2020 Competitive Balance In Ohio High School Football

 
All schools (even Hoban) needs to have the same set of rules. It's no different then SVSM being D2 in basketball. Just because a school has a exceptional program should not mean that they should be penalized or treated differently.
 
Bball216 said:
Just because a school has a exceptional program should not mean that they should be penalized or treated differently.
Click to expand...
Then the system isn't working. When a parochial team wins five state titles in six years and most of the games aren't close... there is no competitive balance. Either change the rules or call it something else. How about adding to their total based on how far their players moved to come to school there? When a result remains a consistent outlier, it is always because it is operating under different conditions than the rest of the dataset. And, in Ohio football, that different condition is how players end up playing at a certain school.
 
When I read this it looks like it’s working at keeping the Private Schools from winning championships, but not the MAC? Maybe include cows, pigs and chickens to the competitive balance number and the MAC will start playing in D1.
 
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
Then the system isn't working. When a parochial team wins five state titles in six years and most of the games aren't close... there is no competitive balance. Either change the rules or call it something else. How about adding to their total based on how far their players moved to come to school there? When a result remains a consistent outlier, it is always because it is operating under different conditions than the rest of the dataset. And, in Ohio football, that different condition is how players end up playing at a certain school.
Click to expand...
Well said. Bball216 obviously doesn't have a clue about "competitive balance".
 
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
I don't care if Akron Hoban only has 90 students in the whole school. If they aren't moved to D1 next year, then competitive balance is a total joke.
Click to expand...
Why is Hoban's success any different than Newark Catholic's (back in its heyday)-- or Moeller's -- or Ig's? Why are you not interested in seeing Maria Stein Marion Local (which appeared in every state title game for 9 straight years, winning 7 of them-- most by large margins) moved up? What difference does it make HOW a school got to that level of dominance-- shouldn't a dominant team be moved up? Or is it only dominant private schools that should be moved up, in your assessment?

i really don't see a lot of difference in what Hoban is doing now-- and what Ed and Ig are/were doing for many decades-- except Hoban is doing it down in the Akron area, instead of up in Cleveland-- it appears that Hoban is nothing more than the successor to Mooney's legacy-- the coach at Hoban has apparently supplanted Mooney's coach, at being able to attract the best players in the Akron/Canton/Youngstown SMSA-- with (really) only Massillon still competing for those players' interest any more-- McKinley and Mooney have fallen back (as have Ursuline, SVSM, Padua, Hoover, Fitch, and probably a host of others)-- it seems like it's partly due to Hoban's coach being somewhat unique in his skills (a` la Kyle, Trivisano, etc.)-- but even more importantly it's that the other schools are not really showing much ability to contest (either for players or victories on the field)...even Massillon-- despite the big-dollar recruitment of Moore (and multiple elite players) are not really competing well for the top players-- in part, it would appear, because Hoban's coach is doing more with the top players, when he gets them, than Massillon's Moore is.
 
4GX said:
Why is Hoban's success any different than Newark Catholic's (back in its heyday)-- or Moeller's -- or Ig's? Why are you not interested in seeing Maria Stein Marion Local (which appeared in every state title game for 9 straight years, winning 7 of them-- most by large margins) moved up? What difference does it make HOW a school got to that level of dominance-- shouldn't a dominant team be moved up? Or is it only dominant private schools that should be moved up, in your assessment?
Click to expand...

It is not much different, if any.
Good point on small publics. Namely MAC. And Kirtland. Talk about dominance. I don't know if they should be moved up or at least be given the option to. But no question they being public schools, they are more palatable to the general public. And understandably imo. Right or wrong.

Taken to it's exponential limit, would an IMG Academy type school be welcomed in Ohio? Or for an entire region, say NE or SE OH? As long as the same recruiting guidelines applied? Far fetched, but not that far fetched anymore as these trends continue.
 
