Yes, they should.Then the public schools that have open enrollment should be treated the same as the privates.
No, it could never be something like this that so many people on this board have tried to explain...Maybe it has something to do with the programs, coaching, community involvement, and the attitude of the players.
Sounds like a city to me.I have no idea, I lived no where near Akron. I'm from a small town of just over 9,000
I mean to state a small city and ended up writing down town.Sounds like a city to me.
Ok I see your point, however there are quite a few here in Cincinnati is my point so if the best athletes choose to go parochial schools they are never all at 1 school. Just doesn't happen. It looks like it's Akron St. V or Akron Hoban in the Akron area. Akron has always been filled w athletes. Now you throw in the best kids from surrounding school districts who are failing also & you have what Hoban has created. But to say CB is working is laughable. Here i am thinking my 15 minute commute was bad lol low & behold I'm reading kids coming an hr or so away to attend school. Moeller had a bball kid coming from Xenia so I guess this is the new but Moeller is D1 so CB doesn't effect them.
They may not be the only choices but Hoban is winning and sending kids off to college. They are attractive to any parents in search of education, winning in football, and sending kids to schoolWalsh Jesuit I'm sure pulls some Akron kids.
If you count neighboring Cardinal Stritch, Toledo has 4. Not like Hoban and TCC are the only choices in either city.
This topic comes up every year with the same arguments and the same complaints. This formula should open up the chances for a championship shot But somehow, I think that the same teams will be fighting for the trophies every year no matter what formula is used. Maybe it has something to do with the programs, coaching, community involvement, and the attitude of the players.
Where is there a school like this? What school has 80 incoming (i.e.-a ~320 total enrollment), with 50 of those kids even PLAYING football (let alone being "good football players"), and the other 30 are "good at other sports"? This would be evidenced by a school having a 50-strong freshman football team, and then also having a freshman/JV soccer team with ~15 players, a frosh/JV golf team with ~7 frosh players, and a frosh/JV cross-country team with ~8 frosh runners (since those are the other fall sports-- and the other 30 incoming freshmen are all "good at other sports")... that would truly seem to meet your description of "selective admissions"-- but I'd like to know where such a school exists (outside of maybe IMG Academy-- which I don't think enrolls even 80 kids each year)?... Oh, and I'm assuming you're not talking about a Catholic school, since "no pesky 4 year religious requirement" hardly describes a Catholic school...Hard to argue against that DC. When you have selective admissions, an incoming class is 80, and 50 are good football players, and the other 30 are good at other sports, and you welcome hs transfers, and no pesky 4 year religious requirement, that is a pretty good recipe for competitive success.
Why? Why (other than it is your opinion-- and the school you support has done well under the current system) is the system you are advocating for "the right one"? Why is it appropriate (and, apparently, according to you, ONLY appropriate) to "move them (schools) up because they are getting kids from outside their designated 'pull zones'"? You have stated this opinion multiple times-- but what are the underlying reasons why you believe this to be appropriate?I think they should just keep tweaking the CB numbers/multipliers and never go to the Success factor.
You dont move schools up beacuse they are winning, you move them up because they are getting kids from outside their designated pull zones.
Simple really.Why? Why (other than it is your opinion-- and the school you support has done well under the current system) is the system you are advocating for "the right one"? Why is it appropriate (and, apparently, according to you, ONLY appropriate) to "move them (schools) up because they are getting kids from outside their designated 'pull zones'"? You have stated this opinion multiple times-- but what are the underlying reasons why you believe this to be appropriate?
If the system of moving schools up is called "Competitive Balance", the purpose of it (ostensibly, if the name MEANS anything) is to balance the results of the competition; regardless of whether the competition has become unbalanced because one (or more) schools are training/coaching their players better or because one (or more) schools are getting better players to start with, what difference does it make? The competition is STILL unbalanced, regardless of the reasons for that-- Marion Local was not competitively balanced with the teams that it was facing in that 10-year run of 7 championships in 9 finals-- any more than Moeller was competitively balanced in their run of 7 championships in 9 finals in ~10 years. There was no where to "move Moeller up" TO (so they did OTHER things to limit Moeller's competitive edge-- like making out-of-state players ineligible)-- but there is an obvious solution to Marion Local's dominance of the competition.
