|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Mar 21, 2018 16:33:48 GMT -5
Per usual for this time of year there are multiple needless threads about "transferring". In one of them someone told a story about what they did when they were a Senior. Playing 3 different sports at 3 different schools. As I noticed, after the fact, it was not you. My "mind" is crustal clear regarding "transfers". Your "mind" is the one that has issues. It is no longer feasible to play 3 different sports at 3 different schools in ones Senior year in high school. There was a time when one could do that, no longer. It would be such a blatant infraction the schools themselves would not allow it or they would be punished. What you're whining about is perfectly legal according to the OHSAA Bylaws. There is no rule against a PROPER move from one school district to another. YOU made a supposition about a school and a business conspiring to get a teenager a high paying job in another district so he/she would be able to declare him/herself as independent of their parents. Can you site a example? If not it's just your "mind" working over time to come up with an improbable outlandish occurrence. You do not have to inform ANYONE that illegalities occur all the time. Thus my EXACTLY!!. BUT compared to all of the proper actions, they are minuscule in comparison. What you should take away from this is....that you're whining about a LEGAL transfer from Bellevue to Fremont makes you look trivial and your general whining about possible illegal transfers, that you can't sight an example of, is a waste of time. Have a good time giving yourself a stroke over minor life occurrences. JMHO I get it now! When Willard signs of with JMHO, it stands for "Just My Horrible Opinion". A typical retort of the loser of a debate. When there is nothing more of substance to add.
|
|
|
Post by gridiron58 on Mar 21, 2018 18:01:56 GMT -5
I get it now! When Willard signs of with JMHO, it stands for "Just My Horrible Opinion". A typical retort of the loser of a debate. When there is nothing more of substance to add. No Willard, it is a typical responce of somone who is done reading all the nonsense you spew. They say ignorance is bliss... you must be a very happy person indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 20:14:30 GMT -5
A typical retort of the loser of a debate. When there is nothing more of substance to add. No Willard, it is a typical responce of somone who is done reading all the nonsense you spew. They say ignorance is bliss... you must be a very happy person indeed. Block him!
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Mar 23, 2018 13:51:30 GMT -5
A typical retort of the loser of a debate. When there is nothing more of substance to add. No Willard, it is a typical responce of somone who is done reading all the nonsense you spew. They say ignorance is bliss... you must be a very happy person indeed. Point out the "nonsense". If you can't, it further proves you have nothing of substance to add.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Mar 23, 2018 13:52:33 GMT -5
No Willard, it is a typical responce of somone who is done reading all the nonsense you spew. They say ignorance is bliss... you must be a very happy person indeed. Block him! He's not a chicken, like you!
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Mar 23, 2018 14:02:53 GMT -5
A good example of "public vs private" was Lutheran East in the DIII Semi-Finals. Cheerleaders were all white. Players were all black. In the many services in the several different Lutheran Churches I've attended, never seen a black family. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by gridiron58 on Mar 23, 2018 14:57:08 GMT -5
No Willard, it is a typical responce of somone who is done reading all the nonsense you spew. They say ignorance is bliss... you must be a very happy person indeed. Point out the "nonsense". If you can't, it further proves you have nothing of substance to add. I really don't have the time or patience to point out all of your nonsense. To save time, I will list all of your points that do make sense. Please refer to the list below: 1) 2) 3)
|
|
|
Post by nattydaddy on Mar 23, 2018 17:37:07 GMT -5
Someone mentioned the supposed transfer rule being contemplated that would instead force transfers to sit out the second half of the season and postseason. I talked to a few athletic directors and coaches of schools who participate in D3 and D4 in the Columbus area about what they thought of this rule. From what I gathered, this is actually not a popular proposal - but not for the reason(s) that you would think. While pretty much everyone I talked to agreed that a tweak to the current transfer-eligibility rules may be needed, it was suggested that this could have an averse affect on the ability for those "smallest of the small" (often private) schools to field teams in postseason play. This ends up screwing up the district alignments for regionals (e.g. last year the Central D4 sent two teams to the Regional competition for boys baseball because there were 18 teams in the district, but this year the Central D4 is only sending one team to the Regional competition for boys baseball because two of the 18 teams from last year withdrew from the tournament this year due to questioned ability to field nine players on a team.)
