Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 16:34:16 GMT -5
Does someone actually think that a tuition funded school would cut it's own tuition. Stranger things have happened in high school sports. But I suppose the smart thing to do would be to cut them from the team and keep them in school.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 23, 2018 23:25:12 GMT -5
Does someone actually think that a tuition funded school would cut it's own tuition. Cut tuition?? More likely to raise tuition a slight amount on all to replace a few that caused them to move from DII to DI because of CB Formula.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 23, 2018 23:29:10 GMT -5
Does someone actually think that a tuition funded school would cut it's own tuition. Stranger things have happened in high school sports. But I suppose the smart thing to do would be to cut them from the team and keep them in school. Another possible abhorrent policy. Don't carry as many players on squads to stay in a lower Division, due to CB. SO MANY ways to get around OHSAA policy, Bylaws, Rules.
|
|
|
Post by birchbarlow on Apr 24, 2018 7:33:31 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. Willard, I know you know the CB rule but your post doesn't reflect it. The CB rule is only about inflating or deflating enrollment numbers. Not directly about moving divisions. Division changes are just an effect of this enrollment adjustment. By your explanation, the smallest D5 school (actual enrollment) with an adder of 25 should be moved up a division over the largest D5 school (actual enrollment) whos adder is 5. Also what evidence do you have that Benedictine or CCC cut enrollment? Private schools don't usually make a habit of cutting students who pay thousands to go there just so their football team can be in a certain division.
|
|
|
Post by ohioraised on Apr 24, 2018 7:40:32 GMT -5
Willard, I know you know the CB rule but your post doesn't reflect it. Also what evidence do you have that Benedictine or CCC cut enrollment? Private schools don't usually make a habit of cutting students who pay thousands to go there just so their football team can be in a certain division.
|
|
|
Post by ohioraised on Apr 24, 2018 7:44:50 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. Numbers can be accurate and still used to misinform you. Why would a tuition funded school cut tuition paying students when they can make cuts to their roster just like every open enrollment school can to lower their competitive balance number.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 8:38:57 GMT -5
I've heard the 6'5 sophmore post at Perkins is transferring to Sandusky. Not sure if what the state decides will change his mind or I guess the parents could always move as well. That is a big loss for that sophmore class if true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 10:58:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure the new rule will pass so it may not be a factor.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Apr 24, 2018 11:39:48 GMT -5
WF’s long post points out that if you are on the low or mid end of a division as far as enrollment even a big modifier will not move you up. You can be on the top end of a division and a small modifier will move you up. His numbers prove that and point out the shortcomings of the current CB formula. It hurt schools with relatively small modifiers because they were close to moving up and did nothing to schools with big modifiers because they were solidly in the middle or bottom and their division. Though their modifier was large it was not large enough to move them. The CB formula didn’t work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 13:15:57 GMT -5
The formula worked exactly as it was intended. It was not designed to take the schools with a high CB number and move them to another division. It was designed to take a schools enrollment and the number for the kids in the formula to get a total number. Those numbers are used to make the divisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 15:36:29 GMT -5
WF’s long post points out that if you are on the low or mid end of a division as far as enrollment even a big modifier will not move you up. You can be on the top end of a division and a small modifier will move you up. His numbers prove that and point out the shortcomings of the current CB formula. It hurt schools with relatively small modifiers because they were close to moving up and did nothing to schools with big modifiers because they were solidly in the middle or bottom and their division. Though their modifier was large it was not large enough to move them. The CB formula didn’t work. How do you figure it didn’t work? There are only 7 divisions and all have roughly the same number of schools excluding D1 You make it sound like the only number that matters is the cb number and the actual enrollment number is meaningless
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Apr 24, 2018 15:38:37 GMT -5
No, it was supposed to make schools with a large number of move ins accountable. It didn’t work because the schools with the bigger modifiers didn’t move divisions and the ones that did get moved had relatively small modifiers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 16:14:32 GMT -5
No, it was supposed to make schools with a large number of move ins accountable. It didn’t work because the schools with the bigger modifiers didn’t move divisions and the ones that did get moved had relatively small modifiers. NO, it was supposed to take into account the number of "move ins"(as you call them) for all schools and then divide the division once that accountable number has been added in. It was never intended to take a smaller school into a big school. It was designed to account for each schools qualifying enrollment that fits into the tiers of the formula.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Apr 24, 2018 16:45:30 GMT -5
So you’re telling me it was designed to move a school with 2-3 move ins up a division while leaving a school with 6 or 8 or 12 move ins in the same division? That’s what the OHSAA was try to do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 17:04:12 GMT -5
No, I'm telling you it was not designed to specifically move anyone. It was designed to take into account the athletes on a roster that you call move ins and create a total number for every school in the state. Once every school had a total number, which included their enrollment plus the CB number, the divisions were set up based on all of the schools total numbers.
|
|
|
Post by kingmartinez on Apr 24, 2018 17:16:23 GMT -5
I can say, with 100% certainty, the transfer proposal will pass.
Streaknation - are you referring to a current sophomore or sophomore next year?
