I don't need to... they are already well aware. And that's why the proposal for a split is gaining considerable traction. It will be much easier to split than for the OHSAA to use their limited resources untangling endless webs of deceit.
Be careful what you wish for...because if you get it...you won't have any private school posters to argue with Bob. "webs of deceit"?....that sounds dramatic but the reality is both sides are after kids...we've had publics in Cinti busted for it...but we still want to play each other. All's fair in love, war and and high school sports in Ohio.
While it does appear that the question of separating the privates from the publics will eventually come to a vote in the OHSAA, here are some questions that at least so far, it doesn't seem have been addressed. If OHSAA were to run dual tournaments, one for publics & one for privates, would this be in all sports? If not, why not? Isn't the privates advantage just as unfair in sports where they don't dominate the state tournament? Isn't it just a matter of time until they do dominate, if their advantage is so clearcut?
Has anyone looked at the expense having separate tournaments would entail? How about the revenue side, has anyone explored if the revenue would increase enough to offset the extra expense? Or would it decrease while the expenses go up?
Right now OHSAA functions without cost to the member schools and does not charge a fee to teams in its tournaments. Is there any other state that runs dual championships that can operate without cost to its members or at least without tournament fees. In addition to running state tournaments, OHSAA also provides catastrophic insurance to all members. What would that cost school districts if OHSAA did not provide it? If the profit from the tournaments drop, can OHSAA continue to operate without cost to its members? Maybe that is not of importance in the debate, but ultimately someone has to pay the bills.
In this day and age of tight budgets and districts stretching the tax dollars, will they be able to defend the fees that OHSAA may have to charge when the tournament profits drop? How much is being state champion worth? And is it diminished if rightly or wrongly the view is that the public state championship is inferior to the private state championship?
Has anyone looked at the expense having separate tournaments would entail? How about the revenue side, has anyone explored if the revenue would increase enough to offset the extra expense? Or would it decrease while the expenses go up?
Hard to tell. It's possible that a couple of publics could be playing for a "championship" and bring the whole town, in spite of the fact that their team is dogcrap.
Separating is a lose/lose proposition, revenue will decrease. Based on the court case from Texas, where the largest private schools were not even in the organization, the public school association was forced to admit them. Based on this and the fact that they are already members, it is doubtful that the large private schools could be separated in Ohio. The idea that you could have 6 public divisions based on enrollment and only 1 private in the same organization would have legal trouble.
There is a way that could avoid this, the public schools could leave the OHSAA. In Georgia, the threat to do this, created a public/private split divisions in smallest classification. The other divisions contain public/private schools.
The UIL is also looking into the possibility of adding a new Private School only classification for the state. Presently the authorized Private school governing bodies for high school competition is split between the Texas Asoociation of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS), the Texas Chistian Athletic League (TCAL) and the Southwest Prepartory Conference (SPC). This move is being made on the recommendation of the Texas Association of Non-Public Schools.
Just heard from the Director of the Texas Asoociation of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS)...interesting reply, this could be different...it looks like it could Private vs Public over who keeps the membership...statement is on the link above...
The UIL is also looking into the possibility of adding a new Private School only classification for the state. Presently the authorized Private school governing bodies for high school competition is split between the Texas Asoociation of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS), the Texas Chistian Athletic League (TCAL) and the Southwest Prepartory Conference (SPC). This move is being made on the recommendation of the Texas Association of Non-Public Schools.
Even though they might add a private classification to the UIL, privates and publics would still be split. I would really like to see Ohio follow the Texas format.
Even though they might add a private classification to the UIL, privates and publics would still be split. I would really like to see Ohio follow the Texas format.
Of course you would. You've be wishing/advocating for a public-private split for over a year on here.
Even though they might add a private classification to the UIL, privates and publics would still be split. I would really like to see Ohio follow the Texas format.
It's split in Texas to keep the private school kids from getting sent to the hospital. They're that uncompetitive with the publics.
Even though they might add a private classification to the UIL, privates and publics would still be split. I would really like to see Ohio follow the Texas format.
Texas has demonstrated common sense and apparently, it's legal as well.
5 more pages of public/private debate and not a single post is different than the past 10 threads dedicated to this topic. I believe the horse is still dead. Hopefully it wont be resurrected until the playoffs are over.
123... this subject looks like it will be around for a long time...not many solutions that keeps everyone happy at this point...besides the economy, this is the biggest item facing Associations, conferences and schools...
Has anyone looked at the expense having separate tournaments would entail? How about the revenue side, has anyone explored if the revenue would increase enough to offset the extra expense? Or would it decrease while the expenses go up?
A legitimate question. Does anyone know what the situation is in states that have a split? Has any study been done as to whether a split would cost money or make money? Would the OHSAA still operate at no costs to its members?
123... this subject looks like it will be around for a long time...not many solutions that keeps everyone happy at this point...besides the economy, this is the biggest item facing Associations, conferences and schools...