4GX said:
Why is Hoban's success any different than Newark Catholic's (back in its heyday)-- or Moeller's -- or Ig's? Why are you not interested in seeing Maria Stein Marion Local (which appeared in every state title game for 9 straight years, winning 7 of them-- most by large margins) moved up? What difference does it make HOW a school got to that level of dominance-- shouldn't a dominant team be moved up? Or is it only dominant private schools that should be moved up, in your assessment?

i really don't see a lot of difference in what Hoban is doing now-- and what Ed and Ig are/were doing for many decades-- except Hoban is doing it down in the Akron area, instead of up in Cleveland-- it appears that Hoban is nothing more than the successor to Mooney's legacy-- the coach at Hoban has apparently supplanted Mooney's coach, at being able to attract the best players in the Akron/Canton/Youngstown SMSA-- with (really) only Massillon still competing for those players' interest any more-- McKinley and Mooney have fallen back (as have Ursuline, SVSM, Padua, Hoover, Fitch, and probably a host of others)-- it seems like it's partly due to Hoban's coach being somewhat unique in his skills (a` la Kyle, Trivisano, etc.)-- but even more importantly it's that the other schools are not really showing much ability to contest (either for players or victories on the field)...even Massillon-- despite the big-dollar recruitment of Moore (and multiple elite players) are not really competing well for the top players-- in part, it would appear, because Hoban's coach is doing more with the top players, when he gets them, than Massillon's Moore is.
Click to expand...

4GX, I agree with you on a lot of things but how can you compare small school success to Div. 1/2/3 parochial schools who have a huge area to pull in all kinds of athletes plus having hundreds and hundreds of more students? The Maria Stein/Kirtland's of Ohio have around the same number of boys class to class and very rarely have kids move in, if at all, so what it comes down to is the MAC/Kirtland schools is community support/culture, coaching/how the programs are ran, and competition. within the leagues. They work with what they have regardless of kids. Can you say the same parochial schools (big and small) who has some new names/roster turnover yearly? Why go after the small public schools for their success with no outside help and relying on the rosters they have to get success from? This has been decades long argument/topic for both basketball and football. There's never going to be a good answer, IMO.
 
Insane92 said:
4GX, I agree with you on a lot of things but how can you compare small school success to Div. 1/2/3 parochial schools who have a huge area to pull in all kinds of athletes plus having hundreds and hundreds of more students? The Maria Stein/Kirtland's of Ohio have around the same number of boys class to class and very rarely have kids move in, if at all, so what it comes down to is the MAC/Kirtland schools is community support/culture, coaching/how the programs are ran, and competition. within the leagues. They work with what they have regardless of kids. Can you say the same parochial schools (big and small) who has some new names/roster turnover yearly? Why go after the small public schools for their success with no outside help and relying on the rosters they have to get success from? This has been decades long argument/topic for both basketball and football. There's never going to be a good answer, IMO.
Click to expand...
But the original post was complaining about "dominance" and wanting to restore "competitive balance"-- not the methods that dominance has been established -- why does it matter what methods are used to establish dominance? If you want to see competitive balance, shouldn't you want to see it restored, regardless of WHY one team is dominant? There has never been a more sustained run of dominance than Marion Local had from 2011-2019-- with most of ML's wins in the final not being close-- but no one seems to talk about trying to move ML back up from Division VII...
 
4GX said:
But the original post was complaining about "dominance" and wanting to restore "competitive balance"-- not the methods that dominance has been established -- why does it matter what methods are used to establish dominance? If you want to see competitive balance, shouldn't you want to see it restored, regardless of WHY one team is dominant? There has never been a more sustained run of dominance than Marion Local had from 2011-2019-- with most of ML's wins in the final not being close-- but no one seems to talk about trying to move ML back up from Division VII...
Click to expand...
I will be honest with you. I believe people do not like seeing these private schools dominate the upper divisions and are fine with the smaller publics winning (I have definitely fallen in to this category more than once). I think that is what it boils down to for most.
 
Bball216 said:
All schools (even Hoban) needs to have the same set of rules. It's no different then SVSM being D2 in basketball. Just because a school has a exceptional program should not mean that they should be penalized or treated differently.
Click to expand...
In my mind it depends on the situation. A question for Hoban supporters. How many of your varsity players started school at Hoban as 14-year old freshman?

