OHIO HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS ANALYSIS

SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 PREPARED BY SCOTT GERBER

I enjoy analyzing a variety of topics. I do this as a hobby. USTA tennis has been a common topic of interest for me as has education-related issues. This project involves Ohio high school tennis. For this project, I was curious about which Ohio Districts fared the best with tennis. If you have shared this same curiosity, please read on. Please note that this is a rather long document so feel free to read those sections that appeal to you. As with all of my analysis documents, I also throw in my two cents at the end on what I think would improve the situation for the kids. The sections are:

• District Performance • Top Ohio Tennis Schools • Performance of Seeds • Performance of Each School Class (Freshman – Seniors) • Concerns with Division 1 Draws • USTA / ITF Matches during the High School Season • Location of the Girls State Finals

This document will be emailed to the Ohio High School Athletic Association, numerous coaches on the OTCA board, and my own list of tennis contacts (which includes parents and some members of the media). The Data Please note that my database includes records on 1,152 singles players and doubles teams. I used care while entering the data but it is still likely that I made a few errors. It is very doubtful any errors materially affected the data results. I used the data from the OHSAA web site for the school years 1999-2000 to 2007-08. No OTCA data was included. I used my own form of points per round for each round. Those players with a first round win at States earned 10 points. Players who came in fourth received 20 points. Third placed earned 25. Runner-ups earned 30 and the State Champion obtained 40 points. These charts reflect the average points per player. For example, if Central District had four boys in the Division 1 State tournament and two boys reached the second round before they lost, the average points per player for Central would be five (20 points / 4 players). The cities in each district include:

• Central – Columbus, Upper Arlington, New Albany, Dublin, Chillicothe, Gahanna,

Worthington, Bexley, Hilliard • Northeast – Cleveland, Youngstown, Canton, Wooster, Hudson, Shaker Heights,

Massillon, Solon, Aurora, Medina, Chagrin Falls • Northwest – Toledo, Lexington, Findlay, Lima, Perrysburg, Mansfield, Sandusky,

Huron, Elida, Napoleon, Port Clinton, Ada, Vermilion, Fremont • Southwest – Cincinnati, Dayton, Springfield, West Chester, Troy, Kettering,

Fairfield, Hamilton, Tipp City, Centerville, Middletown Process As with most of my analyses, I start with the broadest view and then I drill into the details. District Performance The following group of charts provide the performance of the various Districts. The Southwest District wins the big prize. The Southwest average points per player totaled 12.8. The average points per player for the entire state was 9.7, which means that all Districts except for Southwest trailed the average. Congratulations to the players in the Cincinnati / Dayton / Springfield areas.

AVERAGE POINTS PER PLAYERBY DISTRICT

8.98.1

12.8

8.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 2

The number of State participants from each District varies considerably with the Northeast having the most participants during this time period.

NUMBER OF STATE PARTICIPANTSBY DISTRICT

270

384

186

312

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

Drilling down further into the data, Southwest is absolutely dominant for the Boys. The Girls are closer overall, but Central has a tiny lead over the Southwest.

AVERAGE POINTS PER PLAYERBY GENDERBY DISTRICT

7.48.1

8.87.7

8.6

15.1

10.6010.63

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 3

The Southwest District Boys have been extremely dominant for the last six years. The Central Boys have been relatively weak (more on this later) but they have picked up the pace over the last two years.

AVERAGE POINTS FOR BOYS

BY DISTRICT BY YEAR

97 8

75 4

79

11

17

13

97 6 6

4

6 6

2

8

11 1210

910

53

7

1012

15

2021

1817 18

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Boys Boys Boys Boys

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

The performance of the Girls was much closer than the Boys. The Girls in the Central and Southwest Districts were virtually a tie.

AVERAGE POINTS FOR GIRLS

BY DISTRICT BY YEAR

14 14

10

1211

98

11

98

5

8 8

1211

1011

87 8

13

12

3

8

11

7

1011

14

109

109

109

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Girls Girls Girls Girls

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 4

Top Performing Schools The schools with great tennis traditions are as follows. The chart shows those schools with the most participants in States during the 1999-2000 through 2007-2008 school years.

