Division I needs to be expanded

[Papster]

8 Divisions (better addresses enrollment differences) Reduce DI to 50 - 60 teams and go from there.
4 Regions of 8 Teams = 32/Division
256 Teams make the playoffs. Slightly more than 33% of all teams qualify for playoffs.

The current format has a minimum of 4 teams per region who are not playoff worthy and in certain instances as many as 8 who don’t belong in the playoffs.

 

[MentorGrad2002]

Stow finishes 16th out of 17 teams in Region 1 with a 1-9 record. They make the playoffs and get a trip to play St. Eds. How is that good for anybody?

Well most in D1 didn't want the expanded playoffs. It was the smaller divisions pushing it. Just like creating another division was the D2 and D3 teams complaining ( along with smaller D1s at the time wanting out)

So with that being the case, really can't blame D1 for having less teams. And cant blame D1 for messing up the perfect playoff system of 8 teams per region

 

[CantonAnon]

Does anybody have the playoff revenue numbers of 2019 vs. 2021 (not including 2020 because life was weird that year)?

 

[hammer89]

Does anybody have the playoff revenue numbers of 2019 vs. 2021 (not including 2020 because life was weird that year)?

All of it is available on the OHSAA website in their annual board minutes.

 

[hammer89]

Stow finishes 16th out of 17 teams in Region 1 with a 1-9 record. They make the playoffs and get a trip to play St. Eds. How is that good for anybody?

I also struggle to see the value in this happening, and yet not many teams (I think maybe 3 statewide, all divisions) opted out of the playoffs. For whatever reason, they choose to do this.

 

[aztecjim]

No, this sucks. A school with 600 in D1 has to compete with schools 125% bigger. To have any fairness, 800-1000 should be the smallest D1.

I am not saying 600+ is the magic number but if you go to 800+ then D1 only has 24 schools and several schools that have been highly successful in D1 recently become D2. Colerain, Pickerington Central, Huber Heights Wayne,....

 

[eastisbest]

No, this sucks. A school with 600 in D1 has to compete with schools 125% bigger. To have any fairness, 800-1000 should be the smallest D1.

I am not saying 600+ is the magic number but if you go to 800+ then D1 only has 24 schools and several schools that have been highly successful in D1 recently become D2. Colerain, Pickerington Central, Huber Heights Wayne,....

Dude has that user name and thinks the rest of us have not considered his sanity.

Response to R4D,
1) invest in a banquet hall.
2) it's not a linear relationship between school size and football success, let alone team size. Particularly flattens out in the higher erollment numbers. 2000 students doesn't mean twice the number interested in football, let alone twice the talent. Once platooning depth has been met, things level. 600 playing 1200 is not the same difficulty as 300 playing 600, presuming standard enrollment, not slected for football.

 

[SBClives]

How about top 8 in each region for Div. 1 and they just play their state title game a week earlier then everyone else. Not a big deal to do that IMO.

 

[serpico]

Well most in D1 didn't want the expanded playoffs. It was the smaller divisions pushing it.

Do you have a link to support these assertions?

 

[MentorGrad2002]

Do you have a link to support these assertions?

Do you have a link proving otherwise ?

When this stuff was going on it was wildly unpopular with the d1 fans on here. And I've heard at least a few D1 AD's who didn't like it and said it watered down the regular season with so many making the playoffs

Sorry but I don't know all the AD's to give you concrete links but you can't do so the other way either. So the call out is silly in that regard

 

[MentorGrad2002]

How about top 8 in each region for Div. 1 and they just play their state title game a week earlier then everyone else. Not a big deal to do that IMO.

How about we go back to 8 and the regular season big matchups still meaning something instead of being exhibitions?

You cant make the argument that every other division gets more teams in but D1 doesn't. Especially because D1 has less teams only because of the complaining by D2 and D3 type teams to add a division and make D1 smaller.

I'd personally be fine with only 8 in D1.

 

[queencitybuckeye]

Sorry but I don't know all the AD's to give you concrete links but you can't do so the other way either. So the call out is silly in that regard

Those who make assertions assume the burden of proof.

 

[MentorGrad2002]

Those who make assertions assume the burden of proof.

Well D1 ADs were quoted as not liking it when the story came out and it was wildly unpopular with D1 fans on here. So that does it.

 

[Stirred not Shaken]

So it’s real fair to those schools with say 500-600 boys to bump up and face teams with 800-1000??

Delete this stupid sh@t.

The problem is 16 teams making the playoffs. Money grab of epic proportions.

How many "boys" do you need in a H.S to make a good competitive D - 1 football team. Mason has an OHSAA enrollment of 500 more boys than Springfield, who would you pick in a football game? Riverside most likely has 3 or 4 times the enrollment of Kirtland yet Kirtland def. Riverside several years ago. I agree there are too many divisions but once you get past 500 or 600 boys and you can't compete it's not because your enrollment is not big enough.

 

[serpico]

Do you have a link proving otherwise ?

