81 replies to this topic

[Bobby]

Here it is.....

http://www.ohsaa.org...ease3-30-12.pdf

What do you think?

[maddog]

Reminds me alot of how our local school districts keep putting levies on the ballot after they have been shot down numerous times. Due process was done this past year when the chance to vote on this issue was given. It was defeated by a majority and should be done with. This was not good enough for some so they put a little lipstick on the pig and trot her out again this year. My hope is that the people who vote will continue to say no even though I know it will be put to a vote each year because like children, some adults can not take no for an answer.

[Thunderbolt]

Not that I like it, but I bet this one passes.

[milt73]

This one isn't as bad as the last one. I like how they tweaked the ''Tradition'' factor. I think it turned a lot of schools off when being good punished them. Now, Tradition is basically a mute point, except for a small percentage.

In my ignorant mind, I honestly can't understand how socio-economic's effects athletes. How does not having much money affect how hard you work to be good at something? This affects many large public schools a lot but this also has an affect on every school regardless of public/private. You would be amazed how many kids in a private setting and a small school setting are on the free lunch program.

School boundary is fairly legit in my mind.

[Bobby]

I'd like to see the OHSAA make all votes on this referendum public. I want to see how each school voted.

I'm not sure how a public school with statewide open enrollment is 4% different than a non-public school with no boundaries.

I'd also like to know how the OHSAA will know this worked. If private schools win 30% of state titles, will this be declared successful? What if it's 25%? Will they keep "tweaking" the system unti they get the desired results?

[waterloowonder]

milt73, on 31 March 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

This one isn't as bad as the last one. I like how they tweaked the ''Tradition'' factor. I think it turned a lot of schools off when being good punished them. Now, Tradition is basically a mute point, except for a small percentage.

In my ignorant mind, I honestly can't understand how socio-economic's effects athletes. How does not having much money affect how hard you work to be good at something? This affects many large public schools a lot but this also has an affect on every school regardless of public/private. You would be amazed how many kids in a private setting and a small school setting are on the free lunch program.

School boundary is fairly legit in my mind.

In my opinion, the socio-economic part is the most important. Generally, kids that come from poor, single or no parent families do not participate in extracurriculars. They are just lucky to make it to school. I realize people from small communities where most of the kids come from good hard working families have a hard time understanding this. In my community, Defiance, upwards of 40% of the kids come from seriously deprived and disfunctional homes. 90% of those kids don't participate because of grades, delinquency, etc. yet they count in the enrollment numbers. Private schools don't have this issue. This proposal is not perfect, but it is a start. I think the socio-economic percentage should be 40% or 50%, not 10%. The private school no boundary percentage should be 30% because of the selective enrollment issues. Big city private or charter schools playing in the lower divisions is a big pet peeve of mine.

[Mr Bearcat]

Bobby, on 31 March 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I'd like to see the OHSAA make all votes on this referendum public. I want to see how each school voted.

I'm not sure how a public school with statewide open enrollment is 4% different than a non-public school with no boundaries.

I'd also like to know how the OHSAA will know this worked. If private schools win 30% of state titles, will this be declared successful? What if it's 25%? Will they keep "tweaking" the system unti they get the desired results?

A lot of Public Schools probably lose as many as they gain in Open Enrollment. Also, Public Schools have to take kids, and Private Schools can turn students away.

[rallyinthe9th]

The tradition factor still bugs me. I don't know how you can punish schools for success.

Don't most schools have open enrollment now?

I am not sure the socio-economic factor should be included. Would it make a school like Dayton Dunbar a D3?

[milt73]

waterloowonder, on 31 March 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

In my opinion, the socio-economic part is the most important. Generally, kids that come from poor, single or no parent families do not participate in extracurriculars. They are just lucky to make it to school. I realize people from small communities where most of the kids come from good hard working families have a hard time understanding this. In my community, Defiance, upwards of 40% of the kids come from seriously deprived and disfunctional homes. 90% of those kids don't participate because of grades, delinquency, etc. yet they count in the enrollment numbers. Private schools don't have this issue. This proposal is not perfect, but it is a start. I think the socio-economic percentage should be 40% or 50%, not 10%. The private school no boundary percentage should be 30% because of the selective enrollment issues. Big city private or charter schools playing in the lower divisions is a big pet peeve of mine.

