Will we get to 4 divisions

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
I understand what you are saying, psycho_dad. I think you took the numbers I presented far too literally. I presented those as hypothetical for discussion's sake. Maybe I've interpreted what you've stated incorrectly, but tell me if I'm wrong.

I do not know the distribution curve of the state's school systems in terms of #kids/school, but that information is out there. I think we can all recognize that there is serious lack of equity amongst the largest division (I) and that should at the very minimum be addressed. But that does not preclude the rest of my statement. Competitive distributions are frequently not seen with simple divisions made of the same number of schools/division. However, I understand the simple-mindedness of state authorities when it comes to making these divisions, so I hold little hope of them actually doing serious any serious study of the matter. It would be an undertaking, and the results of such a study's results being implemented would meet with criticism as well.

In any case, a school such as Mason (not to pick on Mason, just that I know that district well) has a serious competitive advantage over most of the other D1 schools of their district and region. I think that needs to be addressed with a Super D1 division. My 2 cents.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
As a side matter, and one of particular Ohio T&F historical significance, I should note that this very desire to provide expanded and more equitable opportunities to the lower end of the school # scale was done in 1926-28 with the implementation of the Class C tournament at the State meet. At that time, there were only District meets that fed into the state meet. In Classes A & B, the winning & runner-up teams got to send their whole squad to the state meet in addition to their qualifiers that placed in the top 3 at district. So, there were placers & winners at the state meet that DID NOT place or compete in a respective event at district! The rest of the top 3 at district that weren't part of the winning or runner-up teams only sent their qualifiers, as is today's standard.

Getting to the Class C division, those teams were referred to as "County" teams comprising the winning teams at the respective county meets plus other selected individuals of schools that had very small teams or no team at all, but an athlete could compete in the Class C division at state after what I suspect was meeting some type of qualifying standard. They may very well have just been selected by the respective county to be part of that team, however. Note, no team or individual competing in either Class A or B meets at the district level could then compete at Class C at state. However, there were Class B teams that chose not to compete at the district Class B comp but instead chose to go the Class C route if they'd won the county meet and figured their chances were better.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
If we made 4 divisions based on an even number of students in each division, this would be the breakdown based on grade 9-11 enrollments and not taking into account which schools have a team and which schools don't:

Boys (roughly 52,220 grade 9-11 students in each division)
DI: 625 boys and up (Mason has 1299), 65 schools
DII: 369-624 boys, 110 schools
DIII: 210-368 boys, 189 schools
DIV: 1-209 boys, 437 schools (the lion's share of schools that don't actually have teams would come from this group)

Girls (roughly 49,461 grade 9-11 girls in each division)
DI: 572 girls and up (Mason has 1348), 67 schools
DII: 356-571 girls, 111 schools
DIII: 202-355 girls, 190 schools
DIV: 1-201 girls, 435 schools (the lion's share of schools that don't actually have teams would come from this group)


Cut-offs would differ somewhat if only dealing with schools that have actual teams, but this offers a glimpse into how this type of distribution method would look.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
If we made 4 divisions based on an even number of students in each division, this would be the breakdown based on grade 9-11 enrollments and not taking into account which schools have a team and which schools don't:

Boys (roughly 52,220 grade 9-11 students in each division)
DI: 625 boys and up (Mason has 1299), 65 schools
DII: 369-624 boys, 110 schools
DIII: 210-368 boys, 189 schools
DIV: 1-209 boys, 437 schools (the lion's share of schools that don't actually have teams would come from this group)

Girls (roughly 49,461 grade 9-11 girls in each division)
DI: 572 girls and up (Mason has 1348), 67 schools
DII: 356-571 girls, 111 schools
DIII: 202-355 girls, 190 schools
DIV: 1-201 girls, 435 schools (the lion's share of schools that don't actually have teams would come from this group)


Cut-offs would differ somewhat if only dealing with schools that have actual teams, but this offers a glimpse into how this type of distribution method would look.

Nice work!!! I think something like this is far more equitable...pitting schools of similar size (# of students) with each other instead of establishing equity by # of schools. Excellent work, Mr. Slippery!

Division I would most likely not need a district meet, but instead qualify directly to a region meet, then state. All the others would have district meets.
 