OHIO'S TOP 25 TENNIS SCHOOLS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF STATE PARTICIPANTS

05

1015202530354045

Upp

er A

rling

ton

Gah

anna

Col

umbu

s A

cade

my

Cin

cinn

ati I

ndia

n H

illC

inci

nnat

i Hill

s C

hris

tian

Aca

dem

yH

untin

g Va

lley

Uni

vers

ity S

choo

l

Lexi

ngto

n

Shak

er H

eigh

ts H

atha

way

Bro

wn

Shak

er H

eigh

tsTo

ledo

Mau

mee

Val

ley

Cou

ntry

Day

New

Alb

any

Mas

sillo

n Ja

ckso

n

Cuy

ahog

a Fa

lls W

alsh

Jes

uit

Cin

cinn

ati S

t. Xa

vier

Can

ton

Cen

tral

Cat

holic

Hud

son

Col

umbu

s Sc

hool

for G

irls

Can

field

Cin

cinn

ati C

ount

ry D

ay

Roc

ky R

iver

Mag

nific

at

Ket

terin

g A

rchb

isho

p A

lter

Woo

ster

Triw

ay

Port

Clin

ton

Col

umbu

s B

exle

y

Cin

cinn

ati S

even

Hill

s

Col

umbu

s W

ellin

gton

Sch

ool

Cen

terv

ille

GirlsBoys

The average points are shown below for each of the above schools. Of the schools that have had a large number of participants, Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy’s tennis players have had the best average points per player.

OHIO'S TOP 25 TENNIS SCHOOLS AVERAGE POINTS PER PLAYER BY SCHOOL

05

101520253035404550

Upp

er A

rling

ton

Gah

anna

Col

umbu

s A

cade

my

Cin

cinn

ati I

ndia

n H

ill

Cin

cinn

ati H

ills

Chr

istia

n A

cade

my

Hun

ting

Valle

y U

nive

rsity

Sch

ool

Lexi

ngto

n

Shak

er H

eigh

ts H

atha

way

Bro

wn

Shak

er H

eigh

ts

Tole

do M

aum

ee V

alle

y C

ount

ry D

ay

New

Alb

any

Mas

sillo

n Ja

ckso

n

Cuy

ahog

a Fa

lls W

alsh

Jes

uit

Cin

cinn

ati S

t. Xa

vier

Can

ton

Cen

tral

Cat

holic

Hud

son

Col

umbu

s Sc

hool

for G

irls

Can

field

Cin

cinn

ati C

ount

ry D

ay

Roc

ky R

iver

Mag

nific

at

Ket

terin

g A

rchb

isho

p A

lter

Woo

ster

Triw

ay

Port

Clin

ton

Col

umbu

s B

exle

y

Cin

cinn

ati S

even

Hill

s

Col

umbu

s W

ellin

gton

Sch

ool

Cen

terv

ille

GirlsBoys

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 5

Please let me also quickly add that there was no historical data online at the OHSAA web site that included the Central District Boys results in the 1970’s. Upper Arlington recently displayed signs at their courts that showed that they won the coaches’ championship eight times within 10 years during the 1970’s. They also won five boys’ doubles and three boys’ singles titles during the 1970’s. I do not live in Upper Arlington, but this paragraph will save me some time on the telephone from dealing with my Upper Arlington friends. The top performing schools in each District were as follows:

TOP TENNIS SCHOOLS IN EACH DISTRICTBASED ON NUMBER OF STATE PARTICIPANTS

41

35

1815 13 12 10 10

23 21 2118 17 16 15 14 14

2218

13 11 10 10 9 9

3226

16 14 14 13 12 11 11 11 11

05

1015202530354045

Upp

er A

rling

ton

Gah

anna

Col

umbu

s A

cade

my

New

Alb

any

Col

umbu

s Sc

hool

for G

irls

Col

umbu

s B

exle

y

Col

umbu

s W

ellin

gton

Sch

ool

Wor

thin

gton

Kilb

ourn

e

Chi

llico

the

Hun

ting

Valle

y U

nive

rsity

Sch

ool

Shak

er H

eigh

ts H

atha

way

Bro

wn

Shak

er H

eigh

ts

Mas

sillo

n Ja

ckso

n

Cuy

ahog

a Fa

lls W

alsh

Jes

uit

Can

ton

Cen

tral

Cat

holic

Hud

son

Roc

ky R

iver

Mag

nific

at

Can

field

Lexi

ngto

n

Tole

do M

aum

ee V

alle

y C

ount

ry D

ay

Port

Clin

ton

Tole

do S

t. U

rsul

a A

cade

my

Tole

do S

t. Jo

hn's

Jes

uit

Tole

do O

ttaw

a H

ills

Tole

do N

otre

Dam

e A

cade

my

Tole

do S

t. Fr

anci

s D

eSal

es

Cin

cinn

ati I

ndia

n H

ill

Cin

cinn

ati H

ills

Chr

istia

n A

cade

my

Cin

cinn

ati S

t. Xa

vier

Ket

terin

g A

rchb

isho

p A

lter

Cin

cinn

ati C

ount

ry D

ay

Cin

cinn

ati S

even

Hill

s

Cen

terv

ille

Kin

gs M

ills

Kin

gs

Cin

cinn

ati S

ycam

ore

Day

ton

Oak

woo

d

Cin

cinn

ati P

rince

ton

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 6

Performance of Seeds As you would expect, Seeding positions 1 and 2 have performed the best over time.

AVERAGE POINTS BY SEEDING POSITION

20.5

10.1

6.8

2.1 2.1 1.80

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 7

The Champions and Runners-up were primarily from the 1st and 2nd seeding positions. The 1st and 2nd Seeds won the Championship 93% of the time. The 1st and 2nd Seeds won the Runner-up trophy 89% of the time. If a District cares about how well it performs in the State Tennis Tournament, it needs to protect its 1st and 2nd seeds as much as possible until the second day (again, more on this later). Special mention goes to the doubles team of Patrick Thompson and Mike Norelka of Medina who won the Division 1 doubles championship from the 6th seed position in 2000. Please note that there was no seeding information for the Girls in 1999 so this information was excluded for them.

SEEDING POSITION OF CHAMPION / RUNNER-UP

53

10

41

39

22

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 6 1 2 3

Champion Runner-up

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 8

Performance of Each School Class The junior class has done the best of all grades at States. As you would expect, Girls perform better at an earlier age than Boys because they mature faster. Please note that these averages are for the singles-only matches at States.

AVERAGE POINTS PER PLAYERBY GRADE

BY GENDER

6.1

8.3

11.1

10.29.7 9.7

10.2

9.2

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12

Boys Girls

The following chart reflects the number of players from each grade.

NUMBER OF PLAYERSBY GRADE

BY GENDER

31

45

87

125

44

58

94

108

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12

Boys Girls

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 9

Concerns over Draws Now I’m going to shift gears a bit. Earlier in the document, I typed “more about this later”. This is the “later” section. Last spring, I was extremely puzzled why the top four boys (at least as far as I was concerned) in Division 1 tennis played each other in the second round rather than in the semi-finals. See draw. (Please click on the title of the draw to return to this page.) The players involved were the top two players from the Southwest District and the top two players from the Central District. Now, I realize that it would be difficult to seed the players from all of the Districts without considerable angst from the various Districts. However, I was very surprised when I discovered that the top two players from the extremely strong Southwest District have played the top two players from the Central District for the last seven straight years in both singles and doubles. (Click for last year’s draw.) I thought there was some type of rotation used as did others who I contacted. The last time that there was rotation in the draw for Division 1 Boys and Girls tennis was in 2001. (See draw for 2001.) Meanwhile, in D2 boys tennis, there is a reasonable rotation of Districts playing each other. See draw for 2008. Just to leave absolutely no ambiguity on what has been going on, please note the following chart. This chart shows who the Division 1 Seeds in each District are playing in the 2nd round from 2001 to 2008. So, for example, all Division 1 players in the Central District who were the 1st seeds, played the 2nd seeds from the Southwest 26 out of 26 times in the 2nd round since 2001. This example is illustrated by the yellow bar.

DIVISION 1 / DISTRICT / SEED / OPPONENT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2nd Rd.Opponent -Southwest

2nd Rd.Opponent -Southwest

2nd Rd.Opponent -Northwest

2nd Rd.Opponent -Northwest

2nd Rd.Opponent -Northeast

2nd Rd.Opponent -Northeast

2nd Rd.Opponent -

Central

2nd Rd.Opponent -

Central

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

1

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 10

While there is rotation in Division 2, there is still some bias for Southwest / Central and Northeast / Northwest 2nd round pairings. Sorry for the small type used in the following chart for Division 2. Please use the “zoom” feature as necessary.

