JJH CBP Survey: Ohio’s Athletic Directors Speak Out
Will the fourth time be the charm for a Competitive Balance Proposal in Ohio? Less than 24 hours before the start of the OHSAA’s swift seven-day sales pitch (the first Town Hall Meeting is Wednesday in Dayton), here’s what we know. We sent a survey to every athletic director in Ohio last week and plenty responded. If it’s up to them, the answer is…
It’s going top be agonizingly close again.
Nearly 200 schools responded to our 10-question survey and their answers are below. Eight questions were Yes/No. Two allowed for more descriptive responses.
Also, as noted, we sent this survey to Athletic Directors, not Principals. While principals will officially cast the vote for their school on the OHSAA ballot, we wanted to know what the main athletic leader in each district thought about the burning athletic question statewide.
Here are the results. Click on a question to see the results.
What Ohio’s ADs told us…
5. Do you think this is the OHSAA’s best Competitive Balance Proposal to date? If not, why?
WHAT THEY’RE SAYING (Ohio AD comments):
*When presented with information too many unknowns with the plan for our school
*Does not address the problem.
*Still to many open questions that the OHSAA will get to decide if they get the approval.
*This is more than fair for everyone involved. All schools need to think big picture. Obviously the non public schools would like to see things go unchanged as they continue to benefit from the current system. However, they need to understand, and I think some do, that if nothing is done and there ends up being a public/private split, it is going to be bad for all schools. We need to meet in the middle on this and this proposal does that.
*The whole idea of weighting numbers is crazy.
*It does not address the size disparity in D1
*The best was the one that broke the tournament into private/public
*Last CBP was more fair.
*Still nothing for Division 1
*All this proposal does is kick the schools who draw from a wide area up to the next division. It does not address the schools who recruit or give financial aid to kids outside of their district. At the same time, it punishes schools whose parents bring their kids to the district when they live outside of the district
*This is very similar to the last one they proposed. It should either be left alone or switched to a public playoff and a parochial playoff
*It is not good enough
*It does not address the issues in DI. If anything it could possibly make DI more difficult.
*It might be getting better but until you separate people aren’t going to be happy. Private should have one class for themselves no matter what their size until there is a certain number private schools to have divisions.
*Does not change the problem.
*It still does not address the issues. Especially for the large D1 public schools.
*It is just as convoluted as the ones in the past.
*I think the OHSAA is doing everything in it’s power not to address the real issue that schools (mainly private, but not solely) continue to flaunt the rules without major penalties. Until the OHSAA gets serious on recruiting violations, they are just placating to a few schools.
*The OHSAA is taking care of only one area of Competitive Balance. The wide disparity in Div. I in my opinion is more of an issue in the southwest district than public vs. private. In the northeast and northwest the big issue is public vs. private……This proposal does not help some of the smaller Div. I schools shore up their competitive balance issues.
*I still believe it is a step in the right direction.
*Easy to calculate and accounts for kids that do not come from your boundary.
*They all have been very confusing. Data will be difficult to get and track.
*All of the proposals have been equally bad and not well though out
*Until they put together a committee that is not made up with all of Dr. Ross’ buddies, they won’t gain my support.
*The committee/OHSAA has been more clear about two critical aspects that were missing previously: 1) Any adjustments/changes would need to be voted on my full membership and 2) It is stated that the CB balance committee would be left in place to continue the tweaking process as necessary. That indicates a desire to keeping working with the process.