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Apr 24, 2018 17:38:24 GMT -5
No, I'm telling you it was not designed to specifically move anyone. It was designed to take into account the athletes on a roster that you call move ins and create a total number for every school in the state. Once every school had a total number, which included their enrollment plus the CB number, the divisions were set up based on all of the schools total numbers. Well of course they didn’t create a rule and only enforce it on certain schools. Yes or no? Does it appear to have moved schools that were “recruiting?” Typing that response did give me an idea. How do you create a rule and only apply it to certain members. They could set a threshold on the modifier. Below a certain number and it doesn’t apply. Above a certain number and it does. It will never fly, but it would punish outliers. It would get those abusing the system.
|
|
|
Post by usramfan on Apr 24, 2018 18:05:43 GMT -5
No, I'm telling you it was not designed to specifically move anyone. It was designed to take into account the athletes on a roster that you call move ins and create a total number for every school in the state. Once every school had a total number, which included their enrollment plus the CB number, the divisions were set up based on all of the schools total numbers. I'm not sure how many people realize this. It's not completely accurate to say schools are definitely manipulating their number when the divisional breakdowns are not fixed in advance.
|
|
|
Post by usramfan on Apr 24, 2018 18:10:40 GMT -5
One possible twist to this is that we were told at the district meeting that at the state level, there is at least some discussion of shrinking D1 in basketball, as is done in football, and redistrubing those schools among the other divisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 21:39:18 GMT -5
The CB formula worked as it was designed to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 21:41:19 GMT -5
I can say, with 100% certainty, the transfer proposal will pass. What makes you so sure? I feel the NW District area will pass this but the NE, Central and SW will not.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Apr 24, 2018 21:55:15 GMT -5
The CB formula worked as it was designed to. Agree to disagree. I don’t believe it was intended to move schools with relatively smaller modifiers up. I believe it was an attempt to appease people who are angry with player movement/recruiting which means moving schools with larger modifiers up. I think it was intended to discourage recruiting. That didn’t happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 22:01:56 GMT -5
The CB formula worked as it was designed to. Agree to disagree. I don’t believe it was intended to move schools with relatively smaller modifiers up. I believe it was an attempt to appease people who are angry with player movement/recruiting which means moving schools with larger modifiers up. I think it was intended to discourage recruiting. That didn’t happen. It was designed to account for the move ins as you call them. Don't make it any bigger than that. Once the formula added in those players, then the divisions were set up. It did all of that. It was not designed to move anyone or not move anyone. The rule that is being voted soon is designed to discourage high school recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Apr 25, 2018 0:08:07 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. Willard, I know you know the CB rule but your post doesn't reflect it. The CB rule is only about inflating or deflating enrollment numbers. Not directly about moving divisions. Division changes are just an effect of this enrollment adjustment. By your explanation, the smallest D5 school (actual enrollment) with an adder of 25 should be moved up a division over the largest D5 school (actual enrollment) whos adder is 5. Also what evidence do you have that Benedictine or CCC cut enrollment? Private schools don't usually make a habit of cutting students who pay thousands to go there just so their football team can be in a certain division. The reason behind passage of the CB rule, after 3 tries, was equity between schools with little or no transfer athletes and those with MANY transfer students. The point of equity was AFTER Divisions in team sports were readjusted taking their enrollments and adding to it with the CB Formula, then equally as possible dividing schools into Divisions, hopefully schools with LARGE CB adders would be in a higher Division then they would have been without the CB adder. Which only occurred in a small number of cases to schools with LARGE adders, while some schools with small adders did end up in a higher Division. The by product of some schools being in higher Divisions due to the CB adder, is that some schools end up in a lower Division. Why bother with the CB Rule if it doesn't have an actual positive affect. Otherwise all it does is poke a sharp stick in the eye of the school with a LARGE CB adder. My point in the statistics and facts about CB numbers IS THAT they do very little, when a school with a CB adder of 13 ends up in a higher Division, but a school with a CB adder of 150 stays put. I don't know the answer, but the CB Formula isn't. I just thought it was very odd that CCC and Benedictine, after the first year of the CB working in their cases and they were in DI for the first time. Then the 2nd year, their CB number decreased by 20-25 % moving them back down to DII, where they want to be. Their adder mathematically could have just as easily gone up by 20-25%, but no, it went down. Right or wrong, people from public schools that have no control at all over their enrollments, have been saying for decades that SOME private schools can and do control their enrollments.
|
|
|
Post by birchbarlow on Apr 25, 2018 9:16:04 GMT -5
Lutheran East in Cleveland Heights has an enrollment number of 99. Which would make them a middle-sized D7 school. Since they do not have a designated feeder school their CB adder is 79. giving them an adjusted enrollment number of 178. Moving them up two divisions. In D5 the largest actual enrollment is 210.
In what world does this seem fair? LE could have a good team, go 7-3,8-2 maybe even 9-1 and not make the playoffs in D5 because they play a D6/7 schedule to match with their enrollment. The imaginary students that the OHSAA adds to the schools do not suit up on game nights. Even if somehow LE made the playoffs it would probably be a bloodletting in the first round.
At what point in our quest to be more fair to some do we think about how unfair we are to others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 10:49:08 GMT -5
I can say, with 100% certainty, the transfer proposal will pass. Streaknation - are you referring to a current sophomore or sophomore next year? He is a current sophmore, think last name is mgee or something like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 11:07:58 GMT -5
To me the CB formula fairly takes into account the high school athletes on every school's roster it was intended to measure. Looking at Lutheran East directly, they were in D last year went 7-3 and were not close to making the playoffs. The year before the CB formula, they were 6-4 in D7 and not close to the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by radiodavel on Apr 28, 2018 16:02:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by richrod on May 14, 2018 17:51:45 GMT -5
radio dave.... so glad you're back buddy. A day late and a dollar short! Dave, tell me what you think the SBC should do with 21 teams?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 9:47:38 GMT -5
Still waiting to hear if this rule will pass. Today is the final day to vote.
|
|