OATCCC Proposal To Be Considered By OHSAA

Termite2 said:
How many divisions in basketball? kind of puts a dent in your money being the issue. Football has safety issues, in case you haven't seen the game, the players tend to run into each other; not so much in CC.
Click to expand...
You can’t compare the sports. There’s 4 divisions in basketball that relies on 5-8 players throughout the game. They can get away with 4 divisions due to the amount of money the make with the numerous playoff games in each division. There’s only 4 regional meets and one state meet in cross where all divisions compete at the same meet. Track and XC also have many more athletes participating with the potential of 10-20+ making varsity spots. Track is #1 for participants for girls and #2 (behind football) for men in the state of Ohio. For me it’s more about the total positive impact it has for kids with this change. Ohsaa would also be in the positive with their money in the post season if they changed the divisions for both.
 
Last edited:
grange45 said:
............................................................... For me it’s more about the total positive impact it has for kids with this change..............................
Click to expand...

This is the best argument for a change, comparing it to other sports is a mistake.
 
It is not about safety or the money. It's about time and effort. For about the billionth time, the OHSAA is a non profit organization. They do not need to make money on everything. It's easy to make money with football and basketball. It takes much more time and effort to do it with Cross Country and Track & Field. Why work harder if you don't have to? The OHSAA just started allowing more teams and individuals into the state Cross Country meet and State Track & Field meet per the divisions already in place. They have almost added the same number of athletes as if they had added a full division. They will take baby steps, but they aren't jumping off a cliff without allowing those changes to settle in for awhile. How can they not be making money on Track & Field? Has to be facilities fees. Ticket prices stayed the same for over 10 years now. No idea what they charge vendors, but that's a gold mine if they wanted it to be. If you needed it to make money, it easily could. If you wanted it to make a lot of money, I don't think it would be Jesse Owens.

Any of us that hold invitationals do not do it to lose money. If we lost money, we would not do it anymore. There are a lot of invitationals out there, so there must be money to be made. It takes some effort though. If you start at the District level and go through to the state meet, there has to be close to 60 meets in there. I'm sure Fitch would not want to hold a Regional if it was a money loser. So, don't kid yourself that it's a money thing. It's an easy vs hard thing.

I was shocked that the OHSAA went to 20 teams in CC. Then they went with extra kids on the track and then very shortly after that allowed extra qualifiers for field events. Let's be thankful for that and not be so critical. I knew as soon as they made those concessions, a 4th division in either sport is going to only be triggered by teams at the district numbers. It isn't coming very soon.

As far as the OHSAA dropping the numbers, it's just how the numbers work. The OHSAA does not control the population.

Football is a joke and it has nothing to do with safety.
 
Remember the OHSAA only counts track & field teams with at least 9 athletes – thus they only recognized 681 boys and 649 girls’ team. The NFHS counts all schools with at least one athlete and shows Ohio with 786 boys and 786 girls teams. Every state surrounding the state of Ohio counts teams with at least one athlete as one athlete can score in the District and State Championships..
 
runohio said:
Remember the OHSAA only counts track & field teams with at least 9 athletes – thus they only recognized 681 boys and 649 girls’ team. The NFHS counts all schools with at least one athlete and shows Ohio with 786 boys and 786 girls teams. Every state surrounding the state of Ohio counts teams with at least one athlete as one athlete can score in the District and State Championships..
Click to expand...

Who cares what other states do? I disagree that one athlete should count as a team. However, I respect that the OHSAA allows that one kid to count as a team and factor in the scoring in track & field at the state meet. I think it should be the minimum number of kids to be able to win a dual meet. So either you need 4 kids to win a dual meet or it takes 4 kids to make up a relay "team". A track team of 1 cannot beat a track team of 2 in a head to head competition. 2 kids can't beat 3 and 3 can't beat 4, unless you allow kids to participate in every event. But, 4 can beat any number of kids you want to throw at them if they are good enough. You can go out and have a pick up track meet with 4 kids and contest all the OHSAA events and win it.

So, let's get that changed first and then work on divisions from there. I would not vote for 1 counting as a team.

I'd rather try and find a way that a kid that is third or forth on his team in an event has a way to participate in that event and the District, Regional and State than worry about other kids that may not be that good. Enter up to 4 in an event, but only 2 count in the scoring at or beyond the District level. Something like that.
 
