OHSAA tournament

[formerfcfan]

3. Balanced Tournament (near equal)

One thing I noticed (using D4 as an example) is although there are 200 teams in the state for Division 4, the way the regionals are split up are:
45 teams - Bowling Green
48 Teams - Kettering
51 Teams - Canton
56 Teams - Athens (before Village Academy removed)

Additionally in terms of the districts, mainly for Athens in D4, here are the district split up:
10 Teams - Athens 2
11 Teams - Athens 1
16 Teams - East
19 Teams - Carroll (before Village Academy removed)

I know location has a part in this, but I feel like there is a way to balance districts and regionals to make it more even for teams across the state.
Currently, athletic districts are determined by the number of teams and divided by 16 and rounded to the nearest whole number. I think as a proposal, instead of rounding to the nearest whole number, it should be rounded to the nearest quarter number (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, etc.), and that athletic districts could be partly split by regionals. In an easier way to try to put it to words, by conference affilation and/or geogrpahic location, a certain number teams in a athletic district would be placed into a different regional. Once the regionals are determined, for districts that do geographical sectionals, the 4 sectionals would be split geographically with an emphisis on conference affliation while the districts would be balanced. Here is how it would look:

D4 199 Schools - 012-127 (does not include Village Academy
Schools: 21 SE; 16 E; 18 C; 39 NE; 70 NW; 36 SW
Districts [Proposed (Current)]: 1.75 (2) SE; 1.25 (1) E; 1.25 (1) C; 3 (3) NE; 5.75 (6) NW; 3 (3) SW
Regional Breakdown by District (12-13 Schools per district):
Athens: 1.75 SE + 1.25 E + 1 C
Kettering: 3 SW + 1 NW
Bowling Green: 4 NW
Canton: 3 NE + 0.25 C (3 Knox-Morrow teams) + 0.75 NW (Mansfield area)

Regionals would not have to be a perfect 50-50-50-50, 52-48-52-48 would be reasonable too as travel would be a concern for some teams; just as long as all districts have 12 or 13 teams each. As for districts, 12-12-13-13 would be heavily prefered with some emphisis on conference affliaction where it can be done. I would do Athens 1 & 2 with 12 each and then Carroll and East with 13 each because of the distance apart and travel. It should be noted that the Athens regional example is an extreme example compared to the other 15 regionals in the state.

I appreciate the effort that you put towards this, but I'm caught up on the part that I put into bold. There's only one Central District competition for D4, not three. Additionally, taking Village Academy out of the equation gives 18 Central, D IV teams (which we agree.) But if you shift the KMAC schools northeasterly (3), you still have 15 - not 13. Where/who are the other two schools? Ridgedale of Marion County and...(???)

While I think your proposal has a good premise, I'm not sure how you account for the constant flux in D4 central with HP, tWS and Africentric (among others) moving up due to CBP numbers but larger public schools (like Centerburg) moving down as a consequence. The moving up of D4 schools consequently causes some D3 schools to move down on the basis of their final enrollment numbers (EMIS + CBP). It's not just the flux that just recently occurred; with the current enrollment-divisional breakdown at play, and because D4 is the lowest of the totem pole enrollment wise, the flux will always exist because the CBP adjustment moves in an upward progression to consequently cause schools to move in a downward progression.

Status quo wise, this isn't an issue with the current (athletic) districting alignment; but, in your proposal, a school like Centerburg (a school that is both newly D4, and in the KMAC you reference) would hypothetically relocate into a different competition at the district level just because they moved down. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, then this seems like it'll just constantly balkanize these schools and their postseason assignments - for no good reason. They may still be "central district", by their OHSAA membership, but they're not going to compete in the Central District - they'll be competing in what is the Mansfield district competition (the aforementioned ".25 + .75" arrangement) which is already districted by the OHSAA to the NW District. Why would any school administrator, let alone any athletic department, go for such a system where they aren't guaranteed to play in the district they're a member of and instead leaving it to the chance of where the numbers shake out? Do you think a school, such as Waterford, would ever opt into the hypothetical agreement, putting into chance the fact they are at risk of getting shipped to the East District for sectionals/districts when they're a member of the Southeast District? (And let's take geography out of the equation, because I would speculate any purported geographic advantage behind such a move would take a backseat to the idea of "we've played in the southeast district for X decades, we don't want to move to the east district because we see no good reason to?")

