By R. L. Harvey

Football Districts for the 2024, 2025 seasons

While this is old news and the season has already started, this bears attention. Perhaps this ruling is the fairest way to deal with this situation for the time being, but I believe it definitely deserves another look.

The Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) had to redraw the high school football districts for the 2024 and 2025 seasons due to a court ruling that voided amendments to an OSSAA rule focused on private schools. The lawsuit, filed by several private high schools, argued that the amendments were discriminatory.

Oklahoma Christian School (OCS) joined Bishop McGuinness, Mount St. Mary, Heritage Hall, and Crossings Christian School in filing the lawsuit. They claim that the OSSAA’s rule requiring member schools to move divisions based on performance creates a “distinct competitive disadvantage” for private institutions and should be rewritten.

Public high school athletic divisional classifications are determined by a program’s Average Daily Membership (ADM). The OSSAA uses this number to place similar-sized schools into classes (6A, 5A, 4A, etc.) to create balanced and fair athletic divisions. This means smaller schools compete against other smaller schools, and larger schools compete against other large schools in all sports.

For private schools, the rules differ. An institution like OCS isn’t bound to all sports by its ADM. Instead, individual sports teams must move divisions if they exhibit a certain amount of success over multiple years. For example, OCS competes in Class 5A for cross country due to recent successes but competes in Class 3A for basketball and wrestling, and 2A for football. This means the school’s cross country teams regularly compete against schools three to four times larger.

According to paragraph five of Case CJ-2023-6910 filed in Oklahoma County district court on Thursday, Dec. 7, 2023, the plaintiffs claim:

“The OSSAA utilizes Rule 14 to arbitrarily move the private schools to a higher division based solely on the school being non-public and then continues to move the private schools to higher and higher divisions if the school is successful in competition over a two to three year period. Public schools remain in the division determined by their ADM regardless of success.”

The private schools also argue that Rule 14 creates an unfair situation for boys’ and girls’ sports. The rule requires that if one sex’s sport becomes eligible to move up a division, the opposite sex’s team of that same sport must move with them, regardless of the latter team’s success.

Private vs. Public Schools: The Debate Over OSSAA Rule 14

Arguments from Private Schools

Competitive Disadvantage: Private schools argue that OSSAA’s Rule 14, which requires them to move up divisions based on performance, creates a competitive disadvantage. They claim this rule forces them to compete against much larger schools, which is unfair.

Selective Enrollment: Private schools contend that their ability to select students does not necessarily give them an advantage. They argue that they often have smaller student bodies and fewer resources compared to public schools.

Success-Based Promotion: Private schools are required to move up divisions if they achieve a certain level of success over multiple years. This can lead to situations where their teams compete against schools with significantly larger enrollments.

Arguments from Public Schools

Inclusivity: Public schools are required by law to enroll all students within their district, which means they cannot be selective about their student body. This inclusivity can lead to a more diverse range of abilities and resources.

Fairness in Competition: Public schools argue that private schools have an inherent advantage because they can select their students. This “filtering” process can lead to stronger athletic programs, which public schools see as unfair.

Resource Disparity: Public schools often point out that private schools can have more financial resources and better facilities, which can contribute to their success in athletics.

Ruling

Oklahoma County District Judge Richard Ogden ruled in favor of the private schools, stating that the amendments were indeed discriminatory. The court’s decision voided these amendments effective July 1, 2024. The ruling also prohibited the OSSAA from making any further amendments to Rule 14 or enacting any new rules regarding competitiveness between public and private schools without prior court approval.

As a result of this ruling, the OSSAA and the Oklahoma Football Coaches Association had to redraw the high school football districts for the 2024 and 2025 seasons to comply with the court’s directives. This redistricting was necessary to ensure adherence to the legal requirements set forth by the court.

Here are the updated districts for the 2024 and 2025 high school football seasons:

CLASS 6A-I
District 1: Bixby, Deer Creek, Edmond North, Enid, Jenks, Moore, Mustang, Norman
District 2: Broken Arrow, Edmond Memorial, Edmond Santa Fe, Norman North, Owasso, Tulsa Union, Westmoore, Yukon

CLASS 6A-II
District 1: Choctaw, Lawton Eisenhower, Northwest Classen, Piedmont, Putnam City, Southmoore, Stillwater, U.S. Grant
District 2:Bartlesville, Capitol Hill, Muskogee, Putnam North, Putnam West, Ponca City, Sand Springs, Sapulpa

CLASS 5A
District 1: Bishop McGuinness, Classen SAS, Duncan, Guymon, Lawton MacArthur, Midwest City, Newcastle, Southeast
District 2: Altus, Carl Albert, El Reno, Guthrie, John Marshall, Lawton, Noble, Western Heights
District 3: Tulsa Bishop Kelley, Tulsa Booker T. Washington, Coweta, Durant, Tulsa East Central, Tulsa Edison, McAlester, Shawnee
District 4: Claremore, Collinsville, Del City, Tulsa Hale, Pryor, Tahlequah, Tulsa Memorial, Tulsa Rogers

