Waterford Divisional Assignment

[northeast2019]

Great seasons to both teams and good luck to fort Frye next week. Got to support our southeastern Ohio schools!!

A lot of the community has been asking why Waterford moved up to DVI this year. Sources tell me that the AD never communicated with Coaches on the competitive balance numbers for the open enrolled freshman and that the AD submitted the required paperwork adding in two, Tier 2 freshman that never played a down last year. Both of those players added 3 points each putting Waterford's divisional assignment total to 114. They had to be a 112 to stay in DVII. If the AD would have communicated with the Coaches they would had removed them and would have been a 108 and would have stayed in Division VII region 27.

With that being said all schools may move to a different division next season as the Competitive Balance points are recalculated every year so enrollment cut off lines will be recalculated based on how the schools end up falling in order.

To me its looks like there is no support from the leadership or administration with their football program.

[bsee12345]

Only will add the the CB numbers are re summited by the schools each year. The actual enrollment numbers are on a 2 year rotation but the CB numbers are summitted yearly- so if there were some "issue" then maybe next ( 2025 season) Waterford may end up back in D7- but that info will not come out around March/April 2025.

[danicalifornia]

Great seasons to both teams and good luck to fort Frye next week. Got to support our southeastern Ohio schools!!

A lot of the community has been asking why Waterford moved up to DVI this year. Sources tell me that the AD never communicated with Coaches on the competitive balance numbers for the open enrolled freshman and that the AD submitted the required paperwork adding in two, Tier 2 freshman that never played a down last year. Both of those players added 3 points each putting Waterford's divisional assignment total to 114. They had to be a 112 to stay in DVII. If the AD would have communicated with the Coaches they would had removed them and would have been a 108 and would have stayed in Division VII region 27.

With that being said all schools may move to a different division next season as the Competitive Balance points are recalculated every year so enrollment cut off lines will be recalculated based on how the schools end up falling in order.

To me its looks like there is no support from the leadership or administration with their football program.

Did they play JV? Or were they injured? Or would they have been removed because they weren’t good?

Only one of those would qualify for not cheating the system and I’m not even 100% sure that it would qualify for that.

[formerfcfan]

Great seasons to both teams and good luck to fort Frye next week. Got to support our southeastern Ohio schools!!

A lot of the community has been asking why Waterford moved up to DVI this year. Sources tell me that the AD never communicated with Coaches on the competitive balance numbers for the open enrolled freshman and that the AD submitted the required paperwork adding in two, Tier 2 freshman that never played a down last year. Both of those players added 3 points each putting Waterford's divisional assignment total to 114. They had to be a 112 to stay in DVII. If the AD would have communicated with the Coaches they would had removed them and would have been a 108 and would have stayed in Division VII region 27.

With that being said all schools may move to a different division next season as the Competitive Balance points are recalculated every year so enrollment cut off lines will be recalculated based on how the schools end up falling in order.

To me its looks like there is no support from the leadership or administration with their football program.

Did they play JV? Or were they injured? Or would they have been removed because they weren’t good?

Only one of those would qualify for not cheating the system and I’m not even 100% sure that it would qualify for that.

JV-only freshmen don’t have to be tiered. Freshmen only get tiered if they take the field once in a varsity contest.

The rule changed a few years ago to where all players in grades 10-12 are subject to tiering, and any freshmen who participate in one varsity play (including kickoff team.) The OHSAA has a specific instruction to AD’s to only input football freshmen if they see the field in a varsity contest.

What I will say is the OP says “did not play a down.” Not to get too literal, but kickoff team/KOR and PAT team do count as participation in varsity. Unknown if the kids in question took the field in any of those units, of course.

[danicalifornia]

Great seasons to both teams and good luck to fort Frye next week. Got to support our southeastern Ohio schools!!

A lot of the community has been asking why Waterford moved up to DVI this year. Sources tell me that the AD never communicated with Coaches on the competitive balance numbers for the open enrolled freshman and that the AD submitted the required paperwork adding in two, Tier 2 freshman that never played a down last year. Both of those players added 3 points each putting Waterford's divisional assignment total to 114. They had to be a 112 to stay in DVII. If the AD would have communicated with the Coaches they would had removed them and would have been a 108 and would have stayed in Division VII region 27.

With that being said all schools may move to a different division next season as the Competitive Balance points are recalculated every year so enrollment cut off lines will be recalculated based on how the schools end up falling in order.

To me its looks like there is no support from the leadership or administration with their football program.

