Reading in the Beechwood / Bellevue prediction thread brought this idea to mind. There are teams in lower classes that would like to play up in class. There are teams in higher classes that would rather play down. Here is an idea for a rule.

 

Any team in the bottom 20 of enrollment in their class can switch to the class below them if they can find a team in their geographic area in that lower class who is willing to switch classes with them.

 

For example, Brossart is I believe the smallest team in 2A. They could approach Beechwood and say, we can not compete in 2A. Would you like to switch classes and move up to 2A so we can move down to 1A?

 

What are everyone's thoughts on that idea?

I don't have a problem with it. Wouldn't it have to have some guidelines? Maybe a 4 year term, then reevaluate. I can also see a cans of worms in it as well. Say three teams want to move down, and one wants to move up. How do you decide who gets the one spot? Is it fair to other teams that as well have a tough time competing, to have a better team moved up into their district or region. Should all teams wanting to move down have to have a losing record? Should the team moving up need to have been in the top 4 teams in the state, or out of the top 4 in the state in their class 4 consecutive years before the switch? I like the concept, I don't see it ever happening though.

Let teams pick where they want to play then go from there. how would this be for a class. My top 32. 8 dist with 4 teams each.

 

St. X

Trinity

Highlands

Male

Manual

Henry Clay

Bowling Green

John Hardin

Ryle

Bryan Station

Lafayette

Scott Co

Tates Creek

Simon Kenton

PRP

Lexington Catholic

Cov Cath

Ballard

Boone Co

Madison Cent

Lou Cent

Dunbar

Christian Co

Henderson Co

Eastern

Butler

Dixie Heights

Cent Hardin

Clark Co

Warren Cent

J-Town

Franklin Co

If you "let teams pick where they want to play and go from there" then you will end up with Trinity and St X in a class by themselves

Then Highlands in the next lower class with a few others

Then about 90% of all schools spread throughout the lower classes with probably 100 of them wanting to be in 1A

It may be a good idea is you limit it to the Bottom and top 5 schools.

 

For example

Bottom 5 in class could switch out to the top 5 in numbers to 2A.

How about we swap teams based on MERIT instead of number of boys? The 5 teams in each class with the worst record over the previous two years move down and the 5 with the best records move up. That would be a much better way to create competitive classes in my opinion.

There are two keys to my idea.

 

One, and this is very important - geography is a big issue. The teams changing class have to be in the same general district geographically. That is very big with the KHSAA and you can't impose higher traveling costs on the teams that aren't switching.

 

Two, it has to be limited to a certain number of teams. I said bottom 20 in a class. CoachBuckett says bottom 5. I think 5 is too small but maybe bottom 10.

 

On other questions above, I would say this switch would be effective either two year or maybe till the next redistricting, which I believe is every four years.

 

As to who gets the spot, some of that will be controlled by limiting it by geography. Beyond that, it is up to the teams switching to make the agreement. So the team that moves up could get in the middle if there are two teams in the district that want to move down. I think if we look at the enrollments and actual classes currently, there probably aren't that many schools this would be an option for.

There are two keys to my idea.

 

One, and this is very important - geography is a big issue. The teams changing class have to be in the same general district geographically. That is very big with the KHSAA and you can't impose higher traveling costs on the teams that aren't switching.

 

Two, it has to be limited to a certain number of teams. I said bottom 20 in a class. CoachBuckett says bottom 5. I think 5 is too small but maybe bottom 10.

 

On other questions above, I would say this switch would be effective either two year or maybe till the next redistricting, which I believe is every four years.

 

As to who gets the spot, some of that will be controlled by limiting it by geography. Beyond that, it is up to the teams switching to make the agreement. So the team that moves up could get in the middle if there are two teams in the district that want to move down. I think if we look at the enrollments and actual classes currently, there probably aren't that many schools this would be an option for.

