Transcript Why not the Multiplier?

Competitive Equity Ad Hoc
Committee
Proposal Report
2014
1
Mission
The Mission of the Committee is to ……
• to study competitive balance/equity.
• to evaluate the current procedure of using
enrollment for division placement in postseason tournament plus offer a solution.
2
Competitive Equity was
defined as “more schools
have an opportunity to
compete on a more level
playing field in post-season
play.”
3
The Committee met:
July 7-8, August 3-4, October 1& 28, Nov. 18
The following viable solutions were developed
and investigated by the Committee:
•
•
•
•
•
1.65 Multiplier
Status Quo
Add a division in sports that would contain no
private schools. ( Exception: Not in Football)
Long Term Success Factors: point system for
regional,sectionals,and state that would
accumulate and move a team up a division over
an established period of time.
Reducer: Subtract students on free and reduced
lunch,or a percentage of those students from
total enrollment.
4
Solutions continued
•
•
•
•
Equal distribution of private schools
throughout division.
Sport specific private/public separate
state tournaments or path to the state
tournament in tennis, golf, volleyball,
and soccer.
Geographical population multiplier (
public and private)
Out of feeder school/open enrolled
student multiplier.
5
Criteria Used for Assessing Potential
Solutions
• Sport Specific
• Addresses schools in rural/urban
areas.
• Universal application to all WIAA
member schools.
• Clear, concise and supported by
data.
• Can be reviewed and will be
evaluated.
6
Why not the Multiplier?
• The Multiplier is not universally applied to all members.
•The Multiplier does not take into account Open Enrollment / non
boundary schools in Wisconsin and is a target for lawsuits.
•While it might move some private schools, it does not solve the
problem. Over time,other schools would emerge. Empirical evidence
from Missouri has indicated that the multiplier formula did not
decrease the amount of state championships won by private
schools.Two states (Georgia and Arkansas) have abandoned the
multiplier format.
7
Multiplier con’t
• Not all private schools are the same and yet, the
multiplier treats them the same.
• The goal of the committee is not to target just private
schools, but to analyze all schools success factors.
• The Committee did not believe the multiplier would
address the concerns of the rural schools.
8
Adding a Division at lowest level
without Private Schools.
•
•
•
This does not address Division 2 and 3
issues and is not applied universally.
To add a division to satisfy a small portion of
the membership and still not address the
other divisions would be considered
financially irresponsible
No data available to support proposal.
9
Equal Distribution of Private School
throughout the Divisions.
• It is not applied to the membership
equally.
• Liability in sports such as football and
wrestling.
• Imbalance in enrollments.
• Would not necessarily move the right
schools in question, hence failing to
address the rural concerns.
10
•
•
•
•
•
Sport Specific Public and Private
Separate State Tournaments
Evaluated tennis, volleyball, soccer and golf.
Some sports would have to add a division and in
some cases move privates out of Division 1
becoming a costly change.
Encourages a separation of privates and public
as a long term solution.
Divisions for public and private would face
competitive inequity and small publics could
face opponents 3xs their size.
Arbitrary and cannot not be used for all sports.
11
Out -of -Feeder School/Open Enrolled Student
Multiplier
•
•
•
•
Reviewed Ohio Model that tracked a student
through a system- if they did not come
through a schools system there was a
multiplier
Coaches may cut and manipulate rosters.
Cannot not audit rosters
Not easy to administer or track
12
“Criteria” applied to nine proposals! This
resulted in 3 proposals that met the
“Criteria” for further study.
• Reducer
• Success Factor
• Geographical,Boundary Specific
Multiplier
13
Reducer
•
•
•
•
•
Follows the Minnesota plan using free and reduced lunch
numbers where 40% of the current free and reduced count.
After 7 years, Minnesota continues to apply reducer to their
schools.
Can be applied to both private and public, rural and urban,
and all sports.
Data exists and can be audited.
Research what % of students on free and reduced lunch
actually participate in athletics for their schools.
Options that need to be explored include: How do you count
students? Do schools get bumped up? Do “large urban
school”move down? Does it address the concerns of “rural
schools”?
14
Why Reducer Rejected
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No defensible /logical basis on coming up with
40%.
Access to data constantly changing.
Federal policy has changed.
