In 1973, the NCAA divided college level athletics into Division I, Division II, and Division III categories for athletic competition. For football, Division I and II universities could offer scholarships, but Division III schools cannot. The NCAA categorized the schools offering sports such as football, because the "playing field" would always be tilted towards those schools which offer scholarships... as they would always attract the best high school players, and ultimately be more successful. Common sense dictates that the Langston Lions (Division III Football) cannot compete with the Oklahoma Sooners (Division I). The Sooners can attract the best high school football talent from around the nation and offer scholarships to future All-Americans, while the Langston Lions can only offer football as a sport, to those attending school there. The kids that play football at Langston, do it because they love the sport. They get nothing in return, for playing football at Langston. The NCAA has a very good classification system for categorizing college sports, because it levels the playing field!
The Oklahoma Secondary School Athletic Association (OSSAA) has a system for classifying schools to level the playing field. It classifies schools according to enrollment, which is appropriate if all member schools are equal according to their number of students. The number of students any member school has enrolled, has become woefully inadequate for classifying public schools in the OSSAA. The system is now outdated because of the private schools now allowed to participate in the OSSAA. The "playing field" in the OSSAA has been tilted toward the member private schools by forcing its member public schools to compete directly with private schools. The OSSAA "created inequity" would be the same for university competition, if the NCAA forced Division III schools (no scholarships) to compete with Division I schools for "national championships".
The inequity in athletic competition between public schools and private schools was highlighted for all high school football fans this past weekend, as the Noble Bears faced the Bishop McGuinness Fitin' Irish in the class 5A state semi-finals - and the Blanchard Lions played the Heritage Hall Chargers in the class 4A semi-finals. Both public school teams were "slaughtered", not because the private schools "had better coaches" or "their kids just work harder" - but because they are allowed to compete with specific built in advantages. Advantages such as unlimited school district boundaries (nation-wide), ability to provide scholarships for deserving athletes, and the ability to recruit high level athletes from anywhere in the nation. Of course private schools deny the innate advantages listed above, but irrefutable proof exists that the OSSAA permits these "tilted field" advantages.
So, the question now becomes "If the OSSAA believes that private schools in Oklahoma enjoy systemic advantages over public schools - why doesn't it 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? If any OSSAA official has an answer to this question, let us know. If anyone reading this post personally knows an OSSAA official, please ask this question, and let us know what the answer is... I've blamed OSSAA officials for being too cowardly in the past for refusing to re-classify schools, but I really don't know if that's the answer.
Most people have heard the old adage "if you don't have a better plan, don't complain", so this is my better plan for athletic classification in the OSSAA: Classify all schools using the university classification system - Division "I" schools would be those private schools which offer scholarships. Division "II" schools, both public and private, would be those which do not offer scholarships. The "Division II" schools could keep the current "enrollment based" classification system as well. If there is anything amiss in this plan, please let me know what it is - as I don't have intimate knowledge of how the OSSAA works (as several OSSAA officials have told me so).
Update: On Monday, November 27, 2017, I received the following response (paraphrased to protect the identity) from an OSSAA official in response to claims I made concerning "private school re-classification":
... you implied that there is illegal recruiting by some private schools. Being member schools of this organization, if this is taking place, it absolutely violates Rule 9 of our Rules and Policies. If you would provide us with the specific information, schools and names of students recruited, we will certainly investigate as we would with any other violation reported to us.
You also made a statement in your blog of November 27 that private schools have no boundaries. I would like to refer you to Policy XLIII in our OSSAA Policies found on our webpage that outlines the boundaries for all OSSAA private schools.
I'll address the concerns, but I think it's important to note that my two concerns as outlined above were not addressed in the response: 1) why doesn't it (the OSSAA) 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it already provides a 'level' playing field. 2) Is the Divisional classification system feasible and appropriate for high school athletic competitions or not? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it is not feasible and inappropriate, since this issue was also not addressed in the response.
Concerns of OSSAA:
1) Implied illegal recruiting by some private schools - I did not imply, I stated as fact that student recruiting goes on at some private schools, namely Bishop McGuiness and Heritage Hall. I'll not relinquish "names of students", as it violates specific privacy laws. If the parents of referenced students gave me permission to "publicize" names, then I most certainly would. I currently do not have the authority to release public school student names, and will not. I'm also quite certain that no "recruited" private school students would step forward to say "I was recruited". Regardless of recruiting evidence being available, the OSSAA would simply investigate the claim - and if it determined a case of illegal recruiting did take place, it would sanction the guilty school (slap on the wrist). What the OSSAA would not do is change its classification system in order to provide equity between private and public schools - which is the real issue at hand. To provide my statement of illegal recruiting is simply a distraction technique used to change the subject from reclassification to evidence of wrongdoing. (It's an old trick that good attorneys use in court to change the course of 'why we're here'.)