It was also suggested that by enforcing last 50% of the season + postseason ban causing the smallest of the small to not be able to field postseason teams, it could cause the upper limit of Division IV to come down even further.
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 7:01:47 GMT -5
Someone mentioned the supposed transfer rule being contemplated that would instead force transfers to sit out the second half of the season and postseason. I talked to a few athletic directors and coaches of schools who participate in D3 and D4 in the Columbus area about what they thought of this rule. From what I gathered, this is actually not a popular proposal - but not for the reason(s) that you would think. While pretty much everyone I talked to agreed that a tweak to the current transfer-eligibility rules may be needed, it was suggested that this could have an averse affect on the ability for those "smallest of the small" (often private) schools to field teams in postseason play. This ends up screwing up the district alignments for regionals (e.g. last year the Central D4 sent two teams to the Regional competition for boys baseball because there were 18 teams in the district, but this year the Central D4 is only sending one team to the Regional competition for boys baseball because two of the 18 teams from last year withdrew from the tournament this year due to questioned ability to field nine players on a team.) It was also suggested that by enforcing last 50% of the season + postseason ban causing the smallest of the small to not be able to field postseason teams, it could cause the upper limit of Division IV to come down even further. so in theory what they're saying is we have to have these all stars to make our teams for post season?? Then they should A) separate public and private and have separate tournaments or B) Figure out how to get kids in their own district to come to their school.... IF we lose them we lose them. This rule will pass..
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 7:16:11 GMT -5
lets throw the competitive balance figures of the boys state finals at you...
division I Moeller - 187 vs Solon - 0 division II Trotwood Madison - 0 St Vincent St Mary 103 division III Deer Park - 0 vs Africentric- 30 division IV Cornerstone - 42 vs Marion Local - 1
cornerstone has 44 boys in their school and their competitive balance # is 42 and they made it to the state finals? i have nothing more to say on this than if that doesn't stick out to you, then wow!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 7:25:30 GMT -5
lets throw the competitive balance figures of the boys state finals at you... division I Moeller - 187 vs Solon - 0 division II Trotwood Madison - 0 St Vincent St Mary 103 division III Deer Park - 0 vs Africentric- 30 division IV Cornerstone - 42 vs Marion Local - 1 cornerstone has 44 boys in their school and their competitive balance # is 42 and they made it to the state finals? i have nothing more to say on this than if that doesn't stick out to you, then wow! Deer Park has 9 players that transferred in this year. Kinda wonder how they only have a 0
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 8:11:34 GMT -5
lets throw the competitive balance figures of the boys state finals at you... division I Moeller - 187 vs Solon - 0 division II Trotwood Madison - 0 St Vincent St Mary 103 division III Deer Park - 0 vs Africentric- 30 division IV Cornerstone - 42 vs Marion Local - 1 cornerstone has 44 boys in their school and their competitive balance # is 42 and they made it to the state finals? i have nothing more to say on this than if that doesn't stick out to you, then wow! Deer Park has 9 players that transferred in this year. Kinda wonder how they only have a 0 was thinking that same thing..no idea, i just remember reading an article where the coach says "we're cleared by the ohsaa, so deal with it" lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 8:12:50 GMT -5
Deer Park has 9 players that transferred in this year. Kinda wonder how they only have a 0 was thinking that same thing..no idea, i just remember reading an article where the coach says "we're cleared by the ohsaa, so deal with it" lol Translation, “If we win it all it won’t count in a couple years”
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 8:15:46 GMT -5
was thinking that same thing..no idea, i just remember reading an article where the coach says "we're cleared by the ohsaa, so deal with it" lol Translation, “If we win it all it won’t count in a couple years” exactly, worst part is can't even root for the other team, they're just as bad!
|
|
|
Post by galion on Mar 24, 2018 8:17:32 GMT -5
If they physically move into the district does it still count? Or just if they open enroll?
