Is it time for private schools to have theyre own playoffs in football

• soupcitysoldier

  keep it coming with the intelligent rebuttles rocket08...LOL come on that catholic school education must have you more intelligent than this
• Con_Alma

  Classyposter58;620097 wrote:We should just allow recruiting

  
  It's coming...eventually. The way it will happen is that sports will be separated from education. Finances will force this and the emergence of club teams to take on the role that prep school teams once had. It may not be during my kids careers but it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen in my lifetime.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;620341 wrote:It's coming...eventually. The way it will happen is that sports will be separated from education. Finances will force this and the emergence of club teams to take on the role that prep school teams once had. It may not be during my kids careers but it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen in my lifetime.

  
  Although I would miss the idea of rooting for Alma Mater (actually, my child's school), the concept of club sports makes a ton of sense.
• Viking

  Happy New Year!
  
  It is time to embrace the changes!!!
• rmolin73

  

  The changes will not be as drastic as some of you may think. It will probably be a multiplier for privates, open enrollment, and a super division maybe. But in the end the good schools will still win. It will only significantly effect D5-D6 and at that is just my opinion. I'm not going to lie and say I heard it from OHSAA lol like some people.
• sherm03

  

  Skytoyk,
  I don't think that the MAC is full of tough kids that work hard and everyone else wants things handed to them. I never said that. But my feelings are that teams like Mooney, Ursuline, Alter, DSJ, and Newark Catholic play well within the rules. They aren't cheaters and they don't "recruit" like many on here say. I don't like the thought that people have that when a public school is a perennial contender, they are hard workers...but when it's a private school, they are cheaters. I'm not saying that you said those things...just defending why I voice my opinion like I do.
  
  I have said from the first time you brought it up many many many pages ago that I like the idea of teams voluntarily playing up. The key word there is voluntarily. My biggest beef with a multiplier is that people want it put in place under the guise of "being fair to all" and "leveling the playing field for all." But the fact is, the multiplier is being put in place because 7 private schools have won a bunch of titles in D4-D6 in recent years. To force teams like Purcell Marian, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Stritch (just to name a few) to take a multiplier and move up a division just because they are private is not fair to those teams. People who say otherwise are just plain wrong.
• aged jock

  Sykotyk;618290 wrote:In addition, 95 of 196 champions in football, all-time, were private schools (if I made an incorrect determination on whether a school was private or public, please point that out). So, just over half of all titles by private schools.
  
  1972 1/3 (2A)
  1973 3/3 (All)
  1974 1/3 (1A)
  1975 2/3 (3A, 2A)
  1976 2/3 (3A, 2A)
  1977 1/3 (3A)
  1978 1/3 (1A)
  1979 1/3 (3A)
  1980 5/5 (All)
  1981 3/5 (D2, 3, 5)
  1982 4/5 (D1, 2, 3, 5)
  1983 2/5 (D3, 4)
  1984 4/5 (D1, 3, 4, 5)
  1985 3/5 (D1, 3, 5)
  1986 3/5 (D2, 4, 5)
  1987 3/5 (D3, 4, 5)
  1988 3/5 (D1, 3, 4)
  1989 2/5 (D1, 2)
  1990 1/5 (D3)
  1991 4/5 (D1, 3, 4, 5)
  1992 2/5 (D1, 3)
  1993 2/5 (D1, 5)
  1994 1/6 (D1)
  1995 1/6 (D1)
  1996 1/6 (D3)
  1997 2/6 (D3, 6)
  1998 2/6 (D3, 6)
  1999 3/6 (D1, 2, 6)
  2000 2/6 (D3, 4)
  2001 4/6 (D1, 2, 3, 5)
  2002 3/6 (D1, 2, 3)
  2003 3/6 (D1, 3, 5)
  2004 2/6 (D3, 4)
  2005 3/6 (D1, 2, 6)
  2006 1/6 (D4)
  2007 2/6 (D1, 6)
  2008 4/6 (D1, 4, 5, 6)
  2009 4/6 (D3, 4, 5, 6)
  2010 5/6 (D1, 3, 4, 5, 6)
  
  For a group of schools that make up roughly 1/10th the total, they win half the time.
  
