81 replies to this topic

[BeaverCleaver]

Victorian, on 13 April 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

As for the seventh division in football, that really has next to no effect in our area. Really only effects D1 for the most part.

In this article from The Courier they are saying Liberty Benton could be affected.

http://www.thecourie...2012,Apr,13&c=s

[omniscient1]

I understand their reasoning behind doing this, but feel the disparity at the bottom is more pronounced than at the top (but the commissioner comes from a div I school).

Once a high school has 500 or more boys to pick from it seems a few more don't add as much to the team as it does in the current div. VI. Whether you have 500 or or 1,000 boys it is getting the boys to come out, develop them,....... that is not to say it doesn't make any difference but there is a point of diminishing returns. It is kind of like living in a $500,000 house vs a $1,000,000 house. Does the difference really make you that much happier or offer you that much more to the comfort level,.... than the half a million dollar house does? Are you even in a different neighborhood?

On the other in div VI where some schools only have 40 boys in the entire school to choose from it is hard just to get enough boys to even field a team (not even considering their talent level) compared to a team who has over 100 boys to choose from. Now think about living in a $40,000 vs a $100,000+ home. I think the opportunities are much different..... these homes are probably not in the same neighborhood........

[Dman]

I have avoided this topic like the plague...but boredom got the best of me. My opinions are no different than most with a "conservative tilt." I tend to look at the future of high school sports as something that most of us will not even recognize. There is an argument to be made that today's classroom looks nothing like the classroom 25 years ago. Definitely not 50 years ago. Liberalism's effect on sports has just taken a bit longer. There are many good theories to explain the delay...but the point is that this day has been coming, and will only get worse. The "tradition" clause makes me want to puke. The socioeconomic factor does the same. But I long ago stopped getting shocked. Just as I won't be shocked when Obama wins reelection in November. Times have indeed changed.

[milt73]

I don't think adding another division to football changes much other than crowning one more champion (more medals to go around). I was watching the movie "Incredibles" the other night and one of the quotes, i'm paraphrasing, is '...if everyone is special, than no one is...' You get the drift.

I like the analogy of the poster above about the houses. 40 is much different than 100. Football is small schools is definitely about the number of kids playing or atleast has a positive/negative impact on the program's success. DSJ usually has 60+ kids play every year (just a guess, a DSJ person can confirm or correct). Parkway had about 40 kids, Allen East had about 40 kids, etc. Maybe percentage of kids of total student body should be discussed as positives/negatives also.

Maybe we need a math-matician (sp?) to come up with some kind of Mean, median, mode to better proportionalize divisions with the number of students, rather than having the same number of teams in each division.

I'm 100% in belief with another above poster, that if a kid wants to play a sport, they will. There isn't too much in this world that a kid can go through that causes them not to play the sport because of some outside thing. It happens a very, very, very small amount of time.

Edited by milt73, 15 April 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[Run-N-Gun]

Here is the proposal put into action with the affecting factors applied to each school in the respective sports. Just looking at it there are some numbers that glare out to me.

I look at Africentric boys basketball, they subtract 65 students because of the Soc. Ec. Factor. Which is not 10% of the school, seems to be a lot more is taken away.

The other is the gap between the biggest D I school and the smallest. Example: Boys Basketball: St. X in Cinci 1280.4 boys and Big Walnut 351.5 boys. Aren't they creating the same issue that football just went through and made changes to?

The tradition factor is applied wierd I believe.

http://ohsaa.org/mem...nceProposal.htm

[omniscient1]

Run-N-Gun, on 18 April 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Here is the proposal put into action with the affecting factors applied to each school in the respective sports. Just looking at it there are some numbers that glare out to me.

I look at Africentric boys basketball, they subtract 65 students because of the Soc. Ec. Factor. Which is not 10% of the school, seems to be a lot more is taken away.

The other is the gap between the biggest D I school and the smallest. Example: Boys Basketball: St. X in Cinci 1280.4 boys and Big Walnut 351.5 boys. Aren't they creating the same issue that football just went through and made changes to?

The tradition factor is applied wierd I believe.

http://ohsaa.org/mem...nceProposal.htm

Thanks for the link...
I don't understand the tradition factor on this site.... I looked at teams who made state this year and there was no "factor" against them, so i looked at teams like Ottawa-Galndorf, Kalida, Archbold, Holgate,.... that have certainly been to regionals and state in the last 8 years....and no "factor" Am I missing something on how this works?

[Bobby]

omniscient1, on 19 April 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Thanks for the link...
I don't understand the tradition factor on this site.... I looked at teams who made state this year and there was no "factor" against them, so i looked at teams like Ottawa-Galndorf, Kalida, Archbold, Holgate,.... that have certainly been to regionals and state in the last 8 years....and no "factor" Am I missing something on how this works?

Do you have to make it 4 times in 8 years to have anything added?

[Run-N-Gun]

Bobby, yes the way I understand it that is how it works.

You have to make to each respective level 4 out of 8 to get bumped. If you make to the final 4 apprently they do not count that as making to the regional tounament.

Hypothetically: a team has 2 regional runner ups and 2 state final 4 appearance in an 8 year span. NO BUMP

A team that qualifies for regional semi's 4 out of 8 years and loses every time. GETS BUMPED UP

The way that it seems is that you HAVE to make it to the FINAL 4....FOUR TIMES in EIGHT YEARS to receive the 10% increase.

Same for the regional bump, once you qualify for the state tourney that removes that regional appearance.

Just my interpretation....Any one else see it differently?

[paperboy]

Run-N-Gun, on 20 April 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

You have to make to each respective level 4 out of 8 to get bumped. If you make to the final 4 apprently they do not count that as making to the regional tounament.

