Thanks

You are welcome.
Doesn't mean I am right it's just the way I see it.

futbol4ever wrote: I think it's hilarious that so many Massillon fans think other programs are jealous of their precious Tigers. Why?? They haven't reached the pinnacle of high-school football in four decades. Yeah, lots to be jealous about there.

First off..not a Massillon fan. Secondly..doesn't matter how many years it's been..they still did it. It's obvious there are 'jealous' fans out there or else you wouldn't have this argument on every other Massillon thread.

Mooney44Cards wrote: To sum up, I think most people recognize it, just don't find it something to brag about.

In my experiences..more NON Massillon fans bring it up more than I hear about it from actual Tiger fans.

ZalKath wrote: I couldn't disagree more...Championships based on "polls" are nothing more than a beauty pageant...it has nothing to do with jealousy...that is why the BCS is a joke...

And as I said before..that is your opinion..but..that is the format that was in place at the time..you can't fault Massillon for that. You can look at it as a 'beauty pageant' all you want. Fact is..they still have 22 Championships.

LocoEngineer66 wrote: Let's see ... so all of you haters that do not want to count Massillon's 22 state titles are telling me ... that in the historic Ohio high school football existence there was never a champion before 1972???????? Am I understanding that correctly or was there just not a champion the years Massillon "supposedly" won it???? Just curious.

I don't think anyone is denying there were championships, just questioning the legitimacy of many of those titles.

Case in point -- And I'm only throwing this one out because I am familiar with the situation. In 1966, Niles went 10-0 and beat the likes of Massillon, Canton McKinley and Warren G. Harding. Because they were kept COMPLETELY off the ballot by at least one coach and sportswriter they didn't win a state title. That's right, an All American Conference school went 10-0 and didn't even receive a 10th-place vote....Had they even been voted in the top five by one of the coaches or sportswriters who kept them off for very personal reasons, they would have finished with a No. 1 ranking.

Now, if such nonsense happened to Niles in 1966, are we not to believe that it didn't happen in any of the 22 years that Massillon won a title?

I am CERTAIN that Massillon was the best team in the state many years that they won the title on paper. How many of those years??? It is impossible to say.

No, those titles can NEVER be taken away from Massillon. And ANY school with a similar history would be rightfully boasting their past. But at the same time they are what they are --- Titles won on paper, which we know was often times a system that was flawed beyond belief.

The fuel to this fire is simple....22 titles won before they were decided on the field, 0 titles won on the field. Like it or not, right or wrong, with each passing year in only raises the speculation of just how deserving at least some of those titles may have been.

september63 wrote: LOL...How many schools were even in existance in 1922?

They've also consolidated away MANY schools since then as well.

And, prior to the playoffs, there was only ONE state champion for the entire state. So, even if there were, oh let's say 500 schools compared to the 720~ now, that's still only one team in 500 that gets to claim the title, rather than 1 out of 120 currently.

Much more an impressive feat.

Also, since the playoffs, roughly 40% of the time, the AP champ goes on to win the playoff title. So even on that basis, you'd have to expect the Tigers to have won, on average, about 8 or 9 titles if there were playoffs. Which would still be a very respectable and high total.

Secondly, you have to accept the fact, though you seem to loathe the thought, that prior to the playoffs, this was the accepted practice in naming state champs and carried the same weight and prestige then as the state playoff champ does today.

As for Massillon, they're in the same boat as Steubenville. Shrinking population has hurt them since around the time of the playoffs. The first playoff years had 1 team per region (3 classifications, 4 regions each) make the playoffs. The Tigers were in the AAC which was a league designed and contested because it helped settle poll championships, not to allow teams to easily win their region to make the playoffs.

This was the major undoing of the AAC. Massillon has come close since, but unfortunately for them they've hung on in D1 based on enrollment taking on schools twice their size.

But, in closing, history is history and no attempt should be made to rewrite it.

Massillon has 22 state titles.

Sykotyk

Here's what some of the people (including me) that let's say, discount the 22 titles, think:

First, that's nearly 40 years ago. Get over it, it's ancient history

Second, at least some of those 22 are BS. There are teams teams (at least 1) that went unbeaten, beat Massollin and Massollin won the State Championship, explain that

Third, they're AP titles for Christ's sake, anyone that pays attention knows that the AP polls are the most worthless things there are. If the AP decided things, St Ignatius would have been crowned a few weeks ago, instead of going home after week 2 of the playoffs.

