Seeds of change haven't arrived fast enough in WIAA postseason

On one hand, there was progress made in WIAA athletics when it was announced that tennis and soccer will now seed at the state tournament, a new mechanism (previously employed only in boys volleyball) designed to create equitable matchups at the year’s spotlight events.

And on the other hand, it makes me a little angry. Because it’s not enough.

The painstakingly slow rollout of more liberal use of seeding continues to cheapen the WIAA postseason. We still have too many circumstances where the tournament is allowed to play out because of predetermined bracket construction, meaning some of the best games of the postseason are happening at lower levels than necessary.

Here’s my brief manifesto as it relates to seeding:

1. If second-place finishers are going to be rewarded at the state level with a trophy, then every effort should be made to identify which teams are rightfully the top two seeds to prevent them from squaring off before the final. You can argue you need to beat the best to be the best, but second place still brings home something, so it’s only right that second place prove itself to be the second-best team at state.
2. Less important to me, but still important, is that the sectional level of play is a greater event than the regional level, and sectionals (where it makes geographic sense) should be seeded in their entirety instead of carved out into two regionals.

The latter complaint was especially relevant in last Saturday’s example between Pewaukee and New Berlin Eisenhower. For years, these have been two of the best girls basketball teams in the state, and they were unquestionably two of the best this year. They see each other twice a year in the same conference, and along with New Berlin West, should have been the top three seeds in the sectional. They were a combined 5-1 against the top seed in the lower half of the sectional, Milwaukee Pius, and the one loss belongs to Pewaukee, a team that had a better resume overall than Pius (plus a win in the other, more recent meeting between the two schools). Pewaukee finished two games ahead of Pius in the regular-season Woodland West standings.

But because Division 2 is seeded out in two regionals, at least two of West, Eisenhower and Pewaukee were destined to see each other no later than the regional final, and that’s exactly what happened. Eisenhower won a great game at Pewaukee, and if it hadn’t, it would have had every right to complain that it didn’t get a chance to face Pewaukee on a neutral court in the sectional level, since all three of those teams deserved to face lesser opponents until the sectional based on regular-season performance.

In Division 1, where coaches are allowed to vote on keeping two regionals or seeding out as a full sectional, we’ve seen a shift to the full-sectional format, even when teams must travel as far as Milwaukee to Green Bay in the regional round. It works great, and it makes sense. The upsets in those settings are fully earned and not the product of an archaic system that forces the same eight teams to face off every year. This is the second year of that arrangement; it should have been seen as a successful trial balloon when it was implemented last year and extrapolated to other divisions where it makes geographic sense.

In the Milwaukee area, it makes geographic sense. Fairness doesn’t mean everyone gets treated exactly the same, and there’s nothing wrong with saying some sectionals in divisions should operate by different rules if the logistics line up. The tepid enthusiasm for expanding seeding wherever possible puzzles me. Whether it’s the WIAA or the coaches associations driving those decisions, it’s a needless aversion to progress.

Nothing against Shorewood,  a fast-rising team that features one of the most exciting freshmen in the state (Khamya McNeal) that pulled off a huge upset over Pius, or Wauwatosa East, which has a great record playing in a typically tough Greater Metro. But the winner of that Thursday game between the two was sure to be the heavy underdog against the winner from the other sectional between Eisenhower and Cudahy (which upset New Berlin West — another meeting that’s better suited for the sectional, and not the regional). The gap between the talent levels at the two regionals is a massive gulf.  Sectionals are supposed to be some of the most competitive games of the year, and maybe they still will be, but the system isn’t designed to deliver that. If we can figure out that problem in D1, why not D2 or D3?

Then, we’ll get to the state tournament, and state-championship games will probably once again be played in the semifinal round, in some cases. The idea that we don’t have enough information to seed four teams is absurd. Given the access we have to information in 2017, coaches can reasonably dole out at least top-two seeds and create a layout designed to produce the best championship. It doesn’t matter if the teams have met in the regular season, which has been used as explanation for why smaller-participation sports such as boys volleyball can use seeds more fairly (greater likelihood they’ve seen the other teams at state and can make an informed choice). There are no geography constraints at state, and for crying out loud, it’s just four teams.

(Psssst, even if there were eight teams, that’s not all that hard, either.)

Nobody should complain that they were given a raw deal because a tourney layout went with seeds instead of a preordained setup that gave their team a more comfortable opponent. If teams want hardware, they should earn it, not back into it. Operating with seeds is the right, equitable way to approach a state tournament at best and a victimless crime at worst.

State wrestling is a greater challenge to seed because of the sheer number of athletes involved. Plus, those who lose in early matches still have the chance to wrestle back for a state medal (the equivalent of a silver trophy if a wrestler finishes in the top six). Yet again, given how celebrated and emotional the finals round has become, I still feel at least some seeds — perhaps top four — could be implemented to avoid battles between two state-champ candidates in the first two rounds. It’s something that happens every single year and frequently robs the Saturday night session of several top matches.

It should not take this long for the seeding system to take hold. If it’s not about logistics and geography, then there’s no sensible reason to operate otherwise. Knowing that the sectional seeding system works in D1 basketball — and state seeding works in three sports — widescale implementation should be next in line.