If a school has a majority of their varsity team spend all four years at a school, then I believe people are making too much of the area pull and putting too little on the coaches and program building. Just because a kid is really good as an 8th grader, it doesn’t mean they are an automatic dominant D1 recruit as an upperclassman. There is a lot of effort, coaching, and buy in to bring these young men to an elite level and I don’t believe a school should be moved up or punished because of that.

If the converse is true, a school sits back and brings in proven upperclassmen, then yes, that is a problem. Something feels wrong about that in the spirit of competition and yes they should be moved up.

Also, in the end, how did it shake out at the championship level? How many D1-D2-D3 college recruits were on the field for Massillon and Hoban? If that number was comparable, then I think CB is doing pretty good, especially when you look across all divisions.
 
No one can deny that Pickerington Central as a public school competes in DI as they've made the state final four for the last five year winning two state titles and playing in a third while losing twice in the state semi-finals
 
John74 said:
In my mind it depends on the situation. A question for Hoban supporters. How many of your varsity players started school at Hoban as 14-year old freshman?

If a school has a majority of their varsity team spend all four years at a school, then I believe people are making too much of the area pull and putting too little on the coaches and program building. Just because a kid is really good as an 8th grader, it doesn’t mean they are an automatic dominant D1 recruit as an upperclassman. There is a lot of effort, coaching, and buy in to bring these young men to an elite level and I don’t believe a school should be moved up or punished because of that.

If the converse is true, a school sits back and brings in proven upperclassmen, then yes, that is a problem. Something feels wrong about that in the spirit of competition and yes they should be moved up.

Also, in the end, how did it shake out at the championship level? How many D1-D2-D3 college recruits were on the field for Massillon and Hoban? If that number was comparable, then I think CB is doing pretty good, especially when you look across all divisions.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to Hoban's practices, with regard to "4-year" players-- it sounds like they have transfers coming in. Clearly, Massillon does.

In Cincinnati, most top football schools seem to have their players for 4 years-- Colerain did, Elder does, Moeller (usually) did, LaSalle I think so (though I don't really know)... X does not take transfers in at all (any year), unless they attended a Jesuit HS in another part of the country (and then the family moved to Cincinnati)-- I only remember one case, where a player came into X as a senior not coming from a fellow Jesuit HS-- and that was a special circumstance, driven by some issues that led to his departure from Moeller-- with the mutual agreement of the administrations at both X and Moeller.
 
4GX said:
Why is Hoban's success any different than Newark Catholic's (back in its heyday)-- or Moeller's -- or Ig's? Why are you not interested in seeing Maria Stein Marion Local (which appeared in every state title game for 9 straight years, winning 7 of them-- most by large margins) moved up? What difference does it make HOW a school got to that level of dominance-- shouldn't a dominant team be moved up? Or is it only dominant private schools that should be moved up, in your assessment?

i really don't see a lot of difference in what Hoban is doing now-- and what Ed and Ig are/were doing for many decades-- except Hoban is doing it down in the Akron area, instead of up in Cleveland-- it appears that Hoban is nothing more than the successor to Mooney's legacy-- the coach at Hoban has apparently supplanted Mooney's coach, at being able to attract the best players in the Akron/Canton/Youngstown SMSA-- with (really) only Massillon still competing for those players' interest any more-- McKinley and Mooney have fallen back (as have Ursuline, SVSM, Padua, Hoover, Fitch, and probably a host of others)-- it seems like it's partly due to Hoban's coach being somewhat unique in his skills (a` la Kyle, Trivisano, etc.)-- but even more importantly it's that the other schools are not really showing much ability to contest (either for players or victories on the field)...even Massillon-- despite the big-dollar recruitment of Moore (and multiple elite players) are not really competing well for the top players-- in part, it would appear, because Hoban's coach is doing more with the top players, when he gets them, than Massillon's Moore is.
Click to expand...
Totally different model. Hoban is gaming the system. Nothing against Hoban because it IS the system.
 