DIVISION 2 / DISTRICT / SEED / OPPONENT

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - S

outh

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

east

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - S

outh

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

east

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - C

entr

al

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - S

outh

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - C

entr

al

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - S

outh

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - C

entr

al

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - S

outh

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

east

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - C

entr

al

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - S

outh

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

east

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - C

entr

al

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

east

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - C

entr

al

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

wes

t

2nd

Rd.

Opp

onen

t - N

orth

east

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Central Northeast Northwest Southwest

2

Please note there is a yearly rotation in Division 1 so that the number one seeds from Northeast and Northwest alternate playing the Southwest’s number one seed in the Semi-Finals each year. See draws. If the concept of rotation was recognized as necessary in the Semi-Finals, it should have been used elsewhere in the draw. So, looking back at the “more about this later” reference, the Division 1 Southwest and Central Girls may have done a bit better if their top two players had not constantly beaten up each other in the 2nd round. The Central Boys have been relatively weak during the last few years but they may have also done a bit better had they not faced the extremely strong Southwest Boys year after year. USTA / ITF Matches during the High School Season Ohio’s junior players have been placed at a significant disadvantage to players in neighboring states, but before I explain why, a little history first will help. It is important that readers understand relatively recent changes that have occurred with junior tennis. In approximately 2004, the USTA moved to a points per round system for ranking players for national tournaments. This system was based on the ranking used by the pros. Players get “points” for each round in a tournament they win. Important tournaments yield far more points for each win than the smaller, typically local tournaments. Gaining enough points allows players to get into other important

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 11

tournaments and obtain good seeds. Getting good wins in important tournaments is very important if a junior wants an opportunity to play college tennis. Prior to the points per round system, a “head-to-head” process was used. A simplified example is as follows: if Player “A” beats “B” and “B” beats “C”, then “A” is better than “C”. Under points per round, if “A” beats “B” in a small tournament in Ohio but “B” travels to Chicago and beats “C” in a high level tournament, “B” could be viewed as much, much better than “A”. The points per round system works reasonably well for professional tennis because it encourages players to participate in tournaments. Fans want to see the best players so they are more likely to purchase tickets to watch them play. The organizers are happy, the fans are happy, and the players have to deal with it. Professional tennis also has ways of dealing with the good, popular players who may not have enough points to play in a specific tournament because they do not have enough points due to an injury, etc. Unfortunately, a win over Roger Federer in this system does not yield any more points than beating the worst player on the tour (but it may help a player earn more money from a sponsor). Of course, in the pros, you also get more prize money as you win more rounds. Unfortunately for junior tennis, their points per round system was ill-conceived and poorly implemented. It is safe to say that the goal of professional players is to play professional tennis. The goals for juniors are far more numerous. Many juniors (ages 10-18) and their parents still care about doing well in elementary, junior-high, and high school; playing other sports (especially the non-high school students); and just being a kid. Kids are also more prone to suspend tennis during family emergencies, family illnesses, or other family priorities. Many kids also encounter injuries as they rapidly grow while playing a demanding sport. To make matters even more difficult for kids, juniors lose their points when they move up to a new age group (at intervals of 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 years). (The points “roll off” for both pros and juniors after 12 months.) This means that many juniors play more than one “age group” so that they can “hit the ground running” when they age out of their current age group. To make matters even more confusing, time-consuming, and expensive for juniors and their parents, there are also USTA District (i.e. Ohio Valley, Northwest Ohio, Northeast Ohio), Sectional (i.e. Midwest, Florida, Texas), and National points. (Think of this as three different currencies that cannot be exchanged for each other.) Most players try and play a combination of the three while the best players focus simply on Sectional and National tournaments. Initially, the USTA Midwest Section (which includes Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and parts of Wisconsin, Kentucky, and West Virginia) refrained from using points per round system for the Midwest Section. This was a wise approach because of the geography of the Midwest (i.e. numerous states with different high school rules, large geographic area, many large population centers, and great big lakes and a traffic nightmare (Chicago) to prevent easy travel throughout the Section). Eventually the Midwest succumbed to the USTA National organization in 2005 and implemented a point system for the Midwest. Why go through this history lesson?