When this stuff was going on it was wildly unpopular with the d1 fans on here. And I've heard at least a few D1 AD's who didn't like it and said it watered down the regular season with so many making the playoffs

Sorry but I don't know all the AD's to give you concrete links but you can't do so the other way either. So the call out is silly in that regard

So ‘a few’ D1 ADs and the D1 posters on Yappi equates to ’most in D1’? And not only that, but it also means the smaller divisions were ‘pushing it’? Sounds good!

 

[MentorGrad2002]

So ‘a few’ D1 ADs and the D1 posters on Yappi equates to ’most in D1’? And not only that, but it also means the smaller divisions were ‘pushing it’? Sounds good!

So can you give me links proving otherwise or are you just going to take the L on not being able to do the same thing you called me out for ?

I saw more than a few D1 ADs saying they didn't like the change. Spoke personally to a few who didn't like it too. Can you show me I'm wrong on the vast majority of D1 ADs not liking it ?

And it wasn't few D1 fans. Mostly all were saying how stupid this was by the ohsaa

The D2 and D3 teams were the ones who cried to get another division added. So those schools can't complain if D1 has a higher percentage of teams in the playoffs too. Even though most D1 fans would gladly go back to 8....the system has to be the same for all divisions. And the divisions aren't like this because of D1 schools

 

[eastisbest]

Doh! Shoulda countered with "marsha, marsha, marsha."

 

[serpico]

So can you give me links proving otherwise or are you just going to take the L on not being able to do the same thing you called me out for ?

Why would I attempt to prove anything? I never made an assertion that I couldn’t back up. However, every football fan I’ve talked to in the D5/6/7 conference I follow hated the expansion to 16 teams. I guess that means the D1 schools were for it?

 

[MentorGrad2002]

Why would I attempt to prove anything? I never made an assertion that I couldn’t back up. However, every football fan I’ve talked to in the D5/6/7 conference I follow hated the expansion to 16 teams. I guess that means the D1 schools were for it?

Well nobody would quote every AD but I've spoken to a few D1 ADs who hated it. And I've seen plenty of others quoted as not liking the change. So yeah all reports and stuff I've heard has the vast majority on D1 hating it including the fans.

I actually suspect the D2 and D3 crowd who pushed for more divisions would be the most likely to support playoff expansion too.

And again , those types cant complain when more D1 teams get in (by percentage) than in other divisions. Because those schools who whined their way out of D1 made it smaller and created that issue

 

[LCL]

I've never understood how OHSSA can't just have a system where the school must report their roster size to them. I know schools will try to fudge the numbers. But, honestly there are schools competing in a division where their number of athletes doesn't correlate with the size of the student body.

 

[Yappi]

I don't personally like byes in the first round in the playoffs for any teams but I think it would make sense in Division I if they are going to keep the Division at 72 teams. Twelve teams per region should make the playoffs in Division I with the top 4 teams in each region getting a first round bye. That way the season still ends at the same time as the other divisions but we don't have such lopsided contests and no winless tie-breaker situations.

 

[MentorGrad2002]

I don't personally like byes in the first round in the playoffs for any teams but I think it would make sense in Division I if they are going to keep the Division at 72 teams. Twelve teams per region should make the playoffs in Division I with the top 4 teams in each region getting a first round bye. That way the season still ends at the same time as the other divisions but we don't have such lopsided contests and no winless tie-breaker situations.

How about we force the D2 teams who begged out back into D1 so everyone can have the same playoff system ?

Those schools are the reason D1 has less schools. No reason for us to have convoluted playoffs with byes and such because those schools whined their way out

Or put it back to 8 for everyone. Again the system needs to be uniform. D1 shouldnt have to go to 4-6 per region if 8 happens ...because the schools who whined to get out of D1 created the smaller division. It's the same rationale

 

[Stirred not Shaken]

I've never understood how OHSSA can't just have a system where the school must report their roster size to them. I know schools will try to fudge the numbers. But, honestly there are schools competing in a division where their number of athletes doesn't correlate with the size of the student body.

No. Just because a school has good participation in a sport should not determine what division they are put in. How would you even put a corresponding number on a system like that?

 

[PDC]

I don't personally like byes in the first round in the playoffs for any teams but I think it would make sense in Division I if they are going to keep the Division at 72 teams. Twelve teams per region should make the playoffs in Division I with the top 4 teams in each region getting a first round bye. That way the season still ends at the same time as the other divisions but we don't have such lopsided contests and no winless tie-breaker situations.

Way better solution than what is being done right now.

I don't believe the 15 and 16 seeds who will lose by 60 are going to see it as a magical playoff experience.

 

[raising4daughters]

Dude has that user name and thinks the rest of us have not considered his sanity.

Response to R4D,
1) invest in a banquet hall.
2) it's not a linear relationship between school size and football success, let alone team size. Particularly flattens out in the higher erollment numbers. 2000 students doesn't mean twice the number interested in football, let alone twice the talent. Once platooning depth has been met, things level. 600 playing 1200 is not the same difficulty as 300 playing 600, presuming standard enrollment, not slected for football.