People are never happy with anything. Ohio just added a 7th division because people were unhappy. No solution will make every single person/entity happy. A split would ruin Ohio football. I think the OHSAA is having bigger issues at the moment than a public/private split, so I disagree.
Rjones... email just received from an OHSAA official... to your question...
QUESTION-
Does anyone know what the situation is in states that have a split? Has any study been done as to whether a split would cost money or make money? Would the OHSAA still operate at no costs to its members?
ANSWER FROM OHSAA-
I’m not aware of any studies that have been done, but that would most likely start with a call from our Commissioner to those states that have split tournaments and get their feedback, suggestions, etc. I bet it would be more of informal conversation rather than an official study.
And sorry but it’s just too early to say how our organizational structure or financial picture might change if there were split tournaments. There are many questions that would need to be answered before we got to that point.
99% of wealthy individuals disagree with President Obama's economic policies including the idea of raising taxes for the upper class. Why wouldn't they oppose this idea? obviously because it would have a negative impact on their already large economic base. They also fear they will continue to be targeted by the middle and lower classes. Kind of reminds one of the French Revolution doesn't it? The wealthy and priveleged don't want to lose their obvious advantages. They would rather continue to dominate all of European society. Which brings me back to this topic, why would any private school or private school supporter want to change the system that so obviously benefits them? Clearly they would not. They would rather continue to control the state tournaments and just like the wealthy simply state "rise up and become better, don't change the system, it works for the greater good".
Interesting analogy, although I'm pretty sure that you just "made-up" your statistic
I prefer to look at it this way:
You have a certain percentage of people that want the success that another group has enjoyed. But they have not had it, or are not getting it at the pace that they'd hoped.
So they want to just take it away from the first group. They say it's "their right" to have it given to them, while others worked for it
So they want to create a welfare state, just like you do
99% of wealthy individuals disagree with President Obama's economic policies including the idea of raising taxes for the upper class. Why wouldn't they oppose this idea? obviously because it would have a negative impact on their already large economic base. They also fear they will continue to be targeted by the middle and lower classes. Kind of reminds one of the French Revolution doesn't it? The wealthy and priveleged don't want to lose their obvious advantages. They would rather continue to dominate all of European society. Which brings me back to this topic, why would any private school or private school supporter want to change the system that so obviously benefits them? Clearly they would not. They would rather continue to control the state tournaments and just like the wealthy simply state "rise up and become better, don't change the system, it works for the greater good".
I think communism was a failure wasnt it? Oh and the wealthiest 1% would still rule in a communist system.
What this banter will eventually push towards, is our OHSAA board adopting a format Indiana uses so ALL schools make the post season and its a rat race to the end, which with the exception of a "Hossier moment" (sorry for the hoops analogy) the BIG guy will 99.9% come out on top. Leaving the small guys with little to no hope at all. I think its been done OK the past 20 years, always interesting matchups, always great games involved, always a good crowd for it being held at a non central site in the chapionship. I've known families to leave a sure shot in there public district, to be an average fish in a big pond. So, I think it goes both ways, not so much as recruiting as it is A. Parents want something more for there kids, they feel they're lacking in the public school. And, B. An ego thing that can turn out to a great move or a sour grape.
I see it all the time in the GCL south teams. You see "B" team kids sitting and you say, why doesn't that young man go to Badin, McNick, Purcell, or Bacon, they would be a sure starter in programs where they need kids! Why!!!! Makes no sense to me, why parents do what they do there. But it happens,,,, GCL south schools have 200 kids wanting to play Friday night, just waiting for there chance that usually doesnt happen.
Lived in Ohio for over 30 years, did Celina and MAC games on local radio...now I live in Illinois, things are different here...but FB play-offs maybe growing on me, especially the format--
*any conference with 6 members--champ qualifies automatically
*5 wins makes your play-off eligible (only play 9 regular season games), teams with just 5 wins may not make the play-offs if to many schools qualify..a simple point formula decides which of these schools will get in...
*6 wins you are in no matter what
*there are 8 divisions; however schools enrollments do decide which class you play in , due to this format...you may be rated as a 8A, but could go down to 7A depending on overall state qualifiers...this applies to all classes..
This system probably has helped with stability of conferences, schools are not looking for computer points...it is starting to grow on me though
California used to decide who goes to what conference. They assign schools based on size and geographical location. So a simple way to do it is for each region create four conferences of approximately eight teams each. Conference champ goes in. Runner up goes in. Take those eight teams, seed them and play it out. This also helps with scheduling as 6-7 of your games are pre determined and you can play 3-4 non league games of your choice. Doing this would allow rivalry games to be played and encourage teams to play tough non conference schedule to prep you for conference season. Only draw back is AD's and Principals lose autonomy of identifying conference affiliates. I would imagine the private schools who have to travel all over Ohio and border states just to play 9-10 games would prefer this system. As A Caveat you could also not use raw numbers such as enrollment to dictate the division you play in. You could very easily argue that if a schools has had success constantly in one division, they should play up a division or even two for a couple of years until re-evaluation takes place. I see this as the perfect solution in Ohio........
