As a Triway fan myself, and after seeing our school's name being tossed around negatively in this issue, let me make my personal stance on "Competitive Balance" and its proposal(s) very clear:

1. I think the most recent proposal, which includes factors to represent a school's tradition and socioeconomic conditions, is absurd. I am glad it failed - ecstatic, in fact - because in NO way should schools and their communities be punished for being successful (tradition) or given an advantage because they are poorer (socioeconomic). The first one, having one's "athletic count" altered becaues of recent success, is ridiculous, in my opinion. I understand the thought behind the socioeconomic factor, but I still don't think it should affect the athletic count.
2. Do I think there NEEDS to be a change? I personally don't think a change is necessary, and I would be perfectly fine and not one bit disappointed if the current system remains in place. I believe wholeheartedly that in order to be the best, you have to beat the best. The last I checked, private schools are part of the OHSAA, so to separate them into separate tournaments or to make them play (or report) on different rules doesn't make complete sense to me.
3. On the other hand, though, I do recognize the "unfair advantage" and "competitive imbalance" which favors private schools, such as range from which to pull prospective students and the ability to be more selective in enrollment, among others with which I'm sure I am not familiar. When talks of the Competitive Balance issue started coming back up 2-3 years ago, the best option at that time, to me, seemed like a simple multiplier. After seeing the newest proposal, I think the "school boundary factor" makes a lot of sense and wouldn't mind seeing that instituted, instead of or in addition to the multiplier. If the RIGHT formula is proposed, I don't have a problem with it passing and becoming the new system. But if the formula is very poor like the current one, I am against it.
4. The last thing I want to happen, personally, is have the OHSAA create separate tournaments for public and private schools. If that were to happen, who knows what else would follow suit - the OHSAA loses money and tries to change it back, but it's too late; the private schools leave the OHSAA to form their own organization, leaving OHSAA member schools trying to pick up the pieces and after-effects; public school kids leave to participate in private school athletics for higher levels of exposure for college athletics; and any other possible outcomes. If we open this can of worms, who knows what else might come crawling out.
5. In my final thought, it's a very sensitive issue because both sides have very valid points, and the OHSAA is caught in the middle and trying to do what is the best for everyone, although they can not make everyone happy. I think it's great that the superintendents in the Wayne County area had the courage, integrity, and initiative to bring up something that, statistically speaking, 48% of the communities in the state that voted were also thinking but were afraid to bring it up for one reason or another. I am disappointed, though, in the way other communities have responded by bashing and degrading those select communities and their superintendents, personally. They are doing what they think is best for their kids and their communities. If what they brought to the table never comes to fruition, then so be it, and it is done; and those upset fans can be happy. But if something ever passes, those angry fans also need to recognize that the majority rules (in whatever the end result ends up being).

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.

You mean like they do now?

skank;772673 wrote:You mean like they do now?

LOL. You're funny.

fish82;772828 wrote:LOL. You're funny.

I know, but the REAL funny thing is, it's true.

If your school has a higher poverty rate, you know that this does affect the numbers of kids who end up participating in sports. It may not be politically correct to say so, but it's true.

Kids from suburban areas with two parents and more money tend to go out for sports more, and be more successful because their parents can afford to get them extra coaching, training, etc.

Also, kids who come from poorer families are more at risk for drugs, poorer grades and a host of other things. And if they don't fall into some of those traps, they often are out trying to work to help themselves or their families.

I think this aspect of what the OHSAA was trying to do was legit. What I didn't like (even though it would not affect the school I follow) is punishing schools for having had success in the tournaments. Keep the parameters to things that affect NUMBERS because that's what it always boils down to in high school athletics, anyway. Typically, if you have greater numbers to pick from, you're more likely to have success (yes there are exceptions and I'm sure people will be quick to point them out...it still doesn't negate the fact that numbers are at the crux of the issue).

It's why the OHSAA included things like open enrollment and boundaries as a mitigating factor, along with kids in poverty (taking part in the reduced lunch program) as a way to try and determine which schools are going to have better numbers at their disposal.

I hope they tweak this proposal some (get rid of the punishment for past success) and come back for another vote. Separate playoffs is not the answer.

Writerbuckeye;772893 wrote:If your school has a higher poverty rate, you know that this does affect the numbers of kids who end up participating in sports. It may not be politically correct to say so, but it's true.

Kids from suburban areas with two parents and more money tend to go out for sports more, and be more successful because their parents can afford to get them extra coaching, training, etc.

Also, kids who come from poorer families are more at risk for drugs, poorer grades and a host of other things. And if they don't fall into some of those traps, they often are out trying to work to help themselves or their families.

