Seeding process warrants revision

The release of district basketball brackets each February serves as the first harbinger of Ohio’s looming state tournament. The annual rite is also a flash point for one of the sport’s eminent debates. Many around high school basketball have misgivings with the manner in which the Northeast District determines placement in its brackets. Namely, the voting system allows for a lack of objectivity and accountability to vote in good faith.

District tournament in the northeast are seeded differently than the majority of the state’s other districts. Alongside the Southeast, Northeast brackets are seeded purely based on the results of voting following the method of the NCAA Tournament.

The Central, Southwest, Northwest and East Districts all participate in a voting process to determine seeds. Then, coaches or representatives from member programs meet Feb. 10 to determine placement in the brackets — beginning with the topvoted team and moving throughout the rest of the seeds. For example, when these procedures were in place in the Northeast until last season, Mentor was notorious for choosing to play a sectional semifinal although the Cardinals consistently could have taken a first-round bye.

For teams who vote conspicuously in those districts, their representatives would face their peers to explain their decision. That impetus is void in the Northeast’s process. In fact, the Southwest District imposes fines of $50 if programs fail to submit information prior to voting, participate in voting and show up to the seed meeting.

The irony of dubious votes is that they’re cast from those who decry society’s demise as a result of social media. Certain

practices don’t follow what many preach to their student-athletes regarding accountability and honesty, or hiding behind a computer to espouse opinions.

Regardless of which procedure is deemed best, a philosophical problem exists in districts operating tournaments under different guidelines. If all districts compete in the same tournament, logic holds the bodies that compose the event should operate in a uniform manner.

What could encourage added objectivity is the addition of a ratings system to determine seeds in the state tournament. In the fall, the state football playoffs are structured off of a formula that accounts for performance and strength of schedule. Other states employ mathematical rankings to format their state tournaments and the addition of such a system to Ohio’s state basketball tournament would surely benefit the postseason.

Perhaps most important, a rating system could dampen the effects of questionable practices that impact the state tournament’s integrity.