339-301 against.

Good.

What I saw last night that if it had passed that they never had to come and ask about it again. The OHSAA could basically do with it and tweak it however they want without taking it to the schools.

What a bad day for the whiners

I'll just sit back and enjoy the crying

I don't understand the rationale behind the OHSAA's thought that the "tradition factor" is a good idea. Please explain one reason why we want to directly punish a school because of their success, alone? Methods of gaining enrollment can have an impact positively or negatively on performance, and I understand that. But all things else equal, taking "success within the last 8 years" into consideration when determining "enrollment" is ridiculous. The point of the competitive balance is to hinder the advantages certain schools have on methods of gaining/restricting enrollment, determining the competitive post-season division, which has an impact on relative performance. The point is NOT to punish the successful programs.

I also think the socio-economic factor(s) are absurd, as well.

The simpler the better, IMO. If nothing passes, I'm fine, too.

'Tis a bad day for the juice box heroes.

thePITman;1173307 wrote:I don't understand the rationale behind the OHSAA's thought that the "tradition factor" is a good idea. Please explain one reason why we want to directly punish a school because of their success, alone? Methods of gaining enrollment can have an impact positively or negatively on performance, and I understand that. But all things else equal, taking "success within the last 8 years" into consideration when determining "enrollment" is ridiculous. The point of the competitive balance is to hinder the advantages certain schools have on methods of gaining/restricting enrollment, determining the competitive post-season division, which has an impact on relative performance. The point is NOT to punish the successful programs.

I also think the socio-economic factor(s) are absurd, as well.

The simpler the better, IMO. If nothing passes, I'm fine, too.

I agree with all of this. Penalizing a school for success is ridiculous. And dropping their enrollment numbers based on the number of students that get a free/reduced lunch is even more ridiculous.

I have yet to see an idea that is not completely skewed against the private schools. I still maintain that the fairest way to implement any type of change is to assign each high school a feeder school/schools. Any students that come from those schools count as 1 towards the enrollment numbers. Any students that come from a different school count as 2 towards the enrollment numbers. That way, everyone...private, closed enrollment public, and open enrollment public...are all subject to the same "penalty" when a student comes in from a different area. I understand the idea behind the success factor (kids want to go where they have the best chance to win), but with my plan, if a student from Canfield middle schools goes to Mooney, Mooney would take a bump for that. But by the same token, if a kid that went to a private grade school decides he wants to go play at Canfield...Canfield should also have to take a bump.

I'm glad the measure was shot down. And I'm looking forward to seeing people bring a separate tournament proposal to the table and the subsequent beating that the proposal would take when put to a vote.

Good. Maybe we can work on going to one division now.....yeah, I know, wishful thinking.

sherm03;1173390 wrote:I agree with all of this. Penalizing a school for success is ridiculous. And dropping their enrollment numbers based on the number of students that get a free/reduced lunch is even more ridiculous.

I have yet to see an idea that is not completely skewed against the private schools. I still maintain that the fairest way to implement any type of change is to assign each high school a feeder school/schools. Any students that come from those schools count as 1 towards the enrollment numbers. Any students that come from a different school count as 2 towards the enrollment numbers. That way, everyone...private, closed enrollment public, and open enrollment public...are all subject to the same "penalty" when a student comes in from a different area. I understand the idea behind the success factor (kids want to go where they have the best chance to win), but with my plan, if a student from Canfield middle schools goes to Mooney, Mooney would take a bump for that. But by the same token, if a kid that went to a private grade school decides he wants to go play at Canfield...Canfield should also have to take a bump.

I'm glad the measure was shot down. And I'm looking forward to seeing people bring a separate tournament proposal to the table and the subsequent beating that the proposal would take when put to a vote.

That's actually not a bad plan. I'd vote for it.

I still think the best way would be to determine the population that a school draws from, and then calculate the divisions. We all know that a school drawing from a large urban area is not the same as a school in the middle of no where drawing from that area...no matter if they have the same amount of enrollment.

ManO'War;1174323 wrote:That's actually not a bad plan. I'd vote for it.

I still think the best way would be to determine the population that a school draws from, and then calculate the divisions. We all know that a school drawing from a large urban area is not the same as a school in the middle of no where drawing from that area...no matter if they have the same amount of enrollment.

