same teams in the final rounds.
The surest way to have the “usual suspects” on championship day is to put them in tournaments with fewer schools. And of all MHSAA tournaments, the football playoffs have the most divisions with the fewest schools in each. The result is predictable.
This is a cautionary tale for those who desire that the number of classifications and divisions be expanded in MHSAA tournaments for other sports.
Meanwhile, we are keeping an eye on the tournament format in a neighboring state that places schools into divisions for larger schools after they are too successful over consecutive years in the classification that fits their enrollment. Those in Michigan who have been assigned to review such policies have complained that such “success factors” penalize future students because of the achievements of previous students and/or because such factors do nothing about “chronic success” by schools in the largest classification.