Competitive Balance Question

[EastYoungstown]

So the new formula is supposed to be based in part on where you went to school in 8th grade, or in the OHSAA's words, how they 'came to your school'.

A big part of this is aimed at kids that went to a public school in 8th grade and by some means, many times EdChoice, move to a parochial school.

Well what about the kid that switches in 7th grade? 6th grade? Earlier?

What about the non-catholic kid that starts at a private school via EdChoice, whose parents otherwise would never be able to afford private schools, as a kindergartner?

By the spirit of the rule, shouldn't all these kids count in this formula?

[Irish60]

What about a public school grade school student who is Catholic and attends his Church's PSR program? Who "owns" him? How is he accounted for under the OHSAA directive?

[Spread All Day]

good job OHSAA. Really like the 8th grade rule.

[NEOballer]

It actually goes back to 7th grade.

[EastYoungstown]

Originally Posted by Irish60

What about a public school grade school student who is Catholic and attends his Church's PSR program? Who "owns" him? How is he accounted for under the OHSAA directive?

I think it matters when and if he switched schools according to the OHSAA

which is to say this whole Competitive balance thing is stupid

[EastYoungstown]

Originally Posted by NEOballer

It actually goes back to 7th grade.

Ok..... why 7th?

[Spread All Day]

Even better!!!

[fish82]

Originally Posted by EastYoungstown

I think it matters when and if he switched schools according to the OHSAA

which is to say this whole Competitive balance thing is stupid

Agreed. For me, assign whatever multiplier you want to kids who switch to private school after 8th grade. (or vice versa) But as long as they're still putting +1s on kids who have gone to Catholic school since Kindergarten, it shows that the proposal is geared as a punitive measure against the Catholic schools.

[hoser]

Originally Posted by fish82

Agreed. For me, assign whatever multiplier you want to kids who switch to private school after 8th grade. (or vice versa) But as long as they're still putting +1s on kids who have gone to Catholic school since Kindergarten, it shows that the proposal is geared as a punitive measure against the Catholic schools.

Uh, fishyone,are you saying private schools who get kids from 15 or 20 different middle schools don't have an advantage? Uh obvious from the results of this past years state playoffs. 10% win over 40% of the championships, there is obviously a problem.

[aged jock]

Originally Posted by hoser

Uh, fishyone,are you saying private schools who get kids from 15 or 20 different middle schools don't have an advantage? Uh obvious from the results of this past years state playoffs. 10% win over 40% of the championships, there is obviously a problem.

Delusional, as usual. Middle schools are all public. You can't name one Catholic school that draws from 10 middle schools or even 5, much less 20. A few Catholic schools do very well. Most don't. Fix the real problem, which is on the public school side. No need to invent outlandish claims.

[22 Acacia Ave]

Originally Posted by fish82

Agreed. For me, assign whatever multiplier you want to kids who switch to private school after 8th grade. (or vice versa) But as long as they're still putting +1s on kids who have gone to Catholic school since Kindergarten, it shows that the proposal is geared as a punitive measure against the Catholic schools.

Waaaaaaa...sniff, sniff

[aged jock]

At Alter, we hope to get 90% of the 8th graders from our 4 Catholic grade (not middle) schools, and retain 95% of them all 4 years. To do that, we must be able to demonstrate that our students are successful in many ways. Sports is one of those ways. That means that about 10% of the kids from our Catholic grade schools go to public schools.

Posters who say we're getting mostly great athletes from all around are dreaming or taking hallucinogens. We are developing our talent, not buying it.

[fish82]

Originally Posted by hoser

Uh, fishyone,are you saying private schools who get kids from 15 or 20 different middle schools don't have an advantage?

As stated above, the number of schools who draw from 15-20 grade schools is probably close to nil. The average GCL school pulls from probably 8-10 at most. That said, almost every one of those grade schools has 15-30 boys in the 8th grade class, and 5-10 other schools competing for them. So no, it's not really an "advantage," at least at the level you people try and make it seem.

Originally Posted by hoser

Uh obvious from the results of this past years state playoffs. 10% win over 40% of the championships, there is obviously a problem.

Still considering Statistics 101 as a "problem," I see.

[Irish60]

Originally Posted by fish82

As stated above, the number of schools who draw from 15-20 grade schools is probably close to nil. The average GCL school pulls from probably 8-10 at most. That said, almost every one of those grade schools has 15-30 boys in the 8th grade class, and 5-10 other schools competing for them. So no, it's not really an "advantage," at least at the level you people try and make it seem.