Last edited:

psycho_dad

Well-known member
I understand what you are saying, psycho_dad. I think you took the numbers I presented far too literally. I presented those as hypothetical for discussion's sake. Maybe I've interpreted what you've stated incorrectly, but tell me if I'm wrong.

I do not know the distribution curve of the state's school systems in terms of #kids/school, but that information is out there. I think we can all recognize that there is serious lack of equity amongst the largest division (I) and that should at the very minimum be addressed. But that does not preclude the rest of my statement. Competitive distributions are frequently not seen with simple divisions made of the same number of schools/division. However, I understand the simple-mindedness of state authorities when it comes to making these divisions, so I hold little hope of them actually doing serious any serious study of the matter. It would be an undertaking, and the results of such a study's results being implemented would meet with criticism as well.

In any case, a school such as Mason (not to pick on Mason, just that I know that district well) has a serious competitive advantage over most of the other D1 schools of their district and region. I think that needs to be addressed with a Super D1 division. My 2 cents.
I just took your example and ran with it a little. My exaggerated hypothetical doesn't look that far off. Who else had all their money on Mr. Slippery coming through?

I think this just shifts the biggest flaw from the big schools to the small.

I'm not totally against it, I just am not convinced it's something ohsaa would do since it is different that other sports.
 

hammer89

Well-known member
OHSAA won't be adding in any "unknowns," like a new division or a new sport, until COVID stuff settles down and they get back on a "normal" financial path. I would say 2024 at the earliest for a new division.
 

Altor

Well-known member
OHSAA won't be adding in any "unknowns," like a new division or a new sport, until COVID stuff settles down and they get back on a "normal" financial path. I would say 2024 at the earliest for a new division.

I don't know about 2024, but this was a big reason why they did not make this change for 2021. In fact, they had decided back in October to use last year's division assignments for all sports mostly because they couldn't get reliable data from the Dept of Ed.

From the October 1, 2020, BoD minutes:
With some schools not offering sports along with many students following nontraditional learning modalities this fall due to COVID19, the Executive Director’s Office has deliberated on how to handle enrollment data, since this October is when the OHSAA traditionally receives that data (EMIS) from the Ohio Department of Education for use in tournament representation, tournament division breakdowns and classifications for OHSAA District Athletic Board elections. With the concern that the data may be unreliable and/or skewed, the Executive Diretor’s Office recommended that current enrollment data be and tournament divisions be utilized for the third straight year in the 2021-22 school year. EMIS data would then be collected in October 2021 and utilized in a new twoyear cycle that would cover the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years. New Constitution Article 6-1-9 allows the Executive Director’s Office to make this change.

Motion by Leonard Steyer, second by Steve Watkins to approve the recommendation as presented.

Motion passed 8-0.
 

ENA2

Member
Good work Mr. Slippery,
Maybe it's just because I'm a "team" guy but I see those numbers as the same problem(s) we have now, plus adding some other problems.
Same:
- the greatly unequal numbers that are currently in DI has moved to DIV as schools with 30 or less boys (or girls) in the upper 3 grades will have to compete with schools with 7-8 times as many kids. It seems to me, that there are as many (more) schools that compete in Track and Field with 30 or less in 9-11 than there are currently in what some would call the "super division"... I agree that it is no totally "fair" that a school with 300 boys has to compete with a school with 4x that number (1200), but a school with 20 (2-3 of which are in our district and about 8+ in the NE) competing against school 10 time bigger is just as bad.
New problems:
-There would be less than 130 boys discus throwers compete for a State title at the beginning of the tourney (65 x 2) as each school could have two entries but some may have one or none (I know of some DI schools that currently do not enter 2 - or even 1- at Districts) ; 220 discus thrower for DII; 378 or less for DIII, and 874 for D4. I do realize that some more small schools do not enter all events (about a 1/4 in my DIV district), so lets use that number+ and call it 520 in D4. so accounting for some schools not contesting 2, the number would likely look like this for any particular event.
*NOTE - I have never seen any district, in any division with the maximum number of entrants in every event, in fact, not sure I have seen it in ANY event...ever!
DI - 100 discus throwers
DII - 200 discus throwers
DIII - 350 discus throwers
DIV - 520 discus throwers
Is this really equitable?.... It may be a way to promote equitable depth at the State Meet so that place 1-8 are about the same marks in each division, but is that what the goal should be? Will it promote that sport? get more kids out for Track? ... "Fixing" a problem in one area, moving it somewhere else is have seen before BUT creating more problems is not a solution.

other new problem:
Pyschodad addressed this, but I will ask: How many Districts in D4? Do you have sectionals? Is it "fair" that DI 3200 runners have to only race once to get to State, but you may have to race 3 times in less than 2 weeks to for D4?