Hypothetically: a team has 2 regional runner ups and 2 state final 4 appearance in an 8 year span. NO BUMP

A team that qualifies for regional semi's 4 out of 8 years and loses every time. GETS BUMPED UP

The way that it seems is that you HAVE to make it to the FINAL 4....FOUR TIMES in EIGHT YEARS to receive the 10% increase.

Same for the regional bump, once you qualify for the state tourney that removes that regional appearance.

Just my interpretation....Any one else see it differently?

I can't believe that is how they would do it given how it is worded: "...for appearances in the Sweet Sixteen in four of the last eight seasons". Once you get to the regional level you've made an appearance, regardless of whether or not you advance to the state level.

Edited by paperboy, 20 April 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Ericles]

paperboy, on 20 April 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

I can't believe that is how they would do it given how it is worded: "...for appearances in the Sweet Sixteen in four of the last eight seasons". Once you get to the regional level you've made an appearance, regardless of whether or not you advance to the state level.

His interpretation is 100% correct.

[falconfan84]

Victorian, on 20 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Who knows....looks like a nightmare.....HIGHLY doubtful it passes.
My guess is they say "OK, we'll try the 7 divisions in football and see how that goes first"

Let's face it, this is all football driven.....

Too bad this is so true!

I've had an example of how EVERY football-playing school in the state could compete in a post-season tournament...starting just ONE week early (the same Friday that the foundation games are currently played, playing NINE regular season games and then starting a sectional tournament. The first tournament game would give EVERY school TEN games...the same as they currently play. After that, more than half would get an ELEVENTH game, and the number of teams getting a TWELFTH game would be pretty much the same number that just QUALIFY for a first-round playoff game. All of this would end up with the state championship being played the SAME weekend they currently do.

It's really kind of amazing what the single sport of football has done to the way our divisions are being messed around with...not to mention so many conferences going through MAJOR changes. We know that this is football-driven, yet the OHSAA could make more money having a true tournament where everybody get a chance, and schools could schedule teams that PREPARE them for the tourmaments (regardless of if they beat them or not)...a loss during the regular season wouldn't keep anybody from the tournaments like they do now.

Edited by falconfan84, 26 April 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[roadtoC-town]

falconfan84, on 26 April 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

Too bad this is so true!

I've had an example of how EVERY football-playing school in the state could compete in a post-season tournament...starting just ONE week early (the same Friday that the foundation games are currently played, playing NINE regular season games and then starting a sectional tournament. The first tournament game would give EVERY school TEN games...the same as they currently play. After that, more than half would get an ELEVENTH game, and the number of teams getting a TWELFTH game would be pretty much the same number that just QUALIFY for a first-round playoff game. All of this would end up with the state championship being played the SAME weekend they currently do.

It's really kind of amazing what the single sport of football has done to the way our divisions are being messed around with...not to mention so many conferences going through MAJOR changes. We know that this is football-driven, yet the OHSAA could make more money having a true tournament where everybody get a chance, and schools could schedule teams that PREPARE them for the tourmaments (regardless of if they beat them or not)...a loss during the regular season wouldn't keep anybody from the tournaments like they do now.

So how many games would the State Champion and runner up play in ur idea? 16 or 17?

How many games do they play at Indiana? where everybody is in.

17 straight weeks of playing football is alot of games. college kids play what 12-13 and have a week or 2 off. NFL plays what max of 19 with 2 weeks off in the season, a week before the superbowl and if your seeded high enoug a week during the playoffs.

[falconfan84]

roadtoC-town, on 26 April 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

So how many games would the State Champion and runner up play in ur idea? 16 or 17?

How many games do they play at Indiana? where everybody is in.

17 straight weeks of playing football is alot of games. college kids play what 12-13 and have a week or 2 off. NFL plays what max of 19 with 2 weeks off in the season, a week before the superbowl and if your seeded high enoug a week during the playoffs.

Actually there would only need to be 16 weeks. Currently, two teams in each division will play 15 games in a season. Add in the foudation game and that makes 16 straight weeks...there's no difference, really. My scenario allows everybody at least 10 games. It allows everybody a shot at the tournaments. More teams would get to play extra games. By the time you get to the point where a team was playing their 13th game, there would be 16 teams left per division (Regionals). Currently, 8 teams per division play 13 games. I don't see where my idea is so radical or out of the question. It would make the OHSAA more post-season money, give every school more excitement during football season, and could eliminate the break-up of some long-standing conferences in the name of trying to gain extra computer points for the "big" schools currently stuck playing the "little" schools in their conference. Non-conference game could get more creative...looking for teams that would prepare them for tournaments without a loss meaning you won't make it....THAT is the biggest deterent of scheduling tough non-conference teams at the moment. It would strengthen football. We do it in every other sport.

There are currently about 120 teams per division....

Week 10...............Sectional........up to 128 teams per division could play an opening round game
Weeks 11 & 12.....District............64 per division make district
Weeks 13 & 14.....Regional........16 per division make regional
Weeks 15 & 16.....State..............4 per division make state

edit: spelling

Edited by falconfan84, 16 May 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[Mr Bearcat]

Vote will be in Tomorrow!(actually today lol)

Edited by Mr Bearcat, 15 May 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[JohnMcClane]

The Competitive Balance Proposal failed by 38 votes per the OHSAA web site

Edited by JohnMcClane, 16 May 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Mr Bearcat]

Not a perfect proposal, but I think it's the best we"ll ever see. I am sortta disappointed it failed, but understand why given the flaws in it.

[Maltese Falcon]

Now hopefully this is put in mothballs for good after failing two consecutive years.

Word is a group of Eastern/ NE Ohio schools next step is putting together a petition to have a vote for separate public and private tournaments, which IMO is also a bad idea.