06/20/2024
Resolving competitive imbalance in Ohio high school track and field
With the exception of varsity football, competitive imbalance has evolved into more and more of a problem for Division I size high schools in Ohio.
The common three-divisional split that existed in the early 1980s appeared sound and fair, but that format disintegrated and broke down. Division I is where the largest discrepancy for competitive balance exists based on enrollment figures.
High school football fixed its competitive imbalance for Division I in 2013 when it went to a seven-division format, up from a six-division format which was first implemented in 1994 and had a five-division format from 1980-93.
The key implementation feature in 2013 for football expansion was making Division I representation the top 10 percent of enrollment.
Until very recently for the last 10 years the Ohio High School Athletic Association didn’t implement the same fix for competitive balance in its other high school sports.
Girls volleyball (1993), girls basketball (1988), boys basketball (1988), softball (2001) and baseball (1991) have all moved to four-division formats from three-division configurations.
Most recently, the OHSAA moved this spring to change soccer from three to five divisions and volleyball from four to seven. The largest 64 schools are placed in Division I, the next 64 largest are placed in Division II and the remaining schools are divided as equally as possible into the other divisions.
However, in all those divisional splits the OHSAA still didn’t fix the Division I disparity in competitive balance for track and field.
Track and field has especially lagged way behind the curve for competitive balance. Discussions have been made but with no traction to resolve the issue as the sport has remained a three-division split.
The two sports of football and track and field have essentially the same number of teams competing in Ohio with 778 member schools. Football expanded in 2013 going from six to seven divisions to address the competitive imbalance that existed for many years. It reduced the difference or range between the largest Division I and smallest Division I school from 1,539 student-athletes for a high to 619 for a low (40 percent) based on 2018 statistics.
Based on 2015-17 statistics for high school boys grades 9-11, the enrollment range for Division I boys track is substantial with a high 1,350 boys to a 293 for a low for 228 member schools. The range for Division II boys track enrollment range is 292 for a high to 151 for a low with 229 member schools. The range for Division III the enrollment figures is 150 student-athletes for a high with 228 member schools. A total of 685 member schools have a minimum of nine student-athletes which is considered “full” track squad with 93 additional schools that have less than nine student-athletes per team.
Although data provided in examples used boys data it is understood a proposal would include the same changes on the girls side.
In the 2015-17 cycle, the smallest school in Division I boys track was only 21.9 percent the size of the largest Division I school – nearly five times the size of the smallest Division I school. Division I affects over 62 percent of the total school enrollments in track and field. The difference in enrollment figures within Division I affects the majority of athletes for this sport.
Jim Vanatsky has been the main proponent of getting competitive balance fixed in Ohio high school track and field.
The District 14 rep for the OATCCC (Ohio Association of Track and Cross Country Coaches), Vanatsky is a Loveland High teacher from Hamilton County and former Tiger track coach (2011-21). Vanatsky researched and wrote up the initial 50-page proposal for a 4-division split addressing competitive for track and field to the OHSAA titled Ohio high school sports divisional realignment and expansion.
Vanatsky’s track proposal was strongly supported by liaison and OHSAA staff member Dale Gabor. The movement suffered a tough blow when Gabor, former long-time St. Ignatius athletic director, died on Oct. 28, 2021 at age 73.
The OHSAA subsequently informed the OATCCC leadership in October 2021 that the OHSAA would not be accepting the proposal even though, per OHSAA protocol, the survey the OHSAA sent out to its membership (principals, athletic directors) about the proposal the results were above 90 percent approval - just a survey, not a vote.
But the movement isn’t totally dead, however.
OHSAA executive director Doug Ute informed Vanatsky in the summer of 2023 that the OHSAA is “currently having internal discussions and discussions with our board of directors on the next course of action regarding potential tournament division expansion for several sports.” Despite Gabor’s passing, the OHSAA appears to still be listening and is reconsidering Vanatsky’s proposal.
Vanatsky said he has also shared the proposal with several other coaches or administrators in other varsity sports like soccer, basketball and volleyball that heard about it and wanted to plug in their support and concerns regarding competitive balance for their respective sports.
“We are having that discussion but there's no predetermined or preset goals in mind in terms of what we want to see,” said Ute. “We're just starting the process of engaging our member schools and in discussion with our board.”
It’s been a long road for Vanatsky getting the proposal serious consideration. He said he first started tabling the proposal on the side to some members of the OHSAA as early as 2016.
“The OATCCC leadership informed me that if we get the fourth division then we would then look at the Division I issue (largest 10 percent sized schools in Division I) and try to get that changed through a proposal that might include other sports with four divisions that would be interested in that change as well, but that would be in the future,” said Vanatsky. “It's a very slow, moving process. They (the OATCCC) is scared of offending the OHSAA.”
Vanatsky said the effort to fix Division I school enrollment disparity helps the OHSAA accomplish its mission, not just for track and field but for other sports like boys and girls soccer, boys and girls basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball and cross country. The OHSAA mission statement reads: “The OHSAA’s mission is to regulate and administer athletic competition in a fair and equitable manner…”
Track and field is the only sport with 700 member schools in the OHSAA that does not have more than three divisions. Boys and girls track individually have more participants than the five sports that currently have four divisions, respective to their gender. Based on 2015-16 numbers, outside of football boys track led the way in participation with 24,464 athletes, followed by boys basketball (23,609), baseball (22,650), girls track (21,861), volleyball (17,960), girls basketball (16,118) and softball (15,116).
