Richmond Heights CB of 0??

tcgobucks

Well-known member
I dont believe that is a good idea, nor do I believe that is a good idea. If high schools are successful by doing things they way OHSAA intended them to, why should those schools be penalized? Almost every D4/D3 school in the MAC would be playing up Divisions in various sports with schools 2-3 times more students, if not more. Marion Local and Coldwater would more than likely be playing Div. 1 football. Which they would not be able to compete with schools who are graduating 500-1000 kids.

Schools should play in their own divisions. I think the simply solution is that your school plays in the division based on the population the school can pull from. So if a school has Statewide open enrollment, they will be playing in the largest division. If a school has closed enrollment and only has a population of 2000 people to pull from, then of course they will play in the smaller division. I think that would stop the open enrollment.
The OH$AA doesn't care.....and have proven it over and over. They only want the $$$ They booted the only guy in the whole organization that cared anything about the kids....to just flat out admit they only wanted the money!
 

hammer89

Active member
The OH$AA doesn't care.....and have proven it over and over. They only want the $$$ They booted the only guy in the whole organization that cared anything about the kids....to just flat out admit they only wanted the money!
What did he do to prove he was about the kids and not about money?
 

cincyhoops

Well-known member
You're an idiot....lol. Using your ridiculous calculations small town NW Ohio schools (Ottawa Glandorf for one) would be playing D1 and have never had a move in/transfer/etc. Botkins beat a small college team today....OG lost to a team with at least 2 D1 kids who had ZERO connection to Lutheran East until the past 2 years lol. Lutheran East had kids from a population of 2 million plus....OG had kids from less than 7000....almost the same lol
Those schools would have to sustain that success over a period of 4 years to move up. Botkins isn't making the regionals/state 4 consecutive years. I am not sure if OG could or not. Only way OG would move up to D1 is if they have 4 consecutive years of making regionals/state and moved up to D2 and had 4 more years of that same success. I doubt that would happen.
 

tcgobucks

Well-known member
Those schools would have to sustain that success over a period of 4 years to move up. Botkins isn't making the regionals/state 4 consecutive years. I am not sure if OG could or not. Only way OG would move up to D1 is if they have 4 consecutive years of making regionals/state and moved up to D2 and had 4 more years of that same success. I doubt that would happen.
Lol....OG lost in back to back years to Lebron when they were D2...then won it all the next year. So they would have been penalized and moved up? Botkins (population 1,120)..... beat a team of all stars recruited from a population of 3 million plus. How bout this.....make a circle around Ottawa, Lima or Findlay...far enough out to get a population of 2 million (which is suburban Cleveland or Cincinnati) and I'll put that team up against anyone anywhere
 
Last edited:

scbuckeye99

Well-known member
South Carolina will soon be entertaining a competitive balance situation where every two years for every sport your program will be evaluated and assigned a classification based on how successful or well unsuccessful you have been the previous two seasons.

For example, we have five classes currently across the board. Let's say you're a 5A school who during that two year period fails to make the playoffs each of those seasons. For the next two year realignment you would be placed in 4A. If you fail to make the playoffs both seasons in 4A you would continue to compete in 4A. On the flipside if you're a 4A school who makes the football playoffs in back to back years you are then moved up a classification for the next two seasons.

This formula gets tricky when you consider that in SC there are no leagues and or conferences like you have in Ohio. Right now every school is assigned a "region" every two years based purely on enrollment in grades 9-11. Imagine being 5A in some sports and 4A in others and the scheduling nightmare that could ensue.

This is not official by any means it has simply been proposed recently at the annual Spring Principal and AD's conference.
 

Irish60

Well-known member
Lol....OG lost in back to back years to Lebron when they were D2...then won it all the next year. So they would have been penalized and moved up? Botkins (population 1,120)..... beat a team of all stars recruited from a population of 3 million plus. How bout this.....make a circle around Ottawa, Lima or Findlay...far enough out to get a population of 2 million (which is suburban Cleveland or Cincinnati) and I'll put that team up against anyone anywhere
This is why I have always felt a "competition" rather than a "success" metric might make more sense. To me, I feel that the division you play in the tournament should mirror the level of teams you play in the regular season. People complain that it's not fair for STVM to play in the D2 tournament when they play a D1 schedule. I get that argument and don't really disagree with it. I think it would be fair to move up schools who play at that level all year long! If "competition" were the metric, then schools like Richmond Heights would be moved up because its schedule is much more D2 than D4! Now I am sure you are more familiar with Botkins schedule than I am, but I would presume that (simply as a matter of geography) they play schools of a similar size. Presuming that is the case, then they would remain at the level that their enrollment puts them in for the tournament. Such a metric would also help with the rural v. suburban debate. Smaller schools from larger cities have the geographic ability to not only draw players from a larger population, but to compete against larger schools because they are in the same area code. I'm sure there are holes in this argument that I haven't thought of (as there are with any model), but it seems fair to me.
 