Not sure I understand the banquet hall reference.

You may be right on the school size relative to success, and I agree it probably flattens out with diminishing returns. No data either way, but it makes sense. Your last point is most salient and well-phrased...."not selected for football." Of course, wealth and geographic draw (open vs. closed enrollment) impact as well.

I admit I see this through the eyes of a suburban Cleveland guy with connections to schools in the 500-700 boy range. I can count 2 state titles among those schools in the last 40 years. Adding more to D1 gores my ox, and that's why I object I admit. Heck, had todays divisions been in place 10 years ago, NoRo might've advanced further in the playoffs than getting routed by St. Ignatius (a team at least partially selected for football with twice the males students) in week 12.

 

[hammer89]

I've never understood how OHSSA can't just have a system where the school must report their roster size to them. I know schools will try to fudge the numbers. But, honestly there are schools competing in a division where their number of athletes doesn't correlate with the size of the student body.

All schools do report roster size to the OHSAA, for competitive balance purposes.

 

[Hammerdrill]

Dude has that user name and thinks the rest of us have not considered his sanity.

Response to R4D,
1) invest in a banquet hall.
2) it's not a linear relationship between school size and football success, let alone team size. Particularly flattens out in the higher erollment numbers. 2000 students doesn't mean twice the number interested in football, let alone twice the talent. Once platooning depth has been met, things level. 600 playing 1200 is not the same difficulty as 300 playing 600, presuming standard enrollment, not slected for football.

I'm not sure "interested in playing football" is the accurate way to look at it. Enrollment numbers are the best way to look at it, but at the very top there is going to be a larger difference between the top and bottom, since we wouldn't want a big difference at the smallest division, where the talent disparity would be a whole lot more pronounced. Said another way, if we wanted each division to have the same spread from top to bottom, we would have to have a lot more divisions. Leave it the way it is and know that D1 is best equipped to absorb the disparity.

 

[eastisbest]

Not sure I understand the banquet hall reference.

4daughters.

 

[SVillegrad]

How many "boys" do you need in a H.S to make a good competitive D - 1 football team. Mason has an OHSAA enrollment of 500 more boys than Springfield, who would you pick in a football game? Riverside most likely has 3 or 4 times the enrollment of Kirtland yet Kirtland def. Riverside several years ago. I agree there are too many divisions but once you get past 500 or 600 boys and you can't compete it's not because your enrollment is not big enough.

This is exactly my rationale when I started this thread. Yes, there are a few mega schools that skew the D1 percentage differences, but for the most part (especially in Northeast Ohio) where there are a lot of smaller D1s and a lot of larger D2s, the difference between them in size is negligible.

The only R1 teams that are over 900 are Ignatius and McKinley. In fact, I'm willing to bet that next year, the only R1 school to be over 900 before CB is going to be Ignatius. I think their is a decent chance looking at future enrollment numbers that Ignatius and McKinley will be the only ones over 800. Lorain and Medina look for sure to drop lower than 800 and Brunswick and Mentor look like will be close.

So if you take out Ignatius (and McKinley), R1 is more like 14 schools in the 600-800 range ... then Ed's.

Since going up 16 from D2 to D1 would be half schools in NEO, it doesn't seem like it would affect the other D1 regions too much (R4 would be virtually unchanged unless a couple R3 schools were moved there to even the numbers).

I don't see how that's unfair when any school that has a number 500 or above should be able to put together a solid roster. I don't see the current breakdown being some magic number where Wadsworth at 632 is D1 but Riverside at 577 is definitely D2. Granted my scenario of adding 16 is also arbitrary, but I think something needs changed.

FWIW, I'm in favor of dropping down to four, 11-man divisions and adding a legitimate 8-man division for any school that doesn't think it can compete in any of the 4 11-man ones.

Edit: FWIW, my alma mater also is one that fits your last sentence. Strongsville can't complain about not being able to compete in D1 due to size. 600-800 boys is plenty to choose from to form a competitive roster.

 

[SVillegrad]

I've never understood how OHSSA can't just have a system where the school must report their roster size to them. I know schools will try to fudge the numbers. But, honestly there are schools competing in a division where their number of athletes doesn't correlate with the size of the student body.

That may be the easiest thing to prove. A school reports a number and then you simply count when that team runs onto the field.

If that count is off (outside of a set margin), then penalize the team the same as the do now if an ineligible player is used.

I would be for that, outside of the fact that I wouldn't put it past some coaches to start cutting kids to get to a certain number. That's the last thing football needs right now in an age where even a lot of even these "mega enrollment" teams are struggling to keep their non freshmen rosters over 60. ... and in any era, if a kid is willing to sacrifice the time it takes to to be on a football team, no way should they get cut (even if there is zero chance they ever play) just because some HS coach thinks getting my numbers down could lead to more glory. I'm not saying many coaches actually would do that but I'm sure there are some who would try to control their rosters if they thought it gives them a better chance at playoff success.