From 2012-15, 80 percent of the ‘top 10’ finishing teams at the Division I state track meet were schools in the top 10 percent largest schools in the state.
“A girls soccer coach (Sidney High’s Kevin Veroneau) from my area (Southwest district) got a copy of my proposal and told me he's going to run with this,” said Vanatsky. “He told me something's got to be done. No one else out there is championing this so he wanted to get this information from me.
“He’s been in the same boat as we have been at Loveland. Sidney is a small Division I high school that’s had some very good teams but can’t compete with the larger Division I schools when it gets deep into the tournaments. He’s pushing hard to get his conference (Miami Valley Conference) behind it.
“They’re (the MVC) definitely looking at it from a Title IX angle because a boys sport (football) was given a fairness principle to expand. The template from football expansion in 2013 is already there. We just need to utilize it. I’ve also spoken with the executive directors for high school basketball (boys and girls) along with volleyball and they all appear on board with the movement.
“I brought it up to our executive board for the OATCCC and they said, ‘Oh well let's just play this thing out. We don't want to go to court or anything.’ You know they're so afraid of it drives me nuts. I've been very frustrated the times. Kids are continually denied these opportunities. We need to do this and make this thing right. I believe the key is to get as many member schools as possible on board behind this as possible.”
Sixteen states with like or smaller populations than Ohio (11.78 million) have five, six or seven divisions in track and field.
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Idaho have five divisions. New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Alabama, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Mississippi and Kansas each have six divisions. In addition, Texas and New York also have six divisions but are larger than Ohio. Louisiana and Georgia have seven divisions.
“My biggest complaint with track is that there should just be standards,” said Avon High athletic director Erich Frombach. “Set time, distances and heights to be able to qualify for districts. They figured out a way to do it with junior high. Avon, for example, has four discus throwers that can throw 140 or better. You should all be able to qualify all four to districts. Pennsylvania does it. That doesn't help the story, but that sport should start there for change.
“Basketball, baseball, softball and soccer definitely need to add another division. There is too big of a gap from small Division I to large Division I. They are certainly focused on money. Adding divisions, you would think, would make some more money.”
Division expansion allows the OHSAA to correct a miserably low percentage of participation currently competing at the state meet.
For 2013, 45,340 boys and girls participated in track and field statewide. A total of 1,936 athletes competed at the state meet for a 4.27 percent participation rate, ranking Ohio 47th lowest nationally.
Ohio is the seventh most populous state and has the second highest number of track and field participants in the sport (updated by the National Federation of High Schools in Jan. 2019) but 31 states have more athletes participating in their respective state meet than does Ohio.
A concern for many is the number of officials. The number of track and field officials has shrunk 13 percent since the 2010-11 school year.
During the 2010-11 school year, the state had 1,046 track officials statewide. Today there are 909. Numbers fell to its lowest point during COVID-19 when it fell to 848 officials, an almost 19 percent decline versus 2010-11. During the last two years, there has been a 6.8 percent increase or 61 officials.
“To put the need for officials into perspective while we have 909 officials, only around 600 meet the requirements to be tournament-eligible at the district level,” said BJ Duckworth, OHSAA assistant sport administrator and director of officiating development. “We have roughly 50 district track tournament sites, each needing 20 officials minimum. That means we need roughly 1,000 officials to cover the district tournament at minimum staffing, 400 more than are currently eligible.
“On that ratio we would need around 1,300 - 1,400 officials to have 1,000 district-eligible officials. Many of our officials will work in multiple districts bringing down the number from 1,000 to probably 700/800; however, even with people working multiple sites, we still don't have enough. This causes us to have volunteers, parents, and coaches officiating at the district tournament level or have some officiating positions completely unfilled.”
Amherst track coach Rob Glatz likes the expansion idea but is cautious.
“It’s important before we make a decision like that that we look before we leap,” said Glatz. “It’s so hard to find officials right now. I’m an official. I’ve been an official for 20 years and I go to all the officials’ meetings. They are booked solid. Schools are giving officials less pay. They are making them buy shells. The cost of shells are through the roof. I use to buy a box of shells for $30 a box. We just found a deal for $60 a box. A lot of schools don’t even give officials shells.
“It’s a great idea (divisional expansion) because there are some monster Division I schools. I would kind of like to see some of the private schools racing against each other because their net is so huge. My wife’s cousin used to coach for Mason. They have three teams for track. Their A team practices on the track. The B team is allowed to go on the track for some workouts. The C team practices in the parking lot and never gets to see the track for workouts because it’s so huge. Their enrollment is just gigantic.”
Vanasky said that there is a way to counter or offset the shortage in track and field officials for the postseason.
“It would be easier on the officials because we are going to piggyback heats/races at the postseason meets at the district, regional and state levels so it actually saves officials from running around from different meet sites on different dates,” said Vanasky. “It actually helps solve the problem of lack of officials.
“A key for all of this (divisional expansion and realignment) in addition to member school support is that we need a proposal to include changing the bylaw (for realignment protocol) to what’s best, feasible and financially responsible for each individual sport. It can’t be just a fixed number of schools for a particular divisional split. It has to be what is best and financially feasible for each sport.
“I can’t be the only coach that thinks this way. Maybe other coaches are just complaining amongst themselves. I don’t know. Football has been fixed for 10 years. The OHSAA needs to do what’s right, not just take baby steps.”
Paul Heyse from Strongsville, Ohio wrote this article. He has covered Ohio high school and cross country since 1981, first for Sun Newspapers and most recently since 1994 for the Elyria Chronicle Telegram.