We could draw a parallel to our graduated federal income tax system-- this is a "wealth re-distribution" system, a socialist mechanism designed to re-distribute the wealth created in our country (a form of BALANCING the RESULTS of economic COMPETITION), in a more even fashion than a simple flat tax would do-- those who make far more are taxed at higher rates than those who make far less. We don't ONLY apply the higher income tax rates to those (like the Kennedys, or our current president-- and, yes-- I get the irony of this example-- as he apparently doesn't pay taxes at rates even close to what middle-class people do!) who were born extremely wealthy and have always had high income (which would be analogous to schools who START with an elevated talent pool of top athletes)-- NO, we ALSO tax at MUCH higher rates those, like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page (Google founders), Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, who MADE their own wealth, after starting out in lower-class, or middle-class circumstances (the "self-made billionaires")-- we don't give them a pass on the dramatically higher tax rates, just because they were NOT rich to start with--NO, we say that we are going to tax their much greater economic results at a higher rate, even though they obtained those much greater economic results solely through their hard work and greater smarts/insights (which would be analogous to schools that do extraordinary things with their modest inputs, like Marion Local, Kirtland, and Coldwater)...
If the goal is to balance competitive results, why is it only acceptable to balance the competition based on the inputs, and not on the outcomes? In horse-racing, the best horses eventually run against competitors carrying additional weight (the "handicap")-- in order to try to balance the competitive results. (Man o' War eventually was sometimes running with 25-33% more weight than his competitors!) The handicappers are trying to get a closely contested competition. Are we not trying to get closely contested competition here in Ohio HS football-- or are we in fact trying to ensure that certain schools (that, for one reason or another, we don't "LIKE" as much) don't win all the time?
Said another way, why is achieving dominance with a group of kids from the local neighborhood somehow more virtuous than achieving dominance with kids from all over? Miami University was dominant for a lengthy period in the 1980's-90's in college football, using a group of players almost exclusively from Florida (and even just South Florida)-- while Notre Dame and Penn State (and Ohio State!) were bringing in players from a MUCH broader national recruiting base, to try to compete with that-- yet, Miami was widely disparaged as the "bad guys" (the villains) of college football at the time, while Notre Dame, and Penn State were seen as the "good guys" that a bigger majority of college football fans "pulled for" against the Evil Empire of the Miami Hurricanes.
You are correct Hoban got in trouble for contacting a kid in a catholic middle school a few years back without permission.I think you’re wrong. No parochial coach can speak to an individual kid before being contacted by him or his parent. Now said Hoban coach did go into a Summit County parochial grade school and speak to a group of students. In that case the school’s Principal was the parent of a former Hoban player and let him do it. Unseemly, yes.
Where is there a school like this? What school has 80 incoming (i.e.-a ~320 total enrollment), with 50 of those kids even PLAYING football (let alone being "good football players"), and the other 30 are "good at other sports"?
Using your words, why "punish" a school that wins with kids NOT from their district? What is the inherent reason that doing THAT (punishing schools who win with kids not from their "district") is somehow virtuous? You've not answered that question. (Especially given that ANY school could CHOOSE to try to draw from a broader area-- at one time, Hoban did not; now, apparently, they do.) You keep saying "they should be taxed"-- WHY SHOULD they be? If your answer is that it allows them to dominate the results, then we are back to the other question you did not answer:Simple really.
It is called competitive balance in high school athletics.
By nature, HS pull from a certain area in your district.
When programs, public with OE or private outside of their designated feeder schools, get players from outside of said district they should be taxed/multiplied like they are currently doing.
That is how you achieve said balance, not by moving teams up simply because they win. If a team wins and dominates by playing with kids in their district why punish that school?
It's is high school, not college and allowing a free for all of talent.
