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

• CardsFlyinHigh

  sherm03;649057 wrote:That is nowhere in this proposal. As it is written, a statewide open enrollment school will get 6% added to their total. It does not say that a statewide open enrollment school will get 6% added to their total ONLY if they gain more than they lose.

  
  Sherm, you are wrong on this account. This is copied directly from the proposal.
  
  (*) Indicates that this percentage will NOT be applied to public schools with open enrollment if their net
  number of open enrollment students is negative (i.e. have more open enrollment students leaving the
  school than coming into the school).
  
  My thoughts on this proposal, Ive said on here for a while that something has to be done in regaurds to competitive balance. I don't think this is a perfect solution but at first glance it seems like a step in the right direction. IMO, free lunches should not even come into any equation into breaking down division. The tradition factor I don't think should be in there, but im not outraged that its in there. Yes it is punishing teams for being successful but I think it could also give other schools a chance to develop a tradition. Especially in D6, If DSJ and St. Paul and Marion Local move up then it opens the doors for new schools to break through and build traditions which i dont necesarily think is a bad thing.
  
  RMollin, Just curious, why do you think the rural schools in your area won't vote for it. Around this area, from what i've been hearing, a lot of the rural schools will vote for it.
  
  Personally I think it will pass and I'll be anxious to see how it does work out. I'll wait to see it implemented before making a full opinion on it.
• rmolin73

  

  Cards there are several successful programs in NWO that if the traditon factor is added will bump them up a division and in many eyes punishing them for success. Now bumping a team up one divsion in football to me is not a big deal since there are 6 divisions. But take for instance Patrick Henry in baseball, Liberty Benton in girls basketball, Archbold girls softball, not that they're rural but also Ottawa Hills in boys soccer this will be punishing these teams for having good programs.
• sherm03

  

  CardsFlyinHigh;651038 wrote:Sherm, you are wrong on this account. This is copied directly from the proposal.
  
  (*) Indicates that this percentage will NOT be applied to public schools with open enrollment if their net
  number of open enrollment students is negative (i.e. have more open enrollment students leaving the
  school than coming into the school).
  
  My thoughts on this proposal, Ive said on here for a while that something has to be done in regaurds to competitive balance. I don't think this is a perfect solution but at first glance it seems like a step in the right direction. IMO, free lunches should not even come into any equation into breaking down division. The tradition factor I don't think should be in there, but im not outraged that its in there. Yes it is punishing teams for being successful but I think it could also give other schools a chance to develop a tradition. Especially in D6, If DSJ and St. Paul and Marion Local move up then it opens the doors for new schools to break through and build traditions which i dont necesarily think is a bad thing.
  
  RMollin, Just curious, why do you think the rural schools in your area won't vote for it. Around this area, from what i've been hearing, a lot of the rural schools will vote for it.
  
  Personally I think it will pass and I'll be anxious to see how it does work out. I'll wait to see it implemented before making a full opinion on it.

  
  I stand corrected. I completely missed that part of the document.
• majorspark

  

  The only way to have a true equal and level playing field is everyone compete in one division and one state championship. This is not possible to achieve because there are too may schools to allow everyone to compete in post season. A system would still have to be developed to select the "cream of the crop" for post season play because of time constraints.
  
  So it was decided in the past to divide post season play into separate divisions based on student enrollment. Basically playing the odds that schools with higher enrollment numbers had a better chance to put the best athletes on the field than a school with lower enrollment numbers. For the most part these odds play out over time. There have been exceptions to that rule, but for the most part it has worked well. There will never be a perfect system. Can the current system be improved on? Yes. Will the current proposal be an improvement over the current system? It could and is worth a chance. Given a chance the factors could be tweaked over time.
  
  I do have a some problems with the current proposal but am willing to give it a chance and think it will lead us in the right direction. One problem I have is giving the private schools different factors over the public schools when it comes to geographic enrollment area. Both should be weighted the same.
  
  I don't have a problem with the athletic tradition factor other than it is not structured to correctly "factor" true athletic tradition. Looking at just the last four years is not an example of athletic tradition. It at best is an example of a chance gift of a group of athletes passing through the school at a given time. This factor IMO if structured correctly is the best way to promote competition at the state level. It should be structured to how a school has performed at the higher levels post season play over a longer period of time. Lets say maybe at least ten years. Possibly 15 or 20. This kind of consistent success establishes a true athletic tradition.
  
