Viking;617140 wrote:My info is based on media reports and AD's and coaches.
queencitybuckeye;617080 wrote:Actually, unless I'm mistaken, it's unprecidented (that means it hasn't happened before which would mean your point is incorrect).
Viking;617326 wrote:The Canton Repository had a bog article about changes a few Sunday's ago. It was written by Todd Porter. Go to their web site. The PD also has had a story about "major" changes coming. Akron radio station WNIR also has discussed upcoming "major" changes. What are your sources?
Thinthickbigred;617375 wrote:I know one year it happened for sure 1984 the year we won our first title .. Got to check out the other years
sherm03;617103 wrote:That's true...at least from the private school perspective.
However, since the 6 division format was put in place in 1994, we have had public schools win 5/6 titles four times (1994, 1995, 1996, and 2006).
Public schools have won 4/6 titles five times (1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, and 2007)
By comparison, we have had private schools win 5/6 titles once (2010).
And private schools have won 4/6 titles three times (2001, 2008, and 2009).
Damn cheating private schools! They're taking all those titles away from all those poor public schools...and I'm tired of it!! /sarcasm
Sykotyk;617572 wrote:That would make sense if the number of private and public schools was anywhere close to equal. Unfortunately, a very small amount of the overall total win a lionshare of the titles.
Viking;617326 wrote: It was written by Todd Porter.
sherm03;617435 wrote:Really? Private schools won five of six titles in a year that there weren't six divisions?! Damn...you're right. Private schools are cheaters if they can pull that off.
Thinthickbigred;618002 wrote:you know what I meant.. they took 4 out of 5 that year ok .. simple math and common sense .. dang you read in brail too
Sykotyk;617572 wrote:That would make sense if the number of private and public schools was anywhere close to equal. Unfortunately, a very small amount of the overall total win a lionshare of the titles.
Any particular reason to cut off at 1994? Just because the six-division setup started then doesn't mean any disparity wasn't present before that year.sherm03;617752 wrote:And as I've pointed out on numerous occasions...it's a very small amount, BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC, that win most of the titles.
Since 1994:
D1 - 4 different private school winners (accounting for 10 titles), 5 different public school winners (accounting for 7 titles)
D2 - 4 different private school winners (accounting for 4 titles), 13 different public school winners (accounting for 13 titles) talk about disparity!
D3 - 6 different private school winners (accounting for 10 titles), 6 different public school winners (accounting for 7 titles)
D4 - 4 different private school winners (accounting for 6 titles), 6 different public school winners (accounting for 11 titles)
D5 - 3 different private school winners (accounting for 5 titles), 8 different public school winners (accounting for 12 titles)
D6 - 3 different private school winners (accounting for 8 titles), 6 different public school winners (accounting for 9 titles)
There's 720 schools and you're giving a 17-year sample with a total of 102 total possible individual champions. Even if there was no repeat champions (in the same division, as you're not accounting for teams that win championships in multiple divisions), that still means less than 15% of all schools would actually win a title. Oh, the gross injustice that not everyone can win. /sarcasmIf you look at the bigger picture, since 1994...21 different private schools have won 43 titles. And 39 different public schools have won 59 titles.
So as you can see clearly, compared to the total number of schools...a small number of schools OVERALL win a majority of the titles. Spin it how you want...but there's the whole story.
If Maple Heights (as is) got to play D6 and won every year, would you discount the argument that the whole system would be overhauled because of one team? /sarcasm.Looking at those numbers again, I find it even funnier that people are so upset with the "unfair advantage" in the lower divisions. In D4-D6...7 different private school teams have won titles among those divisions, while only 16 different public schools account for their share of the titles (which is a majority of the titles). So basically, people are talking about completely overhauling the Ohio playoff system based on SEVEN teams!
Wow!
Sykotyk;618176 wrote:Any particular reason to cut off at 1994? Just because the six-division setup started then doesn't mean any disparity wasn't present before that year.
I chose to show from 1994 on because that was the start of the 6 division system. The statement was made that it was common for the private schools to take five of six titles. I showed that it was not common.
If we are talking about an anomaly, then why is it OK to force all private schools to play up (either by force or with a multiplier) because of the anomaly that seven private schools in the lower divisions are good year after year? Why do we penalize this anomaly, but disregard the anomaly that is the MAC? Excluding Delphos St. John's titles, five MAC public schools account for 19 state titles in D4-6. That, too, is an anomaly. But nobody ever complains and yells for those teams to get moved up. Why play to one, but not the other?Sykotyk;618176 wrote:If Maple Heights (as is) got to play D6 and won every year, would you discount the argument that the whole system would be overhauled because of one team? /sarcasm.
