152 replies to this topic

[Dman]

Bobby, on 26 March 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Dman, I'll ask again. If it passes and nothing changes, what do you want to happen next? What is your ultimate goal?

It was the first sentence of the response? But framing this as "my goal" gives me a little more importance than warranted. The OHSAA unanimously approved the proposal. Your questions would be more appropriately addressed to them. I'm just an internet poster with opinions.

My ultimate goal is that we find a more (key word) fair system than status quo for how we place teams into classes. I know perfect is impractical. But better is possible. Just my opinion... I'd also like to prevent the split...but that is secondary.

Border stretchers is simple and descriptive. It obviously includes any and all programs, public or private...who utilize and/or benifit from the phenomenon.

What is it you like about the current system...and why? This is addressed to anybody...

Edited by Dman, 27 March 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[FlightCrew]

Why not revert back to a single class system?
16 team Sweet 16 at State = 15 games at state = more $$$
AND better games (theoretically)

[Rd2Glory]

dawgbone, on 26 March 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

"Border stretching" is becoming the term of choice.....define it, please. Does this also include open enrollment? Statewide open enrollment? If not, why not?

Dman, on 27 March 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

It was the first sentence of the response? But framing this as "my goal" gives me a little more importance than warranted. The OHSAA unanimously approved the proposal. Your questions would be more appropriately addressed to them. I'm just an internet poster with opinions.

My ultimate goal is that we find a more (key word) fair system than status quo for how we place teams into classes. I know perfect is impractical. But better is possible. Just my opinion... I'd also like to prevent the split...but that is secondary.

Border stretchers is simple and descriptive. It obviously includes any and all programs, public or private...who utilize and/or benifit from the phenomenon.

What is it you like about the current system...and why? This is addressed to anybody...

Based on your answer to the above question, in addition to private schools, you believe that public schools with open enrollment benefit from this "border stretching" phenomenon. The following public school districts in Allen County have state-wide open enrollment (meaning any kid, from ANY district, can attend school there for FREE, IF the school accepts them):

Allen East
Bath
Bluffton
Delphos Jeff
Elida
Lima City
Perry
Shawnee
Spencerville

If, in fact, these schools are "border stretchers" (how could they not be considered that?), do you believe they should be penalized/multiplied/etc. in the same way you believe private schools should? If not, why not?

Source: http://education.ohi...Open-Enrollment

Edited by Rd2Glory, 27 March 2014 - 10:45 AM.

[Dman]

Yes I do...and what would ever lead you too believe I wouldn't want EVERYBODY treated exactly the same? Part of the reason I support the competitive balance proposal, imperfections noted...is that EVERYBODY is treated the same.

The 1985 model of making every argument public vs private is obsolete. So is the current seeding system...

[Dman]

FlightCrew, on 27 March 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Why not revert back to a single class system?
16 team Sweet 16 at State = 15 games at state = more $$$
AND better games (theoretically)

I respect this opinion. Simple and fair. I'm not for it...But I "get" it. I don't believe the games would be "better." But some people prefer AAU ball...

Edited by Dman, 27 March 2014 - 10:58 AM.

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 27 March 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Yes I do...and what would ever lead you too believe I wouldn't want EVERYBODY treated exactly the same? Part of the reason I support the competitive balance proposal, imperfections noted...is that EVERYBODY is treated the same.

The 1985 model of making every argument public vs private is obsolete. So is the current seeding system...

I was under the impression that you believed LCC had an unfair advantage over schools like Allen East, Bluffton, Delphos Jefferson, and Spencerville.

I'm not really arguing with you, as much as I am trying to get a grasp on how your idea of seeding based on "border stretching" should work. Of the 663 school districts in Ohio (at least listed on that website), 78 of them have open enrollment to adjacent school districts and 460 of them have state-wide open enrollment. So, of the 663 public school districts, only 125 of them don't "benefit" from this "border stretching" phenomenon. Is the goal (yours or otherwise) to help out these 125 schools? If so, fine, I guess I assumed you thought the problem was larger than that, and you didn't think those other NWC schools had the same benefit as a school like LCC.