[formerfcfan]

Take the 64 biggest schools according to competitive balance into a 5th division, then split the rest of the schools into 4 divisions that continues being played as the current 4 divisions on the same schedules, but with 16 schools less in each division. Let the 64 teams play 2 extra regular season games if they want. Seed the 64 teams state wide, and let the top 20 teams play at home on Friday night 3 weeks before the state tourney, with the remaining 12 games being at neutral sites. Play the 16 2nd round games at neutral sites 2 Fridays before the state tourney. The week before the state tourney, play the 3rd round games Wed and Thurs at St Johns, with 4th round games Sat at St Johns. Final 4 at the Schott on Wed. State championship last game of 5 Friday with first game moved earlier to 9am to accommodate that, and to give the winning lower division teams a little more rest before their championships Saturday.

This seems to be the most sensible solution of all. GoBucks has some great ideas that they put a lot of thought and consideration into, but their proposals seem to address a problem that... doesn't exist. Your proposal, on the other hand, actually addresses what the Ohio hs sports community (across fans, coaches and administrators) all seem to agree is the pitfall of the current system: D1 is the only division where both a) competitive disparity obviously exists within it, and b) a solution toward the disparity could be made on quantitative metrics and resolution (student enrollment.) In other words (for those following along at home), the big issue is in the current D1, where there is such a big disparity in student enrollment (11xx-362 boys in grades 9-11.) No other division in Ohio allows for two schools with the difference of possibly ~800 boys to compete against each other in the tournament.

This solves the "Mega-Catholic (e.g. St. X, Moeller) vs small D1" problem, as well as the "Mega-Public (e.g. Mason and Fairfield) vs small D1" problem. This is the approach that makes the most sense, because the issue in D1 isn't so much as private schools participate in them but rather the fact there are massive schools playing against opponents with up to 1/2 of the student body. Why doesn't "separate the private schools" exist as a solution to the issue? Because schools like Mason, Fairfield and Gahanna-Lincoln are still going to be in the big school division if you only seclude the private schools. That's the complaint many of the big school administrators have: that the range of enrollment is so wide because there isn't an extra division to account for the schools with 700+ boys in grades 9-11. Contrary to what many message board posters think, this is the issue where most schools are concerned about corrective action being taken: bridging the extant D1 gap. Excise the big 64 schools into a new D1, and you have 16 less schools competing in divisions 2, 3, 4 and (hypothetically) 5 as they all have to move up one. Factor in the CBP adjustment into the final enrollment figures, and you'd see the Harvest Preps and Africentrics playing the current D2 schools as they'd likely move up into the new D3 (in a proposed five division alignment.) Newark Catholic baseball would never play the TVC-Hocking schools (primarily D4 in the four division alignment, would be D5 in the five division alignment) in the state tournament ever again at their current EMIS + CBP if a five division alignment came to pass.

[GoBucks1047]

3. Balanced Tournament (near equal)

One thing I noticed (using D4 as an example) is although there are 200 teams in the state for Division 4, the way the regionals are split up are:
45 teams - Bowling Green
48 Teams - Kettering
51 Teams - Canton
56 Teams - Athens (before Village Academy removed)

Additionally in terms of the districts, mainly for Athens in D4, here are the district split up:
10 Teams - Athens 2
11 Teams - Athens 1
16 Teams - East
19 Teams - Carroll (before Village Academy removed)

I know location has a part in this, but I feel like there is a way to balance districts and regionals to make it more even for teams across the state.
Currently, athletic districts are determined by the number of teams and divided by 16 and rounded to the nearest whole number. I think as a proposal, instead of rounding to the nearest whole number, it should be rounded to the nearest quarter number (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, etc.), and that athletic districts could be partly split by regionals. In an easier way to try to put it to words, by conference affilation and/or geogrpahic location, a certain number teams in a athletic district would be placed into a different regional. Once the regionals are determined, for districts that do geographical sectionals, the 4 sectionals would be split geographically with an emphisis on conference affliation while the districts would be balanced. Here is how it would look:

