Archive

New Competitive Balance Proposal

  • Bigdogg
    Al Bundy;1003163 wrote:Students that attend a vocational school are allowed to participate in extra-curriculars for their home district, so I think you would have to count them in the numbers.
    That's what I said.

    Not all schools have separate a vocational school. In Mercer County there is not a separate vocational school. There is an agreement between schools to host certain programs.
  • Al Bundy
    Sonofanump;1003118 wrote:I am pretty sure that my idea (bottom 80 non privates) would also have MSML in the small school division and therefore winning the title in football every year.
    Everyone wants to come up with proposals to "level the playing field", but most of the proposals that I have seen just give the most dominant teams of the century an easier path to the title.
  • Sonofanump
    Al Bundy;1003168 wrote:Everyone wants to come up with proposals to "level the playing field", but most of the proposals that I have seen just give the most dominant teams of the century an easier path to the title.
    Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
  • Delphosfan
    Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
    So you want kids on this year's team to pay the penalty for last year's success? A team wins state, loses 20 once in a lifetime seniors and then the next year gets moved up a division? Wouldn't it just be easier to ban state champs from the next year's playoffs?
  • Rocket08
    Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
    2 problems with this

    #1 It's stupid

    #2 It's Indiana. The last thing that we need is to base any part of our playoff system on Indiana

    Please
  • genghis dong
    Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
    Now we are going to punish teams for winning championships? Where do the d 1 winners move to?
  • rmolin73
    genghis dong;1003341 wrote:Now we are going to punish teams for winning championships? Where do the d 1 winners move to?
    Based off of what these guys want the D1 champ will move up to NCAA D3.:cry:
  • Falcons53
    Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
    I lived in Indianapolis for the last 3 years and had a cousin playing HS football. This the first I have heard of a "play-up" penalty.
  • rmolin73
    In all honesty I think it was something that Indiana muddled with but never implemented. If you check Indy Cathedral won the 4A title in 2010 and 2011.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
    Why do you want to penalize success? It may spread the championships around, but at the cost of a poorer "product".
  • queencitybuckeye
    rmolin73;1003442 wrote:Based off of what these guys want the D1 champ will move up to NCAA D3.:cry:
    Leading to the inevitable "Can St. X (or whomever) beat Mt. Union"? :)
  • Sonofanump
    queencitybuckeye;1003832 wrote:Why do you want to penalize success?
    To keep the masses happy, no other reason for the suggestion.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Sonofanump;1003889 wrote:To keep the masses happy, no other reason for the suggestion.
    I'd argue the masses are fine with the status quo, expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success.
  • Bigdogg
    queencitybuckeye;1004074 wrote:I'd argue the masses are fine with the status quo, expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success.
    Straw man argument. Good programs will continue to be good programs. Why should a school with 518 boys be in a division with schools twice the enrollment? The easy thing to fix is the D-1 level. Increase the division to top 10% add any school that voluntary wants to compete in D-1 or the open division. Play a 11 week regular season schedule. 16 teams then qualify for the tournament. Problem solved.

    Take the rest of the schools and develop a classification system that works like I have proposed.
  • Rocket08
    Maybe in your mind "problem solved"

    Your problem, you are 1 opinion
  • Rocket08
    Bigdogg;1004109 wrote:Straw man argument.
    What?? :huh:

    Maybe in your mind "problem solved"

    Your problem, you are 1 opinion
  • Sonofanump
    Bigdogg;1004109 wrote:Straw man argument. Good programs will continue to be good programs. Why should a school with 518 boys be in a division with schools twice the enrollment? The easy thing to fix is the D-1 level. Increase the division to top 10% add any school that voluntary wants to compete in D-1 or the open division. Play a 11 week regular season schedule. 16 teams then qualify for the tournament. Problem solved.

    Take the rest of the schools and develop a classification system that works like I have proposed.
    Let's say you use a 1.5 multiplier for privates schools. The cut off for the top 70-80 schools would be near 600 boys. Only 4-5 privates would move up from D2 to D1. Now it solves the problem for those 50 schools between 520 and 600 enrollment.

    I think that a disparity also falls on the lower end.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Bigdogg;1004109 wrote:Straw man argument. Good programs will continue to be good programs. Why should a school with 518 boys be in a division with schools twice the enrollment? The easy thing to fix is the D-1 level. Increase the division to top 10% add any school that voluntary wants to compete in D-1 or the open division. Play a 11 week regular season schedule. 16 teams then qualify for the tournament. Problem solved.

    Take the rest of the schools and develop a classification system that works like I have proposed.
    You may disagree with my opinion, but you appear to have no earthly idea what a strawman argument is. Yours is actually a strawman as you argue points that I didn't make.
  • Rocket08
    queencitybuckeye;1004188 wrote:You may disagree with my opinion, but you appear to have no earthly idea what a strawman argument is. Yours is actually a strawman as you argue points that I didn't make.
    This
  • Bigdogg
    queencitybuckeye;1004188 wrote:You may disagree with my opinion, but you appear to have no earthly idea what a strawman argument is. Yours is actually a strawman as you argue points that I didn't make.
    Well it been many years since I sat in a inductive and deductive logic class, but I am pretty sure you refuted the issue by stating the "majority of people are happy with the status quo", which is incorrect, and by refuting the whole argument by stating "expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success."

    Sounds like your logic is a little flawed.

    [h=4]Description of Straw Man[/h] The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
    1. Person A has position X.
    2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    3. Person B attacks position Y.
    4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

  • queencitybuckeye
    Bigdogg;1004417 wrote:Well it been many years since I sat in a inductive and deductive logic class, but I am pretty sure you refuted the issue by stating the "majority of people are happy with the status quo", which is incorrect, and by refuting the whole argument by stating "expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success."

    Sounds like your logic is a little flawed.

    Description of Straw Man

    The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
    1. Person A has position X.
    2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    3. Person B attacks position Y.
    4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

    Nothing distorted about it. I gave an opinion that the majority believes the status quo is no more flawed than any "fix" one might implement. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
  • Rocket08
    Bigdogg;1004417 wrote:Well it been many years since I sat in a inductive and deductive logic class, but I am pretty sure you refuted the issue by stating the "majority of people are happy with the status quo", which is incorrect,
    Exactly how do you know that is incorrect?
  • Bigdogg
    Rocket08;1005222 wrote:Exactly how do you know that is incorrect?
    The original survey that got the OHSAA to take up the competitive balance proposal that was voted on last spring for one. That proposal, which barely failed did so because it did not address the D-1 issue, and one of the criteria was to penalize success. The OHSAA has stated that there will be another committee to study the issue. Sounds to me like the OHSAA has got a reason to continue to address this issue. That don't sound to me like the OHSAA thinks that the majority are happy with the status quo.
  • Bigdogg
    queencitybuckeye;1005171 wrote:Nothing distorted about it. I gave an opinion that the majority believes the status quo is no more flawed than any "fix" one might implement. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
    If true why has the OHSAA already stated they will go back to the drawing board?
  • Mooney44Cards
    Bigdogg;1005406 wrote:The original survey that got the OHSAA to take up the competitive balance proposal that was voted on last spring for one. That proposal, which barely failed did so because it did not address the D-1 issue, and one of the criteria was to penalize success. The OHSAA has stated that there will be another committee to study the issue. Sounds to me like the OHSAA has got a reason to continue to address this issue. That don't sound to me like the OHSAA thinks that the majority are happy with the status quo.
    [h=2]con·jec·ture [kuhn-jek-cher][/h]
    noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

    2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.