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 12

Again, it is because Ohio kids are at a disadvantage to kids in other states. Ohio is the only state in the Midwest that prohibits its juniors from obtaining points during the high school season. This is a double whammy for Ohio juniors because not only can our kids not earn points, but the players from other states can more easily obtain points because the strong Ohio kids are not allowed in these tournaments. The number of tournaments that each State allows during the season are as follows: State # of

Tournaments Girls Season

State Web Site

Source of Information

Conditions

Indiana Unlimited Spring IHSAA Theresia Wynns, IHSAA

Cannot interfere with high school event. Need 10 day advanced waiver

Illinois Limited Fall IHSA Susan Knoblauch, IHSA

May participate in specific National USTA / ITF tournaments. See appendix.

Kentucky Unlimited Fall KHSAA Larry Boucher, KHSAA

Must participate in four high school varsity matches in order to qualify for post season play.

Michigan 2 Spring MHSAA Gina Mazzolini, MHSAA

Must have permission from the school.

Ohio 0 Fall OHSAA Wisconsin Unlimited Fall WIAA Parent Must be

considered an exceptional * player.

West Virginia Unlimited Girls & Boys in Spring

WVSSAC Kelly Geddis, WVSSAS

High school matches are first priority and the principal must approve the non-high school match.

*Exceptional player: To earn this designation, a Wisconsin player must either finish in the Top 5 in their respective division or beat a player who was in the Top 5. This victory could either be in a high school or USTA match during any part of the year. While I included “Unlimited” in the number of non-high school matches that a player can play, common sense would take precedence. Most dual matches are held during the week and would not conflict with USTA matches. Some high school tournaments take place during the weekends and there could be a conflict. Even if it is not stated, I think it is safe to say that high school matches must always be first priority and the coach / principal must provide their approvals. With most of the MAC schools (including University of Cincinnati, Miami, Bowling Green, and Ohio University) canceling their men’s tennis programs due to Title IX, and with

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 13

foreign semi-pro athletes grabbing tennis scholarships from many of the best universities, Ohio does not need to restrict its players more than our neighboring states which are included in the same USTA Section. How bad is it for American junior tennis players? The list of Division 1 All-Americans was named a few months ago. Guess how many of the 15 All-Americans were Americans? Wrong. Divide your guess by two. You are probably still too high. The answer – four. That’s a sad statistic, but it is a pretty clear indication of how things are going for American high school / college tennis players. (By the way, one of the four was Centerville’s (and OSU’s) Justin Kronauge who won D1 States as a sophomore (losing just seven games in four matches). He did not compete in high school tennis as a junior and senior.)

Location of Girls States Finals -- Hilliard Davidson First let me quickly say – it is not Hilliard Davidson’s fault for being selected, but they simply do not have a facility that is acceptable for the Girls State Final. That said… I cannot imagine a worst venue for a State Championship than this wind-swept parking lot that has screens, nets and paint lines. Sure, they have ten courts but just because Taco Bell has food, you don’t see many wedding receptions there. The 2007 State Girls Championship was held on a day that was too windy to fly a kite, let alone play tennis. If the event cannot be held at Ohio State’s courts, then there are numerous other facilities that should be considered. If sites such as these cannot be secured for an event as important as the Girls Championships, perhaps the entire event could be moved to the Kings Island site or to some other city that would make the event more of a priority. Using a scale from 10 (great) to 1 (awful), below is how I would rate the various sites:

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 14

Site Parking Viewing for Fans

Protection from Wind

Feeling That This Is a Special Event

Central Location

Ability to Collect Entry Fee from Fans

Stands for Fans

Ohio State 5 - $10 on football Saturday

10 – No side screens

9 9 10 10 10

Upper Arlington

8 5 – Surrounded by screens

6 6 9 6 8

Hilliard Davidson

10 4 – Surrounded by screens

1 1 9 8 2

Columbus School for Girls

8 9 – No side screens

9 7 9 10 5

New Albany 10 8 – No side screens but viewing is restricted

6 6 9 6 4

Columbus Academy *

8 8 – No side screens

5 7 9 10 4

Western & Southern – Kings Island

10 10 8 10 2 10 10

* Columbus Academy’s new, varsity courts are slightly northeast of Ashburnham Park. Please note that I do not know which, if any, of the above sites would be willing to host the State Finals. If none of these facilities are interested; thankfully, there are still numerous other sites in the Central Ohio area that would be better than Hilliard Davidson. Special note to the “non-Central” districts: The Central District uses Hilliard Davidson and Hilliard Darby (an equally windy place) to select players for Sectionals and Districts. Not only does this give the Central District kids an advantage in dealing with these conditions during States, but it also means that the Central District has selected players to States based on their ability to play in e x t r e m e l y high winds. While it is not in the Central District’s best interest to pick the best “wind” players for the tranquil OSU Stickney courts, it is when Hilliard Davidson is used. Recommendations Performance Please congratulate District 4 – Southwest Ohio. Also, please let me know if there are other statistics or charts that you would like to further evaluate Ohio tennis. Draws I don’t know how this happened and why it was permitted to continue. It doesn’t really matter now. Please fix it by using a regular rotation so that the first and second seeds of

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 15

the Central / Southwest Districts and Northeast / Northwest Districts do not play each other year after year after year after year after year after year after year in the second round. This change could be made in time for this year’s Girls season. Location of State Finals If Central wants to use Hilliard Davidson (and the Hilliard Darby) sites to select wind players for States, the other Districts should celebrate. If Hilliard Davidson is suggested as the second day site for States, please complain loudly and constantly. This picture was taken during the Girls State Finals last year. Check out the flags.

As for good news, it appears that the OSU Stickney courts will be used this year for the Girls Championships. That’s great news for the kids. If I had a vote, I would always select the Stickney courts and pay the $10 parking fee on football game days. However, if an alternate site must be used in the future, please use this fall to evaluate alternate sites. Non-High School Play during the Tennis Season I do not know how the OHSAA evaluates itself. I would expect that the OHSAA cares a great deal about such things as:

• Participation in athletics as a % of overall student population • Injuries as a % of those participating • % of Ohio students participating in Ohio college athletics • % of Ohio students participating in non-Ohio / private college athletics • % of students receiving full / partial scholarships to play athletics • % of high school athletes who continue to play their sport as adults

Hopefully this information is quantified in some manner by the OHSAA and the trends are evaluated just as any business would monitor their customers. It would be logical that OHSAA would want favorable trends in each of the above criteria. Modifying eligibility rules in tennis could certainly help. I do not know how long ago the rules were put in place to prevent high school tennis players from participating in non-high school matches (i.e. USTA) but hopefully it is very

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 16

clear that the landscape of college tennis has changed dramatically in a very short time. These changes have included:

• Title IX has reduced the number of men’s tennis scholarships; • Title IX has reduced the number of men’s college tennis programs; • Players from foreign federations have flooded colleges taking not only “spots” but

also scholarships; • And college expenses have risen rapidly making scholarships even more valuable.

To help its students, the OHSAA needs to recognize these substantial changes and make rule modifications that put its students on a level playing field with students from other states. It might be too late to incorporate any changes for this school year but please consider reviewing and revising the rules for next year. Please note that I am not being compensated for this document. Please feel free to forward it to others but please provide proper attribution if you use any portion of this document. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Gerber Analytics, LLC Scott Gerber Columbus, OH Email: ScottGerber@cs.com

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 17

Gerber Analytics, LLC -- Page 18

Appendix Illinois-approved National tournaments for Girls:

o USTA National Championships -August 2-10 (G14s); August 3-10 (G16,18)

o U.S. Junior International Hard Courts- August 18-22 (G18) o US Open Junior Tennis Championships - August 29-September 7 (G18) o Kentucky International Tennis Derby- September 8-13 (G18) o Kentucky International Tennis Derby- September 13-15 (G12,14,16) o Illinois USTA ITF September 15-21 (G18) o Cincinnati Open - October 17-19 (G14) o Midwest Fall Closed Championships - Oct. 25-27 (G14, 16,18)

Link to website Return to table.