We're talking about an anomaly. Hence the point that--yes--we are talking about overhauling the system over 7 schools, as you put it.
And as I've said before...assign each high school a feeder school/schools. If they receive a student from outside of their feeder schools, that student counts as 1.5 or 2. But private schools should not be penalized just because the high school is in the city, while all the private grade schools are in the suburbs.Sykotyk;618176 wrote:My argument has been, and always will be, that privates receive an advantage. It's a passive advantage, not aggressive (i.e., recruiting). It's simply by existing they benefit in the lower divisions. Some take advantage of this, some don't. Those that do, win. Because their student population is not indicative of the statewide average you would expect at any other school. In contrast, it is the same reason why big city schools fair so poorly (especially with great private schools in the vicinity drawing off the better students and more extracurricularly-inclined students).
OE has some benefit, but not entirely. A school such as Steubenville that can draw outside students benefits from getting 'only good students' from the other schools, but they still must take the bad students that are naturally tethered to SHS and have no general ability or inclination to attend a different school (public or private). So, there is a slight passive advantage against non-OE.
I'm fine with giving teams the option of moving up. I am against forcing all private schools to move up based solely on the fact that they are private (either by multiplier or mandatory one-division move)Sykotyk;618176 wrote:Pennsylvania allows teams to play up to any level they want. I think the OHSAA should institute this immediately. Generally, in PA, private schools play up. And depending on the situation, public schools do it, too. They also allow sports-sharing agreements. For cash-starved school districts contemplating cutting sports, this might be a possibility.
In PIAA, there's no debate that Quad-A is the highest level. Nowhere in PA would someone take seriously that a AA team could claim to be the best team in the state the way Ohio has with Ursuline, Mooney, etc. If you're that good, you play up. Harrisburg Bishop McDevitt was single A, but played up to 4A. They currently are a true 2A who just this year decided to downgrade from 4A to 3A and made the state title game in their first try (losing to Allentown Central Catholic).
After years of trying to compete at the highest level (because they easily are the best team in Harrisburg), they downgraded when they realized they were in over their head and are now top dog in 3A. If they were in 2A, it would be unsatisfying. One reason West Catholic (in Philadelphia), who are currently 2A, will probably start looking into moving up.
And even PA is looking into splitting publics and privates, using a multiplier, or forcing a mandatory one-division jump for all non-public teams.
Yes, private schools make up a small number of the total number of schools, and have won almost half the titles. But again, it goes back to the fact that it's a small number period that have won titles.Sykotyk;618290 wrote:In addition, 95 of 196 champions in football, all-time, were private schools (if I made an incorrect determination on whether a school was private or public, please point that out). So, just over half of all titles by private schools.
For a group of schools that make up roughly 1/10th the total, they win half the time.
If 40 years ago, somebody made the assumption "The big schools tend to win a huge majority of the titles than the little schools," would that not have been noteworthy? Isn't that why we separated big schools from little schools in the first place? And continued from 3 to 5 to 6? Isn't it obvious that a matchup between Iggy and DSJ is 'unfair', that there was felt a need to separate the two?
Or, is that division okay, but this would be catastrophic to the state of high school football?
We already don't have 'one true champion' as some have said would be done away with if privates had their own tournament (which I'm not advocating for, but rather an adjustment to enrollment numbers with an addition of elective division jumping), so the argument is rather hollow that privates having their own tournament would eliminate the sanctity of the championship. Which it would not.
36 different private schools have won titles - 5% of the total number of schools
62 different public schools have won titles - 8.61% of the total number of schools
98 different schools have won titles - 13.61% of the total number of schools
So again, I think that while there is more parity among the public schools...it's still a small number of teams that have won state championships. Especially in the lower divisions (where there are more repeat winners and winners across multiple divisions) you see the same names year after year. Moving the private schools up and out of those divisions will not open up Pandora's Box and allow all these teams to win state championships. Instead, it will create a nice easy path for the teams that are there and winning the title quite often as it is.