I think this aspect of what the OHSAA was trying to do was legit. What I didn't like (even though it would not affect the school I follow) is punishing schools for having had success in the tournaments. Keep the parameters to things that affect NUMBERS because that's what it always boils down to in high school athletics, anyway. Typically, if you have greater numbers to pick from, you're more likely to have success (yes there are exceptions and I'm sure people will be quick to point them out...it still doesn't negate the fact that numbers are at the crux of the issue).

It's why the OHSAA included things like open enrollment and boundaries as a mitigating factor, along with kids in poverty (taking part in the reduced lunch program) as a way to try and determine which schools are going to have better numbers at their disposal.

I hope they tweak this proposal some (get rid of the punishment for past success) and come back for another vote. Separate playoffs is not the answer.

Is there any research that shows a correlation between free/reduced lunches and athletic ability? Glenville often has more players get D1 scholarships than any other program in the state, and Cleveland city schools are one of the poorest districts based upon family income. D1 colleges are full of athletes from poor backgrounds. Professional sports are full of athletes who grew up poor. I have seen research that makes connections between income level of the family and academic achievement, but I have never seen a study that shows a connection between a family's income level and athletic ability.

skank;772848 wrote:I know, but the REAL funny thing is, it's true.

To some extent, but not nearly to the level that your drama-addled brain seems to want to imply.

Al Bundy;772940 wrote:Is there any research that shows a correlation between free/reduced lunches and athletic ability? Glenville often has more players get D1 scholarships than any other program in the state, and Cleveland city schools are one of the poorest districts based upon family income. D1 colleges are full of athletes from poor backgrounds. Professional sports are full of athletes who grew up poor. I have seen research that makes connections between income level of the family and academic achievement, but I have never seen a study that shows a connection between a family's income level and athletic ability.

Glenville is hardly a reliable example of anything, since it's basically become like a private school in how it attracts athletes. But it does seem like Glenville has a very narrow range of sports success pretty much limited to football and track.

My point is still about NUMBERS and how poverty affects participation. Take a look at inner city school sports in all sports and the percentage who actually go out vs. those numbers at a school where income levels are much higher. I'd bet money you have a much higher percentage of kids in the more affluent schools participating in sports than at the poorer schools -- and THAT is my point. Not the athleticism of those who do go out.

If you're familiar with the Mansfield area, take a look at athletic success overall of a school like Lexington vs. Mansfield Senior. Senior is much larger, but Lexington consistently has much better success at winning in a wide range of sports, and a lot more participation by students. It's also an affluent school while Senior obviously is not.

I also forgot another factor that the OHSAA should probably consider when putting another proposal together, and that is the numbers of kids who require special needs (physical, mental or educational). If your school has a higher percentage of kids in these categories, it likely also affects numbers available to participate in sports.

Writerbuckeye;773044 wrote:Glenville is hardly a reliable example of anything, since it's basically become like a private school in how it attracts athletes. But it does seem like Glenville has a very narrow range of sports success pretty much limited to football and track.

My point is still about NUMBERS and how poverty affects participation. Take a look at inner city school sports in all sports and the percentage who actually go out vs. those numbers at a school where income levels are much higher. I'd bet money you have a much higher percentage of kids in the more affluent schools participating in sports than at the poorer schools -- and THAT is my point. Not the athleticism of those who do go out.

If you're familiar with the Mansfield area, take a look at athletic success overall of a school like Lexington vs. Mansfield Senior. Senior is much larger, but Lexington consistently has much better success at winning in a wide range of sports, and a lot more participation by students. It's also an affluent school while Senior obviously is not.

I also forgot another factor that the OHSAA should probably consider when putting another proposal together, and that is the numbers of kids who require special needs (physical, mental or educational). If your school has a higher percentage of kids in these categories, it likely also affects numbers available to participate in sports.

Here is the state data for free/reduced lunches. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=828&ContentID=13197&Content=101533
I have ranked the order in Mahoning County. Are you really sure that athletic success corresponds to free/reduced lunches?

1. Canfield 9.92
2. South Range 13.72
3. Poland 14.86
4. Western Reserve 20.00
5. Cardinal Mooney 21.42
6. Ursuline 23.37
7. West Branch 27.75
8. Boardman 30.14
9. Lowelville 32.95
10. Springfield Local 36.86
11. Fitch 37.83
12. Jackson Milton 38.48
13. Sebring 45.65
14. Youngstown Christian 56.19
15. Campbell 60.90
16. Struthers 68.01
17. Chaney 82.70
18. East 89.80

Since I have no familiarity with those schools, what you posted is meaningless to me.

And I am not saying ONLY free and reduce lunch as a factor -- but it can be one factor to include as an indicator of poverty.

