167 replies to this topic

[polkhigh33]

New proposal as of this morning, would put a tax multiplier on both. Different mult for each sport.

[Dman]

I told you flounder. You and Bobby got all fired up for nothing. Now...I know nothing about the multiplier...but I know sociologically the OHSAA has to do something. If you Blue Jay fans and other privates choose to badmouth attempts to clean it up... even if it appears to be the silliest idea ever attempted... You might be unknowingly slitting your own throats. The political climate is such that something has to happen.

[paperboy]

Dman how about if us public school people bad-mouth it? Whose throat will we be slitting?

[Dman]

Anybody shocked this was announced BEFORE VASJ game this morning? OHSAA politics are predictable. They were never going to allow a public-private split vote to happen. God forbid it would have passed. In this climate...it might have happened.

[flounder]

Dman.....

I did not get all fired up......it had better be a good plan to stop all the bs that is going on...we don't need a zillion state champs....we don't need some private and some publics who continue to bend the laws.....what we need is something fair and honest and schools both public and private who will do things the right way.......period!!!!!!!!!

[Dman]

paperboy, on 22 March 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Dman how about if us public school people bad-mouth it? Whose throat will we be slitting?

Ironically...the privates. It isn't fair or right. But they are the easy target who will take the fall of something isn't done.

I'm not saying I support action for the sake of action. I'm just saying that it is going to happen. . Or an attempt will be vehemently made. If nothing is ultimately changed... My friends from DSJ's will be looking at the same public-private split vote they have temporarily dodged. Whether right or wrong... sometimes the best course of human behavior requires supporting that which you don't particularly like... to block an even more undesirable outcome.

At Leipsic game... check in later...

[paperboy]

It'll be interesting to see how the 'tax multiplier' would affect a Berlin Hiland vis a vis a VASJ.

[Ericles]

Dman, on 22 March 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Anybody shocked this was announced BEFORE VASJ game this morning? OHSAA politics are predictable. They were never going to allow a public-private split vote to happen. God forbid it would have passed. In this climate...it might have happened.

For what it's worth, the news leaked out last night, but yeah, the official announcement came today.

[Bobby]

Ericles, on 22 March 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

For what it's worth, the news leaked out last night, but yeah, the official announcement came today.

Actually, I heard on the radio that the official press conference to announce the proposal was to be after the second Div IV game.

Saw the proposal on the news tonight. The last item mentioned was interesting. The new proposal will only be applied to "competitive schools". Non-competitive schools may get a pass. I would assume this is sport specific. But who determines who is "competitive"?

I would think public schools would support a split over this new proposal. The split doesn't affect public schools at all. This new proposal affects nearly all public schools negatively.

[diassingle]

Bobby. So does this mean ? That a successful 2013 class can put a screwing to say the next 2 years of classes under them who are far less talented ? Because they won something.

[Bobby]

diassingle, on 22 March 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Bobby. So does this mean ? That a successful 2013 class can put a screwing to say the next 2 years of classes under them who are far less talented ? Because they won something.

Here is the OHSAA press release: http://www.ohsaa.org...anceRelease.pdf

Here's the part about "competitive teams".
Public and non‐public schools that do not demonstrate a level of competitiveness in a given sport will not
be subject to an out-of‐district sports specific factor. A particular standard will be studied and
recommended to the Board of Directors by the competitive balance committee that will determine
whether or not a school is subject to the sports specific factor on a sport-by-sport basis.

Edited by Bobby, 22 March 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[slice slice baby]

slice slice baby, on 22 March 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

Been talking with ppl all day about this...glad to see it's basically the way i/we understood it to be......



By Mark Znidar
The Columbus DispatchFriday March 22, 2013 2:39 PM

http://www.dispatch....ve-balance.html


In a move they hope will avoid Armageddon in athletics, the Ohio High School Athletic Association and a group from Wayne County have agreed to scrap a referendum that seeks to split public and private schools for state tournaments for a new proposal that would avoid separation and try to bring about competitive balance.

The nine-member OHSAA board voted unanimously this morning on a proposal from the competitive balance committee that would artificially increase enrollment numbers at public and private schools alike for having athletes on their rosters who do not reside within their districts.

The vote was taken only after a group from Wayne County, which is led by Tri-Way schools superintendant Dave Rice, agreed to pull the referendum that was to be mailed to the principals of the 826 OHSAA member schools on May 1. Voting ends May 15.

If passed, the new rules would take effect for 2015-16 school year. If it fails, the plan to split the tournaments is expected to be revisited.

OHSAA commissioner Dan Ross said the competitive balance committee has been working “for months’’ on a counter-proposal in an effort to avoid a possible separation of public and private schools.

Two previous referendums aimed to bring about competitive balance and keep public and private schools together for state tournaments failed in close votes.