D4 199 Schools - 012-127 (does not include Village Academy
Schools: 21 SE; 16 E; 18 C; 39 NE; 70 NW; 36 SW
Districts [Proposed (Current)]: 1.75 (2) SE; 1.25 (1) E; 1.25 (1) C; 3 (3) NE; 5.75 (6) NW; 3 (3) SW
Regional Breakdown by District (12-13 Schools per district):
Athens: 1.75 SE + 1.25 E + 1 C
Kettering: 3 SW + 1 NW
Bowling Green: 4 NW
Canton: 3 NE + 0.25 C (3 Knox-Morrow teams) + 0.75 NW (Mansfield area)

Regionals would not have to be a perfect 50-50-50-50, 52-48-52-48 would be reasonable too as travel would be a concern for some teams; just as long as all districts have 12 or 13 teams each. As for districts, 12-12-13-13 would be heavily prefered with some emphisis on conference affliaction where it can be done. I would do Athens 1 & 2 with 12 each and then Carroll and East with 13 each because of the distance apart and travel. It should be noted that the Athens regional example is an extreme example compared to the other 15 regionals in the state.

I appreciate the effort that you put towards this, but I'm caught up on the part that I put into bold. There's only one Central District competition for D4, not three. Additionally, taking Village Academy out of the equation gives 18 Central, D IV teams (which we agree.) But if you shift the KMAC schools northeasterly (3), you still have 15 - not 13. Where/who are the other two schools? Ridgedale of Marion County and...(???)

While I think your proposal has a good premise, I'm not sure how you account for the constant flux in D4 central with HP, tWS and Africentric (among others) moving up due to CBP numbers but larger public schools (like Centerburg) moving down as a consequence. The moving up of D4 schools consequently causes some D3 schools to move down on the basis of their final enrollment numbers (EMIS + CBP). It's not just the flux that just recently occurred; with the current enrollment-divisional breakdown at play, and because D4 is the lowest of the totem pole enrollment wise, the flux will always exist because the CBP adjustment moves in an upward progression to consequently cause schools to move in a downward progression.

Status quo wise, this isn't an issue with the current (athletic) districting alignment; but, in your proposal, a school like Centerburg (a school that is both newly D4, and in the KMAC you reference) would hypothetically relocate into a different competition at the district level just because they moved down. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, then this seems like it'll just constantly balkanize these schools and their postseason assignments - for no good reason. They may still be "central district", by their OHSAA membership, but they're not going to compete in the Central District - they'll be competing in what is the Mansfield district competition (the aforementioned ".25 + .75" arrangement) which is already districted by the OHSAA to the NW District. Why would any school administrator, let alone any athletic department, go for such a system where they aren't guaranteed to play in the district they're a member of and instead leaving it to the chance of where the numbers shake out? Do you think a school, such as Waterford, would ever opt into the hypothetical agreement, putting into chance the fact they are at risk of getting shipped to the East District for sectionals/districts when they're a member of the Southeast District? (And let's take geography out of the equation, because I would speculate any purported geographic advantage behind such a move would take a backseat to the idea of "we've played in the southeast district for X decades, we don't want to move to the east district because we see no good reason to?")

D4 199 Schools - 012-127
Schools: 21 SE; 16 E; 18 C; 39 NE; 69 NW; 36 SW
Districts [Proposed (Current)]: 1.75 (2) SE; 1.25 (1) E; 1.25 (1) C; 3 NE; 5.75 (6) NW; 3 SW
Regional Breakdown by District (12-13 Schools per district):
1.75 SE + 1.25 E + 1 C = 51 Schools (misplaced a school
3 SW (36 Schools) + 1 NW (12 Schools) = 48 Schools
4 NW = 49 Schools
3 NE (39 Schools) + 0.25 C (4 Schools) + 0.75 NW (8 Schools) = 51 Schools

Valley Sectional (moved from Northwest) - 13 Schools
Clay (Portsmouth)
Dawson Bryant
Fairfield (Leesburg)
Glenwood
Green
Manchester
Notre Dame (Portsmouth)
Peebles
Sciotoville Community
South Webster
St. Joseph Central (Ironton)
Symmes Valley
Whiteoak

