PROPOSAL B

Proposal B is a suggestion of a new format for the 14-18 DQT and D-2 State Tournament. It was presented by Will Jones in his Discussion Group and approved by the Board to put on the ballot at the annual meeting on August 31, 2008.

Below is Will's explanation of the new format (scroll to the very end to see a sample bracket):

 

Club Director/Officer;

 

 

One item on the agenda for today’s meeting is to consider a format change for the 14u-18u DQTs for the 2008-2009 season of Michigan AAU Girls Basketball.  After some worthy discussion at the August 13, 2008 Board Meeting, the move to one significant change was very well-received by the attending board members (having the DQTs for the 14u-18u’s complete themselves over a single weekend) and the timing and opportunity to further impact the event to the overall benefit of the membership seems to be now. This document will explain, in as much detail as I can provide, the revamped pool play and bracket scenario that the board is proposing to the membership for the 14u-18u DQTs for the coming season of Michigan Girls AAU.

 

RATIONALE FOR THE CHANGE
Many of us that have been involved with MIAAUGBB for a time (over a decade or more) have seen with our own eyes the pinnacle of membership involvement, and the pit of what currently exists. Most of us have ideas as to how or why this tremendous dropoff has occurred -- and I think it may be a combination of these things, in varying degrees. We have been witness to declining numbers in active participation of the DQTs for the last 5+ years. There have been some “quick fixes” that were superficially thought (at the time) to be the answer; but as we would find out, we were merely throwing darts at a board. We know that club bodies may have new leadership, do not exist, or are totally new entities now. So all can be informed, the adjustments to stop the downward trend to declining participation in the DQTs that have been tried in recent years are:

 

>>        a format change to include more guaranteed games (up from 2 or 3 to five, and
now four)

>>        inclusion of the “Shootout” portion of the tournament for teams not finishing in
top 2 spots of each pool (Shootout to be held the weekend following AQTs with States to be the weekend after Shootout)

>>        building the “Shootout” portion into the same weekend as DQTs (with States the
next weekend) to supposedly avoid the various forfeits we encountered with teams not showing, etc.

>>        significant decrease of cost for the DQT (at the time was called: AQT)

>>        elimination of the “Shootout” altogether; but change of format so that ALL teams
are included in bracket play, and felt the inclusion of said status (this also meant a decrease in the no. of guaranteed games from 5 to only 4.)

>>        establishment of a D-2 division for those “community/school-based” and “grade based”-type teams to have a place to compete with teams, supposedly of similar competitive prowess. The thought was that we’d capture some of these teams, who we perceived were leaving for reasons of not being able to compete at D-1.

 

After these failed attempts and pedestrian guesses as to what the real issue was, I have become equally as frustrated as many of you. However, I suppose that other variables, most notably: the change in Michigan high school seasons, the state of the economy in Michigan, other competing basketball entities and individual business ventures (AYBT, DTS Sports, Hangtime, Cage Fieldhouse, MGBR, etc.) the current numbers may actually be the plateau we have arrived at, simple and plain. It is the contention of many that I have personally spoken to, that this might be, for the foreseeable future, the type of participation numbers we are going to get.

 

Additionally, let us not ignore the fact that a number of our top-tier teams are opting out of DQTs, altogether -- to instead apply their team budget on out-state exposure events (which they believe will serve a number of their athletes with future college playing opportunities.) In short, their agenda is one where they believe there is no practical sense to play in DQTs, except for the “bragging rights” one may enjoy temporarily by finishing the event as the so-called #1 team in the state. And perhaps this is merely a title based on point of view, considering many of the other like-skilled teams opted not to play, and went out-state.

 

I, and many others have been strongly supportive of the D-2 initiative when it came to pass. As it currently exists, “lesser” teams have an option to choose which side (D-1 or D-2) they go to for their DQT. The problem that has surfaced in each year since it’s inception is that there is no established protocol or process, to my knowledge, to restrict or limit many highly-skilled teams from actually attending the D-2, when they should be in the DQT. In each year we’ve had the D-2 (including this recent year) at least one or two teams were playing D-2 that had absolutely no business being there. When the association tries to “sell” to the target teams we’re hoping to draw or retain for participation, that the D-2 is the event where the lesser-skilled, community-and-grade-based teams can get a “fair shake”; and then they see team ABC and XYZ there (and everyone knows they are certainly highly-skilled and above-average) then the community or grade-based teams naturally lose a lot of faith in Michigan AAU Girls Basketball and what we’re promoting. Who can blame them?