2) My statement that "private schools have no boundaries" - implies that private schools may recruit student-athletes from anywhere in the nation, much the same as Division I colleges do. The OSSAA quotes the district boundaries for all private schools in the state, which was assigned by private schools several years ago. I'm well aware of the privately assigned boundaries for private schools, as a private school is usually located within as well as outside several public school districts. In my opinion, these private school district boundaries would simply be the recruiting zone for each private school. Private schools can only recruit student-athletes from the public and private schools located within the Division I school's boundaries. (Some private schools recruiting boundaries even over-lap other private schools, so one private school may recruit student-athletes from another private school, LOL. Student-athletes from outside the recruiting zone can still play for the Division I private school, but must move to a residence within the recruiting zone, even on-campus.
I hope I've cleared up any misinterpretations of my two statements concerning my beliefs about the private vs. public school systemic "un-level playing field". I still haven't received an answer yet concerning the proposed "Divisional" classification system for Oklahoma high school athletics. Many states utilize a version of the Divisional System. Texas, for example, does not permit private schools to play in its athletic association, except for the top enrollment based class 6-A. So, don't say "It can't be done in Oklahoma". I look forward to comments about this proposal on my blog...
Update: Since we (public schools) now have the attention of OSSAA officials regarding the classification scheme for member schools, and the OSSAA evidently denies the charge that "illegal recruiting of athletes" takes place, both actively and passively.. directly and indirectly - We're asking any OSSAA official: "If no direct or indirect recruiting takes place by private schools, then what is your explanation for the unparalleled success on the playing field for privates?" ("Indirect" recruiting are all those legal activities and offerings which private schools engage in, which motivate student-athletes to choose the particular private school of choice. Activities such as providing scholarships and taxpayer funded vouchers for deserving students, and offerings such as hundred million dollar athletic facilities and magnified media attention. For more examples of indirect recruiting - just follow the money.) Let's now go back to an earlier post for a prime example of the private school advantage:
The Analysis of State Championship Brackets for Volleyball: There are 28 class 3A volleyball teams in Oklahoma comprised of 23 public schools and 5 private schools. All five private schools qualified for the eight team state tournament bracket, while three public schools qualified. If all success indicators were equal between private schools and public schools, roughly an equal percentage of private schools and public schools would qualify for the state tournament. In other words, if no mitigating success factors are not present for private schools - the percentage of private schools qualifying for the state tournament should approximately match the percentage of private schools existing in class 3A volleyball. (100% of private schools qualified for the state tournament, but private schools comprise only 17.8% of the total 28 schools in class 3A.) So, if mitigating success factors are indeed present for private schools, we ask the OSSAA - What are those mitigating success factors? If the answer is: 3A volleyball is an isolated case study, and doesn't apply to all classifications and across all high school sports - It's not true. This discrepancy in the OSSAA classification scheme crosses all classifications and all sports.
I look forward to an explanation from any OSSAA officials (employees or directors) or any private school officials concerning the inordinate success enjoyed by private schools in the OSSAA, if not mitigating success factors. Please provide your explanations in writing (no phone calls), and I'll post. (Note: I know for a fact that many OSSAA officials and private school officials read this blog...)
Selective Enrollment (indirect recruiting) is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools. Private schools select students for enrollment, so can also select the OSSAA numbers based classification to which they belong. Several years ago, believing that the number of students any particular school has enrolled - the OSSAA implemented a rule which it thought would "level the playing field" for public schools when competing against private schools. The "rule", in effect, was to move a private school "up" one "enrollment based" classification level, if the private school had placed in the top eight (of any particular sport) for a number of years. It is now evident, the rule has had no effect on "leveling the playing field" for public schools in the OSSAA. Since the OSSAA classifies all schools according to "number of students", classifying private schools according to enrollment does not eliminate any private school advantages. An example of the "effect" of the OSSAA's watered down rule can be seen in class 4A football: One of the largest class 4A schools is Ada with 677 students, while the smallest public school in class 4A is Vinita (498 students). Heritage Hall, a private school, has 345 students - which would place it toward the bottom of class 3A, according to student numbers. Heritage Hall was ultra-successful competing in class 3A, winning multiple state titles, so moved up to class 4A in 2016 - in compliance with the rule. Heritage Hall, even though having fewer students than all public schools in class 4A, is still dominating the competition and plays Ada this week for the class 4A State Title. It can be asserted at this point, that classifying a private school based on its number of students - does not level the playing field one bit! I'd like to hear from any OSSAA official or private school official, in writing, concerning these assertions: 1) Selective enrollment is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools and 2) The OSSAA's "Rule" for eliminating the private school advantage does not work.
No comments:
Post a Comment