But people will still find a reason to complain.

ManO'War wrote: Sure. Every school.

Realistically most open enrollment schools are only drawing from the surrounding districts anyways, while private schools are drawing from different counties.

Big Red farthest students come from about 5 miles out the road, and some that are from "another district" actually reside inside the city of Steubenville.

5 Miles?
Please don't tell me you believe that.

Darkon wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Sure. Every school.

Realistically most open enrollment schools are only drawing from the surrounding districts anyways, while private schools are drawing from different counties.

Big Red farthest students come from about 5 miles out the road, and some that are from "another district" actually reside inside the city of Steubenville.

5 Miles?
Please don't tell me you believe that.

If Big Red pulls all the good players from Jefferson County, explain to me how it was that Buckeye Local ended the season ranked third in the region and that Creek just missed the playoffs at the 9th seed.

Sure. and that is why teams like Newark Catholic are now struggling to beat teams like Licking Valley, Granville and Heath. The problem is less public vs private than quality of coaching at those schools to attract families with quality athletes. While NC remains competitive, its size and cost are now problematic causing a necessary increase in competitiveness from its players in order to be strong. In their division, they are a handful. In their county, they struggle!!

FairwoodKing

Who said Big Red pulls "all the good players"? I didn't see anyone state that. That's a bit of an exageration isn't it?

Who is going to benefit from a "level" playing field? The answer I would like to hear is not a blanket "public schools", but something specific, such as "D6 public rural schools like Corning Miller or Manchester". Just an example, but who, really will benefit from reform, and what kind of reform? Not to stir the pot, but who needs a leg up to a level playing field?

Darkon wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Sure. Every school.

Realistically most open enrollment schools are only drawing from the surrounding districts anyways, while private schools are drawing from different counties.

Big Red farthest students come from about 5 miles out the road, and some that are from "another district" actually reside inside the city of Steubenville.

5 Miles?
Please don't tell me you believe that.

We have kids from Wintersville which is about 5 miles away from the school, if that. We have some kids from Mingo, which is under 5 miles. We have some from the Edison area, but I don't know exactly where they live..they could be under 5 or a little over 5. And I know we have at least one from Toronto, which is about 5 to 6 miles up route 7 from the high school.

I would be willing to wager that our kids come from a more concentrated area than any school in Jefferson County.

catchr22 wrote: Sure. and that is why teams like Newark Catholic are now struggling to beat teams like Licking Valley, Granville and Heath. The problem is less public vs private than quality of coaching at those schools to attract families with quality athletes. While NC remains competitive, its size and cost are now problematic causing a necessary increase in competitiveness from its players in order to be strong. In their division, they are a handful. In their county, they struggle!!

SIZE... being the key
NC beat up on those schools when they were smaller... now they have grown larger and NC struggles to beat them year in and year out

PERFECT proof of the need for multiplier

Squirmydog wrote: Who is going to benefit from a "level" playing field? The answer I would like to hear is not a blanket "public schools", but something specific, such as "D6 public rural schools like Corning Miller or Manchester". Just an example, but who, really will benefit from reform, and what kind of reform? Not to stir the pot, but who needs a leg up to a level playing field?

depends on which multiplier...
certainly public schools... the smaller the more benifit
if you add a multipier for large city schools that draw from the entire multi school district and/or open enrollement schools... then who ever isn't open would benifit

which is the point

if you believe it's a competitive advantage to choose you population rather than take what is there
and/or that being open is an advantage
then a multiplier would make sense

if you don't
then it won't!

simple as that

buckeyedan wrote:

catchr22 wrote: Sure. and that is why teams like Newark Catholic are now struggling to beat teams like Licking Valley, Granville and Heath. The problem is less public vs private than quality of coaching at those schools to attract families with quality athletes. While NC remains competitive, its size and cost are now problematic causing a necessary increase in competitiveness from its players in order to be strong. In their division, they are a handful. In their county, they struggle!!

SIZE... being the key
NC beat up on those schools when they were smaller... now they have grown larger and NC struggles to beat them year in and year out

PERFECT proof of the need for multiplier

Squirmydog wrote: Who is going to benefit from a "level" playing field? The answer I would like to hear is not a blanket "public schools", but something specific, such as "D6 public rural schools like Corning Miller or Manchester". Just an example, but who, really will benefit from reform, and what kind of reform? Not to stir the pot, but who needs a leg up to a level playing field?

depends on which multiplier...
certainly public schools... the smaller the more benifit
if you add a multipier for large city schools that draw from the entire multi school district and/or open enrollement schools... then who ever isn't open would benifit

which is the point

if you believe it's a competitive advantage to choose you population rather than take what is there
and/or that being open is an advantage
then a multiplier would make sense

if you don't
then it won't!