 

Instead of saying 5 or 20, how about saying there can't be a school move down who has 10% over the enrollment of the largest team in the lower class.. Example: Team A in 1a wants to play up.. The largest team in 1a has 400 students.. The only teams allowed to play down from the 2a ranks would be teams with 440 kids or less.. If there are no teams in the geographic area that meet that criteria, then the request to move up would be denied. You could throw in an exception, being unless a team from another geographic area fits the criteria above and prefers to play down and it doesn't negatively affect any other school or leave a district with less than 4 teams..

 

I would also throw in that the team moving down must be approved by all the other coaches within the district they would be playing in.

The best article I have ever seen on the subject. The best system I have ever seen. I don't think it passed the vote in Ohio but I wish it would be looked at for Kentucky.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/hssports/blog/index.ssf/2011/05/ohios_high_school_administrato.html

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- In Ohio high school sports, no issue is more contentious, more controversial or more confusing.

 

"Competitive balance" is the current euphemism for what, at its core, is a public vs. private school sports debate: Do private schools have an unfair advantage, and if so, what can be done about it?

 

Surrounding that core issue, this time, is a banquet of topics that broaden the discourse -- historical success, school boundaries and free lunches.

 

There's much to digest.

 

The question is, who will bite?

 

We'll know soon.

 

Currently, more than 830 Ohio high school principals are voting on a groundbreaking referendum issue that would change the way teams are assigned to divisions in football, volleyball, soccer, basketball, baseball and softball. If the referendum passes by simple majority, it goes into effect beginning in either the 2012-13 or 2013-14 school years.

 

The mail-in vote began May 1 and ends Sunday. Results are expected to be announced next week.

 

The verdict is difficult to forecast because the referendum is not proposing a simple separation of public and private schools in the playoffs. That has been tried twice and referendums failed by wide margins in 1978 and 1993. It was a straightforward issue then.

 

This referendum's many nuances have produced a variety of reactions. As a result, principals are falling into one of four camps:

 

• "It's about time."

 

• "In the big picture, it won't change much, but it's a step in the right direction."

 

• "It's a bad idea, but it's not as bad as separation of public and private schools."

 

• "We like things as they are."

 

The principals' quandary comes because the referendum has aspects that can please, frustrate and confound all at the same time. One such voter is Manchester football coach and principal Jim France, a longtime proponent of separate playoffs. He said he is voting no on the referendum.

 

"It took [the OHSAA] over 30 years to admit there was a problem," he said. "If this passes, it'll be another 30-plus years before they do anything else about it.

 

"I don't like the idea that schools would be punished for past accomplishments. And what's that free-lunch formula all about?"

 

The referendum boils down to a math equation: enrollment, plus boundary and tradition factors, minus socioeconomic (free lunch) factor equals Athletic Count. The Athletic Count is the school's new enrollment figure used to assign it to its competition division with similar schools.

 

View full size

 

The boundary factor adds to a school's enrollment an amount between zero and 10 percent, determined by from where it can draw students. There are five subcategories. This would affect private schools as well as public schools in multi-school districts or schools with open enrollment.

 

This addresses the No. 1 complaint heard about private schools -- that they draw students from across the region.

 

An interesting twist to this approach is its inclusion of open-enrollment public schools and schools in large districts. In Cleveland, this presents a dilemma: Glenville's successful football team benefits from being able to draw student-athletes who live all over the city, but it won't be affected by this factor because it already is in the highest division (Division I). However, fellow city schools such as Division IV John Hay or Division II John F. Kennedy could be bumped up to higher divisions even though they might actually lose players to Glenville.

 

The tradition factor adds between six and 10 percent to a school's enrollment if a team has been to the regional final, state tournament or state final in the last four years. The reasoning is "success breeds success," so student-athletes are attracted to a program that has a tradition of success. This is considered an advantage by the proposal's authors, a committee of school administrators, coaches and OHSAA officials.

 

This is perhaps the most controversial element of the referendum. Opponents call it punishment for being successful.

 

"The wording of the referendum is problematic. It appears, the way it's written, schools could be penalized based on enrollment figures and success," said Lake Catholic principal Richard Koenig, who said he is voting no.