Warren Sectional (moved from Meigs) - 12 Teams
Belpre
Eastern (Reedsville)
Federal Hocking
Miller
South Gallia
Southern (Racine)
Trimble
Waterford
4 Schools from the East
Caldwell
Frontier
Monroe Central
River

East District - 13 Teams
Beallsville
Bishop Rosecrans
Catholic Central
Conotton Valley
Hiland
Malvern
Millersport - moved from Central
Newcomerstown
Shadyside
Shenandoah
Strasburg Franklin
Toronto
Tuscarawas Central Catholic

Bloom Carroll District - 13 Teams
Berne Union
Cristo Rey
Delaware Christian
Fairfield Christian
Fisher Catholic
Gahanna Christian
Granville Christian
Grove City Christian
Madison Christian
Northside Christian
Patriot Preparatory Academy
Shekinah Christian
Tree of Life Christian

4 Central District School + 8 Northwest District Schools (I know, not 25% + 75%)
Cardington-Lincoln
Centerburg
Danville
Ridgedale
8 NW Schools
Buckeye Central
Colonel Crawford
Crestline
Lucas
Mansfield Christian
Plymouth
South Central
St. Peter's
(other 4 NW schools in Willard District near or north of I-80/I-90/Ohio Turnpike)

I really only took geography into account and only used the athletic district as a starting point to determine the district breakup. Basically, as long as the teams are in the same division. I didn't look too much into numbers. I will agree that it is not a problem for the athletic districts having such unbalanced disticts and regionals, especially since it is the schools who choose their district, but as a proposal, I thought it would be interesting proposal to create a more balanced tournament throughout the state and try to create sectionals and districts based more on location.

[GoBucks1047]

Take the 64 biggest schools according to competitive balance into a 5th division, then split the rest of the schools into 4 divisions that continues being played as the current 4 divisions on the same schedules, but with 16 schools less in each division. Let the 64 teams play 2 extra regular season games if they want. Seed the 64 teams state wide, and let the top 20 teams play at home on Friday night 3 weeks before the state tourney, with the remaining 12 games being at neutral sites. Play the 16 2nd round games at neutral sites 2 Fridays before the state tourney. The week before the state tourney, play the 3rd round games Wed and Thurs at St Johns, with 4th round games Sat at St Johns. Final 4 at the Schott on Wed. State championship last game of 5 Friday with first game moved earlier to 9am to accommodate that, and to give the winning lower division teams a little more rest before their championships Saturday.

This seems to be the most sensible solution of all. GoBucks has some great ideas that they put a lot of thought and consideration into, but their proposals seem to address a problem that... doesn't exist. Your proposal, on the other hand, actually addresses what the Ohio hs sports community (across fans, coaches and administrators) all seem to agree is the pitfall of the current system: D1 is the only division where both a) competitive disparity obviously exists within it, and b) a solution toward the disparity could be made on quantitative metrics and resolution (student enrollment.) In other words (for those following along at home), the big issue is in the current D1, where there is such a big disparity in student enrollment (11xx-362 boys in grades 9-11.) No other division in Ohio allows for two schools with the difference of possibly ~800 boys to compete against each other in the tournament.

This solves the "Mega-Catholic (e.g. St. X, Moeller) vs small D1" problem, as well as the "Mega-Public (e.g. Mason and Fairfield) vs small D1" problem. This is the approach that makes the most sense, because the issue in D1 isn't so much as private schools participate in them but rather the fact there are massive schools playing against opponents with up to 1/2 of the student body. Why doesn't "separate the private schools" exist as a solution to the issue? Because schools like Mason, Fairfield and Gahanna-Lincoln are still going to be in the big school division if you only seclude the private schools. That's the complaint many of the big school administrators have: that the range of enrollment is so wide because there isn't an extra division to account for the schools with 700+ boys in grades 9-11. Contrary to what many message board posters think, this is the issue where most schools are concerned about corrective action being taken: bridging the extant D1 gap. Excise the big 64 schools into a new D1, and you have 16 less schools competing in divisions 2, 3, 4 and (hypothetically) 5 as they all have to move up one. Factor in the CBP adjustment into the final enrollment figures, and you'd see the Harvest Preps and Africentrics playing the current D2 schools as they'd likely move up into the new D3 (in a proposed five division alignment.) Newark Catholic baseball would never play the TVC-Hocking schools (primarily D4 in the four division alignment, would be D5 in the five division alignment) in the state tournament ever again at their current EMIS + CBP if a five division alignment came to pass.