It should also be noted that, of those 125 schools without open enrollment, many of them choose not to keep their school more "private" - Schools like Bexley and Oakwood (very wealthy school districts). (Also, Trotwood Madison doesn't have open enrollment and I think most would agree they have "benefited" from outside school districts recently).

[Dman]

Look at the competitive balance proposal. It shows you the EXACT framework of how seeding would work. I definitely think it is a step in the right direction.

What is it you like about the current system and why? This is not a trap question. I'm just trying to see what there is about status quo that some find appealing or superior to the proposal?

If your argument is that SVSM/LCC have the exact same opportunities and access to DIV I talent due to open enrollment as Ottoville... I guess we will never agree.

Edited by Dman, 27 March 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Dman]

"I was under the impression that you believed LCC had an unfair advantage over schools like Allen East, Bluffton, Delphos Jefferson, and Spencerville"

I don't recall using the term "unfair." But I do understand that LCC has obvious geographical advantages over your examples. I understand that they indeed had the advantage this year with the "three" players. Their own fans are on another thread here arguing about whether they would be .500 or a 15 win team without those "three." Moment to note that I'm not certain all of the "three" they are talking about would even be affected by the multiplier in the proposal...but I am certain their v program has at least that many who would be affected.

I look at your list and apply basketball knowledge...then surmise that had Spencerville had those "three" this year...we could be taking about the single greatest DIV IV team in Ohio history. I don't think anyone can argue that having those "three" transfer in later in their academic careers was not an "advantage." At the moment I cannot thing of a single better example of opportunistic benifit in the history of local basketball than to have those "three" college DIV I talents transfer into a small high school program. Again...in fairness...one or two of those three might have transferred before 7th grade.

LCC has done nothing "unfair" or outside the rules to skirt the system. They just benifit from their advantage...

Advantage...hell yes! Unfair...nope! Broken classification system...yep!

I do question whether DIV III was the correct classification for that team IF there was a "better" classification system. I could argue that for St. Joe's and LCC it is possible that a better system might have bumped them up to DIV II. Again this is MY opinion. All of this is.


Fair or unfair is not really the issue. Unless you are like some...who want to abolish all classes, rules, etc and have a free for all... It is inherent in the system to assume that all of this is designed to equalize advantages... and TRY to put everybody in the most reasonable classification. I opine that status quo is doing a poor job at this task. And that there is a better way to try.

[Dman]

One final important distinction glory. You are looking at total open enrollment numbers for the school. The competitive balance proposal only looks at the roster from grades 7 through 12. This means only those transfers who actually play the sport matter. If 20 kids transfer to Allen East for band...it does not change their multiplier unless they play basketball.

Also, while I agree that this proposal may do nothing...we really do not know. It is dynamic and based upon rosters. They will still equalize the classes. If SVSM gets bumped up...somebody else is getting bumped down. It is really difficult to look at current static enrollment numbers and blindly assume "we won't move." You don't know how the other programs numbers will affect your school's final placement.

[Bobby]

Dman, on 27 March 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Look at the competitive balance proposal. It shows you the EXACT framework of how seeding would work. I definitely think it is a step in the right direction.

What is it you like about the current system and why? This is not a trap question. I'm just trying to see what there is about status quo that some find appealing or superior to the proposal?

If your argument is that SVSM/LCC have the exact same opportunities and access to DIV I talent due to open enrollment as Ottoville... I guess we will never agree.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing for the status quo, only that this won't be the panacea some think.

If this is a "step in the right direction", what is the next step? Or is this the last step? This is supposed to "level the playing field" = private schools win fewer state titles and public schools win more. What if that doesn't happen? What would you do next? I'm not asking the OHSAA, I'm asking you. I'm certain you have an opinion on this.

I keep reading VASJ in every discussion about this. If VASJ is the problem, why don't they deal with them? And we keep hearing about the kids that went to LCC from Lima city schools. How about we start hearing about the kids that went to Elida, Shawnee, Perry, Bath, etc...?

[Dman]

If this was about "me" I doubt you would point out public border stretchers and imply I don't care about them. Or maybe you have missed the last decade of local vitriol?

The end game? A better system. A better means for putting teams into competitive brackets. That is it. An improvement...

You keep going back to private versus public. I don't see it that way. There are traditional border programs and border stretchers. Some are chronic border stretchers and some benefit a year or two and float away...Plenty of public and private representation in both categories.

