167 replies to this topic

[Dman]

You guys talk tweaks all you want. I'm sure some may be needed. It appears to be a much better plan than status quo. We bag on the OHSAA a lot. They might deserve a little credit this time.

[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 ?

slice slice baby, on 23 March 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

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

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

Some schools don't vote.

slice slice baby, on 23 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

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?

[TiGgEr3]

Having sat in that press conference I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out. They have some good ideas.......don't like it? Ask yourself, do you have a BETTER idea?

[8-iron]

How many OHSAA member schools are private? What, if any, states have different divisions for private and public?

[HH75]

I could see axding a clause about kids that have open enrolled since a very young age. Case in point....
My sister in law teaches at school A. She lives in neighboring school district B. My nephew is in kindergarten this year and they decided to open enroll him at school A just for the convenience of being on the same schedule. Should school A be given the multiplier when my nephew becomes a freshman? He never will have attended his "home school"

Over all I like it and am glad the social eco and tradition crap is out!

[HH75]

Here is another one..... Friend of mine lived in school district A ,his kids started school at school A in kindergarten. Two years later my friend built a house in the neighboring school district B but they open enrolled back to school A. Should school A be given the multiplier for his kids when the play sports as freshman? They now reside in school district B but their kids never will have attended school B.

Edited by HH75, 23 March 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[Dman]

Here is another one.

A group of kids grows up together. They work their butts off. As seniors they get to Columbus to play for the State Championship representing their town and school. Their opponent is a borderless private school with recruits from multiple counties. An all-star collection of DIV I collegiate talent who were put together with the purpose of winning the small school division...even though the team members all live in a big scool district. When the big day arrives, the small school kids are subject to a dunk-fest and high-fiving coach who has their opponent shooting 3-pointers up 25 with less than 5 minutes to play.

You will have to forgive me if I don't take much pitty on a 5 point multiplier being placed on border kids who follow their parents to the school they teach at. 98% of these multipliers won't change a thing. And god-forbid it does. .. we are talking one classification step up.

These nitpicking examples and the initial whining about a few private schools who are now forced to accept a border with the same rules and consequences as every public school they choose to compete against... ARE HILARIOUS when put in perspective of what Leipsic just went through hours ago. Or Arlington...or Grove...or Continental...etc!

This proposal is so much more fair for so many more kids and communities that it is impossible not to support over status quo AS IS. The standard to meet is not 100% fairness and harmony. It just needs to be better than what Leipsic and Troy Christian just had to endure. You notice both a public and a private were completely hosed by today's lack of standards. The OHSAA has a plan to stop that from happening again.

If the by-product of this plan is LCC might have to play DIV II rather than III. Or Temple gets to change nothing and stay in DIV IV... While their basketball boy count goes from 30 to 90...WHO CARES? It is still a less egregious outcome than what VASJ did today.

Perspective folks...

[LimaJock]

Dman, on 23 March 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Here is another one.

A group of kids grows up together. They work their butts off. As seniors they get to Columbus to play for the State Championship representing their town and school. Their opponent is a borderless private school with recruits from multiple counties. An all-star collection of DIV I collegiate talent who were put together with the purpose of winning the small school division...even though the team members all live in a big scool district. When the big day arrives, the small school kids are subject to a dunk-fest and high-fiving coach who has their opponent shooting 3-pointers up 25 with less than 5 minutes to play.

You will have to forgive me if I don't take much pitty on a 5 point multiplier being placed on border kids who follow their parents to the school they teach at. 98% of these multipliers won't change a thing. And god-forbid it does. .. we are talking one classification step up.

These nitpicking examples and the initial whining about a few private schools who are now forced to accept a border with the same rules and consequences as every public school they choose to compete against... ARE HILARIOUS when put in perspective of what Leipsic just went through hours ago. Or Arlington...or Grove...or Continental...etc!

This proposal is so much more fair for so many more kids and communities that it is impossible not to support over status quo AS IS. The standard to meet is not 100% fairness and harmony. It just needs to be better than what Leipsic and Troy Christian just had to endure. You notice both a public and a private were completely hosed by today's lack of standards. The OHSAA has a plan to stop that from happening again.

If the by-product of this plan is LCC might have to play DIV II rather than III. Or Temple gets to change nothing and stay in DIV IV... While their basketball boy count goes from 30 to 90...WHO CARES? It is still a less egregious outcome than what VASJ did today.

Perspective folks...

DMAN is THE MAN

LJ

[Mr Bearcat]

Bobby, on 23 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

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.

