The News Herald (Willoughby, OH)
Minimums in writing would aid district seeding
We hear often about the unwritten rules of life.
If there’s someone near you entering or exiting, you hold the door open for them.
If the national anthem is playing at a sporting event, you turn and face the flag.
It’s not necessarily written down that you should do those things. It’s just the right thing to do.
The problem is, there are instances in which protocol does need to be put in writing.
Because otherwise, a given process faces avoidable ridicule.
We may be reaching a crossroads with high school sports district seeding in which it may be time to lay out more specific guidelines.
It’s not about telling people the order in which they should vote. That should never be the case.
Here, though, there should be a minimum expectation of voting that allows the process to be more reliant on merit, not manipulation for reasons of bias, ignorance or selfishness.
Basketball is admittedly not my primary winter focus — hockey and swimming and diving occupy my time more than adequately.
But when my colleague John Kampf tweeted about girls basketball district voting on Super Bowl Sunday, and cited how Cornerstone Christian, a returning Division IV state final four team, was voted as the second seed in its district, it was aggravating.
Kampf was spot on: The Patriots have everyone back from a state team, play a grueling schedule against mostly upper-division foes, beat Maplewood by 43 points last year in the postseason — and yet, seemingly because Maplewood hasn’t lost a game this season and Cornerstone has, Maplewood got the nod as the No. 1 seed.
Moving over to hockey, we’re coming up on Kent District seeding.
Gilmour is 21-7-1 and has played seven games against Greater Cleveland opposition. The Lancers have a tight 2-1 loss to reigning state champion St. Ignatius and are in the thick of the Great Lakes Hockey League title race and quest for the Cleveland Cup amid their body of work. Gilmour plays easily one of the two or, at worst three, most demanding schedules among the teams going to Kent.
Mentor is 27-2-1 and will try to lock up another unbeaten Red campaign and a bye in Baron Cup I this weekend with a pivotal game Feb. 7 against Rocky River to close the regular season. That’s a great year.
That said, the Cardinals’ two losses this season are to Shaker Heights, which boosts its resume. And that noted, the Red Raiders are also 19-8-3 with three headto-head losses to teams in the Kent District.
University is 12-15-1 but, similar to its fellow News-Herald coverage area power Gilmour, plays a schedule comprised more of nonGreater Cleveland programs that should have the Preppers tested and competitive for Kent.
And this isn’t even factoring in aspects such as Walsh Jesuit, as part of a campaign with results all over the map, having headto-head wins over Shaker and Rocky River.
Or Hudson also having a head-to-head win over Shaker.
The point is, it’s a tricky year.
There are undoubtedly
factors that should come up in voting: Strength of schedule, quality of performance and record, caliber of talent, head-tohead results, injuries or lack thereof.
If it’s about any topic that has nothing to do with merit, it shouldn’t come into play.
The Kent District seeding process this year honestly concerns me. Because all it takes is for a few coaches to go rogue — for whatever reason — to throw a proverbial wrench into what perhaps “should be.”
It happened this past fall with girls soccer. There was an area district, once polar-extreme votes were eliminated, in which the seeding came down to one coach.
Maybe it was unintended or not part of some grandiose game of 3D chess. But their voting was so vastly different than everyone else’s in that district that one voter ultimately dictated the seeding.
When seeding is dictated, so are matchups. And we all know, when matchups are dictated, that can completely alter a dynamic if, say, semifinals are not properly balanced.
Let’s say there’s a loaded semifinal and a weak one. The team that wins the weak one might carry an advantage for a final because the team that survives a meatgrinder may not have as much left.
If a team’s body of work is the reason for those types of matchups, so be it.
If it’s strictly for manipulation, it’s unacceptable.
It is not out of line in these situations — whether it’s Cornerstone, Kent District hockey or any other sport with a voting matrix — to ask uncomfortable questions if and when seeding is not clearly and necessarily on merit.
Is it resentment? Jealousy? Assumption? Conflicting personalities?
Indifference in preparation for the task of seeding?
Objectively, is it truly about merit, or is it about something else?
That’s why, in addition
to instructing coaches about how they can go online and vote, perhaps there should also be protocol in writing for factors.
The vast majority of coaches don’t need that reminder.
But if factors are mentioned and emphasized as to what — reasonably — should and should not be considered when determining seeding, it could make a difference.
Having the voting be public, as the Ohio High School Athletic Association and its district boards have commendably done in recent years, places public responsibility and scrutiny on the process that should be in place.
Unfortunately, it obviously doesn’t go far enough.
Coaches should have to answer for it if their voting applies philosophy that has nothing whatsoever to do with performance or merit.
If you don’t like private schools, that’s not justification for a lower vote.
If you had an argument years ago with an opposing coach, that’s not justification for punishing their team.
If you simply seed teams in order of number of wins, without factoring strength of schedule, that screams lack of effort in voting.
Not everyone can know everything about every team, of course.
There’s not enough hours as it is to be a coach and a leader of a program.
And there are hypothetical questions that are worth asking every year when determining district brackets.
In this case, though, common sense shouldn’t just be an unwritten rule.
Some expectations should be purely about respect.
Manipulating voting — regardless of reasoning — is not respectful.
It’s just slamming a door in someone’s face, without a good reason to justify it.
Lillstrung can be reached at CLillstrung @News-Herald.com; @CLillstrungNH on Twitter.