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
I don't care if Akron Hoban only has 90 students in the whole school. If they aren't moved to D1 next year, then competitive balance is a total joke.
Click to expand...
CB has done wonders but this is the only aspect it has not addressed. Hoban and to a slightly lessor degree Lasalle and TCC should all be DI.

And people cite Pickerington Central as proof that CB is not required. This is wrong. DI does not need CB as much as the lower divisions because once you get to a certain point of boys you should be competitive. Do the Catholic's still have some advantages? Sure, but nothing like the way some lower division private schools have gamed the system to their athletics programs advantage.
 
4GX said:
Why is Hoban's success any different than Newark Catholic's (back in its heyday)-- or Moeller's -- or Ig's? Why are you not interested in seeing Maria Stein Marion Local (which appeared in every state title game for 9 straight years, winning 7 of them-- most by large margins) moved up? What difference does it make HOW a school got to that level of dominance-- shouldn't a dominant team be moved up? Or is it only dominant private schools that should be moved up, in your assessment?
Click to expand...
The so-called "competitive balance" did not exist back then... it does exist now. All I have said is either have the real thing or call it something else. IT should apply equally to public as well as private schools. All the so-called "competitive balance" system is now is a conversion factor for certain students at the parochials. It is a joke as a "competitive" system. If Hoban, Marion Local, Coldwater, X, or any others at any level are going to be long-term perennial dominant state qualifiers, then they should be "promoted" until there is more parity. The whole point to "competitive balance" is that the competition is balanced... which is not what we have, parochial NOR public.

By the way, I used to be a HUGE supporter of the parochials in the public/parochial argument. However, when I see a team like Massillon (of whom I am NOT a fan) reach the finals SIX times and come away with SIX losses, ALL to parochials... even I have to admit something is seriously wrong. But, the bigger problem is the LIE we call "competitive balance".
 
Last edited:
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
The so-called "competitive balance" did not exist back then... it does exist now. All I have said is either have the real thing or call it something else. IT should apply equally to public as well as private schools. All the so-called "competitive balance" system is now is a conversion factor for certain students at the parochials. It is a joke as a "competitive" system. If Hoban, Marion Local, Coldwater, X, or any others at any level are going to be long-term perennial dominant state qualifiers, then they should be "promoted" until there is more parity. The whole point to "competitive balance" is that the competition is balanced... which is not what we have, parochial NOR public.

By the way, I used to be a HUGE supporter of the parochials in the public/parochial argument. However, when I see a team like Massillon (of whom I am NOT a fan) reach the finals SIX times and come away with SIX losses, ALL to parochials... even I have to admit something is seriously wrong.
Click to expand...
Why should the younger students in the Marion Local or Kirtland school system, or any school system following the rules, be “punished” for the success of those that came before them?

Just speaking on the public side, if kids are winning championships because they outwork others in their division and become better students of the game, then why would it be any way “fair” to bump them up a division to reduce their success. Many don’t want to hear it because they truly think their little Johnnys and Joes work just as hard. But do they really?

We like to try to re-engineer things as adults to make them more fair and equitable. We say that the teams that are absolutely dominant should relish the chance at stepping up divisions and challenging themselves. I think that is absolutely silly. If a team like ML, Coldwater, or Kirtland can energize their youth and build a program doing the right things, who had the right to judge how tough their road should be to win a championship?
 
Wish Ohio would have an Open Division that allowed for transfers to play immediately and let all of the powerhouse programs just go at it each and every season. I would love to see programs that are absolutely stacked with transfers go at it.
 
John74 said:
We say that the teams that are absolutely dominant should relish the chance at stepping up divisions and challenging themselves. I think that is absolutely silly.
Click to expand...
Then don't call it "competitive balance." It doesn't balance anything and doesn't make anything more competitive. A TRUE, REAL promotion/relegation system does... this doesn't.
 
