Is it time for private schools to have theyre own playoffs in football

Home ▸ Archive ▸ High School Football ▸ Is it time for private schools to have theyre own playoffs in football
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:17 PM
skank;1000648 wrote:Sorry, I worded that wrong, It should read, You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that although every parochial had the chance to play for a title, only two made it, to me that sounds as if you're trying to justify a balanced system, I simply said in the end, 33.3% of the schools that won a state title this year were parochial, and parochial schools do not make up 33.3% of member schools.
This argument holds no water with me. As has been pointed out, in athletics all over, just because a group of teams make up x% of the total doesn't mean they will win x% of the championships. It just doesn't work like that.
Dec 4, 2011 2:17pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:19 PM
sherm03;1000670 wrote:This argument holds no water with me. As has been pointed out, in athletics all over, just because a group of teams make up x% of the total doesn't mean they will win x% of the championships. It just doesn't work like that.


What about when it happens EVERY year?
Dec 4, 2011 2:19pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:20 PM
skank;1000664 wrote:Then YOU'D be wrong, because that's not what I want, I do however want something better than we have, according to the numbers I posted earlier, there is a competative balance issue wether anyone like it or not. Those numbers are 40 years worth of data, if it were just 6, 7, or 8, that's one thing, but 40 years?
How can you be so sure I am wrong with regard to me believing you have the "appearance" of wanting a balance between titles won and member schools? I didn't state that's what you wanted but rather what you "appeared" to want. See the difference?


Yes you have been clear about what you want. Does it really matter what you or I want? It's the superintendents that really matter. Repeating over and over what we want when we don't have it doesn't do a lot except give the "appearance" of whining.
Dec 4, 2011 2:20pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:21 PM
skank;1000674 wrote:What about when it happens EVERY year?

It's not common for it to happen so it if doesn't ever happen that isn't an indication that things are out of whack.
Dec 4, 2011 2:21pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:23 PM
skank;1000665 wrote:Obviously.
The bringing it up over and over is really kind of pointless don't you think?
Dec 4, 2011 2:23pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:24 PM
sherm03;1000670 wrote:This argument holds no water with me. As has been pointed out, in athletics all over, just because a group of teams make up x% of the total doesn't mean they will win x% of the championships. It just doesn't work like that.
The Bills, Browns, Bengals, Chargers, Titans, Texans, Jags, Eagles, Falcons, Panthers, Vikings, Lions, Cardinals, and Seahawks make up 43.75% of the NFL. They have won 0% of the Superbowls. Therefore the other 18 teams in the league must cheating.


To prove it even further, those 14 teams have a losing record agains the other 18 teams. Therefore, those teams are cheating.

Since the data is from over 45 years, my conclusions must be accurate :rolleyes:
Dec 4, 2011 2:24pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:25 PM
skank;1000674 wrote:What about when it happens EVERY year?
Again, it still doesn't matter. Good teams are going to continue to do well and win. Like I said, if the privates are moved out, only a small percentage of the total teams will still be winning state titles.

Will the argument then be, "The MAC schools make up 1.4% of the total schools, yet they win 80% of the titles throughout the years."
Dec 4, 2011 2:25pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:26 PM
Con_Alma;1000682 wrote:The bringing it up over and over is really kind of pointless don't you think?


Then I'll stop if you do.
Dec 4, 2011 2:26pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:27 PM
Al Bundy;1000689 wrote:The Bills, Browns, Bengals, Chargers, Titans, Texans, Jags, Eagles, Falcons, Panthers, Vikings, Lions, Cardinals, and Seahawks make up 43.75% of the NFL. They have won 0% of the Superbowls. Therefore the other 18 teams in the league must cheating.


To prove it even further, those 14 teams have a losing record agains the other 18 teams. Therefore, those teams are cheating.

Since the data is from over 45 years, my conclusions must be accurate :rolleyes:


Yeah, the NFL and Ohio HS football are VERY similar. :rolleyes:
Dec 4, 2011 2:27pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:30 PM
skank;1000699 wrote:Then I'll stop if you do.
Stop what exactly?

I wouldn't ask you to stop anything if you wanted to do it.

In addition, why would you ever consider basing your actions on mine> That seems a little odd.
Dec 4, 2011 2:30pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:32 PM
sherm03;1000692 wrote:Again, it still doesn't matter. Good teams are going to continue to do well and win. Like I said, if the privates are moved out, only a small percentage of the total teams will still be winning state titles.

Will the argument then be, "The MAC schools make up 1.4% of the total schools, yet they win 80% of the titles throughout the years."


