167 replies to this topic

[Dman]

They would be multiplied...if I read it right. If you live outside the boundary. ..you are a transfer.

[Fiery Minx]

Thanks Dman... that's what I figured...though I don't agree with it if the student has Always gone to that school..technically they've never transferred...but oh well...in a few years my kids will be out of high school and I won't have to be as concerned about it.. I guess..

[Bobby]

Mr Bearcat, on 23 March 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

This needs to pass!! Hopefully this will help put a dent into Vouchers as well!!

Has nothing to do with vouchers. Lima Sr. loses way more students/athletes to the surrounding public schools than to LCC. Spencerville has open enrollment and they actively advertise for students. Might want to see how this affects the Bearcats.

[Dman]

Fiery Minx, on 23 March 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I won't have to be as concerned about it.. I guess..

I don't think anybody who is not currently benefiting from the lack of guidance need be too concerned. The classifications reset after all counts are in annually. Border transfers are not the problem. This proposal is set to move VASJ to a classification they should be competing in today... These types of schools are the ones who will be affected.

In our area... I think LCC and Perry will be most affected. LCC MIGHT go to DIV II. Perry...might go DIV III. We are not talking drastic changes locally. All based upon my shaky assumption I'm reading this correctly.

Unless there is a local rural out there who has secretly been hoarding large number of athletic transfers...I don't anticipate changes.

Remember...only ATHLETES on rosters are counted. Transfers in music, etc are not counted beyond the normal two year enrollment count.

This entire proposal is based upon the assumption that obtaining athletes outside of your set geographic boundary is a benifit. Not many could argue otherwise. This new proposal seeks to limit abuses of this current benefit... mostly by placing those who benifit grossly from stasis quo into a competative classification commiserate with the competative edge gained. This is not a punishment. It is a realization that the current system is grossly flawed... And we have teams competing in the wrong classifications.

[whodey]

I like this idea..It will be interesting to see how this works out for LCC..You have families like Huffman,Taflinger etc who have always lived in Lima..Then you have O'Connors,Williams,etc who are in Shawnee..I honestly don't know if LCC is considered Lima or Shawnee..No matter,this will have a big effect on them

[Rd2Glory]

whodey, on 23 March 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

I like this idea..It will be interesting to see how this works out for LCC..You have families like Huffman,Taflinger etc who have always lived in Lima..Then you have O'Connors,Williams,etc who are in Shawnee..I honestly don't know if LCC is considered Lima or Shawnee..No matter,this will have a big effect on them

This is my same concern, whodey. Most of the St Gerard and St Rose kids live on the north end of Lima or in Bath/Elida. Most of the St. Charles kids live on the west end of town and in Shawnee. Additionally, you have kids living in Lima City but who are in Elida/Bath/Shawnee/Perry school districts. The Kirkman's back yard touches property with LCC but I think they'd be considered "outside of the district" under the proposal. That's why I think private schools should have an artificial school district drawn if this were to pass.

[ADog]

Rd2Glory, when I read your 1st post on this, I was thinking...here we go again...BUT now that I read the above post, I understand what you were trying to get across. I do see the issue of St Gerard and St Rose students being in Lima City School district but for LCC they would be counted as "move ins". Not sure how this would work, but you can't just encircle the city of Lima and say that is LCC 's district. It would be the same for Youngstown Mooney & Ursuline. if they considered that whatever the boundaries for Youngstown City Schools for Ursuline/Mooney, we would be in same situation. By staing the private school boundary would be the same as whatever school district it is in, is a starting point. I agree to some extent some tweaking needs done on this issue. Under current proposal, the smaller privates in smaller cites would be hurt the most. With this all said, this would/could effect Temple Christian just as bad as LCC as I am sure all of Temple's student athletes do not reside in Elida School District

[Dman]

It is just a factor of 5 for JUST the players on roster. Worse case they go Div II. Which is probably where they belong. We are not talking anything drastic. My hunch is many at LLC will go along with this. It takes the excuses away. The rules are clear. They will compete just fine as a II...if they even go that high.

This is anything but a drastic proposal. It is a fairly benign process that will affect only the most agressive participants in the current loopholed status quo.