Psycho dad, if Woodridge had 287, I’m pretty sure you would see it unfair. You guys are only 50 or so off from being d1. Like Tipp and Lexington, you might have a team once in a great while that can at least make it to state and a few individuals here and there make it (or have the one team over your coaching career be in contention for a state title) but it would be impossible to consistently do it.

Really if the change happened you would see Lexington and Tipp back. It’s easier for you with them gone but those programs are very similar and are no way similar to Mason and Lakota and is no way fair to say they belong up there.

Also lol it’s not as hard as you think to change it. It only adds two races in Xc and the course is already set up. Oatccc mostly helps out in both xc and track setting up and they were the ones promoting the change. There is hardly no extra work. In track, if you look at the other states that have 4-6 divisions it’s not a humongous change and you can still have 4 divisions compete in two days.
 
When I called the NFHS a few years back, the person told me the reason they have 1 for track & field was because one athlete could score and to her knowledge Ohio was the only state which required 9. She said the number for cross country is 5 because you need 5 to score. If you remember a few years back a school which was not recognized as having track & field by the OHSAA because they only had 7 boys on their roster, yet they took home the State Championship trophy.
 
runohio said:
When I called the NFHS a few years back, the person told me the reason they have 1 for track & field was because one athlete could score and to her knowledge Ohio was the only state which required 9. She said the number for cross country is 5 because you need 5 to score. If you remember a few years back a school which was not recognized as having track & field by the OHSAA because they only had 7 boys on their roster, yet they took home the State Championship trophy.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but, they had 7 which could win a dual meet. Championship meets are different and that "team" is an outlier. Instead of being critical of the OHSAA, I think it would be better to compliment them on not letting some technicality or book keeping function deprive kids from a state championship. Any coach would rather have more kids than less. All that said, I think the OHSAA is wrong using 9 as the number, but it is the number for now. I personally don't think 1 is a good number either. I'm sure they use 9 to keep in line with softball or baseball, but track and field is not softball or baseball. I really don't care how many divisions they have in other sports either. I would expect that if they have a set number that triggers a 4th division, that they abide by that and do it. I think the OATCCC should focus on making sure every AD and every coach know to get 9 to the District if they have that many. Get that out there every day every week and every year. Secondly, the proposal to the OHSAA should be to lower the numbers needed for a team to a lower number. As I've stated before, 4 is the number I feel is not even arguable.
 
In my opinion if a school offers something it exists. If a science elective is offered and only one person in the school signs up it is still offered. If the sport is offered and especially if it is reinforced by a student athlete taking advantage, it is a sport. How many more is inconsequential.

I have stated my opinion on this topic before but I believe OATCCC lost it's way many years back. There was a time when OHSAA listened and worked closely with OATCCC. That relationship still exists with other sports but not with track and cross country. Accomplishing things for the good of the sport seems to get further and further from the overall agenda. The passive approach not only doesn't work but makes things worse as track and cross country gets pushed to the insignificant pile.
 
Newton's Third said:
In my opinion if a school offers something it exists. If a science elective is offered and only one person in the school signs up it is still offered. If the sport is offered and especially if it is reinforced by a student athlete taking advantage, it is a sport. How many more is inconsequential.

I have stated my opinion on this topic before but I believe OATCCC lost it's way many years back. There was a time when OHSAA listened and worked closely with OATCCC. That relationship still exists with other sports but not with track and cross country. Accomplishing things for the good of the sport seems to get further and further from the overall agenda. The passive approach not only doesn't work but makes things worse as track and cross country gets pushed to the insignificant pile.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. When one athlete can score 40 points for a school just by competing in 4 events (which can place a school in the top 3-6 at a postseason meet or even win a state meet) it needs to count.
 
grange45 said:
Psycho dad, if Woodridge had 287, I’m pretty sure you would see it unfair. You guys are only 50 or so off from being d1. Like Tipp and Lexington, you might have a team once in a great while that can at least make it to state and a few individuals here and there make it (or have the one team over your coaching career be in contention for a state title) but it would be impossible to consistently do it.

Really if the change happened you would see Lexington and Tipp back. It’s easier for you with them gone but those programs are very similar and are no way similar to Mason and Lakota and is no way fair to say they belong up there.

Also lol it’s not as hard as you think to change it. It only adds two races in Xc and the course is already set up. Oatccc mostly helps out in both xc and track setting up and they were the ones promoting the change. There is hardly no extra work. In track, if you look at the other states that have 4-6 divisions it’s not a humongous change and you can still have 4 divisions compete in two days.
Click to expand...