Did they play JV? Or were they injured? Or would they have been removed because they weren’t good?

Only one of those would qualify for not cheating the system and I’m not even 100% sure that it would qualify for that.

JV-only freshmen don’t have to be tiered. Freshmen only get tiered if they take the field once in a varsity contest.

The rule changed a few years ago to where all players in grades 10-12 are subject to tiering, and any freshmen who participate in one varsity play (including kickoff team.) The OHSAA has a specific instruction to AD’s to only input football freshmen if they see the field in a varsity contest.

What I will say is the OP says “did not play a down.” Not to get too literal, but kickoff team/KOR and PAT team do count as participation in varsity. Unknown if the kids in question took the field in any of those units, of course.

Thank you for that! I didn’t realize that was changed.

[greygoose]

Great seasons to both teams and good luck to fort Frye next week. Got to support our southeastern Ohio schools!!

A lot of the community has been asking why Waterford moved up to DVI this year. Sources tell me that the AD never communicated with Coaches on the competitive balance numbers for the open enrolled freshman and that the AD submitted the required paperwork adding in two, Tier 2 freshman that never played a down last year. Both of those players added 3 points each putting Waterford's divisional assignment total to 114. They had to be a 112 to stay in DVII. If the AD would have communicated with the Coaches they would had removed them and would have been a 108 and would have stayed in Division VII region 27.

With that being said all schools may move to a different division next season as the Competitive Balance points are recalculated every year so enrollment cut off lines will be recalculated based on how the schools end up falling in order.

To me its looks like there is no support from the leadership or administration with their football program.

Were they on the team?? Playing time doesn’t matter if they’re on the team they count.

[northeast2019]

Actually in football, freshman can be on the roster but to count as CB they must play at least one down. If they do not play a single down in a regular season or playoff game they do not count for CB. Go to OHSAA’s website and find their Competitive Balance page and read their language or their PowerPoint PDF page. It’s all there for the public.

[formerfcfan]

Actually in football, freshman can be on the roster but to count as CB they must play at least one down. If they do not play a single down in a regular season or playoff game they do not count for CB. Go to OHSAA’s website and find their Competitive Balance page and read their language or their PowerPoint PDF page. It’s all there for the public.

The word “down” does not appear in this: https://ohsaaweb.blob.core.windows.net/ ... tering.pdf

[northeast2019]

You are correct. Language does state one “play”. Not a down. My apologies.

[formerfcfan]

You are correct. Language does state one “play”. Not a down. My apologies.

No need to apologize. The concept of CB is starting to rear its ugly head on SEO schools, that (IMO) are more prone to having kids on rosters that get Tier-1'd and Tier-2'd even though those kids aren't really moving schools/attending via OE for the intents and reasons of why CB was created in the first place.

Look no further than Crooksville. Where, the majority(?) of their team last year didn't live in the Crooksville district... apparently... but the kids who got Tier-2'd supposedly live in the village of Roseville -- which is closer to Big C than Maysville HS (where Roseville falls in the old district lines drawn however long ago.)

Another way to say the above: the CB language isn't realistic and inevitably screws the programs who weren't the intended targets of the policy implementation (voted on by the schools.) I think Regions 19, 23 and 27 are frankly worse off as a result of the CB language as is. Not to say we shouldn't have CB as an idea, but this clearly isn't working and for that matter it is screwing everything up statewide. When it comes to geography and assignment of divisions, at least.

[Kmit]

I wasn't aware that CB was recalculated every year. Good info and I appreciate it being pointed out. Can you help me better understand it?

The provided link indicates roster entry dates of October through mid December for Fall sports so I'm assuming that's for next year. That said, why would grade 12 be included in the count unless by grade 12 they really mean next year's grade 12 (current year grade 11)?
Is there any provision made for kids that decide not to play the following year? It's possible that when the new season starts maybe a kid switched from football to golf.

I can think of several.different scenarios but just a general how it works would be helpful to me.

[northeast2019]

You are correct. Language does state one “play”. Not a down. My apologies.

No need to apologize. The concept of CB is starting to rear its ugly head on SEO schools, that (IMO) are more prone to having kids on rosters that get Tier-1'd and Tier-2'd even though those kids aren't really moving schools/attending via OE for the intents and reasons of why CB was created in the first place.

Look no further than Crooksville. Where, the majority(?) of their team last year didn't live in the Crooksville district... apparently... but the kids who got Tier-2'd supposedly live in the village of Roseville -- which is closer to Big C than Maysville HS (where Roseville falls in the old district lines drawn however long ago.)