I highly doubt that the OHSAA is going to give LCC or any other public/private school permission to draw their own boundaries that are of most athletic benefit. Open boundaries are available to everyone for academics. This is just a system to assure those who, for whatever reasons, tend to have an atypical amount of "out of boundary players" on their rosters. This system, unlike the present, recognizes what a decent advantage borderless participation can be for individual teams. It addresses this advantage by placing the benefactors in a classification commiserate with the benefit gained.

In other words. It places teams in fair classifications. Classifications where words like "work harder" might mean something real again.

God love Leipsic. But in a few hours they will play a team that no amount of work in the world could have allowed them access to a fair competition. Under this proposed system... Leipsic's access to a semi-reasonable playing field is possible. VASJ's would have been a DIV III or DIV II team... which is exactly where they belonged.

I believe that as word gets out... This is going to be well recieved by almost everyone... except the largest DIV I's who have nothing to gain... And are never voting for reform anyhow.

[diassingle]

So there are 829 schools ? And the last vote taken shows only 640 schools voted ? Is this correct ?

[slice slice baby]

diassingle, on 23 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

So there are 829 schools ? And the last vote taken shows only 640 schools voted ? Is this correct ?

I noticed that, as well, and wondered why the fairly huge discrepancy .....???

[Rd2Glory]

ADog, on 23 March 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Rd2Glory, when I read your 1st post on this, I was thinking...here we go again...BUT now that I read the above post, I understand what you were trying to get across. I do see the issue of St Gerard and St Rose students being in Lima City School district but for LCC they would be counted as "move ins". Not sure how this would work, but you can't just encircle the city of Lima and say that is LCC 's district. It would be the same for Youngstown Mooney & Ursuline. if they considered that whatever the boundaries for Youngstown City Schools for Ursuline/Mooney, we would be in same situation. By staing the private school boundary would be the same as whatever school district it is in, is a starting point. I agree to some extent some tweaking needs done on this issue. Under current proposal, the smaller privates in smaller cites would be hurt the most. With this all said, this would/could effect Temple Christian just as bad as LCC as I am sure all of Temple's student athletes do not reside in Elida School District

ADog, by no means do I think LCC's district should be "Lima Land," but I think it would be more reasonable to make LCC's (for example) "district" anything within a 5 or 10 mile radius of the school (again, just an example). I think this would be much more accurate of the students a private school is drawing from than picking the public school district in which the private school resides (as in some cases, such as LCC, the school is right on the border of two neighboring districts). If you don't want to do the artificial district for private schools, maybe make the private school's "district" consist of any kids who attended the private school's related middle school (for example, anyone who didn't attend St. Charles, St. Gerards, or St. Rose, is considered outside of LCC's "district").

In regards to Temple, I've never met anyone from Temple that lived in the Elida School District, which would be their "district." However, Temple might be so small that their multiplier wouldn't make a difference. Definitely a concern though as I would hate to have to see them get bumped to DIII

Edited by Rd2Glory, 23 March 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[Dman]

Some schools don't vote.

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 23 March 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

It is just a factor of 5 for JUST the players on roster. Worse case they go Div II. Which is probably where they belong. We are not talking anything drastic. My hunch is many at LLC will go along with this. It takes the excuses away. The rules are clear. They will compete just fine as a II...if they even go that high.

This is anything but a drastic proposal. It is a fairly benign process that will affect only the most agressive participants in the current loopholed status quo.

I highly doubt that the OHSAA is going to give LCC or any other public/private school permission to draw their own boundaries that are of most athletic benefit. Open boundaries are available to everyone for academics. This is just a system to assure those who, for whatever reasons, tend to have an atypical amount of "out of boundary players" on their rosters. This system, unlike the present, recognizes what a decent advantage borderless participation can be for individual teams. It addresses this advantage by placing the benefactors in a classification commiserate with the benefit gained.

In other words. It places teams in fair classifications. Classifications where words like "work harder" might mean something real again.

God love Leipsic. But in a few hours they will play a team that no amount of work in the world could have allowed them access to a fair competition. Under this proposed system... Leipsic's access to a semi-reasonable playing field is possible. VASJ's would have been a DIV III or DIV II team... which is exactly where they belonged.

I believe that as word gets out... This is going to be well recieved by almost everyone... except the largest DIV I's who have nothing to gain... And are never voting for reform anyhow.