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 8:25:24 GMT -5
If they physically move into the district does it still count? Or just if they open enroll? a physical move does not count. however, lets for example say a kid lived in Norwalk's school district, but went to St Paul, after their sophomore season they decided to switch to norwalk.. (and none of the 11 exceptions were met) then you would be a transfer, and you'd have to sit out. if you open enroll it does count..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 8:26:08 GMT -5
If they physically move into the district does it still count? Or just if they open enroll? If they move they are scored as a 0, but what’s the likelihood that 9 families move to one random school district?
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 8:32:03 GMT -5
If they physically move into the district does it still count? Or just if they open enroll? If they move they are scored as a 0, but what’s the likelihood that 9 families move to one random school district? i guess the answer to this question would lie in, did they sit out 50% of this season or no? did they all come from the same school? did that school close? i never heard of this school till they got to regionals..
|
|
|
Post by kingmartinez on Mar 24, 2018 8:34:14 GMT -5
lets throw the competitive balance figures of the boys state finals at you... division I Moeller - 187 vs Solon - 0 division II Trotwood Madison - 0 St Vincent St Mary 103 division III Deer Park - 0 vs Africentric- 30 division IV Cornerstone - 42 vs Marion Local - 1 cornerstone has 44 boys in their school and their competitive balance # is 42 and they made it to the state finals? i have nothing more to say on this than if that doesn't stick out to you, then wow! Deer Park has 9 players that transferred in this year. Kinda wonder how they only have a 0 This year's competitive balance numbers are based on last year's roster. Always a year behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 8:38:46 GMT -5
Big impact if it passes. I wonder how many kids will try to change schools before May 16.
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 8:41:40 GMT -5
Deer Park has 9 players that transferred in this year. Kinda wonder how they only have a 0 This year's competitive balance numbers are based on last year's roster. Always a year behind. but im going to think by the looks of their scores (111-47 , 113- 61) games two and three of the season, that none of these guys missed any action. So they A) either didnt play basketball the year before at their previous school or B) moved because its likely they didn't sit 50% of the season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 9:05:55 GMT -5
lets throw the competitive balance figures of the boys state finals at you... division I Moeller - 187 vs Solon - 0 division II Trotwood Madison - 0 St Vincent St Mary 103 division III Deer Park - 0 vs Africentric- 30 division IV Cornerstone - 42 vs Marion Local - 1 cornerstone has 44 boys in their school and their competitive balance # is 42 and they made it to the state finals? i have nothing more to say on this than if that doesn't stick out to you, then wow! Deer Park has 9 players that transferred in this year. Kinda wonder how they only have a 0 The "0" is a reflection of last seasons roster. Next year their number will reflect the kids that were on this season's roster so we can assume they will not have a "0" then.
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 9:25:32 GMT -5
Deer Park has 9 players that transferred in this year. Kinda wonder how they only have a 0 The "0" is a reflection of last seasons roster. Next year their number will reflect the kids that were on this season's roster so we can assume they will not have a "0" then. Correct, since they already have posted next falls #'s and competitive balance. Which truly would not have changed Deer Park's division with 129 enrollment . But, if we get that new transfer rule in where they sit the 2nd half of the season, that is a game changer....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 9:43:40 GMT -5
The "0" is a reflection of last seasons roster. Next year their number will reflect the kids that were on this season's roster so we can assume they will not have a "0" then. Correct, since they already have posted next falls #'s and competitive balance. Which truly would not have changed Deer Park's division with 129 enrollment . But, if we get that new transfer rule in where they sit the 2nd half of the season, that is a game changer.... Where are the CB numbers for next year posted? The OHSAA may be hiring now that they have to monitor enrollment numbers every 2 years, CB numbers every year and transfers for post season play.