 

At States this year for the 18u division, I was embarrassed and offended. First, by the sheer number of forfeits (which may equally be the “fault” of the athletes who decided to not inform their coach about other commitments during that weekend ahead of time -- as well as those coaches who failed to secure bona fide commitments from their athletes weeks ahead, and then compounded it by not informing the event host.) The other segment of so-called blame goes to our present DQT format: a “mandatory” Friday game to open the brackets at states seemed to be the main culprit. When you consider the economics, because of the existing format, when the forfeits ensued, teams moved along in the brackets, but the unused gym space had to be paid for, officials contracted, etc.

 

However, as a result of the specific pitfalls of this most recent, and of many prior seasons, is a present concern with the format for DQTs. It is evident that we’ve tried “a little of everything” – even before the MHSAA was forced to change the seasons, and the state’s economy took a hit. I believe we have arrived at an apropos moment to maintain the interest we do have, perhaps gather some new participating teams along the way, and feature an event that is solidly-structured, fair for each team, that should prove to be more economical, encourage contests that are genuinely competitive, and continue to purify what AAU Girls Basketball in Michigan has become -- an extra-activity that the “real” committed basketball players and people are involved with...instead of this “thing” that she also does, in between soccer games, track, club volleyball and softball.

 

THE PROPOSED NEW 14U-18U DQT & D-2 FORMAT DETAILS

Speaking strictly from the standpoint of terms and descriptors, the language and objective doesn’t change a whole lot with this new system. We’ll still have a Tournament Committee Meeting to recognize seeded teams from last year, and form pools that are fair. That segment of the DQT preparations and operations will be unchanged. Likewise, we’ll still have Pool Play to guarantee at least two games for all participating teams, and for the additional purpose of determining seeds for the bracket round. And yes, we will still have a bracket round – the end result still being that we will be able to determine a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place finisher. HOW we’re going about the ending pool seeding and the brackets are the areas that will exclusively see the modifications. Let’s get into it:

 

 

POOL PLAY OPERATION

 

1.         The top eight teams (based on the results of the previous year will be seeded. The highest seed in a Regional will be placed in Pool A, the second seed will be placed in Pool B.

2.         Pools will consist of 3 teams. It may be necessary to have some pools of 4 teams (depending on the total number of teams in the tournament). On the day of the tournament draw, AAU members present (all members are invited to attend) will identify enough top teams to fill the first two places in each pool. The names of those teams will be put in a hat and drawn out to fill the various pools. The first draw will be the second team in pool A. The second draw will be the second team in pool B. The third and fourth draws will fill pool C. The fifth and sixth draws will fill pool D and so on until all of the first two spots in each pool are filled.

3.         After the top two positions in each pool have been filled, all of the other teams in that age division will be put in a hat. Teams will be drawn to fill out the pools. Pool A will be filled before a team is placed in pool B. B will be filled before a team is placed in pool C, etc...

4.         How team finishes in it’s Pool will directly affect the “Re-Seeding” for the bracket. To determine how a team finishes in its Pool we will use the following rule: Won/loss record will determine place. If two teams have the same record, place will be determined by head-to-head competition. If three teams have the same record, the team with the fewest points allowed (lowest Total Defense is a better term for this) will be awarded highest place, the team with the second lowest Total Defense will be awarded the second highest place, and the team with the highest Total Defense will be awarded the lowest place. In the unlikely event that three teams have the same record and the same Total Defense – the three will flip coins. The odd coin will be awarded the lowest place, the remaining two places will be determined by which team won the head-to-head game.

            Once complete, the seeds corresponding to the pool-finish will populate the bracket (#1 team in Pool A is A-1, #2 team is A-2, #3 is A-3; and the same for Pool B, Pool C, etc. for ALL the pools in the age division.)

5.         A number of people I talked to are much more in favor of using Total Defense (as opposed to Total Offense as we have been using as a tie-breaker for the past few years.) The thought is that a scoring differential encourages teams to “win by a certain margin” (ie: blow someone out) so that the +13 spread can be met. Coaches always talk about “defense wins ballgames” and so forth; this system not only falls in line with that thought process, but serves the team that can keep their opponent from scoring a high number of points. Total Offense rewards a team’s talent advantage, only; Total Defense rewards their effort and teamwork. Which is more important in the message we are trying to send to young people?

