152 replies to this topic

[Dman]

http://www.stvm.com/...scholarship.php

Just the first Google response for one school...

[FlightCrew]

Definitely where my kids would go if we lived in Akron. Thanks for sharing and great for them. Awesome school!
My kids are still in elementary school and depending upon their academia and athleticism, we'll have a decision to make in a few years.

Edited by FlightCrew, 31 March 2014 - 07:20 AM.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 29 March 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

http://www.stvm.com/...scholarship.php

Just the first Google response for one school...

I didn't see anything about athletes receiving preference?

[waterloowonder]

paperboy, on 31 March 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

I didn't see anything about athletes receiving preference?

That would be recruiting, and is not legal.

[paperboy]

waterloowonder, on 31 March 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

That would be recruiting, and is not legal.

Yeah, I would think so, too. Dman believes it is happening, though.

[Dman]

Out of curiosity...is it your, or anybody's contention that none of these schools are willing to skirt athletic rules in order to become a better basketball team?

[FlightCrew]

I'm sure there are, but by and large, No. The majority of these schools want to do it the right way.
I've never understood why it is an issue for kids to transfer...the 1st time they should get a pass...after that, then they should have to sit out 50% of regular season of athletics with clock starting as soon as they arrive. If they play football, they sit 5 games.....if they don't play a fall sport and just play basketball or baseball, then they don't sit out at all.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 01 April 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

Out of curiosity...is it your, or anybody's contention that none of these schools are willing to skirt athletic rules in order to become a better basketball team?

Nope, I have no idea whether or not a school would do that.

[Dman]

We disagree on that point then. This is an issue because the OHSAA unanimously has made it an issue. If you believe that every program and every team/coach is pure as gold, and could never even conceive that anyone might go outside the rules or spirit of the rules to gain an advantage...? I am not capable of understanding that level of purity in fellow man... But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Edited by Dman, 01 April 2014 - 02:47 PM.

[Rd2Glory]

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.

It is not my argument that LCC has the exact same opportunities and access to talent as Ottoville because of open enrollment. However, I opine that this is a result of geography, rather than a public/private issue.

I do believe that Shawnee and Elida (and other public schools in "big" cities) have the exact same opportunities and access to DIV I talent as LCC due to open enrollment. I see no legitimate argument to the contrary in regards to access to DIV I talent. In fact, if anything, LCC has a disadvantage compared to schools like Shawnee/Elida/Bath because vouchers only cover a portion of tuition and are only available to a subset of the population, while public schools and open enrollment is "free" for all and open to everyone.

The next argument is that private schools can choose their students and control their enrollment. However, anyone who believes a small private school is declining to accept tuition money because the student is not an athlete is unfamiliar with the current economics of private schools and out of touch with reality. I would challenge anyone to provide a legitimate example of a kid who was turned away from LCC in recent years (cue the "Bruce Hodges" responses - do you really think that benefited LCC athletics?) The facts are that most private schools are on the brink of financial failure and are not turning any tuition money down.

I know that you keep saying "it's not a public-private debate, that's old hat." But I've seen you refer to the "17 percent" in your posts, and you certainly frame it as a public v. private debate.

I'm not arguing for the status quo. The status quo doesn't necessarily bother me, but frankly that's because I don't care enough about high school athletics to want to change it. I do realize that the b!+ching and moaning about private schools makes for miserable arguments every year, so, by all means, change it. I don't necessarily agree with the new proposal (I have my own idea of what I believe would be a "fair" system), but it's not too bad and certainly isn't grossly unfair to privates or publics. I hope it passes.

Edited by Rd2Glory, 01 April 2014 - 06:30 PM.

[Dman]

For about the 15th time discussing this topic with you, this is not a public versus private debate. I can understand that your bias is toward the private schools. Therefore, you may be sensitive to a discussion such as this and read into words...finding meaning that is not intended. For me, and me only, my interest in this discussion is finding a more fair means of selecting basketball tournament participants.

I agree with your assessment that Elida, Bath, etc. should have similar access to talent as LCC. I will admit I don't really care, as I prefer to root for small school basketball. The examples you use are playing Division II. This really feeds into those who argue that the real problem with border stretching is the inequities it exponentially inflicts upon small school division basketball. Kids transferring into division I and II programs has an effect, but not as potent an effect as transfers do in the smaller divisions. As stated at least a couple times, when the system was designed nobody was predicting that division I and II talent would voluntarily leave a higher division to compete for a trophy in a smaller division.

The times have changed. I opine that the system should change with it. Apparently the OHSAA and many coaches/communities agree.

The 17%ers...I believe (feel free to check) was in response to those who make the argument that Poland's coach is somehow an embarrassed enigma. I don't believe this argument to be anywhere near reality. I'm not sure how that relates to the competitive balance proposal discussion?

As for your argument that it is geographical...I again agree. That is why I like the framework of the proposal. Geography, public, private, recruitment, etc...are all treated exactly the same. The point, for me, is the why and how a person gets to a program from outside the borders...while fun to debate...really means nothing. We cannot prevent or control movement. But I think almost everybody recognizes that certain programs have benefitted greatly from the transfer phenomenon. We may not agree whether it is worth doing anything about, or about how to change the system, etc... But there are inequities in status quo that were not easily foreseen when the current system was created. I'm on the side of the people who prefer to change the system rather than accept these unforeseen realities as permanent.

Edited by Dman, 01 April 2014 - 08:27 PM.

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 01 April 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

For about the 15th time discussing this topic with you, this is not a public versus private debate. I can understand that your bias is toward the private schools. Therefore, you may be sensitive to a discussion such as this and read into words...finding meaning that is not intended. For me, and me only, my interest in this discussion is finding a more fair means of selecting basketball tournament participants.

I agree with your assessment that Elida, Bath, etc. should have similar access to talent as LCC. I will admit I don't really care, as I prefer to root for small school basketball. The examples you use are playing Division II. This really feeds into those who argue that the real problem with border stretching is the inequities it exponentially inflicts upon small school division basketball. As stated at least a couple times, when the system was designed nobody was predicting that division I and II talent would voluntarily leave a higher division to compete for a trophy in a smaller division.

The times have changed. I opine that the system should change with it. Apparently the OHSAA and many coaches/communities agree.

Then stop referring to the "17 percent" and "LCC versus Ottoville" in your posts regarding the topic. We have both stated that we agree it is a geographical issue, rather than a public/private issue. When you refer to the "17 percent" having an advantage and use LCC in EVERY single example, YOU are framing the debate as public versus private.

[Dman]

I think the point would be that I've said nothing about the 17%ers having any advantage. You are confusing different discussions/topics...I think. One discussion was about Poland's coach. The conversation you and I are discussing is the competitive balance proposal, or different ways to classify teams for tournament purposes.

Either way...it seems we agree on some of the causes, while possibly not agreeing on the solution...or if there is a need for the solution. Good discussion...