The Press Newspaper

Toledo, Ohio & Lake Erie

The Press Newspaper

The Press Newspaper


The Ohio High School Athletic Association’s vote to create new divisions based on its competitive balance proposal, which would have weighed enrollment with other demographic factors, failed. League consultant Dave Schmidt, the editor of The Senior, has a plan of his own, but don’t take the first part seriously — continue reading to get past the sarcasm —

Since we know there will be another vote (the fourth vote) on creating a competitive balance plan for high school sports in Ohio we think we have come up with the perfect formula –

How to determine classes in the future — 10 key factors —

•if your mascot at your school is an animal – 10 points

•if one of your school colors has blue or gold – 10 points

•if the name of your community starts with a “C” – 10 points

•if your fight song is to the tune “On Wisconsin” – 10 points

•if your marching band has over 100 members – 10 points

•if the county your school is in starts with a “B” – 10 points

•if you have over 20 red headed students in your school – 10 points

•if you have “Christian” or “Catholic” in your school name – 25 points

•if you have not won a state tourney in the past 25 years – 25 points

•if you have won multiple state titles in the past 5 years – 25 points

Take the total number of points for your school and divide by four, multiple by four and divide into four divisions for every sport.

Complex formulas do not work; the CB proposal has failed three times already. This issue is taking away from high school athletics in Ohio. Let’s face it (again) there is no perfect solution to this issue.  The vote has the association split at 50 percent-50 percent, so even if a CB plan is approved there is still going to remain many “unhappy” member schools.  The more this issue is debated, more problems are created and it divides both sides. 

If a school is a member of the OHSAA and follows the guidelines and is not on probation or facing discipline with the association, that should be good enough. The last two major problems that faced the OHSAA with “recruiting” and “eligibility” have been with public schools.  Both sides have those who try and take advantage of the situation.

The “playing field” is always changing in eligibility issues and the way it looks will continue to change.

•Open enrollment.

•Vouchers that allow students to attend a private school.

•Charter schools.

•The OHSAA’s new transfer rule.

The new transfer rule now allows for “free agency” of student athletes.  We find it quite surprising that this proposal passed so easily, when you consider the CB proposal was to stop “unfair” recruiting of athletes and stop private schools from dominating state tournaments.  This new rule now allows everyone to compete for athletes on an open market.  Plus there are no regulations or rules that prohibit how many times you do this in your HS career.  Maybe that’s how it worked for “Buddy” on “Hoosiers”.

The passage of this proposal may be the CB proposal Ohio has been looking for to solve the problem.  It allows everyone to pursue athletes in the future. The next step would be to have no penalties when a student transfers. Florida came very close this year to having that in place This new transfer rule is basically the open enrollment plans for athletes. This is why a CB plan will not work now.

Separate tournaments and separate associations are a very bad idea for Ohio.  But we still feel if schools want to vote on that issue they should be able to do so and that the OHSAA should put that on the ballot without a signed petition.  All schools would be wise to look at what would take place if this did ever pass, especially in this economy.  But let’s don’t make schools vote on another complicated and confusing CB proposal. 

Side note on last vote for a competitive balance proposal — 823 high school ballots were mailed, 667 ballots were returned including four invalid and 27 past the deadline (81 percent), which makes the vote incomplete.




Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling that the Colorado baker did not have to prepare a cake for a gay wedding?
1811483763 [{"id":"259","title":"Yes","votes":"34","pct":57.63,"type":"x","order":"1","resources":[]},{"id":"260","title":"No","votes":"24","pct":40.68,"type":"x","order":"2","resources":[]},{"id":"261","title":"No opinion","votes":"1","pct":1.69,"type":"x","order":"3","resources":[]}] ["#194e84","#3b6b9c","#1f242a","#37414a","#60bb22","#f2babb"] sbar 160 160 /component/communitypolls/vote/96-baker No answer selected. Please try again. Thank you for your vote. Answers Votes ...