|
Post by kingmartinez on Apr 20, 2018 14:44:13 GMT -5
I would think school principal would make th,e vote. Correct - each high school's principal is the voting member.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 20, 2018 21:26:16 GMT -5
Principals cast the vote, but usually they are being told how to vote by the AD and coaches.
I've been told the the new rule would hurt 90% of Open Enrollment students to stop the 10% who are misusing Open Enrollment.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonblooded on Apr 21, 2018 6:05:49 GMT -5
Im starting to hear that it's not going to pass. Im starting to think it will not. All your gonna do is hurt kids that transfer for multiple reasons. Good programs will always get good talent. They always have and always will.
|
|
|
Post by heavydrop7 on Apr 21, 2018 6:26:11 GMT -5
Willard, that’s what I was thinking. I have a hard time believing that the principal and the AD or coaches from any given school would disagree on this issue. Unless there is a reason said parties don’t get along at any given school, a coaches poll or AD gossip could be a somewhat accurate indicator as to how this issue is going do at the polls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 7:24:01 GMT -5
Any principal of an open enrollment school that would vote this down for fear of losing some open enrolled students he would be admitting to being part of the problem. Kids that are changing schools for sports are the reason for this being on the books.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonblooded on Apr 21, 2018 7:25:49 GMT -5
I've been told the the new rule would hurt 90% of Open Enrollment students to stop the 10% who are misusing Open Enrollment. but if Willard heard that it would hurt 90 percent for the 10 percent the rule is designed to regulate then I would assume that administration know that as Well. So that being the case it may indeed be on the swing for a no vote. Unless your basketball team was beat out by this super half season power house team.
|
|
|
Post by heavydrop7 on Apr 21, 2018 8:10:28 GMT -5
Any principal of an open enrollment school that would vote this down for fear of losing some open enrolled students he would be admitting to being part of the problem. Kids that are changing schools for sports are the reason for this being on the books. I don’t like where high school sports (especially football) is going as a whole. Powerhouse high schools like IMG and American Heritage competing on ESPN, the Under Armor all star game, and televised shows where high school players announce their college of choice. While we may not have problems to that degree in Ohio, I would have to say i agree with you that students switching strictly for sports is a problem. Is there any evidence that teams with high competitive balance penalties won a disproportionate amount of the state championships, just wondering. I think they should have left it alone, 1 year, and amended the exceptions to the rule instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 8:32:55 GMT -5
Any principal of an open enrollment school that would vote this down for fear of losing some open enrolled students he would be admitting to being part of the problem. Kids that are changing schools for sports are the reason for this being on the books. I don’t like where high school sports (especially football) is going as a whole. Powerhouse high schools like IMG and American Heritage competing on ESPN, the Under Armor all star game, and televised shows where high school players announce their college of choice. While we may not have problems to that degree in Ohio, I would have to say i agree with you that students switching strictly for sports is a problem. Is there any evidence that teams with high competitive balance penalties won a disproportionate amount of the state championships, just wondering. I think they should have left it alone, 1 year, and amended the exceptions to the rule instead. It's to late to wish what could or should have been done. Moving forward there is a need to discourage kids and parents from changing schools with the primary goal of benefiting from sports. If the situation(academically) is good enough, sitting out some games will not matter to most.
|
|
|
Post by kingmartinez on Apr 21, 2018 8:34:13 GMT -5
Just to make sure everyone understands this - transfers who enroll before the start of their freshmen year or transfers who meet one of the "exemptions" do not have to sit (currently or in the proposal). Also, if a transfer changes schools after the start of their freshman year and doesn't meet an exemption but didn't play "that" sport in the previous year, then they don't sit.
|
|
|
Post by heavydrop7 on Apr 21, 2018 9:05:44 GMT -5
Just to make sure everyone understands this - transfers who enroll before the start of their freshmen year or transfers who meet one of the "exemptions" do not have to sit (currently or in the proposal). Also, if a transfer changes schools after the start of their freshman year and doesn't meet an exemption but didn't play "that" sport in the previous year, then they don't sit. Understood 👍🏻
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Apr 21, 2018 14:00:54 GMT -5
Principals cast the vote, but usually they are being told how to vote by the AD and coaches. I've been told the the new rule would hurt 90% of Open Enrollment students to stop the 10% who are misusing Open Enrollment. one bad apple spoils it for everyone! as the saying goes. thus be the case here as well... with that said, im still for this new transfer rule. because as in the case of looking at our tournaments the ones winning "most of the titles" are the ones with the highest CB .. its alarming, and its concerning, because that shouldn't be why schools sponsor sports, but it is becoming that. all i can say is do your homework to the best of your ability and make that choice before you are a 9th grader.
|
|
|
Post by heavydrop7 on Apr 21, 2018 14:56:42 GMT -5
Sports video, has anyone (sports writers,columnist, etc.) put together the data to determine if schools with high CB penalty points are the ones winning a disproportionate number of titles in all sports. I’m talking every HS sport, which sounds like a lot of work for which I don’t have the time. Just wondering if that was out there somewhere. I don’t even know if there is enough data at this point to say one way or the other, considering CB is relatively new.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 21, 2018 16:15:41 GMT -5
The 10% or fewer that everyone is concerned about, PO'd about, hated, are the AAU teammates that decide to Open Enroll to the same school to create a team made for a long tournament run. The 90% or greater that are hurt by the rule are kids Open Enrolling for the reason the Program was created for.