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
The so-called "competitive balance" did not exist back then... it does exist now. All I have said is either have the real thing or call it something else. IT should apply equally to public as well as private schools. All the so-called "competitive balance" system is now is a conversion factor for certain students at the parochials. It is a joke as a "competitive" system. If Hoban, Marion Local, Coldwater, X, or any others at any level are going to be long-term perennial dominant state qualifiers, then they should be "promoted" until there is more parity. The whole point to "competitive balance" is that the competition is balanced... which is not what we have, parochial NOR public.

By the way, I used to be a HUGE supporter of the parochials in the public/parochial argument. However, when I see a team like Massillon (of whom I am NOT a fan) reach the finals SIX times and come away with SIX losses, ALL to parochials... even I have to admit something is seriously wrong.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with your statement-- when a school is dominant at a lower level, keep moving them up, until they either reach the top level-- or become more evenly "competed with" at whatever level they have risen to-- and if that school starts to decline in competitiveness, at the level they have risen to (above their "natural level", driven solely by enrollment numbers) then let that school move back down, to its "natural level" of competition based on its enrollment... this is (somewhat) how the promotion/relegation scheme works in European soccer-- and US football could do with something similar (though the Bengals and Browns would have both been moved down out of the NFL's top division, had it been the system here).

As for Massillon losing six finals without winning one (all to Catholic schools), that is just a combination of coincidence and the fact that the other dominant region in Big School football has been Southwest Ohio-- which is dominated by Catholic schools... If Massillon had faced Colerain in 2005, instead of X (X beat Colerain that year in the playoffs, 7-6 in a terrific game)-- Colerain would have beaten Massillon too-- Colerain was the second-best team in the state that year. In 1980 and 1982, when Moeller beat Massillon easily both years, Princeton (a public) gave Moeller better games during the season-- it's likely that Princeton would have beaten Massillon both of those years, had Princeton gotten by Moeller-- in fact, Princeton did beat Massillon in the very first year of the state playoffs-- in the semifinals... and went on to win the title 3 times, during that period of Moeller's dominance...I see no reason that Massillon's lack of success in the final should somehow be pinned on parochial school dominance or construed as an indictment of the competitive quality of Big School football...

I know that CB was not around when Newark Catholic was at its peak-- CB is only ~4-5 years old.
 
Last edited:
By the way... I also want to say that discussions around this subject have been occurring for years. Many of the posts on here are some of the most insightful and thought-provoking I've seen. The Yappi community continues to drive fandom in Ohio and I thank the Yappi site owners for giving us a place to voice our opinions.
 
4GX said:
I think I agree with your statement-- when a school is dominant at a lower level, keep moving them up, until they either reach the top level-- or become more evenly "competed with" at whatever level they have risen to-- and if that school starts to decline in competitiveness, at the level they have risen to (above their "natural level", driven solely by enrollment numbers) then let that school move back down, to its "natural level" of competition based on its enrollment... this is (somewhat) how the promotion/relegation scheme works in European soccer-- and US football could do with something similar (though the Bengals and Browns would have both been moved down out of the NFL's top division, had it been the system here).

As for Massillon losing six finals without winning one (all to Catholic schools), that is just a combination of coincidence and the fact that the other dominant region in Big School football has been Southwest Ohio-- which is dominated by Catholic schools... If Massillon had faced Colerain in 2005, instead of X (X beat Colerain that year in the playoffs, 7-6 in a terrific game)-- Colerain would have beaten Massillon too-- Colerain was the second-best team in the state that year. In 1980 and 1982, when Moeller beat Massillon easily both years, Princeton (a public) gave Moeller better games during the season-- it's likely that Princeton would have beaten Massillon both of those years, had Princeton gotten by Moeller-- in fact, Princeton did beat Massillon in the very first year of the state playoffs-- in the semifinals... and went on to win the title 3 times, during that period of Moeller's dominance...I see no reason that Massillon's lack of success in the final should somehow be pinned on parochial school dominance or construed as an indictment of the competitive quality of Big School football...