LCC and St John's actively advertises as well!

[Bigbrownman]

LimaJock, on 23 March 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

DMAN is THE MAN

LJ

Word.

Edited by Bigbrownman, 24 March 2013 - 01:37 AM.

[HH75]

Dman, on 23 March 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Here is another one.

A group of kids grows up together. They work their butts off. As seniors they get to Columbus to play for the State Championship representing their town and school. Their opponent is a borderless private school with recruits from multiple counties. An all-star collection of DIV I collegiate talent who were put together with the purpose of winning the small school division...even though the team members all live in a big scool district. When the big day arrives, the small school kids are subject to a dunk-fest and high-fiving coach who has their opponent shooting 3-pointers up 25 with less than 5 minutes to play.

You will have to forgive me if I don't take much pitty on a 5 point multiplier being placed on border kids who follow their parents to the school they teach at. 98% of these multipliers won't change a thing. And god-forbid it does. .. we are talking one classification step up.

These nitpicking examples and the initial whining about a few private schools who are now forced to accept a border with the same rules and consequences as every public school they choose to compete against... ARE HILARIOUS when put in perspective of what Leipsic just went through hours ago. Or Arlington...or Grove...or Continental...etc!

This proposal is so much more fair for so many more kids and communities that it is impossible not to support over status quo AS IS. The standard to meet is not 100% fairness and harmony. It just needs to be better than what Leipsic and Troy Christian just had to endure. You notice both a public and a private were completely hosed by today's lack of standards. The OHSAA has a plan to stop that from happening again.

If the by-product of this plan is LCC might have to play DIV II rather than III. Or Temple gets to change nothing and stay in DIV IV... While their basketball boy count goes from 30 to 90...WHO CARES? It is still a less egregious outcome than what VASJ did today.

Perspective folks...

Please dont mistake me as not liking this. I am all for it. What happened to Liepsic is sickening. I totally agree. As I stated in my first post , Overall I like it. Just hope the OHSAA can/will take into account legitimate situations like the ones I gave into account. But if they dont then, yes it probably wont change things a whole lot.

We're on the same side on that this! But there are legit aituations out here that schools shouldnt be "punished " for.

Sorry! should have been clear on my first post that I like this!

Edited by HH75, 24 March 2013 - 06:21 AM.

[Dman]

I get you HH. I just want to make sure we keep the focus on the forest...not the tree.

[Coach_B]

8-iron, on 23 March 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

How many OHSAA member schools are private? What, if any, states have different divisions for private and public?

17 percent of the OHSAA membership are private schools.
Two states separate public and private completely; Va. and Md.
There are a number of states with hybrid plans.
I wouldn't have wanted to see complete separation between the public and private schools. That would have been a total disaster for more reasons than you might think.
There were enough unhappy schools that doing nothing after two close competitive balance defeats wasn't an option either.
As someone said earlier, as much grief as we all give the OHSAA, they should be given credit for this move. I hope the member schools vote for this plan and see how it works before passing judgement.

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 23 March 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Here is another one.

A group of kids grows up together. They work their butts off. As seniors they get to Columbus to play for the State Championship representing their town and school. Their opponent is a borderless private school with recruits from multiple counties. An all-star collection of DIV I collegiate talent who were put together with the purpose of winning the small school division...even though the team members all live in a big scool district. When the big day arrives, the small school kids are subject to a dunk-fest and high-fiving coach who has their opponent shooting 3-pointers up 25 with less than 5 minutes to play.

You will have to forgive me if I don't take much pitty on a 5 point multiplier being placed on border kids who follow their parents to the school they teach at. 98% of these multipliers won't change a thing. And god-forbid it does. .. we are talking one classification step up.

These nitpicking examples and the initial whining about a few private schools who are now forced to accept a border with the same rules and consequences as every public school they choose to compete against... ARE HILARIOUS when put in perspective of what Leipsic just went through hours ago. Or Arlington...or Grove...or Continental...etc!

This proposal is so much more fair for so many more kids and communities that it is impossible not to support over status quo AS IS. The standard to meet is not 100% fairness and harmony. It just needs to be better than what Leipsic and Troy Christian just had to endure. You notice both a public and a private were completely hosed by today's lack of standards. The OHSAA has a plan to stop that from happening again.

If the by-product of this plan is LCC might have to play DIV II rather than III. Or Temple gets to change nothing and stay in DIV IV... While their basketball boy count goes from 30 to 90...WHO CARES? It is still a less egregious outcome than what VASJ did today.