“Is this perfect?’’ Ross said. “No, it isn’t. But we think it is a step in the right direction rather than splitting the tournaments. I think it’s the fairest (and best) proposal we’ve had on the ballot in dealing where kids are coming from to your school. I think it hits the crux of the issue.’’

Ross said the new proposal would be subject to “tweaks.’’

Phil Stevens, presidents of the OHSAA board of directors and an administrator from Cleveland Heights Lutheran East, said a lot of thought went into the new proposal.

“We brainstormed quite a bit,’’ he said. “We had a variety of opinions. We looked at the big picture for our member schools.’’

Unlike the previous referendums, this proposal does not contain language that penalizes private schools such as Watterson and DeSales for having winning traditions in some sports or helps schools that have socioeconomic issues such as Columbus Public Schools.

The new formula to bring about competitive balance would be based strictly on adjusting enrollment numbers for students in grades nine through 12 who live outside a school district and only in team sports.

Schools would submit rosters on a specific date to include the home addresses of the athletes. Those athletes living outside a school’s district would be applied to a multiplier.

Ross used the boys basketball team from Dalton High School in Wayne County as an example for the multiplier. The school has 110 boys. Thirty boys play on the freshman, junior varsity and varsity rosters and the team is currently in Division IV.

Three players are open-enrollment students who live outside the school’s boundaries. The multiplier would be the three players times five for a total of 15, raising the enrollment to 125 and placing the team in Division III.

Ross said the multiplier for football teams would be only two because rosters are much larger and that its athletes do not make as big an impact as, say, basketball.

Rice said his objective was never to separate public and private schools when he approached the OHSAA about his concerns about competitive balance approximately four years ago.

“At this point, we thought it was the only option" after two failed referendums, Rice said. “We never stopped looking at options.’’

Rice said he hopes the principals in the state “trust the competitive balance committee will make the right decisions.’’

[slice slice baby]

slice slice baby, on 22 March 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

Here's Tom Usher's take on it to provide further understanding....

http://www.limaohio....1a4bcf6878.html

Posted: Friday, March 22, 2013 7:24 pm
New competitive balance proposal replaces public vs. privateBy TOM USHERLimaOhio.com



COLUMBUS — Forget the vote on having separate public and private school tournaments.
That’s been taken off the table.



Instead, all Ohio High School Athletic Association schools will vote on the latest competitive balance proposal, the OHSAA announced Friday.

On Monday, the OHSAA Board voted to place a new competitive balance proposal on the May ballot. When that happened, the vote for OHSAA tournaments to be conducted separately for public and non-public schools was removed from the ballot by the Wayne County group.

Two votes have been taken on separate competitive balance proposals over the last two years. Both have gone down in close votes. The 2011 proposal went down 332-303. The 2012 proposal was defeated 339-301.

Now OHSAA principals will have the window of May 1 to May 15 to vote on the new competitive balance proposal. The vote would need a simple majority to pass.

The sports under the proposal will be football, soccer and volleyball in the fall, basketball in the winter and baseball and softball in the spring. Team wrestling will be considered in the future.
If passed, the new proposal will be for the 2015-16 school year.

This new competitive balance proposal differs from the other two that were voted down in that there are is no “sports tradition” factor. There is also no socio-economic factor.

There are no conditions in which programs will be penalized by a multiplier on enrollment if they made many trips to the regionals or state tournaments.

“This has nothing to do with success factors or socio-economics,” OHSAA commissioner Dan Ross said during a teleconference Friday. “This centers on where kids come from on your rosters.”
For example: In basketball, the rosters would add the freshman, junior varsity and varsity teams. If a school had 10 players on each team, the total number on the roster would be 30. Of those 30, if 20 came from within a school district, those players would have no effect on the roster. But if 10 came from outside the district, those 10 would be multiplied by five (for basketball) to get a number of 50.
That number of 50 would be added to the enrollment number on file by the Department of Education. This could push a team into a higher tournament division.

The district would be based on where the school is physically located.
“So the factors would be the same for public and non-public schools,” Ross said.
Ross added that the multiplying number for football would be two.
Ross said the rosters would be collected and they would be able to be viewed by the public. In this way, anyone could see where a team’s players came from.

Dave Rice, superintendent of Wooster schools, who started the two-tournaments petition, said, “I do believe it’s a better proposal than the two-tournaments proposal.”

Ross said after the last competitive balance proposal went down, 55 percent of the schools were against the “sports tradition” factor. He said the schools were about 50-50 on the socio-economic factor.
So, this time around, both were taken off the proposal.

Rice said since the public vs. private vote was put on the ballot, his group had been searching for “an alternative.”

Ross added if teams had gone “a long time” without a league or sectional title, there would be a competitive balance review to see if they would be bumped up a division, even if they had the out of district players to bump them up.