I used to agree with that. But I have changed my mind on it. The difference is, a school that is D4 in an urban area is competing with 5, 10, or even 15 other schools for those students. Small rural schools are usually the only one in the area that those students can go to.

ManO'War;1174323 wrote:That's actually not a bad plan. I'd vote for it.

I still think the best way would be to determine the population that a school draws from, and then calculate the divisions. We all know that a school drawing from a large urban area is not the same as a school in the middle of no where drawing from that area...no matter if they have the same amount of enrollment.

Where schools are drawing from can get confusing with open enrollment. If a school brings in a kid from another state, would you count the entire state or just the city that he lived in? What about schools that play exchange students?

I like sherm03 and thePITman's ideas. Why doesn't the OHSAA propose something like that?

You can't hold it against a team for having success... but when they can appeal to and pull students all throughout the tri-county area and beyond, and not get called on it there's an obvious advantage there.

Why not make the privates have the same rights pertaining to enrollment as the closed publics? Schools like Mooney and Ursuline can only pull students from Youngstown... St. Ignatius can only pull students from Cleveland... St. Xavier can only pull students from Cincinnati... etc.

If students live in Canfield, Poland, Struthers, Austintown, Warren, Boardman, etc, and want to go to Mooney, make them have to pack up and move to Youngstown.

The other extreme would be to just open the flood gates and make every school in Ohio Open Enrollment.

Just make it Public and Private, and make them all either Open Enrollment or Closed Enrollment.

Or am I just beating a dead horse here?

Al Bundy;1174336 wrote:Where schools are drawing from can get confusing with open enrollment. If a school brings in a kid from another state, would you count the entire state or just the city that he lived in? What about schools that play exchange students?

Make all out of state students worth the same amount to enrollment. Like 2 or 3.

Foreign exchange students should only count as 1.

It's not that much of an issue.

It's good to iron out all the details, but you're grasping at straws.

BTrev;1175707 wrote:I like sherm03 and thePITman's ideas. Why doesn't the OHSAA propose something like that?

You can't hold it against a team for having success... but when they can appeal to and pull students all throughout the tri-county area and beyond, and not get called on it there's an obvious advantage there.

Why not make the privates have the same rights pertaining to enrollment as the closed publics? Schools like Mooney and Ursuline can only pull students from Youngstown... St. Ignatius can only pull students from Cleveland... St. Xavier can only pull students from Cincinnati... etc.

If students live in Canfield, Poland, Struthers, Austintown, Warren, Boardman, etc, and want to go to Mooney, make them have to pack up and move to Youngstown.

The other extreme would be to just open the flood gates and make every school in Ohio Open Enrollment.

Just make it Public and Private, and make them all either Open Enrollment or Closed Enrollment.

Or am I just beating a dead horse here?

Forcing private schools (like Mooney and Ursuline) to only take kids from inside the city of Youngstown is not what I'm saying. There are private schools that kids go to from K-8 from all over the Youngstown Diocese. If a student goes to a school like St. Charles (meaning he lives in Boardman) and wants to go to Mooney...there should be no problem with that (hence why I propose that the student is only counted as 1). If the student goes to a public grade school in Boardman, but wants to go to Mooney because they win, then go ahead and count that kid as 1.5 or 2 or whatever. But if private schools have to abide by that, then public schools should, too. If that same kid at St. Charles goes to Boardman...he should count as 1.5 or 2 or whatever.

It's tough to say that private schools should only get kids from inside a city's limits because the parochial feeder schools are with the churches. And the churches are spread out throughout the area surrounding the city.

As far as making every public school in Ohio OE...that's almost the case. Around 75% of the public schools in Ohio have some sort of open enrollment. And of that 75%, most are statewide OE (meaning they can technically have a student come to their school from literally anywhere in the state). That seems like a much bigger reach than a private school being able to have kids attend from some of the suburbs outside of the city that the private high school is located in.

sherm03;1175713 wrote:
It's tough to say that private schools should only get kids from inside a city's limits because the parochial feeder schools are with the churches. And the churches are spread out throughout the area surrounding the city.