It possibly could be the most important aspect because after it's passed, the competitive balance committee and the Board could make it whatever number they want. Check it out, no where in there does it say anything about calling more referendum's to change the formula. It says they can change it biennially to what they see fit. They could also change the ''Tradition'' and the ''borders'' part. That scares me because they can "modify" the formula to whatever they want without member approval.

Believe it or not, there are ''poor'' kids in small towns and private schools. Should every kid on assistance to private schools not be counted because technically they are "poor"? I want you to check with St. X, St. Iggy or St. John's and see how many of their kids get free lunches. I'm sure it's a decent %, although my small town community-ass backwards-ignorant mind can't grasp something like that.

Most hard working family's make their kids get a job in high school after they have their driver's license. If they make a choice not to play to get a job, should they be counted? Maybe hard working parents breed hard working kids. There's a social concept for you. And it comes down to that. We are changing sports because of something social that has nothing to do with sports. Maybe we should limit school's participation if they don't have a certain Graduation rate or average ACT score? Maybe coaches/AD's/administation's should be worrying about their kids grades and getting kids to participate rather than complaining because those same kids ''count against'' their total population.

Why should every other school in the state get punished because your school system can't get their kids butts in the seats?

[waterloowonder]

Maybe we looking at this all wrong. Since private schools have a much better success rate both academically and with sports, maybe public schools should make some changes. First of all, get rid of all taxes that support public schools. Make all schools tuition based. Get rid of school districts. If families could not afford to pay the tuition, I guess home schooling would be the only option. No school would have to accept any student they didn't want to accept. This would make the playing field perfectly level. So what if 75% of the kids in the state wouldn't be able to attend school, at least we would have everbody playing by the same rules.

[BIG DOG]

rallyinthe9th, on 01 April 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

The tradition factor still bugs me. I don't know how you can punish schools for success.

Don't most schools have open enrollment now?

I am not sure the socio-economic factor should be included. Would it make a school like Dayton Dunbar a D3?

Open enrollment might be in most places, but it depends where you are open enrolling from. Are you taking in kids from Ft. Jennings, Allen East, or Tinora. The problem is the teams in D 3 and 4 that are in a major city. A student should have to be in a school district for 4 years otherwise they should have to count and add the numbers of students from where they came to the new school they are playing at in calculating the division they play in. So one of the best players in D 4 wansn't playing in D 1 last year.

[Run-N-Gun]

In Central Ohio there are a lot of schools who have open enrollment, here is an article about a school thinking of switching to open enrollment and the picture shows what school already have it. I was shocked at it.

I too feel that the % for school boundaries seems to have some inequities. A public school who can have any student enroll as long as they are in the state of Ohio is only a 6% and a non public school with boundaries is at 8%.

As some stated earlier, I don't like this but do think this time it will pass.

http://www.dispatch....rg-schools.html

Edited by Run-N-Gun, 02 April 2012 - 09:58 AM.

[milt73]

waterloowonder, on 02 April 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Maybe we looking at this all wrong. Since private schools have a much better success rate both academically and with sports, maybe public schools should make some changes. First of all, get rid of all taxes that support public schools. Make all schools tuition based. Get rid of school districts. If families could not afford to pay the tuition, I guess home schooling would be the only option. No school would have to accept any student they didn't want to accept. This would make the playing field perfectly level. So what if 75% of the kids in the state wouldn't be able to attend school, at least we would have everbody playing by the same rules.

I like your sarcasm and I understand your point. I just hope you understand mine.

You use Defiance as an example. I can't dispute you in the 40-50% free lunch or poor kids that live in the district according to your numbers because frankly I don't know what they are. How did that affect your boys basketball team? What was their record? So if there was only 20% deprived kids in your district, would they have won the state title or atleast not lost to Elida in the regular season? Like someone else said, how about Dayton Dunbar? Columbus Brookhaven a few years back? Cleveland Glenville football and track? Every school with a high percentage of "poor" that's successful at something?