This proposal focuses on students only on the playing roster.
“The crux of this is where do the kids representing your school come from,” Ross said. “If they come from outside the district and they are representing your school on the field or on the court, then this would affect them. It effects the kids on your roster. It won’t effect the kids there for a science or music program.”

Here are the basics of the new competitive balance proposal, as supplied by the OHSAA:
• At a designated deadline (most likely to be near the beginning of each sports season), each school will submit their team rosters to the OHSAA that will indicate each grade 9 through 12 student’s name, grade in school and district school of residence. Submission will take place through an online system as recommended by the Commissioner’s Office and approved by the OHSAA Board of Directors.

• Every student on a team’s roster whose district of residence is outside of the district or attendance zone of the school he/she is attending will be multiplied by an out-of-district sports specific factor. That number will then be added to the school’s initial enrollment count. Public schools that do not accept open enrollment students would not be subject to an out-of-district sports specific factor, although tuition and international and exchange students would be subject to the factor.

• The sports specific factor will be applied on a sport-by-sport basis in the team sports of football, soccer, volleyball, basketball, baseball and softball (with the Board of Directors also considering use in the sport of wrestling for the team tournament). The factor will be different for each sport and be dependent upon the number of tournament divisions for that sport. A competitive balance committee representing the membership will study the formula and recommend the various out-of-district sports specific factors to the OHSAA Board of Directors. The current sports specific factors being considered are two for the sport of football and five for sports with four divisions (basketball, volleyball, baseball and softball).

• The initial enrollment counts submitted to the Ohio Department of Education (EMIS numbers) will be used for two years, but schools will submit their roster data annually, meaning adjusted enrollment numbers and divisional assignments in the team sports mentioned will be recalculated annually.
• Schools that have an adjusted enrollment count that moves them into a higher division will not be limited to moving strictly into the next higher division.

• Rosters will be posted online to help ensure that a “check and balance” system is in place and accurate data has been entered into the system by each school. The OHSAA will also utilize compliance monitors to assist with the process as needed.

• Schools that fail to submit their school roster data by the designated deadline in a particular sport will be subject to penalties as determined by the OHSAA.

• Schools will begin their seasons in the sports of football, soccer, volleyball, basketball, baseball and softball (and possibly team wrestling) not knowing to which OHSAA tournament division they have been assigned until approximately 30 days into the season in order for roster data to be submitted and validated.

[Rocketman]

What this has done effectively is to keep the hierarchy of the OHSAA intact.........by their backdoor negotiations with the Wayne Co. schools (who were the initiators of this proposal) they hope to be able to keep their jobs safe........that is THE MAIN reason that this is being done........all the other smoke and mirrors that they are spewing ultimately comes down to them keeping their jobs........IF the proposal had been presented to it's members in the former and adopted, the OHSAA would have ceased to be relative in a very short period of time...........

[Dman]

No doubt about it RM. Which is why there was never going to be a vote. It was going to pass. Or it was certainly going to be close enough to scare the power.

That said... The new proposal on the table seems well thought out. It certainly addresses issues people have asked for years. Privates now have borders. Publics and Privates are treated exactly the same. There is an equalizing mechanism for transfer/recruit utilization. The god awful socioeconomic/success stuff is out.

Regardless of how or why we got here... Here seems a lot better than status quo. Again... This is early. There might be some unintended consequences that are grave enough to change perception... But early analysis indicates this is a decent plan.

[polkhigh33]

Just give everyone a trophy and be done with it. That's what this is about anyway.

[Dman]

That makes zero sense polk. Not one extra trophy is awarded. You might want to read the proposal and see what is happening. Only those who currently benefit from unchecked transfers and a lack of borders might find this difficult to accept. This proposal applies rules evenly and fairly to EVERYBODY.

[Mr Bearcat]

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

[Fiery Minx]

Ok... can someone answer a question for me (as I have a pounding headache right now and can't force myself to read up on this issue at the moment)..... Does anyone know if this multiplier affects someone who has gone to the same school since preschool but lives in another school district? I can think of at least 2 students that would be in that situation.... Any insight on this would be great! Thanks

[Rd2Glory]

This proposal is a step in the right direction. Two issues though:

1. It is only a good idea if the "multiplier" is isolated to kids on a specific sports team. If the multiplier ends up extending to all kids in the school who come from outside of the district, it would really hurt open enrollment, which I think is a great thing for the academic success of students.

2. I don't think private schools should be subject to whatever public school district the private school is located in, as the private school is by no means centrally located within the district in most cases. Take LCC for example, I went there, but before reading an above post I wasn't sure if they were located in the Lima City or Shawnee school district. They're within the Lima City Corporation Limit, but within the Shawnee School District? Point being that LCC is certainly not drawing more kids from Cridersville than they are from Market Street. For private schools (who obviously don't have a school district), I think it would be relatively easy to draw up artificial school districts for which to apply this multiplier.

Just my two cents.