4 divisions for track?

Duckcowmoose said:
How high up is the “higher up” and did they say why it won’t happen?
Click to expand...
Top guy in charge of regional meet. Guy asking him questions didn't ask why. My guess (and only mine) is don't want to break from the need more than 250 teams in division before adding another one. So if add for Track then other sports will push for another division.
 
If the OHSAA were just worried about other sports asking, they could simply lower the number of athletes required to count as a team, say to four or five, and they could have 250 per division. And, they have sports woth two divisions that don’t have 250 teams.
 
psycho_dad said:
Isn't one that I have heard of. 3 people have told me roughly the same thing, but who knows. The people that typically organize it from OATCCC/Ohio were sort of forced out and the ball was dropped and nothing was done for Ohio. No Sign ups at the state meet like they usually do. Ohio will not be participating as far as I know. This is a case of I hope I'm wrong and will be glad if I am.

Ohio is not participating.

No Ohio Entries!!! My 110H probably would have liked to go.

I did not know we did not go last year. Am I mistaken and we are going this year and it was last year I was told about or are we just not going anymore?
Click to expand...
Ohio didn't go last year and is also not going this year. My school nominated an athlete for it after regionals on the OATCCC website and eventually got an email from the OATCCC wishing this year's seniors well and stating that Ohio would be returning to the meet next year.
 
runohio said:
How many schools have fewer than 9 athletes on their track & field team and thus are not counted by the OHSAA as having a team. In 2015 Warren JFK had only 7 boys on their team yet won the Division III track & field title.
Click to expand...
By my count (I could be a little off) there are around 825 OHSAA-affiliated high schools in Ohio and around 790 of them offer Track and Field. OHSAA's arbitrary 9 on a team at the district meet is the reason they are only counting like 650 of them. It's not like these other 140 schools aren't still competing...they are competing and I assume they are eligible to win the state title if they score enough points. It seems like OHSAA is playing games with the numbers to hold Track to 3 divisions.
 
CC Track Fan said:
Top guy in charge of regional meet. Guy asking him questions didn't ask why. My guess (and only mine) is don't want to break from the need more than 250 teams in division before adding another one. So if add for Track then other sports will push for another division.
Click to expand...
Well, they already break this significantly with Football so I'm not sure this is an argument.
 
runner-ohio said:
Well, they already break this significantly with Football so I'm not sure this is an argument.
Click to expand...
No other sport can be compared to football. Football has it’s own rules….then the other sports (in regards to the OHSAA). Football is also seen differently by society, the media and most schools. …and IMO, probably should be. For better or worse. Football is the “cash cow” for all the above. Dispute the long-term health consequences for the athletes, chance for immediate injury, and chauvinistic concerns, football is the primary force for the OHSAA and generally helps all the other sports. This is at the State level and at most individual schools. People fill small school stadiums every fall Friday because it is an event…. Part of Americana, if you will. The media uses this excitement and feeds it with separate sections of newspapers and an extra 10 minutes of TV (Friday night lights) with scores an even previews. The NCAA and NFL make millions and gives back thousands. As far as divisions are concerned, HS football should have more divisions since, physically there has to be less games….and not everyone makes the playoffs (although that is getting easier too). There are more games in pros and college so HS may follow suit. No comparison to football will ever hold water for track ( or any other sport for that matter) to the powers that be.
 
runner-ohio said:
Well, they already break this significantly with Football so I'm not sure this is an argument.
Click to expand...
Without getting into the entire societal obsession with Football (I Love Football by the way) it's hard to say that we have a 250 school requirement when one of the sports they oversee has 100 schools per division.

If they have different rules for Football they need to change their mission statement.

Really, the problem is Ohio is a huge state with a lot of schools, and 3 or 4 divisions are not enough for any sport. Football should stay 7 and all the other sports should gain divisions.
 
runner-ohio said:
Also, Football is a net money loss at almost every level that drains the funds available for other sports.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see the data on this. I can speak for three districts I have been apart of, a good football team generates revenue that can help offset some costs elsewhere for the department. A good football team is also the primary driver of a successful athletic booster structure.
If an athletic department is going to have any sport in the black it is football, followed by potentially boys basketball, followed by girls volleyball, everything else will lean into the red.
 
Duckcowmoose said:
I’d like to see the data on this. I can speak for three districts I have been apart of, a good football team generates revenue that can help offset some costs elsewhere for the department. A good football team is also the primary driver of a successful athletic booster structure.
If an athletic department is going to have any sport in the black it is football, followed by potentially boys basketball, followed by girls volleyball, everything else will lean into the red.
Click to expand...
The only reason football generates net revenue for athletic department is because the athletic department doesn't have to pay coaches salary. If you factor is coaches pay (even just stipends) and benefits. Many schools the head football coach gets paid full wages to do some other job that otherwise wouldn't exist such as assistance ad, attendance officer or like a local school added "whole person counselor" job when they hired a new football coach. So with benefits that right there is costing the school district 100k+ doubtful that home gates is much more than that and you have another 10+ coaches to pay and everything else that goes with having a football team.

Sure the athletic department and OHSAA make money from football the school districts does not.
 
CC Track Fan said:
The only reason football generates net revenue for athletic department is because the athletic department doesn't have to pay coaches salary. If you factor is coaches pay (even just stipends) and benefits. Many schools the head football coach gets paid full wages to do some other job that otherwise wouldn't exist such as assistance ad, attendance officer or like a local school added "whole person counselor" job when they hired a new football coach. So with benefits that right there is costing the school district 100k+ doubtful that home gates is much more than that and you have another 10+ coaches to pay and everything else that goes with having a football team.

Sure the athletic department and OHSAA make money from football the school districts does not.
Click to expand...
I am sorry you have seen districts act that way. Made up positions are not the rule they are exceptions. But you’re right athletic departments don’t pay salaries and benefits, so they shouldn’t be part of the discussion.
 
If salaries and benefits are not part of the equation, at my school football is a net positive. But that’s a big if. And if that criteria is used, XC and TF are big net positive sports because expenses are low and team sizes ($50 pay to play) are high. But football aside, more schools offer TF than any other sport. And I agree that made up positions are a little more the exception than the norm, but it’s also true that FB coaches are hired for teaching jobs for which they are distinctly not the most qualified far, far too often.
 
As coaches, athletes, parents, and friends of the sport, is there anything we can do to move this idea along? It feels like its been in limbo for a decade now.
 
mathking said:
If salaries and benefits are not part of the equation, at my school football is a net positive. But that’s a big if. And if that criteria is used, XC and TF are big net positive sports because expenses are low and team sizes ($50 pay to play) are high. But football aside, more schools offer TF than any other sport. And I agree that made up positions are a little more the exception than the norm, but it’s also true that FB coaches are hired for teaching jobs for which they are distinctly not the most qualified far, far too often.
Click to expand...
Dublin's pay-to-play is only $50?
 
oncearunner said:
Dublin's pay-to-play is only $50?
Click to expand...
For soccer, swimming, hockey, cheerleading, lacrosse, track and cross country. For other high school sports it is $75. For all middle school sports it is $30. There is a $300 family cap for HS sports and a $100 family cap for middle school sports. With waivers for economically disadvantaged kids. The district is actually fairly conscientious about trying not to price kids out of participating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top