I live in Columbus and I can tell you without hesitation that Dublin schools have a low free and reduced lunch number compared to Columbus and the Dublin schools typically have much greater participation AND overall success. Same for Upper Arlington, another Columbus suburb.

Writerbuckeye;773099 wrote:Since I have no familiarity with those schools, what you posted is meaningless to me.

And I am not saying ONLY free and reduce lunch as a factor -- but it can be one factor to include as an indicator of poverty.

I live in Columbus and I can tell you without hesitation that Dublin schools have a low free and reduced lunch number compared to Columbus and the Dublin schools typically have much greater participation AND overall success. Same for Upper Arlington, another Columbus suburb.

You can compute the numbers if you want, but they don't line up in many counties in the state. In Trumbull County Warren Harding may have the best tradition, but their number of free/reduced lunches is very high. In Stark County, Canton McKinley has done better than districts with less free/reduced lunches. Glenville in Cuyahoga County does better than districts with less free/reduced lunches.

Separation will be here sooner rather than later.

Viking;773113 wrote:Separation will be here sooner rather than later.

Is this the new catch phrase? Kind of like, "Change is coming. Embrace it." That one sure worked out well for you.

Glad I get to hear you spew this one for a year until you're proven wrong again...

EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE! EMBRACE THE CHANGE!

sherm03;773118 wrote:Is this the new catch phrase? Kind of like, "Change is coming. Embrace it." That one sure worked out well for you.

Glad I get to hear you spew this one for a year until you're proven wrong again...

Why doesn't he just use "Separate but Equal"?

Al Bundy;773107 wrote:You can compute the numbers if you want, but they don't line up in many counties in the state. In Trumbull County Warren Harding may have the best tradition, but their number of free/reduced lunches is very high. In Stark County, Canton McKinley has done better than districts with less free/reduced lunches. Glenville in Cuyahoga County does better than districts with less free/reduced lunches.

There are going to be exceptions. Good grief, there are 700 plus high schools in Ohio -- I'd expect you to be able to find lots of exceptions. Doesn't mean that in MOST CASES you see better participation/success in schools that don't have higher rates of poverty. What about all those parochial schools that do so well? I'd venture most of them don't have high rates of free and reduced lunches. One example (Mooney) is only at about 22 percent. That's pretty low. I'm talking about schools that have rates higher than 50 percent -- and in some cases up to 70 percent and above (which is where my alma mater is at right now).

Writerbuckeye;773167 wrote:There are going to be exceptions. Good grief, there are 700 plus high schools in Ohio -- I'd expect you to be able to find lots of exceptions. Doesn't mean that in MOST CASES you see better participation/success in schools that don't have higher rates of poverty. What about all those parochial schools that do so well? I'd venture most of them don't have high rates of free and reduced lunches. One example (Mooney) is only at about 22 percent. That's pretty low. I'm talking about schools that have rates higher than 50 percent -- and in some cases up to 70 percent and above (which is where my alma mater is at right now).

Mooney is in the 72nd percentile in terms of free/reduced lunches in Mahoning County, yet they have the best football tradition in Mahoning County. There is no correlation between these stats.

Viking;773113 wrote:Separation will be here sooner rather than later.

Give it up.

Well the schools that are in div 3 and up and even some div 4 schools did not want this to pass. why cause they know they would have to deal with the Juggernaut. so weather you believe me or not its true. i have a friend that works as a local principal in one of the schools around where i live. said they voted NOPE cause they didn't want to take a chance that they might have to compete with them. so this was a factor... I'm telling you there is no damn way any small schools can compete with the likes of some parochial schools

reddevil90;773219 wrote:I'm telling you there is no damn way any small schools can compete with the likes of some parochial schools

Except for Coldwater, Versailles, St. Henry, Maria Stein Marion Local. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument. Please, continue...

sherm03;773221 wrote:Except for Coldwater, Versailles, St. Henry, Maria Stein Marion Local. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument. Please, continue...

LOL

reddevil90;773227 wrote:LOL

I don't get it...

sherm03;773231 wrote:I don't get it...

Forget it dude. as long as they keep winning you dont care how fair it is. The best div 5 team lost in the state last year.

reddevil90;773241 wrote:Forget it dude. as long as they keep winning you dont care how fair it is. The best div 5 team lost in the state last year.

There's just no talking to some of you guys...

Instead of looking at schools like Coldwater and the like to see why they are successful year in and year out, just keep complaining and do what you can to push out those that win. It sounds like it's working for you so far...

sherm03;773221 wrote:Except for Coldwater, Versailles, St. Henry, Maria Stein Marion Local. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument. Please, continue...

That would be called a slam devil

Just go ahead and ignore the facts

Everyone knows that you're a whiner anyway