 

Lunch factor is the X-factor

 

The socioeconomic factor has become known as the school-lunch issue. It multiplies the number of free lunch participants by 10 percent, and that number is deducted from the enrollment figure.

 

This is the X-factor for many voters because the statewide effect isn't as obvious. The proposal aims to address the belief that student-athletes in economically depressed districts might have fewer resources available to participate and be successful. While much of the focus is on football, skeptics point out some strong urban basketball programs are not hindered by the number of free lunches being served.

 

The bottom line is the proposed format could move programs such as Walsh Jesuit's successful Division II volleyball team up to Division I. But its effect on a football team such as Division II defending state champion Maple Heights is murky because it has open enrollment and a successful team, but also has about 85 percent of its students receiving free lunches, football coach Todd Filtz said.

 

The referendum is byproduct of a 2010 statewide survey conducted by a group of Wayne County school administrators. They said 78 percent of responding schools supported an enrollment multiplier, 73 percent supported separate state tournaments, and 60 percent preferred separate tournaments over a multiplier. About 40 percent of schools responded to the survey, which caught the eye of the OHSAA. It formed the competitive balance committee, and it wrote the current referendum, which was placed on the ballot by the OHSAA's Board of Control.

 

Several studies have shown that while private schools account for about 14 percent of the OHSAA, they win more than twice that percentage of state championships. The referendum received additional attention after December's state football finals. Five of the six state champs were Catholic schools; in the Division VI championship game, Delphos St. John's defeated Shadyside, 77-6.

 

Some worry the referendum merely will reshuffle the deck, moving schools such as St. John's up to Division V, while Division V champ Youngstown Ursuline moves to Division IV and Division III winner Columbus Bishop Watterson jumps to Division II, and so on.

 

Some principals said the referendum fails to address the large gap between enrollments of the smallest and largest schools in Division I. In the current division breakdown, Division I football consists of schools with more than 517 boys in three grades and the largest school, Fairfield, has 1,227. Of the 119 Division I schools, 42 have more than 700 boys.

 

"There's definitely a large discrepancy in Division I football due to recruiting at the [larger] Division I schools compared to the smaller Division I schools," said Willoughby South principal Paul Lombardo, who last week was undecided on his vote.

 

The referendum also won't make a dent on the public-private debate for the largest schools. It will bring more contenders into their division.

 

"The referendum won't help us, but at least this is a start," said Hudson principal Brian Wilch, who is voting yes.

 

"Now, if you're a Division IV, V or VI school, that multiplier makes sense."

 

Some principals did not get lost in the details and looked at the big picture.

 

"It's a step in the right direction to make competitive high school sports more fair," said Cuyahoga Falls principal Anne Alfano, who said she is voting yes.

For a decade or so, Illininois has put a 1.65 multiplier on "non-boundaried" schools, which include private schools and public schools in open enrollment districts (primarily Chicago), because private schools have an inordinate amount of success in football and some of the so-called "money sports" ... golf, tennis, soccer, etc.

 

Last spring, the IHSA instituted a waiver for programs who hadn't experienced a certain level of success over the last six years ... in football, that meant no playoff wins, and in other sports, it was winning no regional titles (equivalent to our district titles). As soon as those programs achieve that level of success, the multiplier goes back into effect.

 

It's easier to implement that system because the IHSA doesn't use districts, as we do in football. Teams get into the postseason based on winning their conference or their regular-season record.

Just to throw this out there, what teams in 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a and 5a would likely ask to play up?

I'd say no 5a teams as noone wants to play in Trinity and St X class..

I'd say no 5a teams as noone wants to play in Trinity and St X class..

 

And you could probably say the same about 3A, unless Louisville Central wants to take on Highlands, Boyle, etc.

I like the thought behind the Ohio plan. I'd remove the "success" factor though.

And you could probably say the same about 3A, unless Louisville Central wants to take on Highlands, Boyle, etc.

 

I'd think Highlands and Cov Cath may be 2 teams that would ask to move back up to 5a, but, maybe not.