167 replies to this topic

[flounder]

Rocketman, on 16 May 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

The OHSAA cannot allow the "Public/Private" division to take place.........the privates will bolt the association, taking with them the schools who don't care
if other schools recruit or not........they just want to play the best competition they can find........

If this happens, the OHSAA will fold in short order as we know it and that folks is what they are scared *******less about..........without the privates, the dominoes
start to fall and all their perks will be worthless with Toledo Scott playing Cleveland Brush is the state football finals

I've remarked in the past that the schools pushing for the breakup stand to gain the most.........the OHSAA will start making under the table payments
to the Wayne Co. schools so that this issue goes away............stay tuned

Rocketman........

As always......you are right on my friend.....I am not surprised one bit that it failed again!!!!!!!

[Dman]

Why is Ohio different than any of the other states who have "split?" I don't know for sure... But I've never heard of a state athletic association folding after a split. Somebody will stick around to run the publics. From where I sit in a small NW Ohio town...the thought of the privates and recruiting publics leaving for greener pastures...SO?

I am neither for or against it...but don't see how any potential outcome is worse than status quo.

The folks in the Cleveland area want the split. They were mad the opportunity to vote for a split was pulled. I wonder how the OHSAA goes about thwarting that vote next time?

[Maltese Falcon]

Dman, on 17 May 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Why is Ohio different than any of the other states who have "split?" I don't know for sure... But I've never heard of a state athletic association folding after a split. Somebody will stick around to run the publics. From where I sit in a small NW Ohio town...the thought of the privates and recruiting publics leaving for greener pastures...SO?

I am neither for or against it...but don't see how any potential outcome is worse than status quo.

The folks in the Cleveland area want the split. They were mad the opportunity to vote for a split was pulled. I wonder how the OHSAA goes about thwarting that vote next time?

Ohio is unique in that it is one of a few states that actually gets 10,000+ to attend state tournament games..........and that number used to be higher (but has fallen due to other issues unrelated to private school recruiting such as high ticket prices, games on TV, etc.). I know some people who have coached HS basketball in other states that say they are lucky to get 3,000 at a state final (some have separate public/ private divisions, some don't). This will be the result if the public/ privtae split...........the state tournament as we know it will be ruined and a relic of the past.

[Hound Dog]

I have a relative that coaches Boys Basketball in Detroit. He is at a private catholic school that cost $12,000 a year to attend. He told me that in Michigan all private schools are classified as twice the actual enrollment. He said that there are 900 boys at his school. Michigan treats them like they have 1800. He said it makes it harder but admitted to me that they do recruit athletes.

[omniscient1]

I find Dr. Ross's statement in the Lima news troubling. If this had passed 51.5 to 48.5 would he have made this statement in reverse? Would he have said "gee 48.5 percent of our schools didn't want this and we will have to go back to the drawing board to make sure the majority vote doesn't stand"? I doubt it. Like a typical Superintendent if the vote doesn't go their way they keep bringing it back to the voters until they get what they want passed.

from the Lima News: OHSAA commissioner Dr. Dan Ross said the fact that nearly 50 percent of the state’s schools voted for change shows there is strong sentiment to address a perceived imbalance between public and private schools.
“I think when the vote is 51.5 percent to 48.5 percent, you have 48.5 percent of your members who aren’t really happy with what is going on now,” Ross said. “We’re very, very close. I do know the issue is probably going to be on the table for a while.”

[Run-N-Gun]

How many times does the majority have to say NO THANKS to OHSAA and their referendums? Is 3 straight years not enough?

[Bigdogg79]

Interesting stat I heard the other day. LCC has 54 voucher kids playing sports. We don't need no stinking competitive balance. Practice a little harder.

[Dman]

There has been zero votes taken on the public-private split. The argument presented above is 180 degrees from reality. A certain percentage of the "no" votes and absentees on the current issue were from schools who were pissed they were not afforded the opportunity to vote for a split.

If RM is correct... The interesting thing to watch moving forward is how the OHSAA tries to prevent the "split" vote again. My hunch is they can't stop the vote AGAIN. Look for multiple proposals on the same ballot to water down sentiment.

[Dman]

Maltese Falcon, on 17 May 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Ohio is unique in that it is one of a few states that actually gets 10,000+ to attend state tournament games..........and that number used to be higher (but has fallen due to other issues unrelated to private school recruiting such as high ticket prices, games on TV, etc.). I know some people who have coached HS basketball in other states that say they are lucky to get 3,000 at a state final (some have separate public/ private divisions, some don't). This will be the result if the public/ privtae split...........the state tournament as we know it will be ruined and a relic of the past.