2008 OHSAA BOYS STATE TENNIS TOURNAMENTDIVISION I SINGLES BRACKET

Dst-Pl: Code:1-1 Peter Kobelt (11) District #1 - Hilliard - 4

New Albany Maroon, White and Gold District #2 - Rocky River - 6District #3 - Port Clinton - 2

Peter Kobelt District #4 - Cincinnati - 46-4, 6-2

2-5 Nolan Marks (9)Chagrin Falls Kenston Blue and White

Peter Kobelt4-2 Patrick Bandy (12) 3-6, 6-3, 6-4

Cincinnati St. Xavier Blue and White

Patrick Bandy6-1, 6-3

2-3 Alex Trzeciak (12)Avon Lake Maroon and Gold

Peter Kobelt2nd Place

2-2 Dylan Schrode (12) 6-1, 6-2Solon Blue and White

Chris Keck6-3, 6-2

4-3 Chris Keck (12)Cincinnati Oak Hills Red, White and Black

Chris Keck1-4 Sean Carr (12) 4-6, 6-0, 4-0 retired

Upper Arlington Black and Gold

Nicky Wong6-4, 6-2

Chris Keck3-1 Nicky Wong (9)

Lexington Purple and Gold Wyatt LippertTommy Marx West Chester Lakota West

3rd Place State Champion4-1 Wyatt Lippert (11) 6-1, 6-2 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

West Chester Lakota West Red and White Tommy Marx

Wyatt Lippert6-0, 6-2

2-6 David Gabriel (9)Shaker Heights Red and White

Wyatt Lippert1-2 Aaren Carter (10) 6-1, 6-2

Powell Olentangy Liberty Blue and White

Aaren Carter6-0, 6-2

2-4 Seth Duffy (12)Wooster Blue and Gold

Wyatt Lippert6-2, 6-0

1-3 Tyler Cempre (12)Worthington Thomas Worthington Royal Blue and Red

Tyler Cempre7-5, 6-0

3-2 Alex Hager (11)Wapakoneta Red and White

Tommy Marx4-4 Alex Turman (12) 6-3, 3-6, 3-0 retired

Cincinnati Oak Hills Red, White and Black

Tommy Marx6-2, 6-3

2-1 Tommy Marx (9)Shaker Heights Red and White

2007 OHSAA BOYS STATE TENNIS TOURNAMENTDIVISION I SINGLES BRACKET

Dst-Pl: Code:2-1 Brad Noel (12) District #1 - Hilliard - 4

Westlake Green and White District #2 - Rocky River - 6District #3 - Port Clinton - 2

Brad Noel District #4 - Cincinnati - 46-0, 6-1

1-4 Nick Kowalczyk (11)Worthington Kilbourne Royal Blue and Black

Shankar Ramaswamy4-3 Shankar Ramaswamy (12) 6-1,6-4

Cincinnati St. Xavier Blue and White

Shankar Ramaswamy6-0, 6-1

3-2 Alex Hager (10)Wapakoneta Red and White

Patrick Bandy3-6, 6-3, 6-2

2-4 Scott Warden (11)Youngstown Boardman Maroon and White

Patrick Bandy6-1, 6-2

4-2 Patrick Bandy (11)Cincinnati St. Xavier Blue and White

Patrick Bandy2-6 Alex Hosner (12) 6-4, 7-5

Massillon Jackson Purple and Gold

Arren Carter6-3, 6-1

Shankar Ramaswamy1-1 Arren Carter (9)

Powell Olentangy Liberty Blue and White Matt AllareWyatt Lippert Kings Mills Kings

3rd Place State Champion3-1 Kyle Collette (12) 6-3, 6-1 6-1, 6-4

Findlay Blue and Gold Wyatt Lippert

Wyatt Lippert 6-4, 6-0

4-4 Wyatt Lippert (10)West Chester Lakota West Red, White and Black

Wyatt Lippert 1-3 Michael Kathary (12) 6-3, 7-5

Dublin Scioto Green, White and Silver

Jeremy Polster6-3, 7-6 (7-1)

2-2 Jeremy Polster (12)Shaker Heights Red and White

Matt Allare 6-0, 6-0

1-2 Sean Carr (11)Upper Arlington Black and Gold

Dylan Schrode 6-3, 6-3

2-3 Dylan Schrode (11)Solon Blue, White and Gold

Matt Allare 2-5 Ethan Dunbar (9) 6-1, 6-3

Lodi Cloverleaf Green and White

Matt Allare 6-1, 6-0

4-1 Matt Allare (12)Kings Mills Kings Red, White and Blue

2001 OHSAA BOYS STATE TENNIS TOURNAMENTDivision I Singles Bracket

Dst-Pl: Code:2-1 Derrick Spice (12) District #1 - Hilliard - 4

Grafton Midview Blue/White District #2 - Rocky River - 6District #3 - Bowling Green -2

