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.
Best Practices
April 10, 2012
For decades, football has had the greatest participation among high school sports. In recent years it’s become the greatest spectator sport as well. Today, MHSAA Football Playoff revenue exceeds that of Boys and Girls Basketball Tournaments combined. And if I ever want to generate comments to a blog, all I have to do is mention football.
I can write either the most inspired or inane words about most topics, and not generate a comment. But mention “football,” and opinions come fast and usually furious.
So it was with my eyes wide open that I challenged some “sacred cows” in my posting of March 20, questioned some of the standard operating procedures of high school football practice, and predicted that we will soon be making some changes in the sport I played through four years of college and coached in high school and to which I owe more of my character development than any other sport. I knew some readers would call me out of date and out of touch, knowing nothing of my past or my passion.
I knew some readers would challenge any comparison made with college and professional players, asserting that older players need fewer practices with less contact because they already have the skills and techniques of blocking and tackling. However, they miss the fact that it is the younger and still growing body that needs more care and caution, not less. Less hitting, not more. More heat and humidity acclimatization, not less.
I knew some readers would complain about diminishing time to develop young players, overlooking the proliferation of camps, clinics, combines, 7-on-7 leagues and the like which have improved skills and conditioning for many athletes prior to the official start of practice. If that were not true or if we would dial down the out-of-season demands, then I might not join the amassing advocates for reduced in-season practice demands. But sadly, it is true; coaches already have these kids year-round.
On the same day that I posted predictions of changes for football practice policies in Michigan, including more days before pads and fewer days with double sessions, the Georgia High School Association adopted policies that did just that, requiring five days of practice before the first with full pads and prohibiting two-a-day practices on consecutive days.
Such changes reflect the growing body of evidence regarding “best practices” for high school football, including the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Federation of State High School Associations. This train has left the station; and Michigan should be an early stop, an early adopter of practice policies modifications. We put our players, coaches and selves in peril if we ignore the evidence.
I’m embarrassed to say that for too long I avoided this topic because I knew it would bring ridicule. Then recently, a young but experienced head football coach told me that these are the kinds of changes that football needs. Needs to keep the game attractive to kids; and needs to keep the game safe for kids.