There were certainly many, many times that pollsters voted and really had no idea what other teams all around the state were really capable of. Not to mention some of the historic "mystery calls" that went on at Paul Brown Stadium, or whatever it was called 50 years ago.

Bottom line, polls are for discussion purposes only. If that's all you have to hang on to after 40 years, have at it. Not too many else really care. Especially with 12 teams playing for actual State Championships this weekend, and as usual Massollin is a host, not a participant

ZalKath wrote: Thanks

Zalkath is just happy someone finally agrees with him.

Rocket08 wrote: First, that's nearly 40 years ago. Get over it, it's ancient history

Yes..it is definitely history..and I don't think anyone discredits that..but the problem is when people try to DENY that history.

Rocket08 wrote: Second, at least some of those 22 are BS. There are teams teams (at least 1) that went unbeaten, beat Massollin and Massollin won the State Championship, explain that

Third, they're AP titles for Christ's sake, anyone that pays attention knows that the AP polls are the most worthless things there are. If the AP decided things, St Ignatius would have been crowned a few weeks ago, instead of going home after week 2 of the playoffs.

I can agree with you on most of that..but once again..that is Massillon's fault how?

Rocket08 wrote: Not too many else really care. Especially with 12 teams playing for actual State Championships this weekend, and as usual Massollin is a host, not a participant

Obviously a lot of people still care. Or else this topic wouldn't be brought up every damn day. And like I said..most of the time when it's brought up..it's NOT brought up by a Massillon poster.

Rocket08 wrote: Here's what some of the people (including me) that let's say, discount the 22 titles, think:

First, that's nearly 40 years ago. Get over it, it's ancient history

Second, at least some of those 22 are BS. There are teams teams (at least 1) that went unbeaten, beat Massollin and Massollin won the State Championship, explain that

Third, they're AP titles for Christ's sake, anyone that pays attention knows that the AP polls are the most worthless things there are. If the AP decided things, St Ignatius would have been crowned a few weeks ago, instead of going home after week 2 of the playoffs.

There were certainly many, many times that pollsters voted and really had no idea what other teams all around the state were really capable of. Not to mention some of the historic "mystery calls" that went on at Paul Brown Stadium, or whatever it was called 50 years ago.

Bottom line, polls are for discussion purposes only. If that's all you have to hang on to after 40 years, have at it. Not too many else really care. Especially with 12 teams playing for actual State Championships this weekend, and as usual Massollin is a host, not a participant

A. Learn how to spell.
B. Who beat Massillon and went undefeated and was voted behind Massillon?

I believe it was Mansfield, late 40's or early 50's

Not positive who it was, that's why I left the school out.

ChuckieFenster wrote:

LocoEngineer66 wrote: Let's see ... so all of you haters that do not want to count Massillon's 22 state titles are telling me ... that in the historic Ohio high school football existence there was never a champion before 1972???????? Am I understanding that correctly or was there just not a champion the years Massillon "supposedly" won it???? Just curious.

I don't think anyone is denying there were championships, just questioning the legitimacy of many of those titles.

Case in point -- And I'm only throwing this one out because I am familiar with the situation. In 1966, Niles went 10-0 and beat the likes of Massillon, Canton McKinley and Warren G. Harding. Because they were kept COMPLETELY off the ballot by at least one coach and sportswriter they didn't win a state title. That's right, an All American Conference school went 10-0 and didn't even receive a 10th-place vote....Had they even been voted in the top five by one of the coaches or sportswriters who kept them off for very personal reasons, they would have finished with a No. 1 ranking.

Now, if such nonsense happened to Niles in 1966, are we not to believe that it didn't happen in any of the 22 years that Massillon won a title?

I am CERTAIN that Massillon was the best team in the state many years that they won the title on paper. How many of those years??? It is impossible to say.

No, those titles can NEVER be taken away from Massillon. And ANY school with a similar history would be rightfully boasting their past. But at the same time they are what they are --- Titles won on paper, which we know was often times a system that was flawed beyond belief.