6.         Forfeits are obviously handled as a victory for the team that did not forfeit the game. Still, while a victory, forfeiting games have sometimes hurt a team when/if point spread (Total Offense) was used in the past. In this new Total Defense system, forfeits count as 0 points for the winning team, but will count as +60 points for the loser (the team that is forfeiting.) That way, a team that forfeits cannot benefit by using the system to their benefit. In the current system, forfeits are 0 points for the forfeiting team, but are ONLY +1 for the winning team. Thus, a team may choose to forfeit a game JUST TO GET A LOW POINT-NUMBER. Not going to happen with the +60 penalty in place.

 

 

BRACKET PLAY OPERATION

 

The brackets will be run with a new “Two-Game, Plus” format (detailed on a separate sheet.) Keep in mind, this is not, in any fashion whatsoever, a “Double-Elimination” scenario. It is as described: each team should get at least two games in the bracket, but only one loss may eliminate you from the bracket and the event depending on what round of play it occurs in the bracket.

 

Some of the advantages of this bracket format are:

 

1.         Regardless of the skill-level, ALL TEAMS make the brackets, and theoretically can “win-out”, even if they lost the first game of the bracket round. Maybe two or three key team members were at a soccer match, or a softball final, or track meet and couldn’t make it on Saturday. There is always something to play for, a chance at redemption, etc.

 

2.         Since everyone plays two games, plus (or more) in the brackets, competition stays high for both the first and second rounds of the brackets. However, any loss that occurs in the 2nd or later rounds of the bracket will eliminate said team. There is no “losers bracket” to come back out of. One bracket, branching both ways, will determine two finalists.

 

3.         By eliminating the so-called “losers bracket” we potentially cut down on the number of actual bracket games that have to be completed for the event to reach finality. Less games to schedule, less gym time needed, fewer officials to contract, etc. With the money saved, it might even be possible to contract 3-person officials for the semifinals and finals. What a nice touch THAT would be for Michigan AAU Girls Basketball…

 

4.         As you reference the sheet with the sample bracket, you’ll note the first round “winners” will play first round “losers” in their second-round game. With the inverted-opponents (based on win/loss) that occur after the first round game, you all-but-assure that the teams moving on are the ACTUAL “best teams” in the event, not ones who got a lucky draw in the pool, etc.

 

5.         Anomalies that surface every year, in the current “Double Elimination” format are done away with. For example, last year’s 18u State Finals had the Motor City Blazers face the Michigan Titans three times, over two days, within a 14 hour timespan. Titans won a tight game in the semifinals, and waited for an opponent to come up through the “losers bracket.” That team ended up being the Blazers. So, in the Finals, Blazers prevailed. HOWEVER – since that was Titans first loss…they were still alive, and after a game break, the two played again, with Titans winning in overtime.

 

6.         The two finalists, when this model is followed, may very likely be considered the real best two teams in the state (that played in the event, of course.) The teams that move forward in the bracket are the “better” teams, not just the ones who had an easy draw, or path, etc.

 

7.         Once Round 2 commences, we’re playing single-elimination, just like the MHSAA and the NCAA. There’s no “double elimination” for these events, why does MIAAUGBB need one? An atmosphere of heightened competitiveness is created. The fact that ONLY ONE LOSS puts you out, at and after round two, is something new.

 

8.         Not one team will miss any worthwhile portion of the bracket experience that was not in play before, except ONLY the chance to shoot a Mulligan or have a “do-over” if you did not bring your “A-Game” when it was needed. That’s the same line of thinking as “win by two” when kids play pickup games vs. each other (the winning team has to win by two points to win the game, a rule likely invented by the losing team!) In school ball, in college, in the real world – there’s no “win by two”; and there’s certainly no “double-elimination.” There’s just winning. It’s win or go home. Shouldn’t we be conditioning our athletes to perform to their best at any given moment, instead of them relying on a “second chance” or the like?

 

9.         Total bracket games played for the teams that finish 1st-4th when done will not exceed four (4) with an eight-team bracket. That’s twelve (12) total games throughout the bracket. When you include the guaranteed pool games, that makes six (6) for the 1st-4th finishing teams. This means the entire event can theoretically be played in two days (three games per
day – Saturday and Sunday…no need for those dreaded Friday night games.) Pool play Saturday AM and early afternoon; brackets commence Saturday evening. Win or lose Saturday evening – ALL TEAMS come back, still with something to play for, on Sunday AM. If they win they play on. If they lose – they’re done. And the total number of games remaining to be played gets cut in half instantaneously. Perhaps less time needed in for Sunday gym rentals; and perhaps no gym rentals AT ALL on Friday.