IMO It may be attractive for those who believe track is strictly an individual sport and that the post Conference meets do not need to worry about team awards and I know many who feel this way...

I know that each of these can be dealt with.... "have the D4 State meet a week later" or "allow DI to have 3 entrants at the District level" does not make things MORE EQUITABLE. And THAT is what we are trying to do... I think.
 

ENA2

Member
Reasons why this probably would never fly at least for awhile: Just through my experience.
1. not "in line" with any other sport - even too radical for football
2. most other sports would "cry foul" and want to do similar things as equity complaints for DI is major for most sports too
3. would not keep with the mission of the OHSAA or the OATCCC (although missions can change)
4. Track and Field is not a priority for most, and that includes the OHSAA, school administrators, many coaches and athletes' parents...gotta make it easy for them to understand (educate them) and go along with.
5. Have to show how it will cost less and/or raise revenue.
6. can not disrupt the "status quo" too much or have it "take away" something that is currently provided to anyone
I was taught that major change is the #2 fear for people (behind public speaking)
7. those making the proposal have to be good with criticism, make adjustments and be very patient... could take years.

The OHSAA, commissioner(s), and board of control usually wants to keep all the sports "in line" as far as divisions go and to have things clear cut. so keeping it simple (easy to do by the numbers) and splitting division like Mr. Slippery did IS pretty easy to understand, but not sure that the "powers that be" would get it and would think that most sports would jump on board as the DI schools also have competitive issues. The private/public school competitive balance is also an issue that is not too simple. Also, got to "sell" it to everyone involved and that does not mean on yappi....
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
I just took your example and ran with it a little. My exaggerated hypothetical doesn't look that far off. Who else had all their money on Mr. Slippery coming through?

I think this just shifts the biggest flaw from the big schools to the small.

I'm not totally against it, I just am not convinced it's something ohsaa would do since it is different that other sports.
That I would agree with. OHSAA has frequently been averse to "change".
 

CC Track Fan

Active member
Good work Mr. Slippery,
Maybe it's just because I'm a "team" guy but I see those numbers as the same problem(s) we have now, plus adding some other problems.
Same:
- the greatly unequal numbers that are currently in DI has moved to DIV as schools with 30 or less boys (or girls) in the upper 3 grades will have to compete with schools with 7-8 times as many kids. It seems to me, that there are as many (more) schools that compete in Track and Field with 30 or less in 9-11 than there are currently in what some would call the "super division"... I agree that it is no totally "fair" that a school with 300 boys has to compete with a school with 4x that number (1200), but a school with 20 (2-3 of which are in our district and about 8+ in the NE) competing against school 10 time bigger is just as bad.
New problems:
-There would be less than 130 boys discus throwers compete for a State title at the beginning of the tourney (65 x 2) as each school could have two entries but some may have one or none (I know of some DI schools that currently do not enter 2 - or even 1- at Districts) ; 220 discus thrower for DII; 378 or less for DIII, and 874 for D4. I do realize that some more small schools do not enter all events (about a 1/4 in my DIV district), so lets use that number+ and call it 520 in D4. so accounting for some schools not contesting 2, the number would likely look like this for any particular event.
*NOTE - I have never seen any district, in any division with the maximum number of entrants in every event, in fact, not sure I have seen it in ANY event...ever!
DI - 100 discus throwers
DII - 200 discus throwers
DIII - 350 discus throwers
DIV - 520 discus throwers
Is this really equitable?.... It may be a way to promote equitable depth at the State Meet so that place 1-8 are about the same marks in each division, but is that what the goal should be? Will it promote that sport? get more kids out for Track? ... "Fixing" a problem in one area, moving it somewhere else is have seen before BUT creating more problems is not a solution.

other new problem:
Pyschodad addressed this, but I will ask: How many Districts in D4? Do you have sectionals? Is it "fair" that DI 3200 runners have to only race once to get to State, but you may have to race 3 times in less than 2 weeks to for D4?

