For those who want to know:
* There are 132 private high schools in Ohio which belong to the OHSAA.
* Seventy-eight (78) of the above-mentioned schools field a football team; private schools account for nearly 11 percent of the 708 football teams in the OHSAA.
* If the 1.65 multiplier was used, more than 75 percent of all private school football teams would move up at least one division -- 43 would move up one division and another 16 would move up two divisions.

fossywriter8 wrote: For those who want to know:
* There are 132 private high schools in Ohio which belong to the OHSAA.
* Seventy-eight (78) of the above-mentioned schools field a football team; private schools account for nearly 11 percent of the 708 football teams in the OHSAA.
* If the 1.65 multiplier was used, more than 75 percent of all private school football teams would move up at least one division -- 43 would move up one division and another 16 would move up two divisions.

Just be sure to include open enrollment schools in the multiplier too.

Al-where do you get off expecting reasonableness in this discussion. While there have been some good posts with cogent points being made, most of this has been blathering by wannabes who can't figure out an EASY way to be a winner!!!!

catchr22 wrote: Al-where do you get off expecting reasonableness in this discussion. While there have been some good posts with cogent points being made, most of this has been blathering by wannabes who can't figure out an EASY way to be a winner!!!!

Why not just go to 720 divisions? Everyone wants a state title without actually earning one.

fossywriter8 wrote:
* There are 132 private high schools in Ohio which belong to the OHSAA.
* Seventy-eight (78) of the above-mentioned schools field a football team

How many of the 78 have won a state title? Percentage-wise, how does that compare to the publics?

Al Bundy, catchr22 and queencitybuckeye,
I did not state my position on the proposal mentioned in the newspaper (which only mentioned a multiplier for private schools, not for those accepting open enrollments), I only provided the enrollment cutoffs for each division if such a multiplier was used and compared it the cutoffs in place right now.
In fact, I'm against such a multiplier. I think if a multiplier were used, it could lead to some (that's some -- not many, not most, but some) private schools capping their enrollments so they could remain in a particular division, which would be legal but would only draw the ire of more detractors who already feel private schools have too much of an advantage or who should not compete for an OHSAA title.
I would like to know why the multiplier was pegged at 1.65 and not some other number, such as 1.5. While the 1.65 multiplier would affect many schools, it would greatly change football, with 16 of the 78 private schools moving up two divisions. And remember, Division I private schools would not be affected at all because they are as far up the divisional ladder as they can get.
As for which of the private schools have won state football titles, I don't know. Obviously, some have. But also, some have not.

Let's look at just Division I, of the 38 years of playoff football, there have been (obviously), 152 teams to make the state semi-finals. 52 of them, 34%, have been parochial. There have been 42 head to head matchups between publics and parochials in the semi finals, parochials have won 31 of them, 73%. Of the 38 champions, 23 have been won by a parochial, 60%. Of the 76 teams that have competed in the championship game, 36 of them have been parochials, 47%. I know teams change divisions now and then, but in 2009, there were only 7 parochials in Division I.

Of the seven Parochials, they played a combined 32 public schools in the regular season going 28-4.

28 publics need to get better!!!!!

skank wrote: Let's look at just Division I, of the 38 years of playoff football, there have been (obviously), 152 teams to make the state semi-finals. 52 of them, 34%, have been parochial. There have been 42 head to head matchups between publics and parochials in the semi finals, parochials have won 31 of them, 73%. Of the 38 champions, 23 have been won by a parochial, 60%. Of the 76 teams that have competed in the championship game, 36 of them have been parochials, 47%. I know teams change divisions now and then, but in 2009, there were only 7 parochials in Division I.

A multiplier will bring more private schools into D1. Only the smallest public schools currently in D1 would drop down to D2.

catchr22 wrote: 28 publics need to get better!!!!!

Dude get serious:rolleyes:. Everything I posted proves that there is an imbalance. These are the matchups that publics have won vs parochials in the HISTORY of the Div. I semi-finals.

WGH beats Moeller 1974
Gahanna Lincoln beats St. Edward 1976
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1977
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1981
Garfield beats Mentor Lake Catholic 1983
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1985
Lima Sr. beats Elder 1996
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1997
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1998
Massillon beats St. Edward 2005
Hilliard beats Elder 2009

Remember, this is in the HISTORY of Division I semi-final games.

skank wrote:

catchr22 wrote: 28 publics need to get better!!!!!

Dude get serious:rolleyes:. Everything I posted proves that there is an imbalance. These are the matchups that publics have won vs parochials in the HISTORY of the Div. I semi-finals.

WGH beats Moeller 1974
Gahanna Lincoln beats St. Edward 1976
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1977
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1981
Garfield beats Mentor Lake Catholic 1983
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1985
Lima Sr. beats Elder 1996
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1997
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1998
Massillon beats St. Edward 2005
Hilliard beats Elder 2009

Remember, this is in the HISTORY of Division I semi-final games.

McKinley has an imbalance in your list. Does that mean that they have an unfair advantage? Or does it mean that they have a built up a great program?

Unequal outcome is NOT evidence of unequal opportunity.