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 9:47:55 GMT -5
Correct, since they already have posted next falls #'s and competitive balance. Which truly would not have changed Deer Park's division with 129 enrollment . But, if we get that new transfer rule in where they sit the 2nd half of the season, that is a game changer.... Where are the CB numbers for next year posted? The OHSAA may be hiring now that they have to monitor enrollment numbers every 2 years, CB numbers every year and transfers for post season play. ohsaa.org/School-Resources/Divisional-Breakdowns-2018-19-School-Year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 9:56:00 GMT -5
I did not see basketball posted on that page.
|
|
|
Post by sportsvideo on Mar 24, 2018 9:58:18 GMT -5
I did not see basketball posted on that page. they will do winter sports in june...
|
|
|
Post by nattydaddy on Mar 24, 2018 13:41:34 GMT -5
Someone mentioned the supposed transfer rule being contemplated that would instead force transfers to sit out the second half of the season and postseason. I talked to a few athletic directors and coaches of schools who participate in D3 and D4 in the Columbus area about what they thought of this rule. From what I gathered, this is actually not a popular proposal - but not for the reason(s) that you would think. While pretty much everyone I talked to agreed that a tweak to the current transfer-eligibility rules may be needed, it was suggested that this could have an averse affect on the ability for those "smallest of the small" (often private) schools to field teams in postseason play. This ends up screwing up the district alignments for regionals (e.g. last year the Central D4 sent two teams to the Regional competition for boys baseball because there were 18 teams in the district, but this year the Central D4 is only sending one team to the Regional competition for boys baseball because two of the 18 teams from last year withdrew from the tournament this year due to questioned ability to field nine players on a team.) It was also suggested that by enforcing last 50% of the season + postseason ban causing the smallest of the small to not be able to field postseason teams, it could cause the upper limit of Division IV to come down even further. so in theory what they're saying is we have to have these all stars to make our teams for post season?? Then they should A) separate public and private and have separate tournaments or B) Figure out how to get kids in their own district to come to their school.... IF we lose them we lose them. This rule will pass.. All stars? Who is talking about all stars beside you? Fact: A LOT of Division IV schools, particularly those in the bottom third-to-fourth of the division on enrollment, are barely able to sustain the minimum roster count for postseason play in many sports. This might not necessarily be the case in this part of the state, but in the Columbus and Cincinnati/Dayton areas it is true... especially in regard to the really tiny Christian schools (primarily Columbus area) and puny public schools that are landlocked districts (Cincinnati). Absolutely NONE of these schools are composed of "all stars", and effectively none of them have any shot of actually advancing in the tournament beyond the first or second round anyway. The base of the enrollment pyramid, when it comes to divisional assignments and the competitive balance adjustment, lies in Division IV. You can NOT have a completed Division III until you first establish the bottom 25% (in enrollment terms) of all the OHSAA schools for a given sport. Herein lies the issue, it is going to be very problematic for enough involved parties (schools, district organizers and the OHSAA at-large) when the smallest of the small have to withdraw from the tournament because they can't guarantee that they'll have nine healthy baseball players (as in, no injuries during the year if they have 10 to start... often the case) when the tournament rolls around. Additionally, if you can not field enough varsity sports (minimum two) in each season (fall, winter, and spring) in a given year then your school's OHSAA membership is suspended for two years. That's the other crux of the issue: if the rule passes, then it becomes 10x harder for these schools to even field the # of teams necessary to sustain OHSAA membership as they often lack enough kids within their building from the beginning to sustain a team. And these schools that will be directly affected aren't even the Harvest Prep or Africentrics or what have you - they're schools that you likely have never even heard of. Regardless, it would affect everyone in the end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 15:24:56 GMT -5
This is a silly debate natty. If they cannot field a team in post season after this change passes they should not be fielding a team in the first half of the season now while a transfer sits. If they cannot field a team, they never get to play half a season so the transfer kid would never see the floor after sitting 50% of season. If a school cannot field a team, why would a kid transfer there to play the sport a school cannot have?
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Mar 24, 2018 18:56:32 GMT -5
Point out the "nonsense". If you can't, it further proves you have nothing of substance to add. I really don't have the time or patience to point out all of your nonsense. To save time, I will list all of your points that do make sense. Please refer to the list below: 1) 2) 3) Nothing of substance to add.
|
|