IMO It may be attractive for those who believe track is strictly an individual sport and that the post Conference meets do not need to worry about team awards and I know many who feel this way...

I know that each of these can be dealt with.... "have the D4 State meet a week later" or "allow DI to have 3 entrants at the District level" does not make things MORE EQUITABLE. And THAT is what we are trying to do... I think.
The part you are missing is that D1 those two discus throwers may have had to out throw 18 teammates just to be able to throw at districts. So if that is the average number on D1 schools that would mean there at 1000 D1 Discus throwers. Discus may not be that high but I would guess that the biggest 60 schools in OH have 20+ kids for every non hurdle running event and many field events.

Many of the small new D4 schools are happy just to find 2 people for every event.
 

ENA2

Member
Although I'm not sure your numbers are accurate for all or even most of the top 60 schools, The "problem" would be how to run the tourney. Since only 2 can compete in each event, and would have to qualify to move on at some level(s) to get to the State Meet, the competition "pool" for running the state tourney would be pretty accurate.

The problem of how many kids are contending for those spots within a team will be there if you have one division or 10 divisions. I don't argue that having many kids in events is mostly an advantage, with some disadvantages...
I would think the problem you are addressing would be the same for every sport and I'm not sure baseball/basketball/volleyball etc. would like to have 430 schools in one division
Although I am only familiar with few of the biggest 60 schools in Ohio, I have witnessed that those who may have 20+ in some events often have most of those kids with no State Meet aspirations....Yes, most want to improve and some want to "make the varsity" but many just want to be part of the team. Numbers in certain events may have as much to do with other factors like team promotion, socioeconmeics, tradition, local culture, etc. more than numbers enrolled.... at least in NE ohio.

Here are some Examples from my area: all "big" schools who are usually near the top of my area. I think only McKinley and Jackson may be in the top 60 in size in the State, but am familiar with Akron/Cleveland big schools too, and see similar trends.... same with DII and DIII to, except lower numbers. These schools I just see and compete against every year. - -
Massillon Jackson - Usually will have 20+ contending in many events with maybe up to 200 members on the team...but relatively few quality sprinters/jumpers maybe because fast kids there may be encouraged to move to the 800/1600.... as often my school does.
Canton McKinley - Dynamic young coaches who seldom have 20 guys pushing each other to run the 1600, (or 3200) or even 3-4 who want to pole vault...may have 40 football players who run track but are still trying to get "bigger, faster, stronger" and think distance training is opposed to that.
Canton GlenOak - Consistent, great coaching but may seem to stress quality over quantity. a no nonsense approach seems to serve them well as they don't usually have the mega numbers, but are usually with the leaders with results.
Massillon Washington - Lower numbers on the team and rarely have 20 distance runners - or even 10 (I have never seen it)... good coaching, but spring football and other things may be stressed by the community and school.
*Note - this is just from my observations... I am rooting for McKinley/Massillon to have 20 distance runners this year and GlenOak and Jackson to each have great seasons with many shot putters pushing each other to new PR's. Does not effect what I do, just will make me glad for them and will be good for the sport....

Finally, I am at a mid sized DIII school...Have had teams that have 20+ sprinter/hurdlers or 20+ distance runners...never 20+ throwers (but had 12 boys once) - biggest team that I can recall had 38 on it....(about a fourth of the school). I have it good, but have often seen at my District that some schools only have 4-5 on their roster or some who never have entered the PV or HJ (probably because of no pit to practice on) - I have seen this in DI and DII recently too.
I also have seen many times one kid on a small team like that gets 2nd at our District and 3rd at the Regional and 7th at the State Meet ...and that may help the sport grow at their school. - having 400 schools in a division would hurt the sport and some smaller schools would end their programs. I would like try to build the sport and get more kids involved.
I believe that the disparity in numbers for the biggest DI schools is a legit, major problem. I just think that the remedy for a problem should not cause more problems or unfairness to another group.
 
Last edited:
.
Top