As serious as I can be. Look inward at your program and find out why you aren't better!!!

queencitybuckeye wrote: Unequal outcome is NOT evidence of unequal opportunity.

By rule, I couldn't agree with you more, but if you think that it's a coincidence that throughout the decade, 60% of the championships have come from approximately less than 5% of the teams in division I, then I believe I'm wasting my time conversing with you all.

skank wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Unequal outcome is NOT evidence of unequal opportunity.

By rule, I couldn't agree with you more, but if you think that it's a coincidence that throughout the decade, 60% of the championships have come from approximately less than 5% of the teams in division I, then I believe I'm wasting my time conversing with you all.

Sounds like the small school stats in the MAC conference. Does that mean that they have an unfair advantage too?

It is all parts of this discussion. There is more of a community atmosphere in the private schools. There is considerable community involvement, societal and athletic. The socio-economics of todays world negatively effect the publics more than the privates. However, there is generally more of a demand for excellence expected of the coaches in the privates than the publics. Those that care in the public system are out-numbered by those who are apathetic!!! The numbers are a reflection of reality!!! Change, without consideration of "open enrollment" still does not deal with the "super" D 1s who cannot be affected by any "across the board" multiplier!!! Other than a "totally open" tournament, such as occurs in Indiana basketball, there appears to be nothing offered here that deals with all the problems that exist!!!!

Right AL, because a couple public schools in an area of the state with few private schools win some titles in a couple sports we should discount all the actual information from around the entire state. Hat's off to the MAC for the sports they do well in. Chest pounding is fun. Doesn't change the facts nor will it when they (and they will) cycle back down a bit and the private schools are still winning 60+% and far more than that at the lower levels.

What boggles my mind is that people accept there are issues with enrollement and that we need divisions to seperate big and small schools, yet just want to burry their head in the ground on private vs public. That's irrational. Either there are no advantages and everyone should compete for one title or there are advantages and we need to address them.

The"multiplier" does not address ALL the issues, therefore something better needs to be discussed. If you can address ALL the issues, then this discussion is relevant. If you can't, there is no possible way it will even be looked at!!!

Perhaps the solution should be a divisor or subtraction. Subtract out all kids that do not qualify on grades or mental capacity.
Of course, this number will also be used when it comes time to get money from the state.

skank wrote:

catchr22 wrote: 28 publics need to get better!!!!!

Dude get serious:rolleyes:. Everything I posted proves that there is an imbalance. These are the matchups that publics have won vs parochials in the HISTORY of the Div. I semi-finals.

WGH beats Moeller 1974
Gahanna Lincoln beats St. Edward 1976
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1977
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1981
Garfield beats Mentor Lake Catholic 1983
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1985
Lima Sr. beats Elder 1996
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1997
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1998
Massillon beats St. Edward 2005
Hilliard beats Elder 2009

Remember, this is in the HISTORY of Division I semi-final games.

A multiplier won't do anything for this "issue". It will actually just add more Private Schools to DI while subtracting a like number of Public Schools (A small number). It will also not affect the current DI privates (Moeller, Elder, St X, Ignatius etc.) since they can't go anywhere else

Al Bundy wrote:

skank wrote:

catchr22 wrote: 28 publics need to get better!!!!!

Dude get serious:rolleyes:. Everything I posted proves that there is an imbalance. These are the matchups that publics have won vs parochials in the HISTORY of the Div. I semi-finals.

WGH beats Moeller 1974
Gahanna Lincoln beats St. Edward 1976
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1977
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1981
Garfield beats Mentor Lake Catholic 1983
Mckinley beats St. Joe 1985
Lima Sr. beats Elder 1996
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1997
Mckinley beats Ignatius 1998
Massillon beats St. Edward 2005
Hilliard beats Elder 2009

Remember, this is in the HISTORY of Division I semi-final games.

McKinley has an imbalance in your list. Does that mean that they have an unfair advantage? Or does it mean that they have a built up a great program?

No, it means that most likely, without a great program like Mckinley, these numbers could be even uglier.

You boys just keep tellin yourselves that there is no advantage, that the rules are fair and don't favor you, and everything will be alright.

skank wrote: without a great program like Mckinley,

NEVER would I imagine those words together..in the same sentence..coming from a Massillon fan. Lol

I did hurt just typing those words, I have always respected their program....still hate em, but I do respect them.

Whatever wrote: Right AL, because a couple public schools in an area of the state with few private schools win some titles in a couple sports we should discount all the actual information from around the entire state. Hat's off to the MAC for the sports they do well in. Chest pounding is fun. Doesn't change the facts nor will it when they (and they will) cycle back down a bit and the private schools are still winning 60+% and far more than that at the lower levels.

What boggles my mind is that people accept there are issues with enrollement and that we need divisions to seperate big and small schools, yet just want to burry their head in the ground on private vs public. That's irrational. Either there are no advantages and everyone should compete for one title or there are advantages and we need to address them.

You are using a small number of private to describe how every private school in the state has this huge advantage (most private schools have never won a state title). However, when I use a conference where almost half the public schools in it have won a state title, we should dismiss it because it is a small sample? Are we allowed to use small samples or not?