What a crazy analogy, their is a difference between a skier choosing a more difficult course than being forced to do so. New Bremen def. Marion Local on their way to a state championship, I think the Cards almost got as much satisfaction out of def. ML, and LCC than actually winning state. The challenge is what makes the reward worth it, if you don't understand that you don't like to compete.I also don't agree with your constant characterization of moving up as "punishment"-- I consider it "reward"-- you go on to challenge yourself with more difficult challenges, when you've demonstrated high proficiency with lesser challenges-- it's just like a skier moving up to Black Diamond runs, after mastering the Beginner (Green) and Intermediate (Blue) runs-- or a surfer moving up to bigger waves, after mastering the smaller ones-- that's not punishment-- it's reward!
I look at it the opposite way. Outside of the 72 teams in Division I, the other 650+/- schools are being rewarded with an opportunity to win a lower division championship. It is a good and fair reward because it makes HS football more interesting. Once you've won a championship in a lower division, you should move up to the next division for at least one year. Keep winning, keep moving up.Using your words, why "punish" a school that wins with kids NOT from their district? What is the inherent reason that doing THAT (punishing schools who win with kids not from their "district") is somehow virtuous? You've not answered that question. (Especially given that ANY school could CHOOSE to try to draw from a broader area-- at one time, Hoban did not; now, apparently, they do.) You keep saying "they should be taxed"-- WHY SHOULD they be?
The split isn’t arbitrary. If it was truly arbitrary you could see Mentor, Vanlue, Steubenville, and Windham all in the same division. That can never happen because the split isn’t arbitrary - it’s based on enrollment.The lower 6 divisions are split up with arbitrary numbers that don't reflect a school's ability to field a competitive team.
It is arbitrary. It is not a system to find the best quality teams or best fit for ability to field a competitive team. Enrollment is arbitrary, just the same as if they put all red teams in one division, all blue teams in a division, and all green teams in a division. Arbitrary does not necessarily mean random.The split isn’t arbitrary. If it was truly arbitrary you could see Mentor, Vanlue, Steubenville, and Windham all in the same division. That can never happen because the split isn’t arbitrary - it’s based on enrollment.
OK-- now that you've named some hypothetical examples, let's look at the facts:Hoban, TCC off the top of my head. Didn't look up smaller divisions but am guessing similar ratios. Though I just realized the divisional numbers are only based on 3 classes not 4. Correct? So Hoban for instance, incoming class is probably just over 100. You can obviously transfer there from a public hs, and/or just for 1 year. Some are more strict. D1 privates can have > 100+ freshmen teams. And several are elite across many sports. Just stating facts not accusations. Academic outcomes are similar. In the vast majority of cases, it is simply a fundamentally superior model.
Yeah-- what a crazy analogy-- You don't choose a more difficult ski run or wave because you are forced to do so-- you do it to challenge yourself (even more); as you note, New Bremen probably got as much satisfaction out of beating ML, as winning the state title-- had they NOT had to beaten ML to win, it would have been less challenging-- and thus likely less satisfying. The challenge is what makes the reward worth it-- if you don't understand that, YOU don't like to compete. (As someone who played a varsity sport in college at one of the "Power Five" conferences, I think I understand competitive desire and challenging oneself.)What a crazy analogy, their is a difference between a skier choosing a more difficult course than being forced to do so. New Bremen def. Marion Local on their way to a state championship, I think the Cards almost got as much satisfaction out of def. ML, and LCC than actually winning state. The challenge is what makes the reward worth it, if you don't understand that you don't like to compete.
No, it really does.It is arbitrary. It is not a system to find the best quality teams or best fit for ability to field a competitive team. Enrollment is arbitrary, just the same as if they put all red teams in one division, all blue teams in a division, and all green teams in a division. Arbitrary does not necessarily mean random.
ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
I would say it is closer to a whim than random in forecasted enrollment based divisions.No, it really does.
It is predictive if ALL the kids are randomly assigned to schools. Self-selection plays too big of a role in HS sports now for enrollment to be predictive.If enrollment isn’t predictive, how about I take 500 kids from, say, Trumbull County and you take 50. Who will generally field the better football team?