We attend Church about 20 miles from our residence, not in the "town" we reside. Our kids go to school in the town we live. Our Church isn't associated with our school.

1_beast;1175719 wrote:We attend Church about 20 miles from our residence, not in the "town" we reside. Our kids go to school in the town we live. Our Church isn't associated with our school.

Don't you send your kids to a public school? My point was...most parochial grade schools are located in the same spot as the church. So churches in Boardman, Canfield, Poland, etc. may have grade schools with them for the people who choose a parochial education for those children. The people that live in those areas and send their children to those parochial grade schools will often times wish to continue that into high school and will send their children to a parochial high school. It isn't viable to have parochial high schools in all of those suburbs, so most times the parochial high school will be located in a central city location so that students from all of the suburbs that have attended parochial grade schools can come together at one school.

My point being...Family A lives in Poland and wants to send their children to a parochial grade school. So they send their child to Holy Family. That child finishes 8th grade, and the parents wish to continue sending him/her to a parochial grade school. So they send him/her to the next closest parochial high school and the student goes to Mooney. Now people will say that it's not fair because that student lives in Poland, but goes to Mooney which is located inside the city of Youngstown. I contend that it is, indeed, fair because the student has attended a private grade school...so that student would count as 1 for Mooney's enrollment. Family B lives in Poland and sends their children to a public grade school. So they send their child to Poland Middle School. When the child finishes 8th grade, he wants to play football at Mooney, so the parents send him to Mooney. Under the plan I put out there...that student would count as 1.5 or 2. Under the same token. After 8th grade, the child from Family A decides he wants to go to Poland to play baseball instead of going to Mooney. So Family A decides to send him from Holy Family to Poland High School. He would then count as 1.5 or 2 for Poland's enrollment.

I understood your point.

That was what I was saying. I wasn't summarizing what you said... I was just throwing ideas out there.

My bad if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth.

I guess logic like that never really dawmed on me, about the feeder schools like Holy Family and St. Nick's.

I blame my upbringing. My Dad went to St. Nick's through grade school, and so did his 6 siblings. Mooney wanted him and my Uncle for football, but he stayed at Struthers.

They all started out at St. Nick's, but they all went to Struthers High School.

I went to Struthers Schools, and was raised Catholic as a member of St. Nick's church. So were a lot of my friends. But we all went to Struthers.

I went to HS with people that lived in Struthers, went to St. Nick's, and went to Struthers too.

I have to respectfully disagree with you though... and maybe it's just me being ignorant here and arguing for argument's sake. But if you live in a city and go to a grade school located in that city, then that's where you should go to High School. Both Mooney and Ursuline have feeder schools in Youngstown, right? If they can commute for High School, they can commute for Middle/Elementary School too.

I'll give you that it may not be rational to expect everyone to pack up and move... but why do Mooney and Ursuline need feeder schools all over the county?

BTrev;1175927 wrote:I understood your point.

That was what I was saying. I wasn't summarizing what you said... I was just throwing ideas out there.

My bad if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth.

I guess logic like that never really dawmed on me, about the feeder schools like Holy Family and St. Nick's.

I blame my upbringing. My Dad went to St. Nick's through grade school, and so did his 6 siblings. Mooney wanted him and my Uncle for football, but he stayed at Struthers.

They all started out at St. Nick's, but they all went to Struthers High School.

I went to Struthers Schools, and was raised Catholic as a member of St. Nick's church. So were a lot of my friends. But we all went to Struthers.

I went to HS with people that lived in Struthers, went to St. Nick's, and went to Struthers too.

I have to respectfully disagree with you though... and maybe it's just me being ignorant here and arguing for argument's sake. But if you live in a city and go to a grade school located in that city, then that's where you should go to High School. Both Mooney and Ursuline have feeder schools in Youngstown, right? If they can commute for High School, they can commute for Middle/Elementary School too.

I'll give you that it may not be rational to expect everyone to pack up and move... but why do Mooney and Ursuline need feeder schools all over the county?

Spot on and well said! This was my point, I just didn't want to type it out. Honestly though...do as you will, I don't care. My son only wrestles so it really has no impact on our family.