I'd argue the state tournament became a relic about the time they left St. John's. The attendance for the public tournaments are always better than the privates. It has reached the point in which I see no compelling reason for a typical rural school cares about whether the state tournament has 10,000 or 6000 people watching.

There is a sense, whether you agree or not, by way to many members that status quo is unfair. Ten votes would have swung this issue. These proposals will continue. I would have preferred that something be done that included everybody. It has become apparent that this is probably not going to happen.

From a strategic standpoint...those pushing change would be fools not to support the split vote FIRST...then worry about fixing the rest. The DI's in Cleveland are dying to vote yes on the split. I can imagine the current result has pissed off some who might not have been inclined to vote "yes" before. I'm sure it would be a close vote...it always is. But with such close margins, it seems putting all the eggs in the "split" proposal is the easiest path to change.

With all due respect to those who disagree...I don't give two craps about attendance numbers, private school feelings, etc. I just want a system where boundaries matter and recruitment is discouraged. Nothing is perfect. But getting rid of those members who vote to allow boundary-less recruit aided competitors seems the most prudent step toward reform.

[Maltese Falcon]

Run-N-Gun, on 17 May 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

How many times does the majority have to say NO THANKS to OHSAA and their referendums? Is 3 straight years not enough?

The Lima News and other outlets keep saying that a group of Wayne County superintendents are the spearhead behind these referendums, not that schools in other areas of the state don't have concerns..........but I must say those Wayne County Supers are a stubborn bunch.

[Maltese Falcon]

Dman, on 17 May 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I'd argue the state tournament became a relic about the time they left St. John's. The attendance for the public tournaments are always better than the privates. It has reached the point in which I see no compelling reason for a typical rural school cares about whether the state tournament has 10,000 or 6000 people watching.

There is a sense, whether you agree or not, by way to many members that status quo is unfair. Ten votes would have swung this issue. These proposals will continue. I would have preferred that something be done that included everybody. It has become apparent that this is probably not going to happen.

From a strategic standpoint...those pushing change would be fools not to support the split vote FIRST...then worry about fixing the rest. The DI's in Cleveland are dying to vote yes on the split. I can imagine the current result has pissed off some who might not have been inclined to vote "yes" before. I'm sure it would be a close vote...it always is. But with such close margins, it seems putting all the eggs in the "split" proposal is the easiest path to change.

With all due respect to those who disagree...I don't give two craps about attendance numbers, private school feelings, etc. I just want a system where boundaries matter and recruitment is discouraged. Nothing is perfect. But getting rid of those members who vote to allow boundary-less recruit aided competitors seems the most prudent step toward reform.

Agreed on the first part, but it will sink even lower with a split........attendance would be closer to what you are seeing at the girls state tournament which would eventually mean a change of venue. The OHSAA is not going to use the SChott for games attracting 4,500 people or less.

Overall I thought the most recent plan was a step in the right direction. What gets me is how 191 schools didn't vote, the idea that a college- educated school administrator fills out an invalid ballot(?) or doesn't submit the vote on time? Another one is that there wasn't enough time given to study the issue? Heck, this was concieved during this year's state tournament, it should not take longer than 2 months to decide where you stand as a school on this.............there must be some really incompetent administrators out their or some schools are just copping out.

I wish they would publicize how each school in the state voted, the ones who submitted incorrect/ late ballots and the 191 schools that didn't vote. Since most schools are taxpayer financed this information should be public knowledge, correct?

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 17 May 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I'd argue the state tournament became a relic about the time they left St. John's. The attendance for the public tournaments are always better than the privates. It has reached the point in which I see no compelling reason for a typical rural school cares about whether the state tournament has 10,000 or 6000 people watching.

There is a sense, whether you agree or not, by way to many members that status quo is unfair. Ten votes would have swung this issue. These proposals will continue. I would have preferred that something be done that included everybody. It has become apparent that this is probably not going to happen.

From a strategic standpoint...those pushing change would be fools not to support the split vote FIRST...then worry about fixing the rest. The DI's in Cleveland are dying to vote yes on the split. I can imagine the current result has pissed off some who might not have been inclined to vote "yes" before. I'm sure it would be a close vote...it always is. But with such close margins, it seems putting all the eggs in the "split" proposal is the easiest path to change.

