152 replies to this topic

[bob22]

_{Don't let that coach from Poland fool you. He'd be tickled pink to have a few move-ins. He looks like an idiot because they beat two private schools before losing to ASVSM.}

Edited by bob22, 18 March 2014 - 11:06 AM.

[Dman]

Yes people can move anywhere for any reason. There's no guarantee that they get to compete in a basketball tournament in the exact classification that they believe they have the best chance of winning a trophy in. In the context of this discussion, this is how it needs to be looked at.

If we assume that Poland's coach and every coach would love to have a great basketball players fall into their laps...a very fair take... So what? The proposal does not make a moral judgment on why or how a kid moves into a district or school. The proposal is just interested in trying to set up more fair tournament brackets.

Would the state go Ohio and the OHSAA be trampling on some constitutional rights if we had a system in which...God forbid...SVSM was forced to play DIV I?

[whatdoiknow]

Poland attracts all kinds of open enrollment kids from the mahoning valley. Someone smarter than me should look the number up but i doubt they have all been working together since preschool as the great dman suggest.

[Spartan87]

Guess facts aren't relevant when talking about the Elida situation. The student in question lived in Elidas district while attending school at Shawnee his junior year. His senior year he attended the school of the district he lived in! So if anything his junior year should have been the year everyone was up in arms about. No only when Elida made it to state it became a big deal...

[Dman]

There is simply no reason to continue deflecting from the issue by getting bogged down with specific details of each case. The ADVANTAGE is the fact a player is there outside of a set location. Who cares how the advantage is gained? Recruiting, luck, legitimate move...so what? The goal is to create as fair as possible tournament brackets. Otherwise, why have classes at all?

I guess it is fun to discuss the how and why...but it really means nothing. An advantage is an advantage no matter how it is created.

If Poland is gaining an advantage as alleged above, then this would be further reason to vote for this proposal. Poland would be treated exactly like St. Vincent St. Mary. The problem with the current system, besides the fact that is antiquated, is that it does not account for the advantages these teams receive by stretching their boundaries.

There will never be a perfectly fair system. But that is no excuse to not try to make it as fair as possible. Any system that does not account for recruits, move-ins, open enrollees, etc., is a system that does not deal with the realities of modern day high school athletics. Why would anyone support such an antiquated way of doing this?

Edited by Dman, 18 March 2014 - 02:37 PM.

[lima ball]

That is the only time any of this becomes a "big deal". when have you ever heard about the "kid going to another school" who was average at best and the team lost in the first tournament game?

NEVER!!!!!

A team becomes good and everyone assumes they cheat

Edited by lima ball, 18 March 2014 - 02:34 PM.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 18 March 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

Who cares how the advantage is gained?

Oh, I don't know, maybe this guy...

Dman said:

I myself, and many others here had some not so kind words for Hiland, Ada, Elida, South Webster, etc on this very forum...when these schools gained an advantage via boundary stretching...or eligibility stretching methods

But now is not the time to talk about each case - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

[Dman]

Paperboy:

Is it your assertion that none of those teams identified above gained an advantage via the very situations the competitive balance proposal is trying to mitigate? All those, and others, have been discussed on this very forum ad nauseam . Yet as soon as we call out St. Vincent St. Mary's or Lima Central Catholic...there is somebody who inevitably will come on here and say "what about those public schools?" "You never talk about them." That is nothing more than a lie.

The point being that these discussions have already occurred. There is nothing to be gained by continuing the discussions. Nobody is going to agree. The only thing everyone can agree about is that those examples, and many others, illuminate that advantages are indeed gained via border stretching.

Now there are proposals in place to mitigate those advantages. The attempt is to create a more fair system for everybody. How could anybody not be for that?

What do you have to gain by continuing to bring up the past? It certainly cannot be that you believe there were no advantages gained for the examples sited? Or is that what you're going to try to convince everybody? Did Hiland only win their championships on the back of hard work? Or maybe, just maybe, did they have other advantages too. Do you really want to have that discussion?

You, and others, can try to make this discussion about me. I take it as a compliment. The fact is that if this proposal passes, then we can end these discussions forever. Everybody is treated exactly the same. We can argue about the extent of fairness, but we cannot argue that everyone is not treated the same.