Rjones... email just received from an OHSAA official... to your question...
QUESTION-
Does anyone know what the situation is in states that have a split? Has any study been done as to whether a split would cost money or make money? Would the OHSAA still operate at no costs to its members?
ANSWER FROM OHSAA-
I’m not aware of any studies that have been done, but that would most likely start with a call from our Commissioner to those states that have split tournaments and get their feedback, suggestions, etc. I bet it would be more of informal conversation rather than an official study.
And sorry but it’s just too early to say how our organizational structure or financial picture might change if there were split tournaments. There are many questions that would need to be answered before we got to that point.
Mr. Ross can do a cursory poll in a couple of weeks at the National High School Athletic Association summer conference in Nashville (Note - Not Hawaii!).
California used to decide who goes to what conference. They assign schools based on size and geographical location. So a simple way to do it is for each region create four conferences of approximately eight teams each. Conference champ goes in. Runner up goes in. Take those eight teams, seed them and play it out. This also helps with scheduling as 6-7 of your games are pre determined and you can play 3-4 non league games of your choice. Doing this would allow rivalry games to be played and encourage teams to play tough non conference schedule to prep you for conference season. Only draw back is AD's and Principals lose autonomy of identifying conference affiliates. I would imagine the private schools who have to travel all over Ohio and border states just to play 9-10 games would prefer this system. As A Caveat you could also not use raw numbers such as enrollment to dictate the division you play in. You could very easily argue that if a schools has had success constantly in one division, they should play up a division or even two for a couple of years until re-evaluation takes place. I see this as the perfect solution in Ohio........
Basically how Texas does it as well. And PIAA District 7 (WPIAL) and District 10 do it.
It works. But, when a team gets bumped up or down, they have no real shot at playing their former rivals. District 10 in PIAA did it because with the influx of Philadelphia schools into the PIAA, it was reeking havoc on the classifications. To the point where District 10 had one school that was 4A and a shrinking number that were 3A. So, a vote was made to change it. At first, the 'regions' were almost the same as the old conferences. But, over time, that's shifted.
It is much easier though to handle changing classifications. No mass rescheduling, or playing games against teams much bigger or smaller than you.
Here would be some interesting facts to know about in each state:
In the last 30 years, are there teams (regardless of whether they are public or private) that dominate (domination will need to be defined numerically) state championships?
Are their any states where championships are equally distributed amongst member schools (which would essentially mean that a new school wins it every year or at the least every other year) and no team dominates a sport in any division?
If there are schools in each state that show dominance, how many dominate in more than one sport?
In the perfect world how many state championships should a school "be allowed" to have in a 30 year period in order to "be fair" to all other schools?
What do member schools say in those states where certain schools dominate about those schools dominance?
I suspect that the arguments that go on here in the "public vs private school debate" are the same when there are public schools within a totally public school division. I suspect that those schools are also ridiculed for their consistent winning. But that is just my speculation so I would be interested to know how dominance is handled in a totally public school association.
I just looked at Texas All-Time State Football Championships. It looks like in 2011, they had 24 various divisions (would hate to see that happen here).
One of the dominant public schools in football is Katy High School (interesting that they don't even show anything about their other sports on their Wiki page). Here's their record:
I wonder if those that are so angry about private schools in Ohio would be just as angry if there was total dominance in a given sport by a public school with open enrollment or if they just save that for private schools because of their bias?
I think thedutchman has the right take on this discussion. Be careful what you wish for as there are unknown consequences or costs for any change and they might have greater impact than the "problem" you originally thought you had.
The Yappi posters who are the biggest advocates of the split seem to come from large, urban public schools which are struggling to be competitive. Due to a number of factors ( socio-economic, BOE politics, etc.) they have ceased to be the serious threat they once were. And so, the best solution is to manipulate the system to try to allow them a chance to regain their glory. As I have said before, most who want the split just want to wear a championship sweatshirt and say," We're number one." That's all they want. It has less to do with "fairness" than the need to secure bragging rights. If they did win, they would be the first ones to post to advocates of a split that they should practice harder like their team did and that the playoffs shouldn't be split, because it would tarnish the championship. It's funny how a title changes "unchangeable" positions.
The Yappi posters who are the biggest advocates of the split seem to come from large, urban public schools which are struggling to be competitive. Due to a number of factors ( socio-economic, BOE politics, etc.) they have ceased to be the serious threat they once were.
Conversely, the Yappi posters who are the biggest opponents of the split seem to be from the private schools who are extremely competitive under the current system. Due to a number of factors (socio-economic, admissions policies, etc.), they have become more serious threats than they were.
Linear Mode
