Ugh. If this silly new rules past, I guess state finals in HS gyms again . . .

sorry but i blame all you 4a/321a fans that always complain about how much tougher you have it. many of you who are now upset have complained the loudest about 5a/6a having it easier. now you did it, it will be easy for all.

For the most part, I've never seen that as complaining but rather bragging on the part of the 4A fans. As well as, just poking fun at the 5A/6A folks, but you should be able to do both at the same time I think!

Timothy Liam Epstein, Chair of SmithAmundsen's Sports Law Practice Group, will publish his latest law review article with the University of Texas (UT-Austin). "Prep Plus: Evaluating the Motivations for and Effects of Enrollment Multipliers and other Measures in High School Sports" will appear in the Spring issue of the Texas Review of Entertainment and Sports Law.

The competitive balance between public and private high school sports teams is a focus of debate for many athletic associations in the United States. The question that often arises is: “Is it fair for private schools, with their ability to enroll student-athletes outside of their geographic boundaries, to take home more than their proportionate share of state championships?” This article examines state high school athletic associations’ pursuit of creating a level playing field by implementing controversial enrollment multipliers for playoff classification. Through a multi-state case study, this article examines the use of multipliers and similar measures and the controversy generated by the same, as multipliers may not be a solution to allegations of “unfair competition,” and, further, may not pass legal muster. This article provides analysis from a legal standpoint for the benefit of sports administrators, coaches, athletes, and sports law practitioners on a widely-used, yet controversial attempt to achieve competitive balance in high school sports.

Doesn't Missouri use a multiplier factor for private schools to determine classification?

OSSAA tables public/private school debate
By
Rick Couri, KRMG Sports director
@ June 10, 2009 5:49 AM Permalink | TrackBacks (0)
Non-public high schools in Oklahoma won't be forced to move into a higher classification for the next school year, after a motion seeking the change was voted down Tuesday by the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association's board of directors.

The board decided to keep the current system in place while appointing a committee to study how schools should be classified.

The committee would have about two months to develop a plan that could be presented to OSSAA members during October meetings. After that, the board could take the committee's plan and send it to a vote of the OSSAA membership.

"They do have an understanding that this issue is not going to go away," said Jim Beckham, the superintendent at Blanchard and one of the top proponents of the measure rejected by the board. "They have to do something at some point."

In recent years, as non-public schools have enjoyed more success in OSSAA-sponsored activities most notably in football and basketball resentment from public-school administrators and patrons has built because of suspicions the non-public schools recruited students for athletic purposes, which would be a violation of OSSAA rules.

The non-public schools have denied such recruiting and have said they need to draw from wider geographic areas than public schools to remain viable. They have also denied charges of deliberately limiting their enrollment to remain in a lower classification and thus be more competitive.

"That would be financial suicide," said Ralph Bullard, the school ambassador for Christian Heritage Academy in Del City. "It's a very hard business. We don't determine our school size based on athletics."

The OSSAA classifies schools based on their average daily membership or ADM. The rejected proposal called for the ADM of non-public schools to be determined by using the school's actual ADM and adding 50 percent of the ADM of the public school in the district in which the private school is located. A school could not have been moved up more than two classes.

The board voted not to send that proposal developed by representatives from Bridge Creek, Blanchard, Holdenville and Sulphur schools to OSSAA members for a vote.

Nineteen of the state's non-public high schools are private, while two others Sequoyah in Tahlequah and Riverside in Anadarko are federally funded government Indian service schools.

Bad plan altogether, but you can't deny the success of the private schools in all sports, not just wrestling. There has been a disproportionate amount of championships earned by the private schools. Defend it the way you want to Will, but you can't deny it, private schools have advantages that public schools do not. I am sure that you would say not receiving taxes is a disadvantage, and some would say having boundary lines is a disadvantage for public schools. Are these the only two proposals being considered?

There have been a lot of public schools that have been dominant sports programs. I remember the days when Wyandotte used to be dominant in basketball, SM North and Lawrence in football. I believe Manhattan also used to have a dominant football program. Currently what a about the disapportionate amount of State Championships that SM Northwest has in boys and girls cross country, SM East in swimming, and Hutchinson and Blue Valley in football, and Goddard in wrestling? What accounts for their level of continued success?

Probably good coaching and good athletes.