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.

Lost in Time

August 25, 2015

So, North Korea is establishing its own unique time zone – “Pyongyang time” – named after the nation’s capital city. North Korea will fall 30 minutes behind Japan whose time zone was imposed on the entire Korean peninsula more than 100 years ago.

Actually, North Korea is more than 30 years behind Japan in almost every aspect of civilized life.

This time zone adjustment gesture is of little practical significance because North Koreans have been closed off from global interaction by the impositions of their brutal dictators since the end of World War II. It’s symbolism befitting the backward nation’s isolationism.

The negative effects of this isolationism upon the nation are visible across the Demilitarized Zone from South Korea. Behind visitors to the DMZ is the vibrant mega-city of Seoul, South Korea. Across the river is a bleak, barren landscape with no sign of life. No people, no agriculture. Just a few buildings, without inhabitants. Built only for show.

There are many lessons to be learned from this contrast, on many levels. Of course, we see how people thrive more in an atmosphere of freedom than totalitarianism. We see the benefits of engagement over isolationism. We see that symbols without substance are meaningless.

Lessons for nations, to be sure. But reminders for enterprises of all kinds, including ours.

And a note to North Korea ... Newfoundland Island has had its own time zone for many years. It’s 30 minutes ahead of the rest of North America, and a century ahead of North Korea.