  If 40 years ago, somebody made the assumption "The big schools tend to win a huge majority of the titles than the little schools," would that not have been noteworthy? Isn't that why we separated big schools from little schools in the first place? And continued from 3 to 5 to 6? Isn't it obvious that a matchup between Iggy and DSJ is 'unfair', that there was felt a need to separate the two?
  
  Or, is that division okay, but this would be catastrophic to the state of high school football?
  
  We already don't have 'one true champion' as some have said would be done away with if privates had their own tournament (which I'm not advocating for, but rather an adjustment to enrollment numbers with an addition of elective division jumping), so the argument is rather hollow that privates having their own tournament would eliminate the sanctity of the championship. Which it would not.
  
  Sykotyk

  By my count, 19 of the 39 D1 champions were private schools in D1. Multipliers don't matter in that division. That's almost exactly the same percentage of private champions as the totals. Maybe privates are really that much better, proportionately, than publics. Maybe they do actually work harder, play with more discipline, intensity and preparation than the average public schools. My experience in Catholic schools, in academics and athletics leads me to believe that. I believe that if there is a super division and a smaller school D1 division, private schools will continue to win disproportionately in both. And it has nothing at all to do with recruiting, larger areas, blah, blah, blah.
• Sykotyk

  

  sherm03;621960 wrote:Skytoyk,
  I don't think that the MAC is full of tough kids that work hard and everyone else wants things handed to them. I never said that. But my feelings are that teams like Mooney, Ursuline, Alter, DSJ, and Newark Catholic play well within the rules. They aren't cheaters and they don't "recruit" like many on here say. I don't like the thought that people have that when a public school is a perennial contender, they are hard workers...but when it's a private school, they are cheaters. I'm not saying that you said those things...just defending why I voice my opinion like I do.

  The work hard comment was snark, and intended as such. I've never said they cheat or recruit. In fact, the operate very much inside the rules. THAT is the problem. The rules are slanted because enrollment numbers are the only determinate in seeding teams into their respective divisions.
  

  I have said from the first time you brought it up many many many pages ago that I like the idea of teams voluntarily playing up. The key word there is voluntarily. My biggest beef with a multiplier is that people want it put in place under the guise of "being fair to all" and "leveling the playing field for all." But the fact is, the multiplier is being put in place because 7 private schools have won a bunch of titles in D4-D6 in recent years. To force teams like Purcell Marian, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Stritch (just to name a few) to take a multiplier and move up a division just because they are private is not fair to those teams. People who say otherwise are just plain wrong.

  In Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Bishop McDevitt used to be a 1A (smallest) school and played up to 4A (biggest). And never made the title despite deep runs into the playoffs. Being a 2A recently, this year they opted to play up only to 3A, and made the title game their first try. That is the problem with voluntary play-up. They'll play up just to the level they will be able to win at. Not be competitive at. At least previously, McDevitt had really run the gauntlet in an attempt to truly be the best.
  
  As for Stritch et al, if they fail at one division and get moved up to another, how is their failure any different?
  
  
  
  

  aged jock;622279 wrote:By my count, 19 of the 39 D1 champions were private schools in D1. Multipliers don't matter in that division. That's almost exactly the same percentage of private champions as the totals. Maybe privates are really that much better, proportionately, than publics. Maybe they do actually work harder, play with more discipline, intensity and preparation than the average public schools. My experience in Catholic schools, in academics and athletics leads me to believe that. I believe that if there is a super division and a smaller school D1 division, private schools will continue to win disproportionately in both. And it has nothing at all to do with recruiting, larger areas, blah, blah, blah.

  
  
  I've never been explicitly against any alteration to the largest division other than thinking a bell curve might be better than a flat rate of teams (i.e., instead of roughly 120 per division, the D1 and D6 would have roughly 80, D2 and D5 would be 120, while D3 and D4 would be 160). Let only 24 teams in D1 and D6, 32 in D2 and D5 and 40 in D3-D4. It would group the extremes tighter while keeping the vast middle that are barely imperceptible in differences in a larger group. The 40-teams in D3-D4 would alter the playoffs or force an Iowa/Nebraska like setup with midweek games (something I'm adamantly against).
  
  As for the large division, the truth is if more schools were moved up (voluntarily or involuntarily), if you held a strict limit on participation per division that would inexorably force teams on the cutoff down a peg to the next division (unless they too opted to play up, forcing down someone else).
  