With all due respect to those who disagree...I don't give two craps about attendance numbers, private school feelings, etc. I just want a system where boundaries matter and recruitment is discouraged. Nothing is perfect. But getting rid of those members who vote to allow boundary-less recruit aided competitors seems the most prudent step toward reform.

I agree that we need to strive for a system where recruitment is discouraged, but I think a split would have the opposite effect. If privates split and formed their own organization that included all privates and those publics that want to join, they'd likely "okay" recruiting. In that situation, why wouldn't DSJ (for example) openly recruit Delphos/Elida athletes?

[Run-N-Gun]

Look at the number of public schools vs. private/catholic schools. The whole Wayne county argument is that private/catholic only make up 17% of the OHSAA schools. But yet the last 3 years alot of public schools don't support the proposed changes. If it was so cut and dry, you would think the vote would be 83% to 17%.

[flounder]

Rd2Glory, on 17 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

In that situation, why wouldn't DSJ (for example) openly recruit Delphos/Elida athletes?

DSJ does not and will not recruit athletes.........final answer!!!!!!

[Dman]

I don't care what the boundary-less recruiters do with their organization or tournament. They can pay players if they want. Inject kids with steroids...fine. . How they choose to handle their affairs is their business.

I just want ONE place where tradtional education-based teams can compete with like-minded and like-resourced peers.

Currently...those who think and believe like I do don't have that option. We have to "tolerate" those schools and communities who share opposing values as to what education and competition should entail.

I'm tired of "tolerating." I THINK there are many who feel the same as I do. Whether there is a successful plan/strategy to affect such an outcome is questionable. But I surmise that it is time for those of us who are "tired" of status quo to unite behind the "split."

This certainly would not fix the entire problem. But it WOULD put us in a stronger position moving forward. The privates are never going to agree to boundaries and/or recruit limitations. We tried to include them in the solution... they want no part of giving up their advantages. I understand this.

It is time to move on without them...in my opinion.

[Rd2Glory]

flounder, on 17 May 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

DSJ does not and will not recruit athletes.........final answer!!!!!!

It was just an example, but I think DSJ would openly and actively recruit as many good kids to their school as possible (whether they be outstanding athletically/academically/musically/etc.) - why wouldn't they?

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 17 May 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

I don't care what the boundary-less recruiters do with their organization or tournament. They can pay players if they want. Inject kids with steroids...fine. . How they choose to handle their affairs is their business.

I just want ONE place where tradtional education-based teams can compete with like-minded and like-resourced peers.

Currently...those who think and believe like I do don't have that option. We have to "tolerate" those schools and communities who share opposing values as to what education and competition should entail.

I'm tired of "tolerating." I THINK there are many who feel the same as I do. Whether there is a successful plan/strategy to affect such an outcome is questionable. But I surmise that it is time for those of us who are "tired" of status quo to unite behind the "split."

This certainly would not fix the entire problem. But it WOULD put us in a stronger position moving forward. The privates are never going to agree to boundaries and/or recruit limitations. We tried to include them in the solution... they want no part of giving up their advantages. I understand this.

It is time to move on without them...in my opinion.

That's fine and completely understandable. I don't think you'd still be happy/content if DSJ was picking off Jefferson's top athletes each year, but maybe that wouldn't happen. Who knows?

Edited by Rd2Glory, 17 May 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Dman]

We would need a "top athlete" first... :-D

[waterloowonder]

I don't think this failed because it was a bad idea. I think it failed because there were too many items "that would be decided later if it passed". The OHSAA needs present this again with no loose ends - everything in writing so there is no subjectivitey. It was sort of like Obamacare, you had to pass it to see what was in it. We are seeing how that is working out. Very few want a Public - Private split. I think the OHSAA was on the right track with this. They just need to refine it to be very specific.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 17 May 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

There has been zero votes taken on the public-private split.

That's not true: http://www.ohsaa.org...alanceGuide.pdf

Quote

Competitive balance is neither unique nor new to Ohio. In fact, there were referendum issues to separate the tournaments between public and non‐public schools brought before the OHSAA membership by school administrators in both 1978 and 1993, and both were defeated (83.9 percent to 16.1 percent in 1978; 66.8 percent to 33.2 percent in 1993).

A vote to split went down twice before and if it comes up again I hope it goes down again.

Edited by paperboy, 17 May 2013 - 02:38 PM.