The idea of "competitive balance" and the need for a committee seems rather socialistic to me. How dare some schools actually be better than others. Let's all just play Upward league and not keep score so no one has to lose.

Not a fan of the whole idea.

The idea of "competitive balance" and the need for a committee seems rather socialistic to me. How dare some schools actually be better than others. Let's all just play Upward league and not keep score so no one has to lose.

Not a fan of the whole idea.

I like how it adresses more than just the public vs private complaint. It takes into consideration HOW & Where each school gets thier students, and what type students they are.(free/reduced lunch) Not all 100 students of male enrollment are created equal. Everyone has said that for years. It makes sense. 100 boys at Beechwood are not the same as 100 boys at Bath county.

 

The bolded is true, but does that mean Bath County should get to win a "state" championship by playing only schools that look exactly like them? Or that Beechwood should be bounced up a in division because they have a tradition and their kids are prepared for high school? If schools want to win state championships, then they should have to beat the best, not continue to have things watered down for them until they can finally "achieve".

 

I haven't gotten into the tooth and nails of this legislation yet, but my initial reaction is it's an attempt to give more schools a chance to win at the "state" level by penalizing schools for having good programs with good kids. It would be hard for me to applaud that. Most of the schools I deal with are already in Division I, so it won't affect them in the least, but if I'm a Kettering Alter, I can't be a big fan of this.

That wouldn't have been the case this year. Ryle was a better team than St. X.

 

Yeah, And last year Simon Kenton was better than Trinity.

Yeah, And last year Simon Kenton was better than Trinity.

 

 

I don't doubt it actually. We weren't very good in 2009.