  Schools that have demonstrated a winning tradition over these periods of time should not feel they are being punished by being moved up a division. They should realize they are being rewarded for their consistent high levels of athletic success and are now given a chance to prove themselves at "supposed" higher levels of athletic competition. Some of them would prove themselves successful at the next level. A school with this level of athletic tradition would welcome the challenge. Others would not and would drop back down.
  
  No matter what system is put in place blowouts and unequal match ups at the state championships will happen. We are not going to seed teams state wide and make them travel across the state to compete. Sometimes the two best teams may reside in the same district or region. The other regions may not be as competitive that year. No matter how the OHSAA structures it the two best teams will rarely meet in the state championship. And no matter how the OHSAA structures is there will at times gross mismatches at the state level.
• rmolin73

  

  I agree majorspark.
• Viking

  The proposal was discussed this morning on NPR. The panel included a couple of folks from the OHSAA. It was stated that the proposal is just a starting point for change and that if it passes more changes will be coming. Next on the agenda is D I football.
  
  IMHO, the proposal will pass.
• Con_Alma

  Why should the members allow a committee to implement further changes without reviewing those changes and voting on them?
• fish82

  

  Con_Alma;652230 wrote:Why should the members allow a committee to implement further changes without reviewing those changes and voting on them?

  That's what's giving people the most heartburn about this proposal. The idea that this "committee" can sit and tweak this thing as they see fit going forward has a large number of schools very uneasy about this concept. I'm not saying it won't pass, as The Mob is pretty determined and organized, but anyone who thinks it's a slam dunk is off their meds.
  
  It's extremely telling that Viking has done a 180 from "The votes are there, it will pass," to "IMHO it will pass." He knows full well this thing is in trouble and is in full CYA mode.
• Viking

  fish82;652343 wrote:That's what's giving people the most heartburn about this proposal. The idea that this "committee" can sit and tweak this thing as they see fit going forward has a large number of schools very uneasy about this concept. I'm not saying it won't pass, as The Mob is pretty determined and organized, but anyone who thinks it's a slam dunk is off their meds.
  
  It's extremely telling that Viking has done a 180 from "The votes are there, it will pass," to "IMHO it will pass." He knows full well this thing is in trouble and is in full CYA mode.

  
  
  I'm still confident that this proposal will pass. I'm confident and humble. The group of Wayne County superintendents and their backers will see this proposal through to its passage. More changes will come within the next several years.
• rmolin73

  

  We are all aware that the proposal will pass in some shape or form. But in my opinion the only changes over the years will be the addition of a super division in D1 while the other changes will be scaled back. Once they realize that the same teams still are winning and the MAC has owned D5 and D6. One question though? These changes are due to start in 2012 is OHSAA still going through with the count for this year? So teams will move for the 2011-2012 school year and change a year later?
• CardsFlyinHigh

  rmolin73;651087 wrote:Cards there are several successful programs in NWO that if the traditon factor is added will bump them up a division and in many eyes punishing them for success. Now bumping a team up one divsion in football to me is not a big deal since there are 6 divisions. But take for instance Patrick Henry in baseball, Liberty Benton in girls basketball, Archbold girls softball, not that they're rural but also Ottawa Hills in boys soccer this will be punishing these teams for having good programs.

  
  I see where your coming from with that argument. The only counter I would think, is that in the sports with four or less divisions, the range of enrollment or "Athletic counts" is greater then in football. It would make it less likely for a team to have to move up based solely on the tradition factor. Also, lets take Patrick Henry baseball for example. After having a great deal of success in D4, would their coach maybe perhaps want to move up. Tired of being big fish in small pond. And see what they can do against bigger competition?
  
  One other thing I think needs cleared up about this whole proposal. Yes its obvious football is the driving force, but how is the tradition factor going to count in individual sports such as track, wrestling, tennis etc. If one school has one kid qualify for state and maybe even win a title in one track event or one wrestling class, does the whole program have to move up?
• sherm03

  

  CardsFlyinHigh;652822 wrote:I see where your coming from with that argument. The only counter I would think, is that in the sports with four or less divisions, the range of enrollment or "Athletic counts" is greater then in football. It would make it less likely for a team to have to move up based solely on the tradition factor. Also, lets take Patrick Henry baseball for example. After having a great deal of success in D4, would their coach maybe perhaps want to move up. Tired of being big fish in small pond. And see what they can do against bigger competition?
  