Still considering Statistics 101 as a "problem," I see.

Just another one trick pony.

[dograt]

The public school supporters who think this is about how many schools you draw from are missing the point. (even though the state looks like it's trying to say that!)

Private schools have an huge advantage, they don't have to educate everyone. The kid who sits in class a does nothing, he counts against the public number. the kid who comes to school twice a week, he counts against the public number. The kid who'd never been eligible for a day, he counts. You get the picture. Those kids are not in the private school. They wouldn't be admitted, but they probably wouldn't even apply because those issues start at home.
A public and a private with the same enrollment don't have the same number of eligible athletes to choose from. At the public I follow, we would drop a division if we didn't count the kids who aren't eligible to play. that's not a deficiency of the school, but of the community it is in.
The added numbers for a kid living somewhere else or starting somewhere else don't make sense when isolated. But if you consider they're just adding numbers that would be added if they had to play by the same rules the publics do, it's not really that wrong, depending on where the private is located. I don't like how they're doing it, but I like that they're doing something to address that inequality.
I predict the big winners in all of this will be great communities. I bet many of the publics who are successful at the state level (the MAC) are in great communities who don't have big numbers of ineligibility. their numbers and a private numbers are more equal. But now the privates will inflate and those publics won't. Those publics will do even better.
I would love to see something that addresses ineligibility instead of just where you're from. Hopefully this is just step one, and it evolves.

[JustCallMeCoach]

Originally Posted by dograt

The public school supporters who think this is about how many schools you draw from are missing the point. (even though the state looks like it's trying to say that!)

Private schools have an huge advantage, they don't have to educate everyone. The kid who sits in class a does nothing, he counts against the public number. the kid who comes to school twice a week, he counts against the public number. The kid who'd never been eligible for a day, he counts. You get the picture. Those kids are not in the private school. They wouldn't be admitted, but they probably wouldn't even apply because those issues start at home.
A public and a private with the same enrollment don't have the same number of eligible athletes to choose from. At the public I follow, we would drop a division if we didn't count the kids who aren't eligible to play. that's not a deficiency of the school, but of the community it is in.
The added numbers for a kid living somewhere else or starting somewhere else don't make sense when isolated. But if you consider they're just adding numbers that would be added if they had to play by the same rules the publics do, it's not really that wrong, depending on where the private is located. I don't like how they're doing it, but I like that they're doing something to address that inequality.
I predict the big winners in all of this will be great communities. I bet many of the publics who are successful at the state level (the MAC) are in great communities who don't have big numbers of ineligibility. their numbers and a private numbers are more equal. But now the privates will inflate and those publics won't. Those publics will do even better.
I would love to see something that addresses ineligibility instead of just where you're from. Hopefully this is just step one, and it evolves.

Great Post

[Irish60]

Originally Posted by JustCallMeCoach

Great Post

It was an excellent post. Moving schools down seems to make a lot more sense than moving schools up. Say you have an inner city D1 or D2 public school which is facing the challenges alluded to in dograt's post. Under the new CBP, they will likely stay where they are at, PLUS be put in regions against the D2 and D3 teams moving up. Not too equitable to schools in that situation. I am a STVM fan, and, to me, it makes no difference whether the Irish are D2 or D3. They will compete wherever they land. And I've always much preferred the regular season to the playoffs anyway. So I'm not opposed to OHSAA trying to "level the playing field"; if that's even possible. But like many others in this argument, I'm not a fan of how they have chosen to accomplish that goal. I prefer a strength of schedule to the multiplier as a metric. But if you are going to go with the multiplier, then I agree you should implement one that looks more realistically at the issues that the public schools are facing. Maybe those numbers are more difficult to calculate. Maybe OHSAA and the DOE don't want to stress how high those ineligibility numbers actually are. Anyway, while it is not a perfect system, here is hoping it proves to be a step in the right direction.

[hoser]

Originally Posted by aged jock

Delusional, as usual. Middle schools are all public. You can't name one Catholic school that draws from 10 middle schools or even 5, much less 20. A few Catholic schools do very well. Most don't. Fix the real problem, which is on the public school side. No need to invent outlandish claims.

Uh from the official 2016 program from Columbus Desales high school, 32 senior football players from 16 different middle schools public and private. Uh I think we know who is delusional.

