Mocking Class AAAA - The Results

Girls Committee

The Girls Committee met on Sunday February 26th in Fridley.  This was the first time something like this had ever been done and we learned a lot about how the NCAA process worked when applied to our situation in Minnesota.  Although we were hoping for it to take about three hours, it ended up taking five.

The mock Girls Committee members were

• Kevin Anderson
• Pat Barrett
• Brian Cosgriff
• Tim Teas
• Ryan Weinzierl

If this proposal were to go thru, there would not be any active coaches on the Committee and I would be the non-voting Chairperson.  Tim Leighton from the Pioneer Press attended and reported about it here.

Boys Committee

The Boys Committee had more participation mostly because of timing.  A lot of the people approached about the Girls side had conflicts on 2/26, but the Boys meeting on 3/4 at Roseville High School had 9 of the 10 spots filled.

The mock Boys Committee members were

• Kevin Alsteens
• Tim Dittberner
• Ron Haggestrom
• Trent Hanson
• Dave Johnson
• Jon Roesch
• Ian Stauffer
• Brian Stensaas
• Matt Vollum

Takeaways

• First off - it was terrific to see all of the knowledge in the room regarding the teams we were talking about.  One of the huge advantages of using a committee like this is the diverse knowledge base and points of view that everyone brings to the table.  It's these views that create the consensus that allows for the fairest results for every team involved.
• Second - we were able to speed up the process, cutting the Boys selections down to 4 hours.  It still didn't meet the 3 hour number we were hoping for, but the voting process was done manually on paper yet, and having the ability to do everything online by computer should allow us to hit that 3 hour mark in the future.
• Third - as the MSHSL Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket talk about, each member is supposed to bring their own knowledge and experiences to the table to make their own decisions when voting.  From some relying heavily on what they've seen during the year, to using the Conference results and/or QRF as a guide, to using the "Last 10 games" results to applying injuries or suspensions into the equation - every committee member did it differently which is how it is supposed to work.  There is NO perfect way to seed (not even the QRF) so combining all of these views together into a consensus is the best way how.
• Fourth - it was interesting to hear the different viewpoints.  The Girls Committee wanted to place teams in the bracket based more heavily on competitiveness, while the Boys felt geography and keeping teams closer to home was more important.  I was a little surprised that there was not a very strong feeling towards avoiding conference opponents in the bracket either.  If that is the case, then there should be no reason we can't do first round home games using this system as well.
• Fifth - One of the biggest things I found in researching this process was how the NCAA used Conference Standings in 2011 as a guide for seeding teams.  In the last blog I posted the MSHSL Conference Standings that were given to the Committee because this was the #1 piece of data used by most of the members.  It was this big block of games against like opponents that drove most of the discussions and the decisions by the members.

So now that everyone is bored reading - lets get to the stuff you really wanted to see.  If we would have used these Committees to seed all 63 teams, how would it have looked?

• Girls Bracket
• Girls Matchups - by Region
• Boys Bracket
• Boys Matchups - by Region

We did have one seed that changed because of geography, technically Mayo and John Marshall were both on the 7 seed line but we moved John Marshall to an 8 to keep them in Rochester.  To the Committee, it made more sense to give them a "home game" at 8 instead of a road game as a higher seed.

The major issues facing this passing are basically two-fold.

• Outstate teams are worried they'll get "shut out" if metro teams are pushed out into their Sections.  The Committee is addressing this in two ways.
• Four of the eleven members would be considered "outstate" so 36% of the Committee would be "outstate people".  In contrast, only 14% of the teams playing are considered "outstate teams".
• We can limit the number of metro teams that can go to the St. Cloud and Rochester regions, which would limit the possibilities of changes to the current geographical regions already in place.  This can be limited even more going forward if this is seen as an issue.
• The main goal of having a Committee like this assign teams to regions based on competition too is to spread out the teams in the metro more evenly, not to get a "metro only" state tournament.
• The MSHSL Board is worried about the "slippery slope" effect - that it would be precedent setting to use competitiveness as criteria for section placement.
• There are other sports watching this very closely, Hockey and Wrestling to name just two.  Any sport that has a geographic concentration of teams could apply these principles to their own sport.  I'm sure there are schools next to Apple Valley that would like to see their Wrestling teams get an opportunity to make it to State every once in a while, as an example.
• The term "slippery slope" has such a negative connotation.  The term I'd like to see used instead is "progressive".

So like with everything - we need feeback.  There are some things the Committee did that we won't do going forward - these mocks were invaluable for the knowledge received about the process and feelings on how things should be done.  The next MSHSL board meeting is April 5th - we're hoping to be able to present the results and effectiveness of this process at that time.

Feel free to email me with any comments/questions/concerns about the process or the results!