If you have seen any of my posts regarding CC and divisions, I agree it's not fair. I have said many times that my system would essentially divide D1 into two divisions and keep 2 and 3 as they are now. So, divide into thirds as they do now and divide the top 3rd in half for the 4 divisions.

However, it's the responsibility of the coaches and AD's to get 5 to the line to get that 4th division. Track and Cross Country are two completely different sports. I know they can easily run more races in CC. I ran back when the state meet had 12 races. Team races and individual races. Get the numbers up and force the OHSAA to do it. OATCCC come up with ways to promote the sport in the inner city

We can talk all we want about school sizes and fairness, but in each division, there are just a few handful of teams that can contend year in and year out. There are schools that don't have the resources or community support to bother fielding a good CC team. I saw the kids from Ellet in Akron a few weeks ago. Good kids that I'm sure work as hard as they are asked to that will never be competitive in their Division. They deserve to have some success too. Their coach is just someone that is nice enough to do it for the kids. How about we make a division or two that is starter level. No state championship. Maybe not penalize the school for not showing up at the District meet where their kids are getting embarrassed. Something to help those kids that may love the sport but aren't fortunate enough to live in the Woodridge District or Lexington or Granville etc...

Go look at regional results for the past 15 years and Woodridge would do just fine in D1. There are many more factors than school size that I do not know exactly how to deal with that need looked at to make it most fair.
 
grange45 said:
Totally agree. When one athlete can score 40 points for a school just by competing in 4 events (which can place a school in the top 3-6 at a postseason meet or even win a state meet) it needs to count.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If 1 kid can win a state title then 1 kid is a team.

This crap about comparing a track team to a dual meet is bull honky. Who cares about a dual meet? We are graded on one aspect by the OHSAA and that is the state championship in June. If we were tested on dual meets then the standard would be different. But right now the state standard is the state meet. We should grade and validate only what OHSAA considers the state standard.

I would contest in the court of law that unless you have 9 athletes at the state meet- then your state title should be invalid. IF that is the standard set by the state of Ohio and OHSAA- then that standard should be used in all aspects- not only when it suits their needs.

We should not validate teams with less than 9 athletes at the state meet. Thus throwing out any chance in the team scoring and a state title.
What do you tell the kids with teams of 4 or 5? I can't imagine what the coach says at the banquet. "Well team- I mean we are not a team- because OHSAA does not count us as a team. But if Jenny would have long jumped at Districts with that broken leg- we could've been a team. And if Bobby would have threw the shot put at the district meet- but he had a concussion and OHSAA would not let me him compete we would have been a team."

By acknowledging only 9 as a team, then we are only validating large schools. What happened to equality and equity? What happened validating all schools.

My high school I teach as won a state title in soccer last year. We won the regional final with 10 girls on the field after a red card. Should we validate this as a team? According to OHSAA 11 players is a soccer team.
 
grange45 said:
Totally agree. When one athlete can score 40 points for a school just by competing in 4 events (which can place a school in the top 3-6 at a postseason meet or even win a state meet) it needs to count.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Numerous examples of one-man/woman teams in Ohio HS Track & Field History.
 
I have read most of these ides and some things stand out to me.
First: As far as I know there is NOT any discussion of going to 4 divisions in Cross Country. This is only for Track & Field. We are not even close to the proper number for CC.

Second:
There ARE numerous examples of one person scoring all the points to win a "team" state title, LaVonna Martin, Sarah DeWollf, and Ryann Wilson to name a few BUT only a couple where those people did not have nine or more on their teams roster..., The Only one I know of is the 7 kids on the roster for Lorain Clearview in 2001 and two kids scored all theire points at the State Meet. BTW my team beat them at both the District and Regional.

Thirdly: Who cares about a Dual Meet? I do. Many of us and Most of the kids on my team know they will never participate in a state meet and about half will not even compete at the district level. That is the same for every sport.
AND Even of those who compete at Districts,(Which the OHSAA sponsors) 90% will not effect the score at the State Meet. I hope our program is not judged by just our State Meet Results. I would hope that even Woodridge had pride in their Conference and District trophies... (I know they do) as well as the kids that don't compete at State meets.

Number 4: If we are not supposed to consider or compare what other sports do, why then do we often lump Track & field and cross county together. Track and CC should not be compeared any more than football and baseball.
IMO each sport is unique, but the OHSAA has to try to make them all equitable and usually do a preet good job of that. But remember....

