Competitive Balance fails by close vote

• Flash

  

  Quote:
  COLUMBUS, Ohio — Fourteen of the 15 proposed Ohio High School Athletic Association Constitution and Bylaw revisions passed as voted upon by OHSAA member schools, Commissioner Daniel B. Ross, Ph.D., has announced. Changes were approved to three Constitution items and 11 Bylaw items.
  
  
  
  The bylaw issue that did not pass was a proposal to change how schools are assigned to tournament divisions in the team sports of football, soccer, volleyball, basketball, baseball and softball. Rather than place schools into OHSAA tournament divisions based strictly on male or female enrollment, a recommendation to develop a sport-by-sport athletic count would have begun with enrollment and then potentially added enrollment based on how schools secure students (boundary factor) and a four-year tradition of success factor, while schools could have potentially lost enrollment based on a socioeconomic factor (high school students involved in the free lunch program). The proposed bylaw on this issue to address competitive balance in OHSAA tournaments failed 332 to 303 (52 percent to 48 percent).
  
  
  
  “As most of our school administrators and coaches are aware, this change was recommended by an OHSAA Competitive Balance Committee, and we believe this would have been a fairer way to assign schools in team sports to their tournament divisions,” Ross said. “We also stressed to the membership that this was just a starting point for change since a companion OHSAA Sports Regulation would have allowed the Board of Directors to make modifications over time as a standing committee on competitive balance made recommendations.
  
  
  
  “Our Board of Directors will have to provide direction on whether to reconvene the OHSAA Competitive Balance Committee to review other ‘competitive balance’ options, so I cannot speculate on whether or not that possibility exists. At the same time, we’re also hearing that discussions to file a petition may be taking place by some member schools that are seeking to separate our tournaments totally between public schools and non-public schools. Again, whether that occurs or not, it’s too early to tell.”
  
  
  
  In order for the latter scenario to take place, a petition must be signed by 75 principals, including a minimum of five principals within each of the six OHSAA athletic districts, and submitted to the OHSAA office between August 1 and December 1. Voting on an issue would take place during the first two weeks of May 2012. Two such issues to separate the tournaments failed overwhelmingly in both 1978 (83.9 percent to 16.1 percent, or 637 to 122) and 1993 (66.8 percent to 32.3 percent, or 482 to 240).
  
  
  
  All 15 proposals in 2011 were placed up for referendum vote by the OHSAA Board. High school principals had between May 1 and 16 to cast their votes, and a simple majority is all that is required for a proposed amendment to be adopted. The referendum issues that passed become effective August 1 unless noted.
  
  
  
  The complete final voting results are available on the OHSAA web site ([URL="http://www.ohsaa.org%29/"]www.ohsaa.org)[/URL], and the 2011-12 Constitution and Bylaws will be posted on the site sometime in late June or early July.
• sherm03

  

  LOL
• fish82

  

  Embrace the ch.....oh. Never mind.
• thePITman

  

  The vote was closer than I thought it would be. The idea is good and has merit, but the formula proposed was NOT the answer, and I'm glad the votes agreed.
• Viking

  fish82;771646 wrote:Embrace the ch.....oh. Never mind.

  
  This has set the stage for separate playoffs.
• sherm03

  

  Viking;771672 wrote:This has set the stage for separate playoffs.

  
  And that will fail, too.
• skank

  

  I believe it will fail also....Unless of course these parochial schools keep getting caught at the rate they're getting caught.
• rmolin73

  

  Maybe they should ask your school how to stop getting caught.
• skank

  

  2-100
• rmolin73

  

  0fer on the field titles.
• fish82

  

  Viking;771672 wrote:This has set the stage for separate playoffs.

  You'll have to excuse me if I fail to take your prediction seriously. I'm funny about giving credence to people who just finished face-planting.
• mvred

  

  skank;771920 wrote:2-100

  
  Thought this thing was a sure thing of passing... #Rejected
• skank

  

  I think you have the wrong guy red, I never said it would pass, I doubted it would pass, and I didn't want it to pass. those numbers mean something else.
• Viking

  The vote was much closer than many "experts" predicted. A vote for separation will come up next Spring. There may also be a tweaked version of the just failed proposal. If the new version adds a division in football it might prevent separate playoffs, but the steam for separation is really building.
• Dean Wormer

  Viking;772016 wrote:The vote was much closer than many "experts" predicted. A vote for separation will come up next Spring. There may also be a tweaked version of the just failed proposal. If the new version adds a division in football it might prevent separate playoffs, but the steam for separation is really building.

  Wishful thinking Viking.
• ts1227

  

  I think the formula is what caused it to fail, it was completely arbitrary in my opinion.
• mvred

  

  Viking;772016 wrote:The vote was much closer than many "experts" predicted. A vote for separation will come up next Spring. There may also be a tweaked version of the just failed proposal. If the new version adds a division in football it might prevent separate playoffs, but the steam for separation is really building.

  
  SoCal, my buddy! You were WRONG! How does it feel to be WRONG yet again?
  
  We miss you over on the Huddle, though that site has fallen on hard times.
• Gardens35

  check
• rmolin73

  

  Viking;772016 wrote:The vote was much closer than many "experts" predicted. A vote for separation will come up next Spring. There may also be a tweaked version of the just failed proposal. If the new version adds a division in football it might prevent separate playoffs, but the steam for separation is really building.

  
  Yada Yada Yada of course we all believe you since the votes were in, you had talked to AD's, and so on and so forth.
• skank

  

  Sherm, instead of texting molin what to post, why not just post it yourself?
• rmolin73

  

  And the song and dance continues.
• sherm03

  

  skank;772160 wrote:Sherm, instead of texting molin what to post, why not just post it yourself?

  
  Umm...huh?
• sherm03

  

  ccrunner609;772256 wrote:It was closer.....as for complete seperation, if the OHSAA boots the parochial schools then they have no rules on what they can do to get kids. THey would have free range on recruiting. They could literally stand at the door steps of your school. THe only thing that can be done to keep them in check is to remove them from from never playing your school in anything. If all public schools threatened that they might be kept in check.

  
  Good plan. But don't be surprised when those schools are nowhere near ready for the playoffs and get hammered in the first round. But to each his own I guess.
• Dean Wormer

  ccrunner609;772256 wrote:It was closer.....as for complete seperation, if the OHSAA boots the parochial schools then they have no rules on what they can do to get kids. THey would have free range on recruiting. They could literally stand at the door steps of your school. THe only thing that can be done to keep them in check is to remove them from from never playing your school in anything. If all public schools threatened that they might be kept in check.

  I can't believe an attitude like this. I can't beat you so I'll quit and take my ball and go home. What a fine example for your kids. And before Skank goes off on one of his "recruiting" tirades let's remember teams like Coldwater who can compete with anyone.
• thePITman

  

  With private schools able to turn students away and select who they admit, are they required to report how many applicants they turn away? If so, could the formula be as simple as enrollment + (x)% of applicants turned away? What is the real issue we're trying to combat, here? Is it the ability of private schools to be selective? If so, this would address that directly.