Derrick Spice District #4 - Dayton - 46-0, 6-1

4-4 Matt Metully (10)West Chester Lakota West Red/White/Black

Derrick Spice 1-2 Ryen Valentine (12) 6-1, 6-2

Marion Harding Red/Black

Ryen Valentine 6-2, 6-1

2-4 Dominic Ozanne (10)Cleveland St,. Ignatius Navy/Blue/Gold

) , 2-3 Stephen Rozek (11)

Chardon Red/Black

Stephen Rozek6-4, 6-7 (9-11), 6-2

4-2 Rob Altenau (12)Cincinnati Elder Purple/White

Stephen Rozek1-4 Bryan Gavin (12) 6-3, 6-3

New Philadelphia Red/Black

Ross Wilson 6-1, 6-2

Stephen Rozek3-1 Ross Wilson (11)

Toledo St. Francis DeSales Red/White/Blue Derrick Spice Stephen Rozek Grafton Midview

3rd Place State Champion1-1 Craig Smith (10) 6-4, 3-6, 6-3

Pickerington Purple/White Patrick Thompson

Patrick Thompson6-3, 5-7, 6-4

2-5 Patrick Thompson (12)Medina Green/White

Patrick Thompson3-2 Adam Shaeffer (9) 6-4, 6-7 (7-2), 6-3

Perrysburg Black/Gold

Brad Groleski6-4, 6-1

4-3 Brad Groleski (9)Springboro Blue/White

2-2 Scott Green (11)North Canton Hoover Orange/Black

Scott Green6-0, 6-2

1-3 Matt Johansen (12)Dublin Coffman Green/White/Black

Scott Green2-6 David Rozek (9) 6-3, 6-1

Chardon Red/Black

David Rozek3-6, 6-2, 6-3

4-1 Kevin Teufel (12)Cincinnati Princeton Red/Grey

Scott Green6-4, 6-2

Derrick Spice 6-4, 7-6 (7-5)

5/21/01 (Ex TN: 1648S)

2008 OHSAA BOYS STATE TENNIS TOURNAMENTDIVISION II SINGLES BRACKET

Dst-Pl: Code:2-1 Alex Aleman (9) District #1 - Columbus - 4

Cuy. Falls Cuy. Valley Christian Academy Blue and White District #2 - Canton - 5District #3 - Port Clinton - 3

Alex Aleman District #4 - Cincinnati - 46-1, 6-1

4-4 Philip Dresden (12)Tipp City Tippecanoe Red and White

Ian Wagner1-2 Ian Wagner (9) 6-1, 6-2

Columbus Wellington School Blue and White

Ian Wagner6-4, 6-2

3-3 Evan Bechtel (9)Toledo Ottawa Hills Green and White

Devin McCarthy6-2, 6-3

1-3 Khang Thai (10)Columbus Bishop Ready Royal Blue and White

Devin McCarthy6-1, 6-3

4-2 Devin McCarthy (11)Cincinnati Indian Hill Red and White

Devin McCarthy2-4 Josh Berggrun (11) 6-0, 6-1

Pepper Pike Orange Orange and Black

Evan Neuman5-7, 6-2, 7-5

Ian Wagner3-1 Evan Neuman (11)

Elida Orange and Black Devin McCarthyJoey Fritz Cincinnati Indian Hill

3rd Place State Champion1-1 Will Petrie (12) 6-1, 6-0 6-4, 6-4

Gahanna Columbus Academy Maroon and Gray Joey Fritz

Will Petrie6-3, 6-0

2-5 Michael Fredericka (9)Warren John F. Kennedy Blue and White

Will Petrie2-2 Ben Brocker (10) 6-2, 6-1

Poland Seminary Blue and White

Ben Brocker6-3, 3-6, 7-6 (7-5)

4-3 Ben Roeser (12)Waynesville Orange and Black

Will Petrie2nd Place

2-3 Zak Kelm (12) 6-4, 6-2Hunting Valley University School Maroon and Black

Zak Kelm6-4, 6-0

3-2 Joey Aubry (11)Toledo Ottawa Hills Green and White

Joey Fritz1-4 Andrew Enslen (10) 6-0, 7-5

Gahanna Columbus Academy Maroon and Gray

Joey Fritz6-2, 6-0

4-1 Joey Fritz (10)Cincinnati Country Day Navy and White

Division 1 Boys Singles Draws - 2005 to 2008

2008 2007 2006 2005