1)To get to a school with better academic programs. 2)Schools with better atmospheres for academic success. 3)Schools where bullying is not nearly as prevalent. 4)Schools where you can get almost half of college credits needed for FREE.
AND those students also play basketball, the vast majority not at a high level. They didn't Open Enroll JUST to play a sport, they Open Enrolled for academic reasons, and participate in athletics. As I would hope ALL students would do, sports can be a large part of the high school experience.
Now, those students have to sit out the first 11 games. The New Rule says they have to sit out the last 11 and all tournament games. Will coaches consider not playing those student athletes at all or not very much if they are't eligible to play in the tournament? Won't it be embarrassing for those student athletes to sit after playing the first 11 games, then disappearing the 2nd half of the season? Will coaches take their uniform away from them and tell them to comeback next season?
All this new rule will do is make these AAU teammates Open Enroll earlier and serve their penance before they're Seniors. If they do it as Sophomores, they have TWO years to dominated and win Titles.
SO, this new rule doesn't go far enough? In a couple of years there will be those who will want a rule saying Open Enrollment students have to sit out the last half of EVERY season and tournament games, if they don't Open Enroll before the start of the 9th grade.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 21, 2018 16:20:53 GMT -5
Just to make sure everyone understands this - transfers who enroll before the start of their freshmen year or transfers who meet one of the "exemptions" do not have to sit (currently or in the proposal). Also, if a transfer changes schools after the start of their freshman year and doesn't meet an exemption but didn't play "that" sport in the previous year, then they don't sit. Just so everyone understands. If you come to a school in the 7th or 8th grade it still counts against a school in the CB Formulain, but not as much if you come after the start of the 9th grade.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 21, 2018 16:36:03 GMT -5
Any principal of an open enrollment school that would vote this down for fear of losing some open enrolled students he would be admitting to being part of the problem. Kids that are changing schools for sports are the reason for this being on the books. A principal would be voting against money for his schools. Be voting for an operating levy on the ballot. The Superintendent and BOE would be against it if they lost Open Enrollment students. In the case of Ontario, they receive $1.5 million/year from Open Enrollment students. A very small % play basketball. The vast majority come for academics. NO the only problem is when a group of athletes(buddies) in basketball only, a sport that only has 5 starters, conspire to transfer to the same school in the same year. Their Senior year to create a team for a long tournament run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 7:11:32 GMT -5
Sports video, has anyone (sports writers,columnist, etc.) put together the data to determine if schools with high CB penalty points are the ones winning a disproportionate number of titles in all sports. I’m talking every HS sport, which sounds like a lot of work for which I don’t have the time. Just wondering if that was out there somewhere. I don’t even know if there is enough data at this point to say one way or the other, considering CB is relatively new. Since the CB formula is new, there would not be a lot of data for that.
|
|
|
Post by birchbarlow on Apr 22, 2018 7:33:33 GMT -5
Why do we care?
Why do we care is a boy or girl wants to play at school x,y or z?
Why should someone's zip code determine the fate of their athletic career?
We already punish schools for transfers with the CB rule, why punish the athlete too?(my main point)
When we make these rules we really only end up punishing people who follow the rules, while rule breakers rarely are caught.
Every time you create a rule, you just force people to find new ways around them
Why does the OSHAA need to spend the time and effort and money to make and try to enforce these rules?
Many schools already have some form of open enrollment, why not just make every school open enrollment?
Seems like they go through a whole lot of effort to control the movements of teenagers.
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Apr 22, 2018 7:51:15 GMT -5
Why do we care? Why do we care is a boy or girl wants to play at school x,y or z? Why should someone's zip code determine the fate of their athletic career? We already punish schools for transfers with the CB rule, why punish the athlete too?(my main point) When we make these rules we really only end up punishing people who follow the rules, while rule breakers rarely are caught. Every time you create a rule, you just force people to find new ways around them Why does the OSHAA need to spend the time and effort and money to make and try to enforce these rules? Many schools already have some form of open enrollment, why not just make every school open enrollment? Seems like they go through a whole lot of effort to control the movements of teenagers. Why don't we stop sponsoring school sports and just play AAU if thats what it is going to come down to? That is the direction we are heading in.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonblooded on Apr 22, 2018 8:23:47 GMT -5
"Why don't we stop sponsoring school sports and just play AAU if thats what it is going to come down to? That is the direction we are heading"
That's fine for parents that support their sons and daughters in athletics. The question is if it is part of the educational experience. Does it need to be provided as an opportunity for the average student who's parents may not support them in it? It's not always about winning a state championship. A coach that believes and encourages a young student to do something positive could be worth a lot in the big picture. But some coaches are not the positive influence they should be and by all means open enroll!