FlightCrew

Active member
Again, I say a team has their success for 4 yrs, graduates everybody, then gets bumped up a division based on kids who already graduated??
 

cincyhoops

Well-known member
Again, I say a team has their success for 4 yrs, graduates everybody, then gets bumped up a division based on kids who already graduated??
A team that has success for 4 years doesn't usually drop off. Maybe success for with a single class for 2 years they might drop off after.
 

FlightCrew

Active member
I think back to Lincolnviews run when they went to state championship and lost and then won the next year and then graduated everybody. I think back to Wayne trace winning it in 91 and then getting to the regional championship in 92 and then graduating everybody but one guy. I don’t see it solves anything to move those next teams up a division.
 

cincyhoops

Well-known member
I think back to Lincolnviews run when they went to state championship and lost and then won the next year and then graduated everybody. I think back to Wayne trace winning it in 91 and then getting to the regional championship in 92 and then graduating everybody but one guy. I don’t see it solves anything to move those next teams up a division.
My formula (which could be tweaked) wouldn't move teams up for 2 years success. It would move teams up like ASVSM who continually has success for extended periods of time.
 

westa-k-ron1

Well-known member
Lol....OG lost in back to back years to Lebron when they were D2...then won it all the next year. So they would have been penalized and moved up? Botkins (population 1,120)..... beat a team of all stars recruited from a population of 3 million plus. How bout this.....make a circle around Ottawa, Lima or Findlay...far enough out to get a population of 2 million (which is suburban Cleveland or Cincinnati) and I'll put that team up against anyone anywhere
LOL why are good teams from a larger metro areas always considered all-star teams in these discussions?
 

Insane92

Well-known member
LOL why are good teams from a larger metro areas always considered all-star teams in these discussions?
So you’re just going to ignore the list someone already made in this thread with the players confirmed to have moved and are playing for this school plus just happen to be good enough to be starting for them too? Got it. Oh and never mind this team has no basketball tradition except for they’re suddenly good two years ago with a new coach.
 

westa-k-ron1

Well-known member
So you’re just going to ignore the list someone already made in this thread with the players confirmed to have moved and are playing for this school plus just happen to be good enough to be starting for them too? Got it. Oh and never mind this team has no basketball tradition except for they’re suddenly good two years ago with a new coach.
I’m taking what was written literally...that a team of all-stars was created at Richmond Heights....yet maybe one of their players would be on an all-area team.
 

Blue Jay Fan

Well-known member
LOL why are good teams from a larger metro areas always considered all-star teams in these discussions?
Not all, just those that happen to have quality players from multiple districts transfer/move in for high school. My school faced Lutheran East in the state tourney a few years ago. They had added 6-8 new players in that current season and previous year. And coincidentally they were all very good players.
 

westa-k-ron1

Well-known member
Not all, just those that happen to have quality players from multiple districts transfer/move in for high school. My school faced Lutheran East in the state tourney a few years ago. They had added 6-8 new players in that current season and previous year. And coincidentally they were all very good players.
In these discussions, that’s the verbiage that’s used.
 

MentorGrad2002

Well-known member
West - I think you know why that terminology is used to describe certain teams. Note that nobody has described Mentor that way this year.
Actually people brought them up in this thread

It's the exception to the rule getting 2 senior transfers for us. It's not the norm like recruiter publics. And it's not the norm like privates who draw from 5-7 counties in all sports every year. Those fans shouldn't talk
 

Wildcats1886

Active member
Culler is a mentor kid who was playing at a private school. And he was on the team last year too.
Got it, so a transfer.

I couldn’t care less how many kids transfer to Mentor. Ton of respect for Krizancic, and I’d want to play for him over most coaches in the state too. Just pointing out some inconsistency in the way fans of rural schools talk about “large metro area all star teams”.
 

MentorGrad2002

Well-known member
Got it, so a transfer.

I couldn’t care less how many kids transfer to Mentor. Ton of respect for Krizancic, and I’d want to play for him over most coaches in the state too. Just pointing out some inconsistency in the way fans of rural schools talk about “large metro area all star teams”.
People have called Ignatius teams all star teams as well. When you recruit from 5-7 counties across all sports that will happen

And yeah I don't count a Mentor kid coming back to Mentor from 40 minutes away Gilmour the same as senior transfers from Euclid to mentor. Culler grew up in Mentor and lived there already. . We've lost a lot more mentor school district kids to privates by far than we've gained in transfers
 

westa-k-ron1

Well-known member
Got it, so a transfer.

I couldn’t care less how many kids transfer to Mentor. Ton of respect for Krizancic, and I’d want to play for him over most coaches in the state too. Just pointing out some inconsistency in the way fans of rural schools talk about “large metro area all star teams”.
It’s partly due to not understanding the depth of talent and good teams. The Senate League not having sports this year has an effect as well. Also folks in urban/suburban areas are often more transient for many any number of reasons, including education and sports.
 
.
Top