Minnesota HS Ex. Director has indicated that
the reducer has made no tangible difference.
Private and public school data incomplete.
Large Public Schools would be moved down.
Data difficult to track and is often inaccurate.
15
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geographical, Boundary Specific,
Multiplier
Establish a radius for attendance regardless of open
enrollment.
Take all schools in Wisconsin and assign them a home
attendance boundary.
Add a multiplier to each student beyond boundary.
Need to review how many students actually participate in
athletics.
Need to review feeder schools for private schools.
Set up a model to see how this affects all schools and
will this address rural/urban issues.
16
Why Geographical Boundary Rejected?
Radius of 10 miles then take 2% of population
and that would be added to your student
population.
• No consistency in boundaries(10-40
mile boundaries throughout state)
• Hurts rural schools.
• Cannot be applied equally to everyone.
• Could not develop a model to evaluate.
• Cannot address feeder schools and
distance in private schools.
17
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Success Factor
Measurable and easy to track
Evaluates and impacts the least number of schools.
Can be applied to all sports and public/private schools.
Reviews 3-5 year records to improve speed of resolution.
Establish a level point system for state tournament
movement: Regionals, Sectionals, State, Championships.
Sport Specific and can track promotion of teams.
Implement in Team Sports only.
18
Success Factor Proposal
The WIAA Ad Hoc Competitive Equity Committee
is recommending the following plan for divisional
assignment in the WIAA tournament series in
selected sports. The proposed plan adjusts
tournament assignment for teams that experience
significant multi-year success. This would provide
those teams with more competitive tournament
play in successive years, as well as open up
opportunities for state-level tournament
competition to other teams. Below are the
components of the system:
19
1. For competition purposes, a Success Factor will be
implemented in the season regulations in: Boys’ Soccer,
Girls’ Volleyball, Boys’ Basketball, Girls’ Basketball,
Softball, Girls’ Soccer, and Baseball.
1.1. Rational - These seven sports represent all WIAAsponsored team sports with a multi-divisional playoff
format in which all schools qualify for post-season play
which also do not crown individual champions.
2. This plan shall be implemented in the seven sports
beginning with the fall season of the 2016-17 school
year.
3. Divisional assignment will begin with the previous
year’s divisional assignment.
20
4. All teams with a qualifying point total (see Footnote #1)
will be promoted to the next upper division.
4.1.Promotion will only occur in the sport where a school
has achieved the required points.
5. All teams promoted using success factor will be locked
into the promoted division.
6. Following promotion and locking, all non-promoted teams
will be placed in divisions based on enrollment, consistent
with the WIAA season regulations currently in place.
7. Following application of season regulations, no team can be moved
down a division due to another team’s promotion if they have earned any
success factor points in that division in the last three years.
7.1.Should this situation arise, that school or schools will be locked in
the previous years division, and the next smallest enrollment school or
schools with no success factor points in the last three years will be moved
down.
7.2.Any tie will be addressed consistent with current season
regulations after the application of this clause.
8. The 3-year cumulative period used in determining placement for the first
year of implementation will be the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 school
years.
9. No team will move more than one division from the previous year’s
divisional assignment to the current year’s divisional assignment.
10. Once promoted, points from a lower division will not be considered in a
subsequent promotion.
11.Once promoted, teams will leave the promoted division if they have
less than 6 points earned in all divisions
22 in the last 3 years.
Footnotes
1.Points will be assigned in the following way:
1.1.Points will only be awarded once per postseason. A
maximum of 4 points may be earned by a team in a post-season
tournament. Teams will be assigned points from only one of the
following categories per year per sport: The most points a team
can earn is 4 points a year.
4 points for winning a state championship game
3 points for advancing to the state championship game
2 points for advancing to a state semifinal (final 4)
1 point for advancing to a state quarterfinal (final 8)
1.2. Points will be cumulative for a period of 3 years.
1.3.If at the close of any season, a team has earned a 3-year
cumulative total greater than 6 points or higher or when a school
reaches 6 points, it will be promoted to the next higher division in the
23
next season for that sport.
Footnotes
2. Addressing Co-ops:
2.1.When a co-op forms, the co-op has a point
total equal to combined total of the joining
entities.
2.2. When a co-op dissolves, each team has
the point total of the dissolving entity.
24