I think any system that at least has a mechanism to address border stretching when classifying programs is superior to status quo...where everything goes.

I don't blindly assume the system's going to be perfect either. In fact it may not do nothing. But who cares? Status quo already does nothing about it.

I take the opposite approach. If this system will do NOTHING...why are some so scared to see SOMETHING like it passed?

It is not as if ANYONE has stepped up to make a sound defense/support of the current system. Looking at a school's total enrollment is a piss poor way of classifying tournament participants...IMO.

I could get with an NCAA type committee or even a random yearly draw...versus status quo.

I surmise that most who don't want this change benefit from the current system in some fashion. I understand this. This does not mean the current system is adequate for the majority.

As far as who wins championships? I personally don't care. I would just like to watch good competitive basketball from programs competing from similar models. I personally respect good coaching and program building more than roster managing...But concede that there are others who may be more interested in watching the best players from any state/location come together as a glorified aau/pro type team. I only half kid when I openly wonder who will hire the first high school basketball general manager...if trends continue.

Out of curiosity, what is the fixation on some mystical end-game? What is the end game of status quo? It is an impossible question to answer. If you can improve a system...try it. It was promised back in 1993. It is not as if there has been all these system changes in the last two plus decades with some never ending scheme to bring Private Schools to their knees. We've done NOTHING. Why so scared to try something different with an empty arena every March?

Edited by Dman, 27 March 2014 - 01:38 PM.

[slice slice baby]

Unionization, for all!!!

[Bobby]

Dman, on 27 March 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

The end game? A better system. A better means for putting teams into competitive brackets. That is it. An improvement...

How will you know if it works and if it doesn't, what is the next step? How will you know if you've succeeded in putting teams into competitive brackets? How will you know if it's a "better system"?

Again, who is opposing this proposal? Most, including myself, are saying it will have no effect or minimal at best. I get the impression from your posts that you believe if it is not voted in it will be the end of high school sports as we know it.

[slice slice baby]

Bobby, on 27 March 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

I get the impression from your posts that you believe if it is not voted in it will be the end of high school sports as we know it.

It's already "been the end of HS sports as we've known it", as far as I can see, for all intents and purposes.... Unless you're 30+(at best), most have NO interest......

[flounder]

slicer.........

I just had to give you a plus...or greenie....on that post...if I could give you 5, I would.......please read my pm!!!!

[Hound Dog]

Bobby, on 27 March 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

Again, who is opposing this proposal? Most, including myself, are saying it will have no effect or minimal at best. I get the impression from your posts that you believe if it is not voted in it will be the end of high school sports as we know it.

So would you want DSJ to vote for it? if not then obviously you want the status quo of AAU ball taking high school basketball hostage.

[flounder]

Rrrrrrrruffffff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bobby]

Hound Dog, on 27 March 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

So would you want DSJ to vote for it? if not then obviously you want the status quo of AAU ball taking high school basketball hostage.

Sure. Like I said, it will have no effect or minimal at best. I'm just wondering what the next step will be because there will be one.

slice, why do younger folks have no interest in hs basketball? That's an interesting question. Is it a bad thing that they have no interest? I know some 40-50 year olds that no longer go to games. Why?

[Dman]

Bobby...

I 100% agree with slice. I don't recall ever saying it is end of basketball as we know it...if we don't pass the proposal. In fact I'm guessing at least twice in the past few posts I've said it may do nothing. But as we happily watch the final burning of high school sports...it might be ok to pick up one bucket of water and douse a flame or two...just to try...no?

I've asked before...but will try again? What is the endgame of status quo? Way back when they came up with the current system do we believe the people in the room foresaw SVSM recruiting a three state area? Or the best players in Lima forsaking big school basketball to play in a lower classification?

I have a proactive personality. When I see that things aren't going as intended, I will try a different approach. I guess not everybody is like that...?

[FlightCrew]

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I was on a SC team and I live in a community that has won multiple SC's....both schools were public and competed with private schools during tourney runs.....won some, lost some.

I would feel very differently about each title if for whatever reason we didn't compete vs the best of the best in those seasons.....

They're gonna damage that special quality of winning State if they are not careful..