The fuel to this fire is simple....22 titles won before they were decided on the field, 0 titles won on the field. Like it or not, right or wrong, with each passing year in only raises the speculation of just how deserving at least some of those titles may have been.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rocket08 wrote: I believe it was Mansfield, late 40's or early 50's

Not positive who it was, that's why I left the school out.

Lol. ok. You say it's happened at least once but don't know who it was or when it happened. Hell of an argument you make.

ChuckieFenster wrote:
The fuel to this fire is simple....22 titles won before they were decided on the field, 0 titles won on the field. Like it or not, right or wrong, with each passing year in only raises the speculation of just how deserving at least some of those titles may have been.

This post wouldn't be so idiotic if Massillon were the same school it was in it's glory day. Not only was it one of the bigger cities at that time, it was top 10 in school district size the state. Massillon isn't what it used to be, no ones arguing that. It's smaller, less jobs, and poorer economically. If Massillon were still the same booming city as it was in the 40's and 50's, this argument would be valid. But it is not... and that's why your post is completely illogical.

This may have been brought up already, but did no one win a championship before the BCS????

There was no championship game until recently, but we recognize those past national champions, right??? And when CFB finally develops a playoff, those teams that won championships before the playoff will still have their nat'l championships.....

Strapping Young Lad wrote: This may have been brought up already, but did no one win a championship before the BCS????

There was no championship game until recently, but we recognize those past national champions, right??? And when CFB finally develops a playoff, those teams that won championships before the playoff will still have their nat'l championships.....

Good point.This should solve the disagreement.

Have the Cleveland Browns ever won anything? The answer to 99% of football fans is, NO!! because no one really counts their championships before the Super Bowl era. You never hear the Browns boast about titles won in different times. To us all, they are one of a hanfdull of teams to have never played in the Super Bowl.

september63 wrote: Have the Cleveland Browns ever won anything? The answer to 99% of football fans is, NO!! because no one really counts their championships before the Super Bowl era. You never hear the Browns boast about titles won in different times. To us all, they are one of a hanfdull of teams to have never played in the Super Bowl.

How many times are people giving to have to explain to you the logic behind this??? You've addressed that already a couple of times..and people have already explained to you why it's different.

Mooney44Cards wrote: We should probably throw out all the championships from before the BCS era too.

It's always funny when people say OSU has 7 titles, then they say Massillon has 0.

If Massillon has 0, then OSU has 1.
If OSU has 7, then Massillon has 22.

It was all done under the system in place at the time at their respective levels for both teams, and they all count.

Bottom line, this is an opinion topic and it has generated some interest. I do believe over 50% have no problem with them winning their titles the way they did. Im just saying I wouldnt brag about them and certainly wouldnt refer to Massillon as a city of champions. maybe long ago was ok to call that, but in this era it just isnt true.

They count...Just likes BYUs.

If Massillon has 22, OSU has 7.............Why cant the Browns be considered past Champions?

september63 wrote: Bottom line, this is an opinion topic and it has generated some interest. I do believe over 50% have no problem with them winning their titles the way they did. Im just saying I wouldnt brag about them and certainly wouldnt refer to Massillon as a city of champions. maybe long ago was ok to call that, but in this era it just isnt true.

Bottom line..you go out of NE Ohio..you mention Massillon football..then you mention Dover football..you see which one gets recognized first. Not knowing Dover football at all..just sayin'. In your opinion..you can't call them that..but outside of NE Ohio..that's what they are known for.

The Super Bowl is a different animal.....

The CFB comparison is more accurate IMO b/c for ages CFB had no championship game...

The #1 and #2 teams did not meet....So essentially the #1 had to stave off another ranked opponent to keep that number #1 ranking. And, even then ther wasn't always a clear concensus as to who was the #1 team...

Sometimes there were TWO national champions in the same season...

Yet, we recognize them as national champions.....

Hell, some people don't recognize the BCS champs as legit....so, on some level it's all subjective.

september63 wrote: Why cant the Browns be considered past Champions?

As a Browns fan..I always correct people when they say we haven't won any Championships thank you. Because that's indeed false. We haven't won any Super Bowls.

I never disagreed with Massillon being very popular and more well known for football. They and McKinley both are well know throughout. Dover isnt, but i never said Dover was. We know we arent.