[paperboy]

Well for one, I enjoy the debate, especially with someone as one-sided as you. I have to hand it to you, as you will give no quarter and you always frame the debate in your way by concluding that there really is no debate, which is a great way to 'win' an Interweb debate, lol.

But more than anythingI can't stand the excuse-making side of the 'competitive balance' debate. The 'woe is me' stuff about how the rest of Division II shouldn't even bother showing up since SVSM is there. Or your trashing of Berlin Hiland or Ada because they have gotten transfers or open-enrollees that have helped their teams without knowing any details about how or why they got them. Just the general sore-headedness and whininess surrounding the teams that win a fricking trophy.

Ya know, if schools are reallly gaming the system, screwing around with transfers, holding down enrollments, etc in order to win a cheap trophy and the right to put up a banner in their gym, how about we LET THEM. Because karma will come back to them, and what are they really getting in the end, anyway?

You mentioned earlier that it's the adults that have screwed things up, and I agree with you. But it's also the adults that are butthurt about too many of the same schools winning too many trophies. Yeah, I'm sure the kids care, but I'd be willing to bet not as much as the adults do. And by their actions, these adults are sending the signal that when times are tough and the odds are stacked against you, don't bother to show up because you can't make it anyway. You don't have a chance, because, well, there are some other people out there that have advantages that you don't have and you just can't compete with them. So don't try. Just quit. Or whine long enough and threaten to take your ball and go home (public/private split) until someone takes pity on you and changes the rules.

I'll concede that certain schools have advantages, and I'll go further by conceding that certain schools exploit those advantages to the max. But I'll also state that there are an uncountable number of variables that have an affect on how good a sports program is, and 'border-stretching' and the like are but a small part of it. To use an example in my area, just do a little comparing among schools from the MAC versus the CCC. Compare single-parent homes, median income, poverty levels, crime statistics, whatever socioeconomic numbers you want, and you'll see that in general, it's clear why MAC schools have a lot more cheap gold trophies than CCC schools. But that's life, and yes, it's not fair, but that's a lesson many young people need to learn.

[effingA]

Paperboy - well said

[Dman]

paperboy, on 18 March 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

I'll concede that certain schools have advantages, and I'll go further by conceding that certain schools exploit those advantages to the max. But I'll also state that there are an uncountable number of variables that have an affect on how good a sports program is, and 'border-stretching' and the like are but a small part of it. To use an example in my area, just do a little comparing among schools from the MAC versus the CCC. Compare single-parent homes, median income, poverty levels, crime statistics, whatever socioeconomic numbers you want, and you'll see that in general, it's clear why MAC schools have a lot more cheap gold trophies than CCC schools. But that's life, and yes, it's not fair, but that's a lesson many young people need to learn.

First let me say that I appreciate you taking the time to write your opinion. I don't quite understand the "framing the argument" part, but I will discuss what you have to say. I want to start with the quoted part above as I believe this to be the most pertinent to this discussion.

Every one of the issues you bring up about single-parent homes, medium income...etc fall outside the scope of what the OHSAA could ever possibly control. I agree that all of these factors do have an effect on the outcomes of basketball games however far removed. But there is no proposal that could remedy any of these factors.

However, there is a way, as the current proposal shows, that we can place limitations on "border stretching." Knowing this, why wouldn't we want to at least change the factors that we are capable of changing?

I disagree with your assertion that "border stretching" is just a minor part of the problem. I would go as far to say that the entire division III representatives in this year's tournament will not be there without "border stretching." If you start including the other division representatives, I believe my opinion is based on sound reasoning. If you want to include examples listed above, I opine that none of those teams will have made state without "border stretching." Notice, nowhere in there, have I said that anyone did anything illegal or disreputable. I have merely stated my opinion that without "border stretching" none of these teams would have had nearly the successes that they were able to achieve with it. In my book, that is not minor. I will also point to the unanimous decision of the OHSAA board to go forward with this proposal as evidence my opinion is not out of the mainstream.