Here was one of my proposals in my 1st post, I presented this (allows for districts of 6 on average):

D1 096 Schools - 528-1373
D2 174 Schools - 297-527 (D2-D5 around 176 schools, districts of 11 on average)
D3 174 Schools - 188-296
D4 177 Schools - 120-187
D5 178 Schools - 012-119

With it, I did cut the orginial D1 essentially in half. The reason I did't go farther was because come tournament time, travel in some areas would be farther in some parts of the state, especially since in the NW district, there would only be 2 schools. Another thing to consider is that even though you the first round or 2 of games would be on Fridays, there would be some games all across the state where travel games would be 3-4.5 hours one way by bus and that isn't taking into account of rush hour unless regionals are established or at least let one half be the north part of the state and the other half be the south. I don't think schools want kids leaving a half day of school for a game (cause I'm sure other sports would be similar) because education is also important for the students in the eyes of the schools. One final thing is that since games would be all over the state, most people will not want to travel to a game that is in another city or in the other part of the state so revenue for the first few rounds I think would be down, and I feel like districts would not approve of lost revenue for "district" and "regional" games. This is not football, this is bboys and girls basketball, and assuming would be implemented to volleyball, baseball, and softball In my opinion, I feel like 64 schools for D1 would not be the complete answer, as in it solves the one mentioned above, but could create others. I think D1 needs to have a little meat on its bones, but not too much (a happy medium). It's just where is that happy medium between the larger D1 schools and the smaller D1 schools.

As a midway point between the 2 ideas, you could have D1 be 80 schools to at least allow the potential for districts (top 10% just like football) and the other 4 divisions would still be around 180 schools. The NW district would have 4 schools and the rest would be 5 except for 1, so that the districts would could have their district games. Here is the division breakdown for it (5 schools per district):

D1 080 Schools - 590-1373
D2 180 Schools - 303-589 (D2-D5 around 180 schools, districts of mostly 11, some 12 on average)
D3 178 Schools - 191-302
D4 180 Schools - 121-190
D5 181 Schools - 012-120

Also, the division breakdown for 64 school D1 (NCAA Tournament-like):

D1 064 Schools - 637-1373
D2 183 Schools - 317-636 (D2-D5 around 184 schools, districts of 11-12 on average)
D3 184 Schools - 195-316
D4 183 Schools - 124-194
D5 185 Schools - 012-123

Also, keep in mind that it is more than just D1 to focus on, D2-D5 see impacts as well, and it is just as important to consider them and their needs and benefits.

[Swampfox13]

No used kicking this dead horse. OHSAA wont let it happen whether it makes sense or not. If it did happen how many private schools would get together and form their own organization and then OHSAA would lose all that money. After all $ is what its all about.

[svac83]

I would make several small changes. I will use the d-2 as a example because I know most about it. But why like in the southeastern sectional do all these teams have to drive to southeastern to play to get 4 teams to advance. I think you could break this in half geography wise. And then you play each sectional out and instead of having 4 different sectional winners from southeastern you would advance 4 teams the first and second team out of each a ctional advance. This would take all the crap really away from seeding. Because finish 1st or second in your sectional then advance.
You would firm up this way all the way through the regional and I would even send the top 2 from each reason to state.

This way you could have 2 teams from same sectional play each other in state final if they were the 2 best teams. And yes these same 2 teams could play each other 3 or 4 times during the same post season.

But if these were really the 2 best teams. Would anyone really care to see that match up 3 or 4 times. Virginia used to be this way not sure if they still do or not.

I think that would be biggest possible improvement. No one would really be making it to the regionals without being tested because of a draw. With most of thes teams playing one game a week in post season the additional games would be no big deal.