  D1 should be the best schools, that's the whole point. It's pretty easy to create a monster team out of 1000+ males 9-12 when you get to screen everyone who walks through the front door. A public school, even with OE might have 1,000 that walk through the door dragging their knuckles. Sadly, they tick up the enrollment number just the same as a 4.0 student that runs a 4.4-40.
  
  That's where the disparity presents itself.
  
  Reread my theory at the end of the last post and explain how they're not different. Then we can discuss why this isn't different.
  
  Sykotyk
• aged jock

  So if I understand Sykotyk's argument, it goes something like this:
  There are a lot of kids at public schools who attend and take the overall numbers higher, but who can't or won't help the athletic programs, and in the privates, those kids don't attend; and
  Since privates can and do select their incoming students, albeit not by athletic prowess, that means that the pure numbers of students in publics are not the same as the pure numbers in the privates.
  
  As far as breaking down divisions, he says it would be better if the huge schools competed in a smaller cluster, and the tiny schools competed in a smaller cluster, with the largest cluster being in the middle group (the bunch with the middle third or so of schools by median number of students).
  
  My response: As to measuring student populations, I'll give you that some publics have outstanding special ed programs, and that some of those kids can't possibly compete in athletics because of handicaps or the need to spend all their time on their studies. I'll also agree that a lot of publics have kids who become ineligible in upper grades because their grades aren't good. My response would be to exclude those who are certified not able to participate because of purely physical limitations from the count when assigning divisions, in all schools, but make it a true certification process - based on legitimate and recognized diagnoses, such as muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc. But bad grades? Come on.
  
  Next, as to divisions, I've often said that you set the divisions anywhere you want. The best teams, public or private, are going to rise to the top, unless you take the competitiveness away from the kids. I know you would argue that the way things are now, the rules are different and therefore the competition has been taken away from the kids - that's precisely your point. But you haven't shown anything except success rates to prove there's a competitive disadvantage the way things are set up now. My impression, from following Alter, is that teams like Clinton Massie or Carlisle think they're better than they are because they play teams in the regular season that don't challenge them. When they play a good team, they struggle. They have all the good players they need, but they have a hard time adjusting to the game speed or whatever when they see a really good team.
  
  In Alter's case, we lost to CJ (D3), our rival with a losing record but a very good team. We lost to Centerville, which was a very good D1 team. And we barely lost to Hartley, who won the D4 state championship. Otherwise, we played not all, but enough tough teams to get ready for the playoffs. Jonathon Alder and Kenton did the same. Sorry, but North College Hill, Carlisle and Clinton Massie didn't. That's the difference in Region 16 this year. I haven't heard anyone complain that the numbers count at any of those schools unfairly favored Alter. We didn't cry about any of the losses, because our guys competed, even though Centerville clearly outclassed us in size and skill level on the lines this year. What I did hear is CM folks complaining about how they were 10-0 entering the playoffs, ranked first in the region, and got beat by a better team. In 2009 they lost to Alter in a blowout, so they thought it was unfair. In 2010 they lost to Kenton, so you didn't hear the griping.
  
  If you ask me, the whole argument is bogus. Find great coaches. Make your kids better players and better people. Play teams that challenge you.
• Sykotyk

  

  aged jock;623323 wrote:So if I understand Sykotyk's argument, it goes something like this:
  There are a lot of kids at public schools who attend and take the overall numbers higher, but who can't or won't help the athletic programs, and in the privates, those kids don't attend; and
  Since privates can and do select their incoming students, albeit not by athletic prowess, that means that the pure numbers of students in publics are not the same as the pure numbers in the privates.

  Basically, that's the premise. Sports is an extra-curricular activity and participation rates are greatly dependent on the willingness of the students to actually.... participate. The students that jack up a public school's enrollment number as dead weight (as I call it) would never find their way into a private school.
  

  As far as breaking down divisions, he says it would be better if the huge schools competed in a smaller cluster, and the tiny schools competed in a smaller cluster, with the largest cluster being in the middle group (the bunch with the middle third or so of schools by median number of students).

  That is one off-shoot of the basic thought in equalizing the teams. As Massillon fans love to point out, they are closer to D5 enrollment schools than the massive D1 schools.
  