You can go through each sport and name school after school that is successful and also has a large percentage of it's population who would be considered ''poor'' that go to their school. Somehow they win. Maybe losing programs should replicate successful programs and see what happens. Honestly, if a kid really wants to play a sport, they will do what it takes to do that.

Edited by milt73, 02 April 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[rallyinthe9th]

If they can change the formula without approval, I highly doubt this passes. How many schools have made a regional or state appearance 4 of the last 8 years. OG? Kalida? LCC? I don't think punishing success is a good thing at all. If the kids aren't at those schools legally, investigate the schools. If they are there within the rules, don't punish them. Would it have been fair for OG to have to play D2 (I don't know if this would be the case or not) just because the teams before them were good??

The socio-economic part seems to be there to get that vote. I don't understand how that can be included.

Open enrollment has leveled the playing field to some degree. I don't think that much more needs to be done to "fix" this problem.

[Common Sense]

milt73, on 31 March 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

This one isn't as bad as the last one. I like how they tweaked the ''Tradition'' factor. I think it turned a lot of schools off when being good punished them. Now, Tradition is basically a mute point, except for a small percentage.

In my ignorant mind, I honestly can't understand how socio-economic's effects athletes. How does not having much money affect how hard you work to be good at something? This affects many large public schools a lot but this also has an affect on every school regardless of public/private. You would be amazed how many kids in a private setting and a small school setting are on the free lunch program.

School boundary is fairly legit in my mind.

I think this has alot to do with the process. What is the craze now? Travel and club sports. However, they are very, very expensive. Kids with little to no means don't play on travel and club sports (now that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's another topic for another day). Now, if you want to argue how people get on free and reduced lunches, I'm all ears. I'm amazed that some kids who have parents with jobs and all the extras in life, still are eligible for free or reduced lunches.

[Rd2Glory]

milt73, on 02 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

It possibly could be the most important aspect because after it's passed, the competitive balance committee and the Board could make it whatever number they want. Check it out, no where in there does it say anything about calling more referendum's to change the formula. It says they can change it biennially to what they see fit. They could also change the ''Tradition'' and the ''borders'' part. That scares me because they can "modify" the formula to whatever they want without member approval.

Believe it or not, there are ''poor'' kids in small towns and private schools. Should every kid on assistance to private schools not be counted because technically they are "poor"? I want you to check with St. X, St. Iggy or St. John's and see how many of their kids get free lunches. I'm sure it's a decent %, although my small town community-ass backwards-ignorant mind can't grasp something like that.

Most hard working family's make their kids get a job in high school after they have their driver's license. If they make a choice not to play to get a job, should they be counted? Maybe hard working parents breed hard working kids. There's a social concept for you. And it comes down to that. We are changing sports because of something social that has nothing to do with sports. Maybe we should limit school's participation if they don't have a certain Graduation rate or average ACT score? Maybe coaches/AD's/administation's should be worrying about their kids grades and getting kids to participate rather than complaining because those same kids ''count against'' their total population.

Why should every other school in the state get punished because your school system can't get their kids butts in the seats?

<slow clap>

[Deuce22]

2012 Football, Boys Basketball, Girls Basketball

State Champions

9 Public

4 Private


What's the issue again?

[labatts69]

Deuce22, on 03 April 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

2012 Football, Boys Basketball, Girls Basketball

State Champions

9 Public

4 Private


What's the issue again?

basketball- d1-whitmer, although did now win it had kid transfer in from springfield that helped them make the run. d2-dunbar, was basically an aau team, if you are going to do this then play d1. d3- summit day, private school that can pick and choose who they want and help the kids "financially" so they can get a better education. cough, cough. d4-berlin hiland, move in that helped them win back to back years as he played aau ball with buddy from team if i remember correctly and came from strasburg. These issues are all addressed with this proposal. Not all of the language is great but it would help in some aspects to the small schools who still don't pick and choose their teams.

[Deuce22]

I don't mind the tradition factor and the open enrollment factors but the free lunches I don't quite understand what basis does the relate to sports? some of the best athletes in college football come from the poorest cities in Florida?