I know that CB was not around when Newark Catholic was at its peak-- CB is only ~4-5 years old.
Click to expand...
If the successful program is doing it with home grown talent and puts a winning team on the field every year, I would wholeheartedly disagree with moving them up divisions to make their success less likely. These are high school kids playing for their community, not a feeder system for talent. A kid in ML’s junior high shouldn’t have his dream of winning a state championship hindered because adults feel that the teams before him were “too successful”. If a ML, Coldwater, or Kirtland can build a dominant program through following the rules and doing the right things, it’s up to the other less successful schools to emulate them, not the governing body to hinder them.

As far as parochial schools and public schools that recruit, that is a different animal. That is like having feeder teams to pull talent from. And I believe the CB formula is working. It may need tweaked, but the days of super teams playing in D3-D5 seems to be reducing.
 
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
The so-called "competitive balance" did not exist back then... it does exist now. All I have said is either have the real thing or call it something else. IT should apply equally to public as well as private schools. All the so-called "competitive balance" system is now is a conversion factor for certain students at the parochials. It is a joke as a "competitive" system. If Hoban, Marion Local, Coldwater, X, or any others at any level are going to be long-term perennial dominant state qualifiers, then they should be "promoted" until there is more parity. The whole point to "competitive balance" is that the competition is balanced... which is not what we have, parochial NOR public.

By the way, I used to be a HUGE supporter of the parochials in the public/parochial argument. However, when I see a team like Massillon (of whom I am NOT a fan) reach the finals SIX times and come away with SIX losses, ALL to parochials... even I have to admit something is seriously wrong. But, the bigger problem is the LIE we call "competitive balance".
Click to expand...
Fine. We’ll just call it balance. The only people complaining are adults. Never heard a kid complaining about competitive balance. The bottom line is, the good schools make sure to have a good coach. Whether public or private, the good schools have a good coach.
 
Moving up Kirtland because they flat out do things better and out work their competition is comical. Penalize a team for doing everything right and make it easier for the teams that dont work as hard to be successful - that is just like the everybody gets a trophy theory. I feel the public schools with open enrollment should be counted and treated just like a private. Massillon fans complain more then anybody about this - yet they actually beat Hoban last year and choked in the title game. The game results were pretty even this year - weren't they. I find it funny how teams would rather lower the bar then do what Kirtland did and make yourself better.
 
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
Then the system isn't working. When a parochial team wins five state titles in six years and most of the games aren't close... there is no competitive balance. Either change the rules or call it something else. How about adding to their total based on how far their players moved to come to school there? When a result remains a consistent outlier, it is always because it is operating under different conditions than the rest of the dataset. And, in Ohio football, that different condition is how players end up playing at a certain school.
Click to expand...
Then the public schools that have open enrollment should be treated the same as the privates.
 
tom_hsfootball_fan said:
If Hoban, Marion Local, Coldwater, X, or any others at any level are going to be long-term perennial dominant state qualifiers, then they should be "promoted" until there is more parity. The whole point to "competitive balance" is that the competition is balanced... which is not what we have, parochial NOR public.
Click to expand...
I've said this before and I'll say it again but I'm sure I will have many people who totally disagree with me.

Division II and below IS the original "competitive balance". It was designed to give smaller schools a chance that they would not have playing the bigger schools. IMO, if a school wins a state championship in a lower division, they should be moved up the next year. If they win again, move up again. They can drop back down to their enrollment based division when they fail to win (or they can choose to stay in that division one more year). I believe that no team should win the same division state championship two years in a row except for Division I.

It should be a goal for all teams to play in DI. What a great story it would be to see Kirtland playing DI in 2024 because they kept winning as they moved up.
 
CB leaves alot to be desired. I esp. hate to see average teams (public or private) with average talent get bumped up. Not all CB's are the same, or even athletically driven. A 1st team All-Ohioan gets the same CB as some non-starting non-college prospect. Perry got bumped up to D1 in 2017 over it. (around 20 CB points). What did that help? Dayton Belmont and Columbus Independence got bumped up to D2 this year. That is borderline cruel. Cleveland Central Catholic's 92 ain't on the same planet as LaSalle's 87. It's madness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top