  My response: As to measuring student populations, I'll give you that some publics have outstanding special ed programs, and that some of those kids can't possibly compete in athletics because of handicaps or the need to spend all their time on their studies. I'll also agree that a lot of publics have kids who become ineligible in upper grades because their grades aren't good. My response would be to exclude those who are certified not able to participate because of purely physical limitations from the count when assigning divisions, in all schools, but make it a true certification process - based on legitimate and recognized diagnoses, such as muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc. But bad grades? Come on.

  It's a reversal of logic here. You're suggesting a discount of the public school based on bad grades while I'm suggestion the private school be elevated to where the averages would dictate they would be given equal parts to that of public schools that have no option in what students they bring. The enrollment number counts all students regardless. If you get to screen students, you can greatly increase the quality of student entering your school. Better students tend to participate more in extra-curriculars. I've rarely seen (and I'm sure you can join anecdotal evidence of your own classmates growing up) that bad students participate in extra-curriculars when they barely participate with the work they're required to do, as is.
  

  Next, as to divisions, I've often said that you set the divisions anywhere you want. The best teams, public or private, are going to rise to the top, unless you take the competitiveness away from the kids. I know you would argue that the way things are now, the rules are different and therefore the competition has been taken away from the kids - that's precisely your point. But you haven't shown anything except success rates to prove there's a competitive disadvantage the way things are set up now.

  How can success rates not be proven to show there is some sort of inadequacy? Schools that can limit who crosses their threshold win an inordinate amount of titles on average than schools that either have hardlined enrollment totals or have meager ability to increase quality students while still being burdened with deadweight. I'm sure you then added up OE schools, you'd find they're somewhere in between private schools and closed enrollment schools in number of titles won. And an appropriate adjustment would need to be done there, as well. OE is a double-edged sword, however as you can just as easily lose your good students as you can gain them from others simply by the general health of your school or district.
  
  Steubenville has great schools and can draw students away from other schools. If Steubenville City Schools was in turmoil, the turnstile would spin the other way, I'm sure. But, Steubenville, in the end, is still burdened with the students they can't force education upon nor pawn off on other schools.
  

  My impression, from following Alter, is that teams like Clinton Massie or Carlisle think they're better than they are because they play teams in the regular season that don't challenge them. When they play a good team, they struggle. They have all the good players they need, but they have a hard time adjusting to the game speed or whatever when they see a really good team.

  I agree, that can and does happen. The Harbins (with the L2, primarily) is designed to try and counteract that. But the truth is a school with a good year can't know in advance to apply for and get accepted to a different league and also adjust their non-conference schedule to strengthen their competition. It just doesn't work that way. Same argument college fans have of Boise State or TCU. It doesn't change anything for THIS year.
  

  In Alter's case, we lost to CJ (D3), our rival with a losing record but a very good team. We lost to Centerville, which was a very good D1 team. And we barely lost to Hartley, who won the D4 state championship. Otherwise, we played not all, but enough tough teams to get ready for the playoffs. Jonathon Alder and Kenton did the same. Sorry, but North College Hill, Carlisle and Clinton Massie didn't. That's the difference in Region 16 this year.

  It seems to speak fairly of my point that Alter can do that. It's also a flaw in the logic. D5 can play up to D1, but then the argument is D1 shouldn't play down. If so, who would D5 play up to? If all D5 followed your idea, D6 couldn't play up to a D5 opponent.
  

  I haven't heard anyone complain that the numbers count at any of those schools unfairly favored Alter. We didn't cry about any of the losses, because our guys competed, even though Centerville clearly outclassed us in size and skill level on the lines this year. What I did hear is CM folks complaining about how they were 10-0 entering the playoffs, ranked first in the region, and got beat by a better team. In 2009 they lost to Alter in a blowout, so they thought it was unfair. In 2010 they lost to Kenton, so you didn't hear the griping.

  Then that is a flaw in the Harbins because you're classified as a D5 school. In 2010, why would they? If they already lost to a team you're implying to be worse than Alter, you'd have to assume them to be idiots to complain about a loss to an even better team.
  

  If you ask me, the whole argument is bogus. Find great coaches. Make your kids better players and better people. Play teams that challenge you.

