This article has been updated to reflect 2026 data and recent developments.
High school athletics has become a complex maze of rules and regulations in some states. At the crux of the issue is fairness, which is debated through school boundaries, student eligibility, and recruitment rules for high school coaches. In 2013, two states took the proverbial bull by the horns to address these issues in an effort to make high school athletics a level playing field once again. Their approaches have continued to evolve, with competitive balance and transfer eligibility remaining important issues in 2026.
The Public v. Private Debate in Ohio
In 2013, talks about splitting teams from private and public schools into separate tournaments in Ohio appeared to be on the back burner. A new proposal sought to combine schools in the state into a single tournament structure that would bring “competitive balance.” According to a report in the Columbus Dispatch, the proposal came about after months of work by a competitive balance committee for the state.
Previous referendums involved penalizing private schools that had a winning tradition or offering additional help to schools with serious socioeconomic issues. The proposal did away with these factors, and instead adjusted enrollment numbers for each school based on students who lived outside the school’s district. Private schools would also be evaluated based on the district where they were located, according to the Mansfield News Journal.
“It is generally believed that in addition to the size of enrollment, students on a team’s roster who are from outside that school’s geographic boundary or attendance zone do affect athletic success,” Dan Ross, then commissioner for the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA), told the Mansfield News Journal.
The proposal eventually developed into Ohio's competitive balance system. According to the Ohio High School Athletic Association, member schools approved the system in May 2014, and it was first implemented during the 2017–18 school year. As of 2026, the system continues to adjust tournament division placements using sport-specific roster information.
Boundaries Impact Athletic Performance
Public schools in Ohio generally must adhere to district boundaries when forming athletic teams for competition, although enrollment and school choice arrangements can create exceptions. Private schools do not operate under the same geographic attendance boundaries, which means they can attract some of the most gifted athletes in the area if those students are qualified to attend the private school of choice. This practice allows private schools to attract athletes from a wider geographic area, while many public schools primarily serve students within their district.
At the time of the original proposal, divisions in high school athletics were determined largely by enrollment numbers. The new proposal would require schools to submit a full roster for each athletic team, complete with information about where each athlete lived. Student-athletes located outside their school’s district would be subject to a multiplier, which would be calculated into the formula determining enrollment numbers for the school. Each sport would be assigned its own multiplier, based on the total number of players on the team.
The proposal was unanimously accepted by the nine-member OHSAA board. More than three-fourths of school administrators surveyed in 2010 also put their support behind this type of weighted system. At the time, the association planned to test the formula before implementing it statewide. The system ultimately began operating in the 2017–18 school year rather than the originally anticipated 2015–16 season.
As of the 2026–27 school year, Ohio's competitive balance formula continues to use initial enrollment figures and additional roster counts to determine tournament divisions in football, basketball, soccer, volleyball, baseball and softball. This approach reflects the state's continuing effort to account for differences in how schools enroll student-athletes.
Bills Have Some Questioning Reach of Florida Lawmakers
A level playing field was also in question in Florida, but for different reasons. In a state where high school and college athletics are often a focus, state lawmakers became involved in the process of producing a competitive balance for schools throughout Florida. Bills were proposed that would restrict investigations by the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) involving student eligibility.
The change to the rules was necessary, some Florida lawmakers argued at the time, because student-athletes were often considered “guilty until proven innocent,” rather than the other way around. While these students were waiting for the athletic association to determine their eligibility, they were unable to play on their high school team. Under the proposed rules, students would be considered eligible to play unless the FHSAA had evidence the student was actively recruited to the team.
Students would also retain their eligibility to participate in high school athletics if they transferred mid-year from one school to another in the state. Under the guidelines being debated at the time, students could face eligibility restrictions when transferring schools during the same year that a coach in their sport moved to the new school.
Florida's transfer policies have changed considerably since those proposals. As of 2026, the Florida High School Athletic Association recognizes circumstances in which transfer students may participate immediately, subject to applicable eligibility requirements, participation history, roster limits and other conditions.
The association also approved amendments for the 2026–27 school year addressing student transfers, participation by nontraditional students, and eligibility appeals. These changes demonstrate that the balance between student opportunities and competitive fairness continues to evolve.
This video offers one student's take on survival as a student-athlete.
Can Lawmakers Impact High School Athletics?
Lawmakers touted the proposed bills as a positive step forward in the area of student rights. However, those opposed to the new laws voiced concern they would reduce the ability of the FHSAA to screen for recruiting practices at high schools, which could impact the fairness of high school athletics.
In addition, some questioned whether state lawmakers should be able to override decisions made by a nonprofit organization that had traditionally been able to operate in a relatively autonomous arena. This was especially true with proposals by the legislature to add government appointees to the FHSAA board of directors and cut the budget of the organization.
“For the state legislature to start adopting particular rules for private, not-for-profit organizations about how they can generate their revenue, how they spend their revenue, who’s on their board of directors, who their CEO is, it’s bad political practice,” Roger Dearing, then executive director of the athletic association, told WFSU.
Despite protests over the original proposals, both states moved forward with changes to their athletic policies in subsequent years. In Florida, the FHSAA's 2026 Board of Directors report confirmed additional amendments to transfer regulations and eligibility appeals for the 2026–27 school year.
Recruiting remains another important concern. The association continues to prohibit improper athletic recruiting and the use of undue influence to encourage students to attend a particular school for athletic purposes. These restrictions apply to member public and private schools.
Time will tell whether the continued involvement of state athletic associations and lawmakers will effectively change the face of high school athletics to create a more level playing field for athletic teams across each state.