  One other thing I think needs cleared up about this whole proposal. Yes its obvious football is the driving force, but how is the tradition factor going to count in individual sports such as track, wrestling, tennis etc. If one school has one kid qualify for state and maybe even win a title in one track event or one wrestling class, does the whole program have to move up?

  That's probably why the individual sports haven't been included just yet.
• Viking

  I agree Sherm. I think that the answer to sports like golf and tennis involves adding a division.
• Al Bundy

  Viking;652865 wrote:I agree Sherm. I think that the answer to sports like golf and tennis involves adding a division.

  
  Why not just add 700 divisions since the goal is to give everyone a state title?
• Viking

  Al Bundy;652935 wrote:Why not just add 700 divisions since the goal is to give everyone a state title?

  
  That certainly isn't my goal. The proposal is attempting to realign schools so that the divisions have more parity.
• rmolin73

  

  So Viking do you feel that all private schools should be D1 or D2 or just a select few that should be moved up 2-3 divisions?
• Viking

  rmolin73;652991 wrote:So Viking do you feel that all private schools should be D1 or D2 or just a select few that should be moved up 2-3 divisions?

  
  Not all. Follow the formula in the proposal, just ramp up the multipliers and dividers a little more. I don't think that schools like Mooney belong below D II. If a school struggles after a 4 year period they can move down if needed.
• rmolin73

  

  If the ramped up the multipliers you would have public schools move up 2-3 divisons as well. There are only a few private schools that are on the caliber of the Mooney's and the Ursulines that are in the lower divisions. But this year Mooney did not make it to the title game and it is just my opinion I don't think that Ursuline would have beat St. Edwards, Huber Heights Wayne, Maple Heights, or Trotwood. Heck I would even gather to say neither Mooney or Ursuline would have beat the D1 semi finalists.
• CardsFlyinHigh

  I think before you go figuring out ways to amp up the multipliers, why not jsut wait and see how this propsal plays out. See first if it passes and second how things shake out as far as whos in what division and such before making any judgements and saying this proposal needs changed.
• Con_Alma

  Do not call it a multiplier. The OHSAA has several studies showing multipliers are not effective long term. They couldn't possibly call it something that they know in advance won't work!!!
• rmolin73

  

  I'm with you on that one Cards we won't know until we see the final document or maybe it will get voted down and nothing will happen. Didn't they just vote down the super division proposal in 2008 or 2009. Just because people are pushing for it doesn't mean that it is going to happen.
• Viking

  CardsFlyinHigh;653250 wrote:I think before you go figuring out ways to amp up the multipliers, why not jsut wait and see how this propsal plays out. See first if it passes and second how things shake out as far as whos in what division and such before making any judgements and saying this proposal needs changed.

  
  I agree that we need to see how it all plays out and then make changes and adjustments as needed. The commissioner is a strong prponent of this proposal. A lot of time and money has alreasdy been invested. If this proposal doesn't pass there will be a strong push for separate playoffs and the OHSAA might not ne able to stem the tide this time.
• rmolin73

  

  By who? I highly doubt that the small collective of rural schools in Wyane County can afford to have their own association. Having seperate tournaments in Ohio just isn't going to happen you wanna bet on that?
• sherm03

  

  Viking;653486 wrote:I agree that we need to see how it all plays out and then make changes and adjustments as needed. The commissioner is a strong prponent of this proposal. A lot of time and money has alreasdy been invested. If this proposal doesn't pass there will be a strong push for separate playoffs and the OHSAA might not ne able to stem the tide this time.

  
  I don't understand your logic here. If the proposal is voted down...and there's a push for separate playoffs, how would that be an issue. It would be a small number of schools (the ones that vote for this but can't get it passed) that would then be pushing for separate playoffs. How would the OHSAA not be able to "stem the tide" from the few schools who could not get this proposal passed?
  
  Maybe I'm missing something here. But your reasoning makes absolutely zero sense here.
• rmolin73

  

  I'm trying to understand this logic as well.