Perspective folks...

You keep criticizing any ideas or questions regarding this proposal. I haven't seen anyone say they think it's a bad idea or that it isn't better than what we have now. Why do we have to ONLY go with the current proposal? Why can't we we have the current proposal AND some ideas to make it better?

[polkhigh33]

So if you are a coach and you have a few kids who aren't going to see playing time, but are going to push you up a division, do you just cut those kids now?

[Rocketman]

Coach_B, on 24 March 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

. As someone said earlier, as much grief as we all give the OHSAA, they should be given credit for this move. I hope the member schools vote for this plan and see how it works before passing judgement.

Coach B,
Count me as one who feels that the OHSAA gets the grief that is well-deserved.....if the truth be known, (and it never will ) I would like to venture a guess on how
this "supposed compromise" came to being........

OHSAA......."Wayne Co. what would it take for you to drop this nonsense in asking for separate divisions?"
Wayne Co...."What do you mean, nonsense?.....with the results of the last two votes we think this will pass this time"

OHSAA......."Well then, what would it take?.......Trips to Hawaii for all of you and your wives for a week or so?"
"A fund set up for each of you to use for your own personal pleasure....remember, we are a private entity and can spend money any way we deem necessary"
Wayne Co.."Ohhh.......now we understand a bit better. So you think if this thing goes to a vote and it goes for separation that some of you will lose your jobs?
"If all the privates would secede from the OHSAA along with some of the publics who believe in competition, you wouldn't need 19 Associate Commissioners?"

OHSAA......"Well we're not in the PERS or STERS system anymore so we do have some needs that have to be addressed......We've got a nice-sized slushie fund that we
might be willing to dip into to make this whole thing go away."
Wayne Co.."OK .....now you're talking our kinda language.....First, we need to have a seat at the table so we can also skim some of the cream off the top....Second, there
are 6 of us and our wives who haven't been to Hawaii on someone else's dime in some time....mark us down for about $50,000 for that little excursion....and
third, if the privates continue to win a disproportionate number of championships the next 5 years, you either have to address this in another way.........OR
further monetary compensation will have to be made to our new Wayne Co. PAC."

OHSAA......DEAL!!
Wayne Co..SHAKE!!........."it was a pleasure doing business with ya"

OHSAA......"Likewise, and thank you for everything you've done"

[Dman]

And nothing you just said RM detracts from the fact that the proposed system seems a heck of a lot more fair than status quo. I have no illusions that the process that got us here is littered with shady dealings. I'm more concerned with what happened to Leipsic yesterday and what is being done to address it.

[Dman]

Rd2Glory, on 24 March 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

You keep criticizing any ideas or questions regarding this proposal. I haven't seen anyone say they think it's a bad idea or that it isn't better than what we have now. Why do we have to ONLY go with the current proposal? Why can't we we have the current proposal AND some ideas to make it better?

You want the freedom to criticize the proposal and immunity from adverse commentary about your rebuttals...? I think the proposal and rebuttals deserve critique. I thought that is what we were doing. There will need to be constant reminder that even with the critiques we are talking about an improved system. That somehow can get lost among the constant complaining.

[Fiery Minx]

I agree with the proposal, but I feel that if a school can prove an out of district student athlete has attended that same school since Kindergarten (or even K thru 3rd or 4th grade) then they shouldn't be punished by using the multiplier on that student. I think the proposal is great but will need to make concessions for certain circumstances.

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 24 March 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

You want the freedom to criticize the proposal and immunity from adverse commentary about your rebuttals...? I think the proposal and rebuttals deserve critique. I thought that is what we were doing. There will need to be constant reminder that even with the critiques we are talking about an improved system. That somehow can get lost among the constant complaining.

All I have said is that I think the "district" applied to private schools should be representative of the people who would typically attend that school. Whether that's saying any non-Catholics are "out of the district" or drawing an artificial district for OHSAA purposes or whatever else, it just needs to be representative. That's the issue that we all have with all of this transfer/recruiting stuff right? -That there are kids at schools who normally wouldn't be there except for sports. Well, Shawnee school district is hardly representative of people who would typically attend LCC, so why would that be LCCs "district"?

I have not seen anyone say that they dislike the proposal. In fact, everyone here has said they believe it to be a step in the right direction. However, there are definitely some things about the proposal that need fixed in order for it be applied fairly and equally to every school. Why are you so hellbent on accepting the proposal in its current form? There are glaring weaknesses that can be easily addressed, such as the one noted above, so why not address it?