Seeding Questions
April 6, 2015
The more I hear people speak with absolute certainty that seeding MHSAA tournaments would be a good thing for more sports to implement, the less I’m certain that adequate wisdom accompanies those words. And I’m particularly concerned with the condescending attitude of the advocates toward those who question if seeding is practical or fair for MHSAA tournaments.
Before seeding is adopted for additional MHSAA tournaments (and it appears ice hockey is on the fastest track), there are many practical questions to address for each sport, including who decides, how they decide and when they decide. Seeding in school sports is a much more difficult task than it is at higher levels where there are many fewer teams operating in much less diverse settings.
Any successful proposal for seeding in school sports must be able to give an informed “No” to these questions:
- Will the plan cause the “rich to get richer,” the successful to be even more successful?
- Will the plan add fuel to the public vs. nonpublic school discord?
- Will the plan create additional travel expenses for schools and loss of classroom instructional time for students?
Furthermore, any successful seeding plan must also provide an informed “Yes” to these questions:
- Will the plan promote the tournament among schools, media and the public?
- Will the plan increase tournament attendance?
And it is of most importance that every advocate of seeding acknowledge that opponents of seeding pose the right questions when they ask:
- Is it fair and is it right to ease the tournament trail for teams based on their regular season performance?
- Is a brand new start in the postseason bad, and if so, by what educational criteria?
When people boast that “the seeds held” in the NCAA basketball tournament or in our own MHSAA Tennis Tournament, we have to admit that this is exactly what ought to have happened when we gave the top seeds the easiest road to the trophy.
It is not wrong to question if that’s the right thing to do.
Girls, Boys and Concussions
September 13, 2016
On Monday the Michigan High School Athletic Association announced the major findings from the first year that member high schools were required to report all suspected concussions in the practices and competitions conducted in the 28 sports served by the MHSAA.
It surprises no one that 11-player and 8-player football ranked first and third, with 49 and 34 head injuries per thousand participants, respectively.
And while I’m told it’s not surprising to the experts that girls report more head injuries than boys, it is stunning to me how very many more head injuries are reported for girls than boys.
In sports with identical playing rules, girls reported head injuries with approximately twice the frequency that boys did.
In soccer, girls reported 30 head injuries per 1,000 participants, compared to 18 per 1,000 for boys.
In basketball, girls reported 29 head injuries per 1,000 participants, compared to only 11 per 1,000 for boys.
Girls reported concussions at the rate of 11 per 1,000 participants in softball, while boys reported just 4 per 1,000 in baseball.
Only a small percentage of either girls or boys were cleared by licensed medical personnel to return to activity in less than six days, and more than half were withheld between six and 15 days in soccer and basketball. The data suggests that clearance for girls to be returned to activity was slightly more gradual than it was for boys.
Researchers and reporters may find dozens of other observations and curiosities from the summary of 4,452 confirmed head injury reports submitted by the MHSAA’s 755 member high schools for MHSAA-supported sports in 2015-16; but what has the MHSAA’s attention is this giant gender difference.
Is this gender difference accurate, and if so, what are the physiological factors involved that make it so?
Is there a tendency for over-reporting by females, or under-reporting by males, and if so, what are the social and/or psychological factors that may cause this?
Regardless, what does this mean for how coaches work with boys and girls; and what does that mean for how we prepare coaches through the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program?
The MHSAA will take to an even deeper level its nearly 30-year partnership with the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports at Michigan State University to explore the issues related to coaches education that have emerged as a result of the first year of mandated concussion reporting for Michigan high schools.
The 2015-16 school year was only a start; it identified some initial themes. The more important value will be realized after the 2016-17 school year, and subsequent school years, when year-over-year comparisons will be made and trends will become apparent that will demand action to further promote the welfare of participants in school-sponsored sports.