Quantify it then. What's fundamentally different about them that is unlike any other group or category of schools in the entire state? Winning, alone, is not a deal-breaker. It is 'what' as QCB referred. To hypothesize, maybe the region where the MWC teams play are weaker than the MWC as a whole, thereby making a two-game playoff for whichever MWC wins the region. A lot easier proposition than going through 5 tough games.sherm03;618754 wrote:If we are talking about an anomaly, then why is it OK to force all private schools to play up (either by force or with a multiplier) because of the anomaly that seven private schools in the lower divisions are good year after year? Why do we penalize this anomaly, but disregard the anomaly that is the MAC? Excluding Delphos St. John's titles, five MAC public schools account for 19 state titles in D4-6. That, too, is an anomaly. But nobody ever complains and yells for those teams to get moved up. Why play to one, but not the other?
The passive advantage still exists with feeder schools. The state doesn't arbitrarily force kids to a private feeder school, either. They get their pick. They limit enrollment not in total number but in the total that are acceptable to admission. A public school has no such litmus test. Sorry. They don't. Whether you get the creme of the crop in 9th grade or in K-8, doesn't matter. You get students that are smart/eager/participatory/engaged/above average. Would parents pay to send their deadbeat kids to a private school if it isn't "helping" them? And at what point would a school say no to the parents money and punt them to public school? At what point would a free-ride to a private school be rescinded? Obviously, an academic scholarship would require... oh, I don't know, adequate academic achievement. You fail. You hurt the school's average. Their honor. Their bragging rights to attract more parents. Therefore, you are expendable.And as I've said before...assign each high school a feeder school/schools. If they receive a student from outside of their feeder schools, that student counts as 1.5 or 2. But private schools should not be penalized just because the high school is in the city, while all the private grade schools are in the suburbs.
I'm against a separate tournament on its face. But, there has to be some sort of qualifying factor for what division you're in in spite of how many males you have in 9th through 11th grade every other year. The concept only works moderately well when all schools are setup and administered in the same fashion.I'm fine with giving teams the option of moving up. I am against forcing all private schools to move up based solely on the fact that they are private (either by multiplier or mandatory one-division move)
First, 36 private titles out of roughly 70 private schools (I'm not going to count them, just a rough guess). So, roughly one private title for every two private schools. 62 publics out of roughly 650 public schools (just under 10%). Again, roughly 50% to roughly 10%.Yes, private schools make up a small number of the total number of schools, and have won almost half the titles. But again, it goes back to the fact that it's a small number period that have won titles.
36 different private schools have won titles - 5% of the total number of schools
62 different public schools have won titles - 8.61% of the total number of schools
98 different schools have won titles - 13.61% of the total number of schools
In 17 years there has been 102 possible opportunities to win. Of course it would be a small total. In fact, no matter how you figure, only less than 1 in every 7 schools could physically win the title over that span. So, pointing out that it is a 'small number of teams to win a title' smacks of incredulity or downright stupidity. That's why they are percentages. Only 14% of the entire population could have won a title since 1994 if every school had only won a title once. So, the number of schools we're discussing right now would be somewhere less than 14%.So again, I think that while there is more parity among the public schools...it's still a small number of teams that have won state championships. Especially in the lower divisions (where there are more repeat winners and winners across multiple divisions) you see the same names year after year. Moving the private schools up and out of those divisions will not open up Pandora's Box and allow all these teams to win state championships. Instead, it will create a nice easy path for the teams that are there and winning the title quite often as it is.
soupcitysoldier;619533 wrote:good argument rocket08 lol if you cant make an intelligent rebuttle to the man just sit this one out, you look dumber by the post. the man is making an intelligent argument, dont be like a child on the playground and side step having to make an intelligent rebuttle. Why dont you just call him a "nerd" or a "dork" instead of side stepping the man's point. good work sykotyk
Have you heard of the state voucher program? If a junior high school is in academic emergency, which all of the Youngstown junior highs are, a parent can ask for and usually get a voucher to send their child to a private school. Now see if you can follow some simple logic. If you had a child who was going to be a freshman in high school in Youngstown would you send him or her to East, Chaney, Mooney, Ursuline, or Youngstown Christian? I'm not pissing down your back. I would like an HONEST answer. Of course the other scenario has the parent sending their son or daughter to Hubbard, Harding, Fitch, Struthers, Lowellville, or some other open enrollment school which according to your logic is alright.Thinthickbigred;614549 wrote:I wonder if you will get a point for calling me an idiot? I doubt it ...
My mother wanted to send my sister to catholic school and it would have cost her double .. Look at all the football players that go to catholic school that play football for free .. I know of a few guys that were offered free school at the same school as my sister they played football and none of them were very good in school .. so i can talk on my perspectives and besides look at the Youngstown schools cmon dont pee down my back and tell me its raining.......See I know facts and I know truth ....
