152 replies to this topic

[Dman]

I opine that the special quality of winning state ended long ago for the pseudo-club teams. We may tell those kids and even try too convince ourselves that the glorified AAU team beating bordered communities is actually an equal accomplishment to year's past...but... This is particularly true for those small division teams who take kids from traditional Div I prorams then play in the smaller division. I fail to see what is "special" about that...? If you are using DIV I talent...then play in the DIV I tournament...do well...then we return to "special."

The key is to find a system that better represents the realities of 2014 where prior DIV I players who reside in DIV I population pools...choose to play down.


It isn't special. That could be one of MANY reasons people don't care about the state tournament as much as years past...

Now if you find a way too better classify these teams...maybe it will or could mean more again.

Edited by Dman, 28 March 2014 - 10:05 AM.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 28 March 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

I opine that the special quality of winning state ended long ago for the pseudo-club teams. We may tell those kids and even try too convince ourselves that the glorified AAU team beating bordered communities is actually an equal accomplishment to year's past...but... This is particularly true for those small division teams who take kids from traditional Div I prorams then play in the smaller division. I fail to see what is "special" about that...? If you are using DIV I talent...then play in the DIV I tournament...do well...then we return to "special."

The key is to find a system that better represents the realities of 2014 where prior DIV I players who reside in DIV I population pools...choose to play down.


It isn't special. That could be one of MANY reasons people don't care about the state tournament as much as years past...

Now if you find a way too better classify these teams...maybe it will or could mean more again.

I'm not sure you understand what FlightCrew said... He is saying that the 'bordered communities' (love that term, btw) can and do beat 'pseudo-club teams' (not bad, either) and it makes it that much more special. See: Coldwater over Alter/Mooney, Marion Local over Ursuline/Newark Catholic, or even Norwalk over Watterson.

[titanman01]

Public schools can accept open enrollment as can private, what they can't do is turn anyone away that is in their district which is an advantage for private schools. They are able to fill their halls with only whom they choose and control the size of their school, it is a difference. My opinion, if you are a private school, move up one division. It gets them out of division IV, everyone still plays in the same tournament and it balances things a little. Is it perfect, no, but its easy to implement and not too big of a move for anyone.

[waterloowonder]

I have been reading this topic with great interest and fascination. I am in the camp that something needs to be done to level the playing field. I am not for separate tournaments for private and public. I do believe private schools have an advantage under the current system. I do believe some public schools in bigger cities gain advantages with open enrollment and no district bounderies.

The main unfair advantages of private schools are: 1) They can attract students from a large population area and stay in the small school divisions. 2) Their enrollments are artificially low because they do not have to take non performing students who make up an ever increasing percentage of the enrollment of public schools.

Since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, here is my solution. I realize nothing is going to be perfect. I also realize the proposal currently on the table will effect very little change in school classifications.

Apply a mutliplier to all private schools as follows:
Private Schools located in communities with a population of 10,000 or less would have multiplier of 1.25.
Private Schools located in communities with a population of 10,001 to 25,000 would have a multiplier of 1.50.
Private Schools located in communities with a population of 25,001 to 50,000 would have a multiplie of 1.75.
Private Schools located in communities with a population of greater than 50,001 would have multiplier of 2.00.
In addition to the multiplier, private schools would add 5 to their enrollment (this example is for basketball) for every team member not located within their community. (example: LCC would add 5 for every basketball player not residing in the City of Lima.)

Public Schools would add 5 to their enrollment for every team member not residing within their school district. Big city public schools, such as Columbus, that do not have defined bounderies, would have a multiplier of 2.00.

OK... Tear this apart.... What do you think? This is just one person's opinion.

[Dman]

I understand exactly. Norwalk just did it. Their coach still wants a competitive balance proposal. Talk to the coaches of the teams you listed and see what they say via consensus.

It seems that those who champion the David versus Goliath theory of basketball tournament seeding are by and large fans of Goliath. I understand this. The odds are always in Goliath's favor even if the occasional pebble gets in the way.

