[h=1]Here is an article from just last year, I took the liberty of highlighting some arguing points. Enjoy
Bob Dyer: OHSAA's proposed playbook complex, incomplete[/h]By Bob Dyer
Beacon Journal columnist
Published: January 9, 2011 - 02:30 AM Bob Dyer: OHSAA's proposed playbook complex, incomplete June 18,2011 03:51 PM GMT Bob Dyer Beacon Journal Publishing Co.
Copyright � 2011 Beacon Journal Publishing Co. Inc and Black Press. All Rights Reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of the Akron Beacon Journal is expressly prohibited. 
Leave it to the Ohio High School Athletic Association to come up with a simple solution to the problem of unfair competition between public and private schools.
The OHSAA wants to start with the BADM . . . subtract the SF . . . add the BF . . . add the TF . . . and then apply the FAC.
You think I'm kidding?
I'll tell you what all those acronyms mean in a minute. For now, suffice it to say that a committee charged with developing a statewide referendum
to address the public-private issue seems to be reinforcing the concept that designing things by committee isn't necessarily a great idea.
A draft copy of the group's ''Competitive Balance Proposal,'' provided to me by a person involved, shows the OHSAA will pitch a solution that mixes three factors to determine which schools will play in which divisions: socioeconomics, geographic reach and athletic tradition.
As we have reported extensively during the past several years, private schools enjoy an enormous competitive advantage over public schools. Although only 8 percent of the state's high school students attend private schools, those schools account for 70 percent of the 20 schools with the most state championships.
During the fall sports season, counting all of the boys and girls divisions in all six sports, 19 of the 27 statewide winners were private.
That's 70 percent of the trophies collected by 8 percent of the students.
In the Division VI football title game, a private school with five previous championships sneaked past the state's best small public school by a score of 77-6.
Yes, 77-6. In the state final.
The reasons for the disproportionate
success rate are many, but the primary one is that private schools can assemble virtual all-star teams from five- and six-county areas, while public schools generally must make do with whoever happens to live in or near their district.
The reasons this happens are less important than the fact it happens. Clearly, given the OHSAA's stated mission to ''administer interscholastic athletic competition in a fair and equitable manner,'' the OHSAA has not been doing its job.
That's why an ever-growing percentage of public school coaches and administrators has been clamoring for change.
Last year, a dozen Wayne County superintendents announced the results of a statewide poll of their peers that showed three out of four Ohio superintendents want to revamp the playoff system.
Given that mandate for change, the next question becomes more difficult:
What's the fairest way to make things more fair?
Complex formula
In some states, public and private schools play each other during the regular season but are split into separate divisions during the playoffs. That makes perfect sense, because it eliminates apples-and-oranges tournaments.
A half-dozen other states use an enrollment ''multiplier'' that forces smaller private schools into bigger divisions. In Illinois, for example, if you have 200 boys in your private school, you must multiply that by 1.65, giving you an enrollment of 330 for the purpose of determining your playoff division.
If you think that complicates matters, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
The nascent OHSAA proposal — to be voted on by member schools and, if passed, implemented for the 2012-13 or 2013-14 school year — looks like something from an algebra class.
You start with a school's Beginning Average Daily Membership, a fancy way of saying ''student enrollment.'' Then you subtract the Socioeconomic Factor, which the committee says has a major impact on sports success. The SF is determined by using state data about free lunches provided at each school.
Then, the OHSAA would add a ''Boundary Factor,'' a measure of how easily schools can draw students from outside their immediate area. The BF weighting would come in four categories, from heaviest to lightest:
• Private schools with no restrictions.
• Private schools that limit students to certain boundaries.
• Public schools with statewide open enrollment.
• Public schools that limit open enrollment to contiguous districts.
Finally, the OHSAA would calculate the ''Tradition Factor,'' an acknowledgment that good athletes often go out of their way to attend schools with championship traditions.
The TF would be calculated over a four-year period, on a sport-by-sport basis, in the following way, from highest to lowest importance:
• State championship game appearances.
• State tournament appearances.
• Regional finals appearances.
Mix all of these factors together and you get the ''Final Athletic Count.''
Problems remain
The OHSAA committee was made up of 30 representatives from both public and private schools across the state.
Now, let's give the group major kudos for trying to fix the problem. But in attempting to make changes that are palatable to every conceivable interest group, the plan ignores some of the worst inequities.
Many of the most uneven playing fields exist in Division I. And if a school is already in the highest division, no formula on Earth will push it any higher.
How bad is the imbalance in our state's biggest division?
Private schools have won seven of the past 10 titles in football . . . 12 of the past 13 in volleyball . . . 11 of 12 in field hockey . . . four of seven in boys soccer . . . and five of seven in girls soccer.
You can add as many factors to the formula as you want, and places like Lakewood St. Edward and Cleveland St. Ignatius are going to continue to be equated with schools like Twinsburg and Green.
In addition, a school would not be forced to jump more than one division.
So if you take the semipro football program at Youngstown Ursuline and move it from D-V to D-IV — pitting it against schools such as Manchester, Orrville and Garrettsville — what have you accomplished?
Geography question
The committee certainly deserves credit for creativity. Introducing a socioeconomic factor is unheard of.
Is socioeconomics a significant factor in athletic success? In sports like golf and baseball, certainly. In most sports? Probably. In track and boys basketball? Not so much.
Geographic reach remains the key. But rather than simply examining each school's general policy,
you'd have to see what percentage of its athletes come from far-flung areas.
The assertion made by some parochial schools that open enrollment has nullified the private-school geographic advantage is laughable. With precious few exceptions (Glenville football and Buchtel basketball come to mind), the trickle of open-enrollment athletes at mainstream public schools pales in comparison.
While acknowledging that several states have always split their tournaments and at least five other states have a system that involves a partial split, the committee's draft proclaims, ''No state association in modern history has separated its tournaments into public-only and private-only.''
So what? Ohioans don't have the guts to do the right thing on their own?
Pitting the parochial powerhouse Delphos St. John's against 198-student Shadyside High in the state football final was like lining up the Ohio State Buckeyes across from the Ohio Wesleyan Battling Bishops.
The outcome is predetermined, because the two programs are completely different.
Different types of programs should compete in different tournaments — just as OSU and OWU do.