You're just assuming here, con alma doesn't like assumptions.
Dec 4, 2011 2:32pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:33 PM
skank;1000704 wrote:Yeah, the NFL and Ohio HS football are VERY similar. :rolleyes:
Similarities don't have to exist at all in order to understand why how and the implication that was being alluded to.
Dec 4, 2011 2:33pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:33 PM
Con_Alma;1000714 wrote:Stop what exactly?

I wouldn't ask you to stop anything if you wanted to do it.

In addition, why would you ever consider basing your actions on mine> That seems a little odd.


Nice. :thumbup:
Dec 4, 2011 2:33pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:34 PM
skank;1000721 wrote:You're just assuming here, con alma doesn't like assumptions.
?? Huh?

That's not true at all. I have never defined my preference to assumptions.
Dec 4, 2011 2:34pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:35 PM
skank;1000699 wrote:Then I'll stop if you do.
What is it you would like me to stop and what is it you will stop doing?
Dec 4, 2011 2:35pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:37 PM
Don't like the NFL scenario?

The SEC makes up 10% of the college football teams in FBS. Yet, the SEC has won 53.84% of the BCS titles.
Dec 4, 2011 2:37pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:37 PM
skank;1000704 wrote:Yeah, the NFL and Ohio HS football are VERY similar. :rolleyes:
I was just showing that championships are not evenly distributed. I know you like to bitch and moan because your school has never won a championship.
Dec 4, 2011 2:37pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:42 PM
Al Bundy;1000737 wrote:I was just showing that championships are not evenly distributed. I know you like to bitch and moan because your school has never won a championship.


Never said it was, but I'm proud of you that you were able to bring that wonderful nugget of gold to the conversation....Thanks again. And I know that YOU don't want change because it may slow down the championship barrage the parochials are on....For the last 40 years.

If only our public school kids, "wanted it more".
Dec 4, 2011 2:42pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:45 PM
sherm03;1000735 wrote:Don't like the NFL scenario?

The SEC makes up 10% of the college football teams in FBS. Yet, the SEC has won 53.84% of the BCS titles.


A voted on title, you boys have to make up your minds, are voted on titles going to be considered here or not? You can't use this for an argument, then have one of your band of merry men, discount Massillon's titles.
Dec 4, 2011 2:45pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:48 PM
skank;1000752 wrote:A voted on title, you boys have to make up your minds, are voted on titles going to be considered here or not? You can't use this for an argument, then have one of your band of merry men, discount Massillon's titles.
You boys?? Hmmm. I'll answer from my point of view.

You want to use them? Go ahead. You don't? It's O.K. by me.
Dec 4, 2011 2:48pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:49 PM
skank;1000752 wrote:A voted on title, you boys have to make up your minds, are voted on titles going to be considered here or not? You can't use this for an argument, then have one of your band of merry men, discount Massillon's titles.
Really? They voted on the winner of Auburn and Oregon last year? Well that's something that I didn't know...
Dec 4, 2011 2:49pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:49 PM
skank;1000748 wrote:Never said it was, but I'm proud of you that you were able to bring that wonderful nugget of gold to the conversation....Thanks again. And I know that YOU don't want change because it may slow down the championship barrage the parochials are on....For the last 40 years.

If only our public school kids, "wanted it more".
I am public school guy. I don't care if the parochials win champtionships or not. I have explained this to you many times, but you are stupid as shit and keep forgetting it. You do want championships evenly distributed because your school has never won one. I was looking at your school's state report, and it looks like your school has many students with the same intelligence level that you have. It is sad that your school is more concerned with hosting combines to bring in football players from all over the country than it is with basic education.
Dec 4, 2011 2:49pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:50 PM
skank;1000752 wrote:A voted on title, you boys have to make up your minds, are voted on titles going to be considered here or not? You can't use this for an argument, then have one of your band of merry men, discount Massillon's titles.
the BCS title is determined on the field.
Dec 4, 2011 2:50pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:51 PM
Con_Alma;1000757 wrote:You boys?? Hmmm. I'll answer from my point of view.

You want to use them? Go ahead. You don't? It's O.K. by me.


Regardless of how you, I or "they" would answer, it has absolutely no relavence to this subject.
Dec 4, 2011 2:51pm
skank's avatar

skank

Senior Member

6,543 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:53 PM
sherm03;1000760 wrote:Really? They voted on the winner of Auburn and Oregon last year? Well that's something that I didn't know...


How did they get to the title game?
Dec 4, 2011 2:53pm