It seems silly to keep supporting a system that benefits a few Goliath's at the expense of the majority David's. I don't doubt for one minute that it is real special for David when he succeeds...but even in victory (see Norwalk) David tends to know the deck was stacked and typically supports the use of a more traditional deck.

The term "special" should not be reserved for the David's. Goliath's could play in a "Goliath" division so those kids could also know what REAL accomplishment feels like too. Let's face it... A big Giant with every advantage competing in and winning the lower division looks and feels silly to everyone except those so close to the situation as to be blind to the whole picture. There is a reason those games are typically the least attended...and those that bother to show up get sore eyes from all the "rolling."

The system is broken. It does not work as intended. Nobody foresaw Div I players voluntarily playing down. Nobody foresaw teams recruiting multiple states...etc.

All the "David" stories in the world are no excuse for the adults to not try and correct the flaws in the system. Your local AAU tournament this weekend will have a more fair and universal seeding system than the OHSAA.

Edited by Dman, 28 March 2014 - 11:11 AM.

[Dman]

Waterloo:

I have not had a chance to study your system...but it looks good on the surface. But the point I opine is ANYTHING is more fair and reasonable than status quo circa 2014. Kids are playing down. Teams are recruiting out of state, in state... The model of "population" based seeding is useless to deal with the realities of 2014.

Draw out of a hat...play rock/scissors/paper...etc... Just don't give us St.Joe's versus LCC in next years DIV III tournament (as most rightfully predict) and pretend that those DIV I college athletes playing against smaller communities all the way to Cbus is some great feat...

I would think their own fans, players, and coaches would want a different challenge... Lord knows the fans do...

And please...should somebody upset one of these AAU juggernauts on their path to Ctown...let us not pretend that that is evidence to suggest the system works. The system sucks!

[FlightCrew]

I guess the only times I can remember it being totally unfair was VASJ inD4 last yr, Taft a few years back in D3, NCH in D3 and SVSM in 00-01 when they were D3.....

More often than not, the games are competitive....

I remember playing in college 20 yrs ago and I spoke with an old man regarding the talks in Indiana about splitting into 4 divisions to make it "fair".
He told me:
"The way I see it, you can only put 5 guys on the floor at a time, what makes a difference how big the school is?"

[Dman]

Let's look at it from the opposite angle. I will use LCC as the example.

First, let me state that these all seem like a very good kids, that play with heart, and high basketball intelligence. They are well coached. And generally a joy to watch play the game... My words always come out like I've got something against them, but the reality is that I respect the heck out of each of those individuals. They play the game the way that I enjoy the game being played. If a team like that makes every tournament I'm buying a ticket.

If we compare their make up all the other teams at Columbus across all classifications... I take the moment to note again that these are just my opinions. LCC has arguably the best point guard in the entire tournament. LCC has arguably the best shooting guard in the entire tournament. LCC has arguably a top 5 athlete on the floor that is not one of the two prior mentioned players. LCC 's team speed was arguably the best in the tournament. LCC was definitely lacking at the post. This was made up by the fact that they arguably had the single toughest competitor in the entire tournament, who showed more heart than anyone in the entire tournament playing the five spot. I could go on for hours praising other attributes of this team. Kill, for all his alleged antics, knows how to coach this game.

Does the team described above sound like a team that is best suited for Division III? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no. The system didn't just shortchange Poland, it shortchanged LCC too. There has to be a better way to classify these teams, or at least I would like to think the adults were willing to try.

In my opinion, LCC could have, and I'll even say would have made it to state in division II. Norwalk beat Bath by one. While I am aware of the fallacy of score comparison... Does anybody really believe that LCC did not have a chance to win the whole thing too?

Sadly, due to unexpected consequences of the way the system seeds teams...those LCC boys were denied the chance to compete against better competition that they stood a good chance of defeating.