For arguments sake, let's assume that your opinion that "border stretching" is minor is the God's Honest fact. So what? You have already conceded that it is indeed a problem. It is a problem that we can actually deal with at the governmental high school athletic level. So why would you not want to do something about this problem? It sounds like you are arguing with me for some other reason than the reality of what we can and cannot deal with at this level. There is a problem, we both agree, let's fix it.

As to the "whining" phenomenon, I concede that in order to deal with this situation a certain amount of "whining" is necessary. Back in 1993 there was a vote for the separation of privates and publics. It was a lot closer than expected. The OHSAA promised at that time to come up with a competitive balance proposal. For these last 20+ years the schools who benefit from status quo have had the upper hand. Only in the last four years have we had movement on what was promised back then. My opinion is that those who benefit from status quo do not have the market cornered on "whining." They have had 20+ years of advantages, and will find any suggestion that we change to a more progressive system...worthy of the very types of bitching and moaning that you denounce.

We agree that the "life is not fair" lesson is a worthy lesson to teach. I opine that those schools, kids, adults who have had the upper hand for the last 20 years could stand to learn this lesson themselves. What are they afraid of? What would be so wrong with St. Vincent St. Mary's playing in DIV I? Are those kids not subject to the same life lessons that we gave the kid's from Poland? After all, "life is not fair."

In conclusion, there is a better way to classify these teams for the tournament. I don't see you, or anybody, really arguing against the proposal on the table. I believe that the reason some are arguing at this point in time, is that they have hurt feelings from past discussions we have had on this site. It is personal, for some. I honestly forget what team you root for... It is not important to me. I'm just one person with opinions. Strong opinions that have rubbed some the wrong way.

The funny thing about this proposal, if it had been placed at the time some of those examples were discussed, it would have given those teams complete immunity from anybody, including myself, to say any truthful or disparaging remarks...as the multiplier would have served as the equalizer. In many of those examples, I highly doubt there would've even been a classification move for the teams involved. This is but ONE example of how the proposal is good for ALMOST everybody...at least those who like high school basketball in our area.

[bob22]

Thanks to Norwalk the Poland coach looks like an even bigger d-bag.

[Mr Bearcat]

Public 2
Private 0

Something still needs to be done though!

[Dman]

Poland's coach is talked about with reverence at the arena. But I'm sure there are other facilities where he is not nearly as liked.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 22 March 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

Poland's coach is talked about with reverence at the arena. But I'm sure there are other facilities where he is not nearly as liked.

Probably also at the arena; just in conversations you weren't privy to?

[flounder]

Our Fr. Dave is also talked about with reverence at the arena!!!!!

[Dman]

True...by the numbers 17% of the conversations would have probably had the distinct possibility of not being in his favor. :-D

[waterloowonder]

Norwalk's coach made special mention after their semi-final victory that they did it with home town boys. He encouraged support for the competitive balance proposal. After looking at some of the details of the newest proposal, it really isn't going to do much. Example: If 10 of VASJ's players were from out of their district area, it would increase their enrollment base by 50. They would still be D3.

[Rocketman]

I don't know if anyone caught Dr. Dan Ross' interview after the LCC/VASJ game on STO.....the Competitive
Balance issue was raised by the reporter about his thoughts.....

He didn't try to dodge the issue but you could tell he wasn't comfortable talking about it, especially after
two private schools just finished playing.....

I for one, hope that it passes this time....then in a few years when the same schools are winning
championships they won't be able and come back with their usual retort.....RM

[chalk_it_up]

Rocketman, on 23 March 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

I don't know if anyone caught Dr. Dan Ross' interview after the LCC/VASJ game on STO.....the Competitive
Balance issue was raised by the reporter about his thoughts.....

He didn't try to dodge the issue but you could tell he wasn't comfortable talking about it, especially after
two private schools just finished playing.....

I for one, hope that it passes this time....then in a few years when the same schools are winning
championships they won't be able and come back with their usual retort.....RM

Agreed. As an LCC supporter, I'd like to see one of these pass, as long as it's the right one. It would hardly affect us, and it would help eliminate at least some of the problem at the extreme end of the spectrum.