They don't have to let the privates draw their own boundaries. Why couldn't the OHSAA draw the boundaries? Apply the same method that is used to draw public school boundaries and apply it to private schools. Wouldn't be difficult.

[slice slice baby]

Dman, on 23 March 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Some schools don't vote.

As much as it pains me ('cause ya know I wub ya), but, you're making me say it....... "Duh, Capt'n Obvious!!" Lol

I/we see that, but, why? Do they never vote, or are the schools able to elect which proposals they choose to be a voice in?

[Dman]

Temple Christian was mentioned. Lets use them for educational purposes.

For boys basketb9all the Div IV cutoff is 122 players and below. Keep in mind this number would likely go up more than usual since multipliers will increase counts and FOR INDIVIDUAL SPORTS the OHSAA will keep teams per class equal. But let's use 122.

Temple has 30 boys. This means that Temple can have 18 players on their Frosh-Varsity rosters who live outside of the Elida school district and STILL be DIV IV. 18 x 5 is 90 plus the 30 count gives you 120.

Does anybody see how we are missing the big picture with trying to nitpick every possible slight? Show me any perceived shortcoming in this proposal and I will find you an even more glaring shortcoming with status quo. It is a much better system than we currently utilize.

I'm not going to lose sleep if LCC has to compete in DIV II instead of III. That is minor compared to status quo...

[whodey]

DMan-LCC is a very small D3 even if they had 10 outside the district on their roster,it wouldn't move them up to D2.. Also,Why should they be D2? That 1 trip to state in the last 13 years,or the 2 in the last 20?

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 23 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Temple Christian was mentioned. Lets use them for educational purposes.

For boys basketb9all the Div IV cutoff is 122 players and below. Keep in mind this number would likely go up more than usual since multipliers will increase counts and FOR INDIVIDUAL SPORTS the OHSAA will keep teams per class equal. But let's use 122.

Temple has 30 boys. This means that Temple can have 18 players on their Frosh-Varsity rosters who live outside of the Elida school district and STILL be DIV IV. 18 x 5 is 90 plus the 30 count gives you 120.

Does anybody see how we are missing the big picture with trying to nitpick every possible slight? Show me any perceived shortcoming in this proposal and I will find you an even more glaring shortcoming with status quo. It is a much better system than we currently utilize.

I'm not going to lose sleep if LCC has to compete in DIV II instead of III. That is minor compared to status quo...

Temple Christian was mentioned, and then it was noted that this would likely have no impact on them as they're so small as is, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to add.

No one is arguing that the status quo is working, or even that this is a bad proposal. I just noted that the current proposal for school districts applied to private schools does not work, and, I, for one, will not lose any sleep over your sleep patterns.

[Dman]

whodey, on 23 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

DMan-LCC is a very small D3 even if they had 10 outside the district on their roster,it wouldn't move them up to D2.. Also,Why should they be D2? That 1 trip to state in the last 13 years,or the 2 in the last 20?

I don't care where they go. They should be where the rules say they should be. But your analysis supports my assertion that this is a reasonable/minor proposal. I'm not certain even LLC will be affected. VASJ's will be.

I don't endorse LCC asking for special boundary permissions. If the boundary is acceptible to Shawnee... I have faith LCC can make it work too.

Edited by Dman, 23 March 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 23 March 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I don't care where they go. They should be where the rules say they should be. But your analysis supports my assertion that this is a reasonable/minor proposal. I'm not certain even LLC will be affected. VASJ's will be.

I don't endorse LCC asking for special boundary permissions. If the boundary is acceptible to Shawnee... I have faith LCC can make it work too.

Shawnee is centrally located in a huge school district. LCC is on the very edge of the North boarder. If they moved across the street, they'd be in the Lima city school district. That's the problem. Shawnee school district is not representative of the area immediately surrounding LCC.

[whodey]

Here's why it needs a little tweaking..I'm gonna use LCC's state runnerup Baseball team from last year as my example..Here was the starting 9 and school district in which they live Shawnee district--Colin Stolly,Travis Clark,Ben Stolly Lima City--Connor Dee,Sam Huffman,Billy Taflinger,Kian Duffy,Corey O'Dowd Nick Watkins, Shawnee? not 100% on that.. Anyways,all 9 of these kids have went to one of the three catholic feeder schools since kindergarten.. I do like the proposal overall though