Also, it's not like the direction of high school sports hasn't changed. Do you all know the original reason sports were started in high school?
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 22, 2018 12:48:05 GMT -5
Sports video, has anyone (sports writers,columnist, etc.) put together the data to determine if schools with high CB penalty points are the ones winning a disproportionate number of titles in all sports. I’m talking every HS sport, which sounds like a lot of work for which I don’t have the time. Just wondering if that was out there somewhere. I don’t even know if there is enough data at this point to say one way or the other, considering CB is relatively new. The current CB formula does very little. Example: Boys Basketball The first WEAK part of the CB balancing is in DI: If a school has a HUGE CB balance number they can't be moved to a higher Division, there is no Division higher than DI. Nothing can be done about DI schools with big CB numbers, such as 86, 88, 97, 126, 135, 178, 194. Another WEAK part of the CB balancing formula: IF a school is near the top of any Division except for DI and has a small CB adder they WILL be moved up a Division. But schools in the middle or bottom of a Division with a HUGE CB adder will not be moved up a Division. Schools moved up to DIII from DIV: 2 with an adder of 15, one with 19. Yet there were 35 schools in DIV with higher adders that didn't move up. 11 had an adder of 30 or higher with schools having an adder of 41, 43, 60, and 140 staying in DIV. Schools moved up to DII from DIII: 2 with an adder of 16 and 19. Yet there were 20 schools with higher adders that stayed in DII. 11 had an adder of 30 or higher, with schools as high as 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 56, 69 staying in DIII. Moving from DII to DI was a school with an adder of 13. Yet there were 19 schools with an adder of 30 or higher that stayed in DII. Of those that didn't move up were schools with an adder of 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 73, 77, 82, 168. Also, it was very interesting that Cleveland Central Catholic with an adder of 118 and Cleveland Benedictine with a adder of 80 moved DOWN from DI to DII. Obviously after the first year of the Competitive Balance Formula being used and they were moved UP from DII to DI, they had to cut enrollment to get back down to DII. Private schools can't be stopped from doing this, where public schools can not kick out Open Enrollment students without cause, to move down a Division. As can be seen, the CB Formula is pretty much a farce.
|
|
|
Post by heavydrop7 on Apr 22, 2018 14:07:27 GMT -5
"Why don't we stop sponsoring school sports and just play AAU if thats what it is going to come down to? That is the direction we are heading" That's fine for parents that support their sons and daughters in athletics. The question is if it is part of the educational experience. Does it need to be provided as an opportunity for the average student who's parents may not support them in it? It's not always about winning a state championship. A coach that believes and encourages a young student to do something positive could be worth a lot in the big picture. But some coaches are not the positive influence they should be and by all means open enroll! Also, it's not like the direction of high school sports hasn't changed. Do you all know the original reason sports were started in high school? Crimson, you are 100% correct, it is about the big picture. I don’t know where I would have ended up without my high school football coach. It seems with most coaches and parents today the big picture is secondary to winning. One or reasons for leaving Perkins.
|
|
|
Post by ohioraised on Apr 22, 2018 18:42:43 GMT -5
The current CB formula does very little. Example: Boys Basketball The first WEAK part of the CB balancing is in DI: If a school has a HUGE CB balance number they can't be moved to a higher Division, there is no Division higher than DI. Nothing can be done about DI schools with big CB numbers, such as 86, 88, 97, 126, 135, 178, 194. Another WEAK part of the CB balancing formula: IF a school is near the top of any Division except for DI and has a small CB adder they WILL be moved up a Division. But schools in the middle or bottom of a Division with a HUGE CB adder will not be moved up a Division. Schools moved up to DIII from DIV: 2 with an adder of 15, one with 19. Yet there were 35 schools in DIV with higher adders that didn't move up. 11 had an adder of 30 or higher with schools having an adder of 41, 43, 60, and 140 staying in DIV. Schools moved up to DII from DIII: 2 with an adder of 16 and 19. Yet there were 20 schools with higher adders that stayed in DII. 11 had an adder of 30 or higher, with schools as high as 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 56, 69 staying in DIII. Moving from DII to DI was a school with an adder of 13. Yet there were 19 schools with an adder of 30 or higher that stayed in DII. Of those that didn't move up were schools with an adder of 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 73, 77, 82, 168. Also, it was very interesting that Cleveland Central Catholic with an adder of 118 and Cleveland Benedictine with a adder of 80 moved DOWN from DI to DII. Obviously after the first year of the Competitive Balance Formula being used and they were moved UP from DII to DI, they had to cut enrollment to get back down to DII. Private schools can't be stopped from doing this, where public schools can not kick out Open Enrollment students without cause, to move down a Division. As can be seen, the CB Formula is pretty much a farce. The formula is doing what it was designed to do. Div 1 was never being looked at to go anywhere. Seeing how the enrollment number is being used for 2 years your theory about Clev. Cent. Cath. and Clev. Bend. is pretty much a farce.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 23, 2018 1:33:52 GMT -5
The way the formula is designed it moves up schools with a CB adder in the teens, but does nothing to most schools with CB adders from 50 to 150.