BTrev;1175927 wrote:... But if you live in a city and go to a grade school located in that city, then that's where you should go to High School....

I completely disagree.

You go to the school that has the environment and culture that best serves you in High School.

Grade school and high school are very different. IN addition, the kids grow, change and develop in different ways. What may have been best for them in grade school may not be ideal in High School. As a parent, determining what's best for my children is what most influences my decisions...not where they went to grade school.

We choose where to obtain educational services from. The schools or State don't choose the kids.

Con_Alma;1175963 wrote:
You go to the school that has the environment and culture that best serves you in High School.

This * infinity.

Con_Alma;1175963 wrote:I completely disagree.

You go to the school that has the environment and culture that best serves you in High School.

And THIS is what is comical. The environment and culture for some kids at school vs home, as well as school vs post school is irrelevant in many cases, there is LIFE after H.S. football, for some .....that could be literally!

1_beast;1175991 wrote:And THIS is what is comical. The environment and culture for some kids at school vs home, as well as school vs post school is irrelevant in many cases, there is LIFE after H.S. football, for some .....that could be literally!

I don't think he was talking strictly about football. When we pick a college, we choose the school that can best help us obtain our goals. Why shouldn't we do that with high school as well? If I were interested in science and one school had better labs and teachers than another school, why shouldn't I go to that school? If studying religion in high school is important to me or my family, why wouldn't we pick a school with a good religion program? Our colleges do a much better job with education than our high schools and part of that is that people can pick the school that best suit their needs. Open enrollment has helped with this in many areas.

BTrev;1175927 wrote:I understood your point.

That was what I was saying. I wasn't summarizing what you said... I was just throwing ideas out there.

My bad if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth.

I guess logic like that never really dawmed on me, about the feeder schools like Holy Family and St. Nick's.

I blame my upbringing. My Dad went to St. Nick's through grade school, and so did his 6 siblings. Mooney wanted him and my Uncle for football, but he stayed at Struthers.

They all started out at St. Nick's, but they all went to Struthers High School.

I went to Struthers Schools, and was raised Catholic as a member of St. Nick's church. So were a lot of my friends. But we all went to Struthers.

I went to HS with people that lived in Struthers, went to St. Nick's, and went to Struthers too.

I have to respectfully disagree with you though... and maybe it's just me being ignorant here and arguing for argument's sake. But if you live in a city and go to a grade school located in that city, then that's where you should go to High School. Both Mooney and Ursuline have feeder schools in Youngstown, right? If they can commute for High School, they can commute for Middle/Elementary School too.

I'll give you that it may not be rational to expect everyone to pack up and move... but why do Mooney and Ursuline need feeder schools all over the county?

Actually, no. I'm pretty sure the only parochial grade school inside the city of Youngstown is St. Christine. I think all of the others have closed.

1_beast;1175991 wrote:And THIS is what is comical. The environment and culture for some kids at school vs home, as well as school vs post school is irrelevant in many cases, there is LIFE after H.S. football, for some .....that could be literally!

I never spoke of football at all. The HS choice I make for my children isn't based on football. My son does play...he wrestles also. There's no doubt that sports are "extra"-curricular.

I know others choose a school based on sports but that's their decisions and right as much as choosing a schools based on environment and culture.

A school doesn't own a kid or family based on where that family lives. Why that ever became part of the mentality as it relates to athletic rules, I'll never understand.

So throw any loyalty to your residential city out the window, I guess...

I firmly believe that if a kid is that damn good at football, basketball, baseball, track, etc... they'll be able to attract intrest from colleges wherever they're at.

That is what we're talking about, right? Sending kids elsewhere so they can get looks from scouts and have a chance at a scholarship?

BTrev;1176059 wrote:So throw any loyalty to your residential city out the window, I guess...

I firmly believe that if a kid is that damn good at football, basketball, baseball, track, etc... they'll be able to attract intrest from colleges wherever they're at.

That is what we're talking about, right? Sending kids elsewhere so they can get looks from scouts and have a chance at a scholarship?

Loyalty isn't a given it is earned.

Talented athletes are found no matter where they are. It's not being recruited that I speak of. It's being in the right school for that kid and his/her personality and needs.