CLASS 4A
District 1: Bridge Creek, Cache, Clinton, Douglass, Elgin, Elk City, Weatherford, Woodward
District 2: Ardmore, Bethany, Blanchard, Chickasha, Harrah, Madill, Tecumseh, Tuttle
District 3: Catoosa, Cushing, Fort Gibson, Grove, Miami, Oologah, Skiatook, Wagoner
District 4: ADA, Broken Bow, Glenpool, Hilldale, Tulsa McLain, Poteau, Sallisaw, Stilwell

CLASS 3A
District 1: Anadarko, Heritage Hall, Kingfisher, North Rock Creek, Pauls Valley, Plainview, Purcell, Star Spencer
District 2: Bristow, Lone Grove, Mannford, McLoud, Perkins-Tryon, Seminole, Sulphur, Tulsa Victory Christian
District 3: Checotah, Eufaula, Tulsa Holland Hall, Idabel, Tulsa Lincoln Christian, Locust Grove, Muldrow, Stigler
District 4: Berryhill, Tulsa Cascia Hall, Sequoyah Claremore, Cleveland, Inola, Jay, Verdigris, Vinita

CLASS 2A-I
District 1: Blackwell, Chisholm, Crooked Oak, Jones, Millwood, Mount St. Mary, Oklahoma Christian School, Perry
District 2: Crossings Christian, Dickson, Lexington, Lindsay, Little Axe, Marietta, Marlow, Washington
District 3: Bethel, Heavener, Hugo, Kiefer, Kingston, Okmulgee, Prague, Roland
District 4: Chandler, Tulsa Webster, Dewey, Tulsa Metro Christian, Sequoyah Tahlequah, Sperry, Tulsa Central, Westville

CLASS 2A-II
District 1: Alva, Casady, Hennessey, Kellyville, Luther, Meeker, Newkirk, Stroud
District 2: Beggs, Coalgate, Comanche, Community Christian, Davis, Dibble, Holdenville, Tishomingo
District 3: Adair, Chelsea, Colcord, Commerce, Kansas, Keys, Salina, Wyandotte
District 4: Antlers, Atoka, Henryetta, Morris, Spiro, Valliant, Vian, Wilburton

CLASS A-I
District 1: Cashion, Crescent, Fairview, Hinton, Hooker, Merritt, Sayre, Watonga
District 2: Christian Heritage, Frederick, Hobart, Minco, Okemah, Stratford, Walters, Wynnewood
District 3: Caney Valley, Morrison, Nowata, Oklahoma Union, Pawhuska, Pawnee, Quapaw, Tonkawa
District 4: Choteau, Hartshorne, Haskell, Hulbert, Panama, Pocola, Owasso Rejoice Christian, Warner

CLASS A-II
District 1: Boone-Apache, Carnegie, Cordell, Mangum, Mooreland, Southwest Covenant, Texhoma-Goodwell, Thomas-Fay-Custer
District 2: Elmore City-Pernell, Healdton, Konawa, Ringling, Rush Springs, Velma-Alma, Wayne, Wilson
District 3: Allen, Central, Gore, Liberty, Mounds, Tulsa Regent Prep, Talihina, Wewoka
District 4: Afton, Barnsdall, Fairland, Hominy, Ketchum, Porter, Broken Arrow Summit Christian, Woodland

CLASS B-I
District 1: Garber, Laverne, Enid Oklahoma Bible, Pioneer, Pond Creek-Hunter, Turpin
District 2: Burns Flat-Dill City, Central High, Empire, Hollis, Snyder, Waurika
District 3: Cave Springs, Depew, Drumright, Foyil, Porum, Yale
District 4: Caddo, Canadian, Dewar, Keota, Quinton, Savanna

CLASS B-II
District 1: Boise City, Canton, Okeene, Ringwood, Seiling, Shattuck
District 2: Alex, Cyril, Strother, Thackerville, Weleetka, Wetumka
District 3: Cherokee, Covington-Douglas, Coyle, Davenport, Olive, Waukomis
District 4: Arkoma, Copan, Gans, Webbers Falls, Bartlesville Wesleyan Christian, Wilson Henryetta

CLASS C
District 1: Balko-Forgan, Beaver, Buffalo, Kremlin-Hillsdale, Sharon-Mutual/Taloga, Timberlake, Tyrone, Waynoka
District 2: Bray-Doyle, Corn Bible, Geary, Grandfield, Mountain View-Gotebo, Ryan, Temple, Tipton
District 3: Billings, Bluejacket, Deer Creek-Lamont, Medford, Oaks-Mission, South Coffeyville, Watts, Welch
District 4: Bowlegs, Fox, Graham-Dustin, Maud, Maysville, Midway, Paoli, Sasakwa

While private schools could potentially gain an advantage, many do not, but… some do! However, it only takes one to skew the system. Let’s find a better way to ensure fair competition for all schools, regardless of their public or private status.

The debate over OSSAA Rule 14 highlights the complexities of balancing fairness and competitiveness in high school athletics. By addressing these concerns and working towards a more equitable system, we can ensure that all student-athletes have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. It’s time to come together and find a solution that benefits everyone.

By R. L. Harvey