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