Fifth: If we are comparing, then maybe we should compare Track & Field to Baseball/Softball.
Both are Spring sports and have to deal with Prom, starting during Basetball tourney, Competeing during State Testing, End of School year activities.
Our kids wanting to do other things: AAU (b-ball, volley ball, etc), spring football (lifting),
We have more kids participating that both of those sports.... AND THEY BOTH HAVE 4 DIVISIONS!

Number 6: it IS about the money... at least to a certain extent. One reason why they (OHSAA) went with 20 teams to the State CC meet and also went with the "at large" bids for track & field was the addional funds and/or "no addional cost" was pointed out in the proposal. Psyco is correct about $ not being the primary focus... but it is near the top of the list... and it should be a major consideration. IMO

The proposal should be to move the number of athletes entered at the District Meet from nine (9) to FOUR (4) with the rational being That four people make a relay "team" and four people is enough to cover more than half of the 17 events. AND you can win a dual against a team against 50 if you have 4.... (the right 4)

NOTE: if the number was 4 athletes to count as a team, then Ohio would have more than the 750 that it takes to have 4 divisions... at least for boys and I believe for girls too. Then this post would not be needed.....

Although it would open many other "cans of worms" to be discussed Like
1. how to have a State meet schedule for only two days... a 3rd day would cost too much for the facility.
2. *seperate sites for Divisions?
3. how would District and Regionals be set up.
4. *Enough officials?
5. "*Rain dates".... for State, District and Regional - *
*potential problems now
All easy fixes, but may be needed answered while considering 4 divisions.
 
ENA2 said:
Although it would open many other "cans of worms" to be discussed Like
1. how to have a State meet schedule for only two days... a 3rd day would cost too much for the facility.
2. *seperate sites for Divisions?
3. how would District and Regionals be set up.
4. *Enough officials?
5. "*Rain dates".... for State, District and Regional - *
*potential problems now
All easy fixes, but may be needed answered while considering 4 divisions.
Click to expand...

When the Loveland coach talked at the southwest district meeting at the track clinic, he said all those concerns were solved and it was more about the costs and profits. It would be great to see them more concern about the fairness of the change.

Really, what are some opinions to get this done? I was thinking of a survey to go out to all head track coaches and ad's (or a petition) with OATCC backing?
 
grange45 said:
When the Loveland coach talked at the southwest district meeting at the track clinic, he said all those concerns were solved and it was more about the costs and profits. It would be great to see them more concern about the fairness of the change.

Really, what are some opinions to get this done? I was thinking of a survey to go out to all head track coaches and ad's (or a petition) with OATCC backing?
Click to expand...
I was in that presentation. It was very convincing that the state meet with 4 divisions was the least that they could do. The district and regional meet schedules would need to be figured out.

THe biggest problem is lack of officials.
 
Those concerns have all been considered...but only "solved" in the minds of those who worked on the proposal.
For example: I sent a proposed time schedule for a 2-day meet with 4 divisions to the OATCCC that starts at 8:30 am and ends by 8:15 pm each day with about 40 minutes between each session (division). Some think that is too early to start OR we have to start on Thurday with at least one division.
BUT that would be anohter day of "costs" for the meet.
Ohters think that it shuld be at different sites (DI and DII one place and DIII and DIV at anohter). this is waht needs to be solved.

Officials is a problem... could be "solved" by cutting back on officials for some divisions as we have about 15 standing around the track and moving only a few feet for the entirety of each meet (division). OR mroe people could become officials.... there is a need for the whole season too.

Distric and Regionals could be solved by having DI and III on one evening and DII and IV on the ohters (like it is now for regionals)

Rain dates: this year we found out the first day that the lighst at Jesse ownes are good enough to stay all night if we have to.. Still, having Sunday reserved "just in case" should be the standard if we want to stay at Jesse O.... if not, still need to be a plan - like baseball has a plan.

All of these thing need to be set BEFORE we go to 4 divisions IMO. All
 
ENA2 said:
Rain dates: this year we found out the first day that the lighst at Jesse ownes are good enough to stay all night if we have to..
Click to expand...
FWIW, while the lights work fine, there was a noise curfew that meet management was worried about while we were waiting and waiting and waiting. Staying all night is not an option.
 