simple as that

Dan--are you saying that a D6 that plays up in their schedule should be multiplied up when compared to a D6 that plays only D6? Some of these schools cannot compete within their divisions. So, schools who have good schedules and programs should be penalized? How about creating 6 smaller divisions so we have 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6, 6A--now those in each division who can't compete can go to a division with schools who have the same problem and, perhaps, they might be able to win a championship. You maintain the size structure but you weed out those who do not want to compete against quality opponents!! To me, this suggestion is as absurd as what the Wayne County whiners are suggesting!!!

competing within their division?

you will always have some teams that can't compete within their divisions

in football for example... not making the playoffs in D5 isn't any different than not making it in D6!

it's a logical arguement
there IS a difference in population
the logical answer is to make up for that arguement
you do this by statistically replacing that population

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT!!!!

catchr22 wrote: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT!!!!

Absolutely there is. But the private school has a higher percentage of their student population that are dedicated and committed, and this is where the advantage comes in. If students and student athletes are not committed, then they are not (for a majority) paying tuition to go to a private school. They are going to their local public school, and increasing that schools enrollment while not benefiting them academically or athletically. This is why at the lower divisions privates have such an advantage over the public schools. It's not just an issue of private school athletes working harder than public schools.

Wooball wrote:

catchr22 wrote: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT!!!!

Absolutely there is. But the private school has a higher percentage of their student population that are dedicated and committed, and this is where the advantage comes in. If students and student athletes are not committed, then they are not (for a majority) paying tuition to go to a private school. They are going to their local public school, and increasing that schools enrollment while not benefiting them academically or athletically. This is why at the lower divisions privates have such an advantage over the public schools. It's not just an issue of private school athletes working harder than public schools.

So a multiplier is not related to number of kids, it's related to percentage of dedicated kids? How is that measured? Should a school be moved up because they have more dedicated kids? Now I am confused. I believe I read a post that stated that Cardinal Mooney is one of the smallest schools in D3 for football. How big should the multiplier be? What should be multiplied to get them out of D3 so maybe a public school of some sort gets a shot? Dedication quotient? What about St Ed's wrestling program? My brain is starting to hurt. Please help me out here.:huh:

Mooney is the smallest school in D3, but they draw from a large metro area, that is why they have multiple kids going to D1 schools every year.

I could pick 22 players from across the state and beat any team in the state, but my "enrollment" of 22 would put me in D6.

If those kids and their parents choose to make the sacrifice to put their kids in that situation, awesome for them. Kids desire to go to Steubenville or Westerville South or Rosecrans as well. What is wrong with that? Success breeds success. I just made that up. Feel free to use it Huddlers.

ManO'War wrote: Mooney is the smallest school in D3, but they draw from a large metro area, that is why they have multiple kids going to D1 schools every year.

I could pick 22 players from across the state and beat any team in the state, but my "enrollment" of 22 would put me in D6.

You might want to check this so called large metro area. I checked out Mooney's roster and most of the kids come from the catholic feeder schools (48), Youngstown city schools or private academies (14), one kid from China, and 3 kids from outside the city limits. Wow they are going out of their way to get kids from this enormous metro area. I also can't believe you called Youngstown and the surrounding areas large. Face it these kids play Youngstown football they have been kicking ass for years. The athletes in that pocket are phenomenal.

^^^^^That brings up a new question to consider Dan. Why would you treat a school who cultivates a majority of its kids through its private feeder system differently than you would a public system that does the same with its elementary kids? There is a lot more thinking to do about your multiplier system. Your passion for this is awesome, but we definitely disagree about the premise that there is a fatal flaw in the system that needs sweeping changes. btw- I sense you might focus on the 14 and 3 kids from outside the feeder system. The OHSAA has rules in place to make sure athletes are not a disproportionate percentage of transfers. Also, how would the kid from China affect the multiplier?
Let's refer to GCC for a minute. The school is plopped down right in the middle of Southwestern City Schools. 2 D1 schools are within 3 miles of the school Including Grove City HS which directly across the street, and several other bigger schools are within 5 miles. Does the fact that 1 parent drives their kid from Circleville every day mean that the multiplier will include a radius that includes Pickaway County? Even with a preliminary 20% multiplier, GCC would still be a D6 school, barely, but still qualify. Under some type of footprint based multiplier, this would really raise GCC's status. GCC has Grove City, Central Crossing, Westland, Franklin Heights, Briggs, West, Teays Valley, Hamilton Township, and West jefferson as public schools within GCC's footprint. Bishop Ready and Harvest Prep are just two of several small privates they compete with for students as well. Is it "fair" to adjust the rules for this school, which has a competetive disadavantage in terms of location already? I am not whining at all, its just the situation I am most familiar with. This type of situation is not unique.
Most of the small privates have a disadvantage. They charge tuition. many small privtes have entrance standards. You mentioned your kids go to a private school, so you know this. I am still trying to get a handle on what is actually attempting to be accomplished with all this.