EXACTLY!!!! The Formula does nothing to schools with the largest CB adders, those in DI.
The CB adder is updated on a yearly basis. The CB adder moved CCC and Benedictine UP to DI from DII THIS year, for the first time in their history. The 2018-19 CB adders are out for fall and winter sports for 2018-19. YOU tell us how CCC and Benedictine managed to move back DOWN to DII in the SECOND year of using the CB Formula. When they have CB adders of 118 and 80. HINT....they reduced their CB Formula numbers from 110 to 80 and 143 to 118. How did they do that? By not readmitting certain students that inflated their CB number, but were not significant players in their program. It would be worse for them if they did it with a simple pencil adjustment. You would have figured that out if your intellect wasn't a farce.
Aden..dumb
Your monster letters is all you have?? They're proof of you lacking knowledge and having no answer for my question.
I showed you above how CCC and Benedictine did it. What private schools can do, that public schools can't do. They don't readmit(cut enrollment) of specific students that are being counted in the CB Formula. Thus reducing the CB balance number, which is recalculated every year, in a year the enrollment number isn't recalculated. You think it was just dumb luck that their CB adders were 25% to 20% lower from year 1 to year 2?? Why didn't they go up?? EASY answer, that wouldn't have solved their issue. Not only farcical, but naive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 7:14:08 GMT -5
"Why don't we stop sponsoring school sports and just play AAU if thats what it is going to come down to? That is the direction we are heading" That's fine for parents that support their sons and daughters in athletics. The question is if it is part of the educational experience. Does it need to be provided as an opportunity for the average student who's parents may not support them in it? It's not always about winning a state championship. A coach that believes and encourages a young student to do something positive could be worth a lot in the big picture. But some coaches are not the positive influence they should be and by all means open enroll! Also, it's not like the direction of high school sports hasn't changed. Do you all know the original reason sports were started in high school? Crimson, you are 100% correct, it is about the big picture. I don’t know where I would have ended up without my high school football coach. It seems with most coaches and parents today the big picture is secondary to winning. One or reasons for leaving Perkins. The movement of high school for sports in Ohio has become incredible.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 23, 2018 13:53:34 GMT -5
What high schools have moved??
|
|
|
Post by heavydrop7 on Apr 23, 2018 14:20:37 GMT -5
Crimson, you are 100% correct, it is about the big picture. I don’t know where I would have ended up without my high school football coach. It seems with most coaches and parents today the big picture is secondary to winning. One or reasons for leaving Perkins. The movement of high school for sports in Ohio has become incredible. If it was all about sports for my oldest, I would not be moving my other children as well..
|
|
|
Post by crimsonblooded on Apr 23, 2018 16:03:53 GMT -5
Why would parents not move their children for sports. Look at us on here talking about high school sports. You think it is incredible, I think it is very reasonable. My children put in many hours of hard work outside of their school participation for sports. I can can give you many examples why one would leave other than stacking a team. Everybody can do what is best for their child. I Don't think parents should have obstacles because some basketball team got stacked in Cincinnati. If it would had been a cross country team we probably wouldn't know anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by ohioraised on Apr 23, 2018 16:18:36 GMT -5
Does someone actually think that a tuition funded school would cut it's own tuition.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonblooded on Apr 23, 2018 16:27:25 GMT -5
Does someone actually think that a tuition funded school would cut it's own tuition. After reading what Willard Fillmore stated above and those numbers being accurate, then yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 16:32:21 GMT -5
Why would parents not move their children for sports. Look at us on here talking about high school sports. You think it is incredible, I think it is very reasonable. My children put in many hours of hard work outside of their school participation for sports. I can can give you many examples why one would leave other than stacking a team. Everybody can do what is best for their child. I Don't think parents should have obstacles because some basketball team got stacked in Cincinnati. If it would had been a cross country team we probably wouldn't know anything about it. Because the numbers that care about cross country are much smaller and it does not generate any revenue.
|
|