At the state meet, could you tighten up the time schedule by combining two divisions at a time, so less time between sections/heats, but more rest between events. Keeping it at one location?
 
...And there are no lights in the throwing event facility. but there has been mention of bringing portalbel lights in if needed. The point is, The proposal for 4 division needs to have most of these things, and maybe other things, considered. The "at large" qualifier took almost 5 years to come to fruition and it was written with all the "what ifs" and "what for" in it. many were still wary of it like it would only benefit certain kids or programs, only the DI schools; or only certain regions. Then they "tested" it a year with only running events so we could make sure that field events could handle it too.
 
You could save a little time by running two meets at a time... much like the PTC does with the County and Metro divisions. but only a little and running 4 3200's in a row is not welcomed by many.,,, some consideration on running the 3200 on the first day or girls 3200 first on Day 2. Still, only saves a few minutes. The schedule that the OATCCC has is for 4 Divisions, over 2 days, current order of events, Field events timed out for 3+ hours each, Goes DIV, DIII, DII, DI for running event, Starts at first event at 8:30 am and last event starts by 8:00 on both days.
 
FYI - The State meet used to run multiple meets at the same time. That precedent has existed.

So did unequal numbers per division based upon school size. OHSAA seems to bristle when cross-country and track compare their situation to other sports yet state the reason they must have equal numbers per division is to be like other sports. Don't expect common sense to reign. OATCCC getting this addressed goes a lot further than a 4th division in making competition fair and equal for all. Now if four unequal sized divisions were based on similar sized schools then we would be getting somewhere.
 
ENA2 said:
You could save a little time by running two meets at a time... much like the PTC does with the County and Metro divisions. but only a little and running 4 3200's in a row is not welcomed by many.,,, some consideration on running the 3200 on the first day or girls 3200 first on Day 2. Still, only saves a few minutes. The schedule that the OATCCC has is for 4 Divisions, over 2 days, current order of events, Field events timed out for 3+ hours each, Goes DIV, DIII, DII, DI for running event, Starts at first event at 8:30 am and last event starts by 8:00 on both days.
Click to expand...

If they move the 3200 to the first day, I would recommend either an early start at 7:00 am or late start at 8pm to avoid the heat of the day. The 3200 at the state meet is the hardest physically on all of the athletes due to the weather.

7:00am makes the most sense. The athletes could physically double in the 4x800 or come back in the 1600 the next day.
Additionally, officiating does not need to be at a high level during the 3200.
 
IMO, DI should be the top 10% Then divide DII, DIII and D IV, with 30% each. So, DI woud have about 75 schools, and each of the other divisions would have about 225 schools.... if there is 750 schools. Then Division IV would be the only division where the largest schools (150 boys or girls in the upper 3 grades) would be more than 5-times bigger than the smaller schools in that division. (say 30 or less kids per gender)

In DI, the East and SE districts would probably not have teams represented, and if there were to be 16 districts, there would only be <5 teams per district....and the regionals would only have about 20 teams.... Maybe, there would be not District meet for DI.

All of these things need to be considered and maybe addresseds as part of the proposal.
 
ENA2 said:
IMO, DI should be the top 10% Then divide DII, DIII and D IV, with 30% each. So, DI woud have about 75 schools, and each of the other divisions would have about 225 schools.... if there is 750 schools. Then Division IV would be the only division where the largest schools (150 boys or girls in the upper 3 grades) would be more than 5-times bigger than the smaller schools in that division. (say 30 or less kids per gender)

In DI, the East and SE districts would probably not have teams represented, and if there were to be 16 districts, there would only be <5 teams per district....and the regionals would only have about 20 teams.... Maybe, there would be not District meet for DI.

All of these things need to be considered and maybe addresseds as part of the proposal.
Click to expand...
Talking to some people that were involved, almost all of these things were discussed and answered. Numerous other states have 4+ divisions and the blue print is already there and addressed.

I think what is discouraging is that ohsaa went the total opposite direction with lowering the cutoff and making it equal amount of schools in each division. They could of made the cutoff for d1 400 and above to start addressing the main issue.
 
There is talk over on the Football Forum of 8 man football. They seem to think that the OHSAA is just going to add a division for it within football. If that happens before 4 divisions in CC and Track & Field, I'll lose hope. OHSAA needs to be looking at getting rid of a division in football as some of these schools can't field full teams. 8 man football is a joke in a state with our population and drive times across the state as small as they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top