Another way to say the above: the CB language isn't realistic and inevitably screws the programs who weren't the intended targets of the policy implementation (voted on by the schools.) I think Regions 19, 23 and 27 are frankly worse off as a result of the CB language as is. Not to say we shouldn't have CB as an idea, but this clearly isn't working and for that matter it is screwing everything up statewide. When it comes to geography and assignment of divisions, at least.

I appreciate your analysis of the larger issue with OHSAA and how it is hurting small school programs.

On Waterford’s end, it looks like the AD was probably totally ignorant (or intentionally ignorant) to the outcome that would occur, subsequently moving them up a division, when they had a very high probability of winning region 27 this year.

Another issue with the CB is there is truly no way to police what freshman (if Tier 1 or 2) have played a single varsity play. I’ve heard coaches now won’t dress freshman on varsity, cut off film from them playing in case an another coach or admin grieves them. Who’s going to have oversight on that? OHSAA?? To me they just hide behind their proposed language, make their money and turn a blind eye to the negative outcomes of their policy.

[formerfcfan]

You are correct. Language does state one “play”. Not a down. My apologies.

No need to apologize. The concept of CB is starting to rear its ugly head on SEO schools, that (IMO) are more prone to having kids on rosters that get Tier-1'd and Tier-2'd even though those kids aren't really moving schools/attending via OE for the intents and reasons of why CB was created in the first place.

Look no further than Crooksville. Where, the majority(?) of their team last year didn't live in the Crooksville district... apparently... but the kids who got Tier-2'd supposedly live in the village of Roseville -- which is closer to Big C than Maysville HS (where Roseville falls in the old district lines drawn however long ago.)

Another way to say the above: the CB language isn't realistic and inevitably screws the programs who weren't the intended targets of the policy implementation (voted on by the schools.) I think Regions 19, 23 and 27 are frankly worse off as a result of the CB language as is. Not to say we shouldn't have CB as an idea, but this clearly isn't working and for that matter it is screwing everything up statewide. When it comes to geography and assignment of divisions, at least.

I appreciate your analysis of the larger issue with OHSAA and how it is hurting small school programs.

On Waterford’s end, it looks like the AD was probably totally ignorant (or intentionally ignorant) to the outcome that would occur, subsequently moving them up a division, when they had a very high probability of winning region 27 this year.

Wouldn't be the first time I've come across this (trust me, I didn't expect my alma to be Division VI in baseball via CB's -- AD sent in 7 tier-2's but the coaches and I could only think of five kids that would be Tier-2. Those two additional T2's put them into D6.) It's a little hard to say if it comes out of malevolence instead of... inattentiveness? I can't cast a judgment on Waterford's situation as to what happened, other than I'm sad they weren't in Region 27 because it's been a very respectable program that I think would've bolstered the region.

The CB paperwork, the process of administering it, is yet another layer of paperwork of course that falls at the feet of administrators that don't have enough hours in the day to tackle everything that comes as it comes. One school of thought may be that there's just too much s--t they have to deal with on paperwork purposes, although I guess there's good and bad that comes with the added burden that didn't exist 10-15-25 years ago. The good being that we have coaches that are credentialed to be around kids and recognize concussions -- the bad being, alas, the administration of which random kids on a given sports team have to magically count as "3" players in football and "7" in other sports. It speaks to the broader issue with CB as is. True, all the schools play by the same rules... but the "same rules" as conceived 10 years ago frankly no longer match why we came up with those rules to begin with.

Another issue with the CB is there is truly no way to police what freshman (if Tier 1 or 2) have played a single varsity play. I’ve heard coaches now won’t dress freshman on varsity, cut off film from them playing in case an another coach or admin grieves them. Who’s going to have oversight on that? OHSAA?? To me they just hide behind their proposed language, make their money and turn a blind eye to the negative outcomes of their policy.

100%. Very true. Not enough people are bringing attention to this.

To that end, where will we found ourselves as a state of high school sports in Ohio if the CB rule stay as is down the line? Are we going to find ourselves in a position where individual sports programs across the state are basically kicking kids that count as "3 (or 7)" extra players if those kids frankly aren't making a contribution to the competitive product? No doubt that some of these kids need sports, need the belonging and the arm of a coach around them. I like to think (as hard as it is at times) that there's better angels prevailing across the state when it comes to this, but at the same time I can't help but wonder that some places are asking themselves "what is the point of this system if a consequence of bringing new kids in the hallway aboard onto our program ends up being an albatross around our program in the end?"