[GoBucks1047]

2. Harbin Points for Basketball

I notice how some teams feel like they were cheated because sectionals have majority teams are from a conference and positions their conference better than the rest of the sectional, or where it seems like some sectionals are only based on record and not strength of schedule. I think the Harbin Points format used in football could be used for ranking or seeding teams in a sectional or district. Teams could play 20 games and then hold their draw to announce the ranking or seeding for the tournament, and then follow the procedure each athletic district conducts. The points format could be used exactly football using 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 points per win going from D4 up to D1, and if a 5th division is created, the top division would be 5.5 points per win. As for the Level 2 divisor, I believe it would be cut in half to 5 for each game you play and 0.5 for every game your opponent plays, just in case teams want to push makeup games past the draw. That way, we at the least have a way to know how teams stack up in basketball in a district or sectional. The only area of concern I have though is where teams in conferences would play other teams twice and the impact that may have.

After actually taking some time to figure out a Harbin Points System would work a little more than just in my head, I kinda feel dumb with the post above. I would have the final rankings released at noon the day of the draw for districts or sectionals with the first 20 games used to calculate the points with teams' results/record due by midnight Saturday night such as football; just a different day. The draw results would come out later at 4 PM sothat the districts or sectionals that don't use seeding for their brackets can hold their draw. To make calculations easier, initial rankings could come out 2, 4, and 6 weeks prior to the draw on those Sundays at noon or 2 PM, and to calculate, the first 8, 12, and 16 games would be used for those 3 initial rankings; similar to football's weekly rankings, the L2 divisor would still be 400 minus the games not played to each ranking (8 games, 12 games, 16 games, and finally 20 games). That way for the final draw, 80% of the data used is already there, and the remaining data can be added in for the roughly 800 teams to shorten the process.

Level 1 Points
D1 Opponents - 5.0 Points per win, 2.50 Points per tie (should like 7 OTs not be enough and both teams just give up), 0 Points per loss
D2 Opponents - 4.5 Points per win, 2.25 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss
D3 Opponents - 4.0 Points per win, 2.00 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss
D4 Opponents - 3.5 Points per win, 1.75 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss

If there was a 5th Division added (regardless of how D1 was set up), then it would look like this:
D1 Opponents - 5.5 Points per win, 2.75 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss
D2 Opponents - 5.0 Points per win, 2.50 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss
D3 Opponents - 4.5 Points per win, 2.25 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss
D4 Opponents - 4.0 Points per win, 2.00 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss
D5 Opponents - 3.5 Points per win, 1.75 Points per tie, 0 Points per loss

The formula for calculating the average L1 points would simply be the number of points accumulated from wins or ties divided by the number of games played.

Level 2 Points
The concept and calculation formula would remain the same (Winner of the game gets the loser's Level 1 Points), but the Level 2 divisor would be different as there would be more games to get more points. The divisor would increase to 400 total and for every game your team wouldn't play, the divisor would decrease by 20 points per game not played, and for every game your opponent wouldn't play, the divisor decreases by 2 points (double the points of football). The formula for average L2 Points is the total L2 points accumulated divided by the L2 divisor, and then you would multiply the answer by 10 to get the average L2 Points.

Total Average Points
L1 Points + L2 Points = Total Average Points

I tested it out using results from Joe Eitel's website by theoretically doubling the regular season and got the same results, and then tried it using Clay, East, and Notre Dame as examples (seeded 11, 10, and 9 respectively in the Northwest sectional) where they all split each other during the regular season (had to assume non-conference opponents played 20 games because results were hard to find). Clay with 2 wins finished with 0.9836 pointd, East with 4 wins (includes win over Manchester night before draw) had 1.7614 points, and Notre Dame with 3 wins including a 14-win St. Joe (assumed all D4 wins) had 2.4242 points. So I believe those 3 teams were seeded correct in their sectional.

Although the athletic districts are content with their own processes and issues are somewhat isolated, the Harbin Points system in basketball could be an alternative process for sectionals or districts where there would be many teams in it (20+ teams), most won't play each other during the regular season, and/or adjust teams based off their strength of schedule. I also noticed an article that was posted earlier in the week from Cleveland where this idea was brought up briefly, but no details. What do you all think?

[baseball16]

Some People Have way too much time on their hands!

[GoBucks1047]

Nah, just good with time management and putting good use to free time lol