There are so many different ways to make it better. ANYTHING would probably easily be argued to be more fair that this crazy idea that school enrollment size is somehow indicative of the quality of the basketball players on the roster. This why it doesn't really matter if the competitive balance proposal fails at the intended result. I guarantee you that status quo will fail. It has been failing for years.

I said it earlier, but it is worth repeating. Something as simple as allowing teams to choose to play up in the division of their choice could prove beneficial. Knowing those LCC boys and the toughness go their coach, etc...my hunch is they would choose to do so. They would choose on their own volition to play the toughest competition they deem themselves capable of defeating.

We will never really know how good the 2014 LCC basketball team was. The system seeded them too low so they were never able to demonstrate their peak capabilities. That is every bit as sad as what happened to the Poland boys.

No system could ever be perfect and there will always be inequities and bad luck. This does not mean that we should stick with the most antiquated selection process possible for 2014 realities... That is just kicking yourself in the nuts for no good reason.

[XMAS]

Dman,

How would you fix the seeding system?

[Dman]

I would allow me to pick the seeds in all divisions. :-D

[XMAS]

That is maybe the shortest posting you have ever made. You will be very busy watching all the teams play so you knnow where to seed them.

[slice slice baby]

XMAS, on 28 March 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

That is maybe the shortest posting you have ever made.

Haha! So true, but they're always top quality!

[milt73]

Let's just clarify, I'm not sure of any private school that intentionally keeps there numbers low. If you knew anything about private schools they need bodies to fill their halls just like any other school. If you think they keep their numbers low to have athletic success, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Just around our area, DSJ is very very small and getting smaller (to the point where people are asking how long it will keep open). LCC is on the verge of going into the smallest divisions in most of all sports and only a few kids above the D4 cut-off.

I like the multiplier that someone posted above concerning the size of the city that the private school existed. Although I think you'll find most private school exist in larger urban areas rather than smaller cities, towns. The population size might have to change a little bit.

[Mr Bearcat]

milt73, I understand Private Schools need students to keep the doors open. However since Private Schools don't have to accept all students, they can control their enrollment numbers.

[Bobby]

Mr Bearcat, on 29 March 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

milt73, I understand Private Schools need students to keep the doors open. However since Private Schools don't have to accept all students, they can control their enrollment numbers.

You seriously think a private school would turn away students just to increase their chances to win a trophy? Really? Would you risk your school's survival to win a trophy?

[Dman]

I think most private schools because they are better, or percieved as better, as educational institutions create demand. This makes them generally more attractive to parents. The limiting factor on demand is cost. In "many" cases where the cost can be mitigated (vouchers, scholarship, endowment, wealthy donors paying, etc) the private educations become valued assets. I believe that cost mitigating measures are utilized for great athletes at these institutions at a much higher level than for an average student.

This, I assume, is the reason the multiplier in the competitive balance proposal is based upon the ROSTER...not the total attendances.

While it may mean or do nothing...This approach is superior, in my opinion, as it looks at the individual sport and attempts to take affect exactly where the benefit or advantage is most potent...THE ROSTER.

Open enrollment, vouchers, recruitment, etc mean nothing unless the student actually plays the game. I don't quite understand the current model and recent discussion where we continue to fixate on overall "transfer" numbers. The guy who transfers in for FFA provides zero advantages to the basketball team.

[FlightCrew]

These transfers are player driven, parents just help make it happen.
I went from a terrible program where I hardly played to a stronger program where I played a lot and made deep tourney runs. I just talked my parents into making the change which was due to a multitude of reasons.

[Mr Bearcat]

Bobby, No I did Not say that! All I am saying is Private Schools do Not have to take all students, therefore indirectly control their enrollment.

[old coach]

What about the two players that were recruited back to LSH from Shawnee who both played football and basketball? Both opened enrolled at Shawnee then transferred back to LSH without missing a game.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 29 March 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

I believe that cost mitigating measures are utilized for great athletes at these institutions at a much higher level than for an average student.

IF this is the case I believe these schools are already running afoul of current rules. I would like to see some proof, though.