Hoops coaches polled on hot topics

SCOTT TRUXELL/independent editor

Two changes have already occurred and it appears at least one more change is on the way, one that will affect the girls and boys state basketball tournaments as we know them.

One change already in place is the switch from the Martin RPI (Ratings Performance Index) to MaxPrep RPI. The Martin index was used as a test or pilot program in the Northwest District last season. This season, the Ohio High School Athletic Association made the decision to use MaxPreps, not Martin, to rank teams in each of the four regions around the state.

The other change was to have higher seeded teams host sectional semifinal and final games throughout the Northwest District. While new to the district, it’s not a new concept to other parts of Ohio. The Northeast, Southeast and Southwest Districts have done it for many years.

As far as pending changes, one would expand the number of basketball divisions from four to as many as seven. A vote by the OHSAA Board of Directors could come as soon as next week and if approved as expected, the change could take place as soon as next season. While it seems expansion will indeed occur, it also could be two years away.

The other change that’s been discussed for years is the addition of a high school basketball shot clock. It’s believed it’s a case of when, not if, it will occur in Ohio. 27 state associations currently use a shot clock in some capacity.

The VW independent polled 20 area high school basketball girls and boys high school basketball coaches. The coaches were invited to state if they’re in favor or against RPI, higher seeds hosting, expansion and the shot clock and if they wanted, their reasoning, under the condition of anonymity. 16 of the 20 coaches responded. Here are the results and some of the comments.

Expansion

Admittedly, it’s a small sample size but the results are interesting. Of the 16 coaches who responded, six are in favor of it, five are against it and five said they have no strong feelings one way or the other.

Here are some of the comments provided by the coaches:

“I don’t care for the idea mainly because we are being told this is how it’s going to go, with no discussion or input or vote from the coaches. I do see the possible benefit for leveling the playing field as far as enrollment in the big schools but I don’t think you will see much for most small school districts.”

“I really don’t have an issue with expanding the divisions. I’m not a big fan of the reason for doing it. I understand that you want to do what’s best for the student-athletes to succeed when tournament time comes. However; if that is your ultimate goal, then you can’t have Richmond Heights in Division IV or if there is expansion Division VI. That isn’t fair to the teams in those divisions.”

“I do like the idea of adding more divisions. The divisions and potential additions do allow schools like ours to have a more competitive and balanced field of similar demographic schools.”

“I am not in favor of the type of expansion that the OHSAA is talking about as far as expanding to six or seven divisions. I do feel that there is room for improvement with how things are currently set up, but I don’t think we need to go with the plans that are being talked about as far as adding three new divisions to our current system. The areas that I think need to be addressed is the disparity in numbers at the Division I level. One solution would be to create a super division where you take a percent of the division I schools and put them in a super division and leave the rest of the divisions alone. Another area that I feel needs addressed is the super teams (AAU teams) that are formed in some of the Division III and IV levels that have an unfair advantage of recruiting and put together a team that is far superior in talent than most small schools that are working with players that grew up in the school system. To solve this issue you could have these super teams play in the top division or an open division to eliminate the unfair advantage that has been created with recruiting.”

“It doesn’t bother me adding two or three more divisions. It could level the playing field across some of the divisions especially in some areas of the state where it seems there are kids bouncing from school to school to gain a competitive advantage.”

“At first I was skeptical of the idea but I think it will be good allowing more teams the opportunity to make a tournament run.”

“I am not in favor of adding divisions. I just see it as a money grab. It will take away from the state tourney as regionals will be local and only state final games will be played in Dayton. It won’t be the same.”

“My question is why do we need seven divisions? Whose idea is this? I have no idea where this idea came from and why it is needed. I prefer the current format and really wonder what seven divisions would do to the state tournament.”

RPI

Comments shared about RPI are interesting as well. Of the 16 coaches who responded, 12 said they prefer the Martin RPI over MaxPreps RPI. One coach likes MaxPreps and the remaining three don’t have strong feelings either way.

Here are some of the comments:

“I was leery of the Martin RPI but after piloting it in the NW District last year it seemed to work out well. I wish the state would have stayed with the Martin RPI, because I think the formula was better, the schools strength of schedule weighed in where in the max preps formula is based on winning percentages, opponents winning percentage and opponents, opponents winning percentage.”

“The RPI system is a work in progress. The Martin RPI that we used last year was much more accurate.”

“I am good with the Max preps RPI system. I just don’t like that some teams put all their info on and some teams don’t. I wish that all did it including stats.”

“I do like the Martin RPI we used last season better than Max Preps. One thing I do like is that it eliminates coaches using their personal biases when voting for tournament seeding. There have been times in the past where we have beaten a team head to head and had a better overall record but the coach voted themselves ahead of us.”

“I do not mind the RPI rankings. I do not love that it is ran by MaxPreps but like the RPI system. I enjoyed when it was ran by Martin RPI as he does a fantastic job. I also do not like that we still do the draw two weeks before the season is over. I think that needs to be changed for ranking/seeding purposes. But, overall the RPI system keeps biases out of the seeding process.”