  The problem is it is mostly cyclical. The better the advantage, the shorter the cycle, the lesser the depression and the easier the rebound. If you randomly chose 162 9-11 males and tried to field a football team from them, and their inclination to play was entirely left to them, how many would participate and would the quality of that team, great coaching and training or not, would you compare to a team of 162 9-11 males that you've picked from a pool of thousands and then went on to construct a team.
  
  There is no 5-star recruit annually hiding in the same small town D5 school's population base. There is no great coach to fill EVERY coaching job. And as an aside, a great coach would probably be looking for job security and to get that you should win, and to win, you're probably best to find a big fish in a small pond to be your meal ticket.
  
  The whole reason we have an OHSAA; have division; have rules; have restrictions; regulations; requirements; penalties; punishments; and procedures is for FAIRNESS.
  
  If there is something inherently unfair in the system then the whole apparatus fails. It's purpose becomes pointless. Titles become meaningless.
  
  The sport is organized to eliminate unfair competition. That's what I'll continue to propose.
  
  If you want to argue that it's just an issue of not working hard, hiring a good coach, and supporting the team. Then please, by all means argue against six-division setup in favor of one-division-for-all. After all, Alter can beat St. Ed if they just work hard, buckle their chin straps, have a good coach, blah blah blah.
  
  Sykotyk
• Mortgagestar1

  Years ago, the private schools had their own seperate playoffs. now, the public schools can get talent from neighboring districts and in some cases other states. Steubenville Big Red get their players from West Virginai also eg) Bronco Busic, Magnone, Galardi, ect. Its easy to buy or rent a property in a school district and claim residency, its done all the time.
• rmolin73

  

  When did the private schools have their own playoffs? Just curious.
• Viking

  In today's Cleveland PD one of the high school football beat writers predicts that the OHSAA will adopt a multiplier of 1.5 for "private schools and non-boundaries public schools (open-enrollment public schools with no boundaries, not all open enrollment schools) for football.
  
  Change is almost here.
  Embrace it!!!
• queencitybuckeye

  Viking;624103 wrote:In today's Cleveland PD one of the high school football beat writers predicts that the OHSAA will adopt a multiplier of 1.5 for "private schools and non-boundaries public schools (open-enrollment public schools with no boundaries, not all open enrollment schools) for football.
  
  Change is almost here.
  Embrace it!!!

  
  The privates will simply move up a division and kick butt. It will simply show that their "unfair advantage" is that they're flat better.
• fish82

  

  Viking;624103 wrote:In today's Cleveland PD one of the high school football beat writers predicts that the OHSAA will adopt a multiplier of 1.5 for "private schools and non-boundaries public schools (open-enrollment public schools with no boundaries, not all open enrollment schools) for football.
  
  Change is almost here.
  Embrace it!!!

  Well, if a HS beat writer predicts it, I'm sure we can take it to the bank.
  
  As QCB stated, the Mooneys/Ursulines/Alters of the world will merely kick the bejezus out of the next higher division, while completely screwing 80% of the private schools who already don't compete at that level.
  
  What will you people find to whine about then?
• Viking

  Embrace the change!
• rmolin73

  

  You think a multiplier will be a huge change lol.
• Viking

  It also looks like there will be some "dividers" for urban schools. The changes are a move in the right direction. I'd call them major changes.
• rmolin73

  

  When I see it I will believe it until then it is just internet fodder. A multiplier still wont change much and even if some urban schools move down with a reverse multiplier they will still be bad programs. Schools like Akron North will get blown out by D6 Maria Stein Marion Local.
• Viking

  Believe and you will achieve.
  
  Change is almost here.
• Al Bundy

  Viking;627516 wrote:Believe and you will achieve.
  
  Change is almost here.

  
  Let's just go to 700 divisions. Then everyone can have a trophy.
• rmolin73

  

  That's just Vikings internet persona he makes lame attempts at acting like he is in the know but has yet to post a link of anything. Except he has named Mark Porter lol as a source and another writers opinions. Like I said earlier the multipliers will do nothing good teams will remain good and bad teams will still be bad.
• fish82

  

  Viking;627516 wrote:Believe and you will achieve.
  
  Change is almost here.

  lolslogan fail
• queencitybuckeye

  fish82;627726 wrote:lolslogan fail

  
  I don't know, something pretty similar got a POTUS elected.
• rmolin73

  

  Change you can believe in lol.