The multiplier for any private school is easy to figure out, just look at the cross section of society and see if it fits the mold of the same students at a private and public school. For example, Private A and Public B. Both schools are located in a small urban population of say 75,000 people. Both schools are at 200 boys enrollment making them D IV. Private A, who do you think they draw from that population, all, ummm no tuition which has been mentioned keeps a percentage of the population out. So, the 200 boys that are at Private A are pretty motivated to be there be it that their parents pay, or they are working to be there or are on scholarship. Now lets look at Public B, how many of those 200 are motivated to be there! Most schools right around 30-40 percent participation rate in extra curriculars across the board. So, what school percentage wise has a better chance of fielding a better team?

SOCIOECONOMICS people, it is what drives most things in this world. It just isnt public versus private, its SOCIOECONOMICS. Within Piketons conference made up of all publics in rural areas guess which teams predominately do well in all sports, Unioto, Westfall and Zane Trace. All located near or have a strong socioeconomic base. The teams who dont always preform well, or for that matter field every team or sport that is offered, Paint Valley, Southeastern, Huntington, Piketon and Adena all smaller rural teams that have a lower socioeconomic structure.

I am not picking on Privates, Publics in large urban areas, Northland and such benefit just as much as others.

Red-while I certainly agree with your socioeconomic premise, should the "option" schools be punished for functional realities of the area they live in? These schools provide for students who desire academic performance and not athletic as well as those who seek athletic success. However, a large number of their athletes need to participate in multiple sports in order for these schools to be competitive. So, yes, the athletes in the "option" schools tend to be more highly motivated as well as the coaches who have these athletes. Couple this with the socioeconomics faced by the publics and I think you have an accurate perception of the real problem. In addition, students will face hurdles in life that will not be adjusted by someone worrying about what is "fair"!!! While I understand, I do not think the answer is to make it "easier" by legislation. When young people are challenged to overcome by strong leadership, I have found that they will raise themselves to a higher level. However, if they can expect things to be made easy and they do not need to work hard to achieve success, they won't!!!!

Does the fact that a kids parents pay money for for the kid to go to a private school automatically make the kid highly motivated to play sports? This opens up a brand new can of worms. I would like to think that income does not control a person's drive or desire. Income might make things easier from a material perspective, but a kid that is driven to succeed will succeed in spite of circumstances. You aren't saying it, but this would imply that divisions should be based on income? The fact remains that no matter how far you go to attempt to make a perfectly level playing field, you will have schools who will struggle. There has not been a solution proposed yet that will overcome this fact.

It is absolutely part of the equation. If a parent is going to invest in a private school on top of taxes for a free education, there will be pressure from the parents to achieve to make that investment worthwhile. Denial of this fact is unrealistic!!

I have a comparison to throw out there. I have US Census links for Muskingum and Marion counties....
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?-geo_id=05000US39101&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S1903&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?-geo_id=05000US39119&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S1901&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_
Number of households for Marion County: 25,043 Median Income: $42,533
Number of Houseolds for Muskingum County: 32,272 Median Income: $36,870
Combined records Marion County for football 2009: (1 D1, 3 D4, 2 D6) 16-44
Combined records Muskingum County for football 2009: (2 D2, 3 D3, 1 D4, 1 D6) 46-24 not including playoff records(3 teams qualified)
Socioeconomics are similar, outcomes are decidedly different. Why?

Marion Catholic and Bishop Rosecrans are similar in size and tuition. MC went 1-9, Rosecrans 8-2 with a much harder schedule.

It is a proven fact, http://www.journeytoexcellence.org/practice/diversity/recognize/socioeconomics.phtml
drives success of people. Not to say that just because of this you will succeed, or lack of fail to succeed, but it is a big factor and the percentages say so.

Piketon High School has a free and reduced lunch rate at nearly 85%. In Pike county nearly 35% live at or near the poverty line. Our county is 2nd in the number of welfare recipients. The unemployment rate is nearly 16%. We have about 30% participation rate across the board for extra curriculars. Piketon is D IV in football and D III in basketball. I have been to the state playoffs in our division and state championships in all divisions the last 10 years, and let me tell you, the talent level is tremendously skewed, some of these schools are playing D IV, or V with D I talent!