“The RPI has some good qualities to it, but at the end of the day, just win games and prepare your team for the tournament. I wish this year’s calculations factored in strength of schedule a little more like last year’s Martin RPI did. I just hope whatever algorithm they use, they still allow coaches to pick where they want to go and seed themselves.”

“I do like that there was (with Martin RPI specifically) the ability to judge and reward schools that play ‘up’ in their schedules and for that to be accounted in their value as a team before the draw. I am more old school; show up to your tournament draw and seeding, vote the way you see it, be accountable for your vote in front of your peers, and place yourselves on the bracket with how it shakes out. In our society, we talk about a lack of accountability; we are modeling ways in which we do not have to be accountable by using computer and statistical metrics to replace self-accountability and putting your face with a decision.”

“I’m not a huge fan of the MaxPreps RPI, I can understand the use of a RPI measurement to help with seeding but I felt like Martin RPI was exceptional last year. I love the fact that it is computerized but I feel with MaxPreps we are encountering possible administrative mistakes (such as entering results on the “fan page” instead of “administrative page” that may change the RPI ranking) and considering we were not given a ton guidance in entering all of this, it’s just been an uneasy process. I just don’t want to do anything and make a mistake that may end up hurting our players’ opportunities.”

Shot clock

More interesting results. It’s hardly unanimous, but eight of the coaches said they’re in favor of a shot clock, although one said at the varsity level only. Five are against it and three have no opinion one way or the other.

Here are some of the comments:

“I am 100 percent in on a shot clock in high school boys and girls basketball. I think it would add a dynamic level to the game. Additionally, I’m sure spectators would enjoy it a great deal as well.”

“I don’t know if I would like it or not. I think it would cause more issues at the start. Referees already have a lot they have to focus on in a game, that adding that into it would only cause more issues. As a coach though, I wouldn’t mind. If we were down 1 or 2 with 40 seconds to go, I would be able to let the game play out instead of fouling.”

“Absolutely! Especially with the new rules in regards to fouls and whatnot. Women’s college basketball has a shot clock and so pace and the new rules fit because of the shot clock. Games now could end with a team taking four minutes off the clock when they are up six in the fourth quarter and force a team to foul 5+ times in order to potentially get a possession to cut into that lead. Aesthetically, that is not what basketball should be in my opinion.”

“I don’t think it is all that necessary. A lot of people think it’ll even out the playing field and help develop the players and add more scoring, and it will help players get ready for college basketball where a shot clock is used. Only about one percent of high school players end up playing college basketball at any level, so that reason doesn’t seem to make any sense since most players don’t even continue playing at the next level. If they want more scoring, I think more coaches should put an emphasis through their youth programs and even at the high school level to take the time to develop their players’ skill levels and scoring will naturally rise because of that time and development.”

“I have a couple of concerns with implementing the shot clock at the high school level. My number one concern would be finding someone that is qualified that wants to operate the shot clock for your home games. In high school, we don’t have the ability to check the monitor to see if the basketball hit the rim for the shot clock to be reset like they can at the college and pro levels. Number two, if your team is not blessed with players that are able to create their own shots, you will be at a huge disadvantage when you get to end of shot clock possessions. Currently without a shot clock, a lesser talented team has the ability to be patient and wait for a really good shot opportunity.”

“I would love to see a shot clock, but it will be very costly for schools.”

“Yes on a shot clock. Basketball is a game of skill and by having a shot clock this would force all players to develop more skill.”

“No, most games are played at a pretty efficient and exciting pace around our area.”

“Yes, shot clock! I’m an offensive minded coach. More shots, more scoring and more competitive.”

“I am good with the shot clock either way. My concern is the officials have enough to deal with and this will add to their plate. We would also have to find qualified people to run the clock as well. It’s hard to get people as it is.”

“No on the shot clock, I don’t feel like we need it and worry about it making the game more complicated for the officials to deal with.”

“I like high school basketball without a shot clock. If you don’t want me to hold the ball then come play defense or find a defense you can trap out of.”

Higher seed hosts

More mostly split results. Eight of the 16 coaches said they prefer neutral sites for sectional semifinal and sectional championship games, while six like the idea of the higher seed hosting. The remaining two had no opinion.

Here are some of the comments:

“I like this and think it rewards a school for a their regular season.”

“I might be in the minority here, but I love that the higher seeded team gets to host sectional games. It is a reward for teams that had a good regular season and gives them an extra boost in terms of not having to travel and being familiar with your own gym, as well as having your home crowd behind you.”

“If you get to host there are definitely advantages. I feel when it’s tournament time and both teams have to travel to a neutral site to play it just adds another level of focus and intensity.”

“Personally, I have always liked the neutral sites. I believe it adds to the tournament atmosphere for both teams.”

“I like that the higher seed gets to host the sectional tournament games. You’ve earned the higher seed, you might as well get the home court advantage.”

“I don’t like the better seed hosting. Tournament should always be at a neutral site.”

“I prefer going to a neutral site to play all tournament games.”