[fish82]

Originally Posted by Irish60

It was an excellent post. Moving schools down seems to make a lot more sense than moving schools up. Say you have an inner city D1 or D2 public school which is facing the challenges alluded to in dograt's post. Under the new CBP, they will likely stay where they are at, PLUS be put in regions against the D2 and D3 teams moving up. Not too equitable to schools in that situation. I am a STVM fan, and, to me, it makes no difference whether the Irish are D2 or D3. They will compete wherever they land. And I've always much preferred the regular season to the playoffs anyway. So I'm not opposed to OHSAA trying to "level the playing field"; if that's even possible. But like many others in this argument, I'm not a fan of how they have chosen to accomplish that goal. I prefer a strength of schedule to the multiplier as a metric. But if you are going to go with the multiplier, then I agree you should implement one that looks more realistically at the issues that the public schools are facing. Maybe those numbers are more difficult to calculate. Maybe OHSAA and the DOE don't want to stress how high those ineligibility numbers actually are. Anyway, while it is not a perfect system, here is hoping it proves to be a step in the right direction.

Although I find the "we'd move down a division if they weren't counted" claim dubious, I think this would be a more reasonable solution. That said, your bolded statement is likely true. Regardless how it might affect CB, I doubt the OHSAA and the ODOE want those numbers out there for public consumption.

[fish82]

Originally Posted by hoser

Uh from the official 2016 program from Columbus Desales high school, 32 senior football players from 16 different middle schools public and private. Uh I think we know who is delusional.

Still you, brah.

[bkmk1]

Competitive Balance is going to do nothing. A lot of huff and puff that will fix nothing. That's my opinion.

[Flood]

Originally Posted by bkmk1

Competitive Balance is going to do nothing. A lot of huff and puff that will fix nothing.

It will definitely do something. Fix..no. Improve the system? Matters what your agenda is.

[Spread All Day]

Originally Posted by aged jock

Delusional, as usual. Middle schools are all public. You can't name one Catholic school that draws from 10 middle schools or even 5, much less 20. A few Catholic schools do very well. Most don't. Fix the real problem, which is on the public school side. No need to invent outlandish claims.

I can name some that do though. Crazy.

[fish82]

Originally Posted by Spread All Day

I can name some that do though. Crazy.

Looking forward to reading your list.

Go.

[dograt]

Originally Posted by fish82

Although I find the "we'd move down a division if they weren't counted" claim dubious, I think this would be a more reasonable solution. That said, your bolded statement is likely true. Regardless how it might affect CB, I doubt the OHSAA and the ODOE want those numbers out there for public consumption.

dubious? look at division 5. 41 boys from top to bottom. half of them would be 6 if only 20 kids were ineligible. That number seem dubious?

[Spread All Day]

Originally Posted by fish82

Looking forward to reading your list.

Go.

Mooney
Ursuline
Bye

[clarkgriswold]

They really should just mark the kids at birth. Parents choose and name and a system. The kids get a crucifix or circle tattoo and they're locked in for life.

[CatAlum]

Originally Posted by dograt

The public school supporters who think this is about how many schools you draw from are missing the point. (even though the state looks like it's trying to say that!)

Private schools have an huge advantage, they don't have to educate everyone. The kid who sits in class a does nothing, he counts against the public number. the kid who comes to school twice a week, he counts against the public number. The kid who'd never been eligible for a day, he counts. You get the picture. Those kids are not in the private school. They wouldn't be admitted, but they probably wouldn't even apply because those issues start at home.
A public and a private with the same enrollment don't have the same number of eligible athletes to choose from. At the public I follow, we would drop a division if we didn't count the kids who aren't eligible to play. that's not a deficiency of the school, but of the community it is in.
The added numbers for a kid living somewhere else or starting somewhere else don't make sense when isolated. But if you consider they're just adding numbers that would be added if they had to play by the same rules the publics do, it's not really that wrong, depending on where the private is located. I don't like how they're doing it, but I like that they're doing something to address that inequality.
I predict the big winners in all of this will be great communities. I bet many of the publics who are successful at the state level (the MAC) are in great communities who don't have big numbers of ineligibility. their numbers and a private numbers are more equal. But now the privates will inflate and those publics won't. Those publics will do even better.
I would love to see something that addresses ineligibility instead of just where you're from. Hopefully this is just step one, and it evolves.

Thoughtful, comprehensive commentary tends to get ignored on Yappi.

[fish82]

Originally Posted by Spread All Day

Mooney
Ursuline
Bye

Bye indeed.

[fish82]

Originally Posted by dograt

dubious? look at division 5. 41 boys from top to bottom. half of them would be 6 if only 20 kids were ineligible. That number seem dubious?

Unless D5 is the only division where the movement takes place, then yes.