skank wrote: Well then Al, think how skewed the numbers would be if not for the MAC.

Then why can they win state, but your team can't?

Why do you guys continue to ignore that question?

Al Bundy wrote:

skank wrote: Well then Al, think how skewed the numbers would be if not for the MAC.

The MAC numbers are skewed more than the private numbers. I know that goes against what you are trying to prove, but it is a fact.

The only fact important is that these guys are jealous, and have no answers so they try to tear down successful programs.

When you don't have it, you try to bring those that do down to your level.

It doesn't work, just proves how pathetic they are

Not jealous of anyone, I'm from Massillon. But since that Private school Mooney education hasn't taken yet, I'll put this in layman's terms for you, ok?

Let's use division I as an example, by my count, and it may not be exact, but it's damn close, there were 120 schools in division I this year, and here is where I may not be exact, but again, damn close, one hundred and thirteen (113) of them public, and seven (7) private. Now I know there is always some movement between seasons, teams move up....teams move down, so there may be years where there are more or less, but not by leaps and bounds. Still with me rocket? Ok. here are your Division I state champions this decade.

(00) Upper Arlington (public)
(01) St. Ignatius (private)
(02) Cin. Elder (private)
(03) Cin. Elder (private)
(04) Cin Colerain (public)
(05) Cin. St. X (private)
(06) Davidson (public)
(07) Cin. St. X (private)
(08) St. Ignatius (private)
(09) Davidson (public)

So, please explain to me how five (5) % of the schools in division I can win sixty (60) % of the titles. I don't know about you, but it seems to me there is an advantage there somewhere.

And I don't know evey team in the MAC, I could be wrong, but I believe Delphos St. Johns is the only private school in the conference, therefore, my point was that, if it wasn't for Coldwater and St. Henry, (publics), winning state titles, there would probably be more privates winning them. It was definately not a slam on what I believe to be the best conference in the state.

Or maybe you could explain out of the 118 schools in Div II, only 5 of them are private, (4%), yet they won 30% of the titles this decade.

Division III? Yes, them too, 120 schools, 17 of them private, (14%)....Yet 60% of the titles this decade.

The MAC schools make up 2.8% of the schools in Divisions 4-6, yet they have have won 39% of titles. They dominate more than the private schools do in terms of percentage. Do you guys have a problem with them too? I know this will be ignored by those who don't want to look at stats that go against their agenda.

Al, point out a substantive difference between the MAC and any other conference in the state.

Besides, 4 of 10 teams are good. The 6 other teams, you don't hear much of other than Anna this year. There's nothing special about the conference, just the coincidence that four good teams play in it and six bad teams play in it.

Taking an outlier and using it for your argument doesn't discount that since the playoffs existed, the private schools win far more titles on average than there are private schools in the general pool of teams.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk wrote: Al, point out a substantive difference between the MAC and any other conference in the state.

Besides, 4 of 10 teams are good. The 6 other teams, you don't hear much of other than Anna this year. There's nothing special about the conference, just the coincidence that four good teams play in it and six bad teams play in it.

Taking an outlier and using it for your argument doesn't discount that since the playoffs existed, the private schools win far more titles on average than there are private schools in the general pool of teams.

Sykotyk

Your point is that we can't use the MAC as an example because only 40% of the teams are good? Not sure I agree with that statement, but let's look at that number. The number of private schools that have won state titles isn't even close to 40%. There are a small percentage of private schools that have won most of the private school titles. I know I am using an outlier, but so are you. To put in your own words,

"Taking an outlier and using it for your argument doesn't discount that since the playoffs existed, the MAC schools win far more titles on average than there are private schools in the general pool of teams"

skank wrote: Not jealous of anyone, I'm from Massillon..

Your postings say different

Also, you have every right to be jealous since your team has never hosted a trophy after a State Championship Game

Let me tell you, it's awesome.

I also want to know why you refuse to address the fact that the schools from the MAC can get it done, but you can't.

You've posted, like 4 or 5 times, but continue to dodge

And don't give me that outlier crap, we're talking about 40% of their league that's won multiple State Championships, that's no outlier. That's a trend, and has been a trend for over a decade.

You can't minimize that

Al Bundy wrote:

Sykotyk wrote: Al, point out a substantive difference between the MAC and any other conference in the state.

Besides, 4 of 10 teams are good. The 6 other teams, you don't hear much of other than Anna this year. There's nothing special about the conference, just the coincidence that four good teams play in it and six bad teams play in it.

Taking an outlier and using it for your argument doesn't discount that since the playoffs existed, the private schools win far more titles on average than there are private schools in the general pool of teams.

Sykotyk

Your point is that we can't use the MAC as an example because only 40% of the teams are good? Not sure I agree with that statement, but let's look at that number. The number of private schools that have won state titles isn't even close to 40%. There are a small percentage of private schools that have won most of the private school titles. I know I am using an outlier, but so are you. To put in your own words,

"Taking an outlier and using it for your argument doesn't discount that since the playoffs existed, the MAC schools win far more titles on average than there are private schools in the general pool of teams"

You've missed my point regarding the MAC. They have won state titles with four of their teams recently (and five, if you count Versailles previously) because they're simply good teams that compete well into the playoffs in their region.

You've yet to make a solid point that the MAC operates any dfiferently than any other public league that makes them more likely to win or play in a state title game. My point regarding the six (or five, depending on how many years you go back) 'bad' teams is that you make it sound as if they're just as capable to do what the four primary contenders of the MAC do in the playoffs.

Because, to you, the MAC is something special and breeds success. So, why are five teams completely imcapable of competing for the title. Obviously, it's the MAC that's special, right?

My argument that it isn't their conference, but that certain teams in the MAC and their track to the playoffs give them a good spring board to the state finals which they may or may not win or even be competitive in.

Again, if you want to argue the MAC in line with the private schools, explain what's different about them. We know what's different between the privates and the publics throughout the whole state. No geographic boundaries for enrollment, not required to take non-productive or accomplished students, and the ability to cap their enrollment at any number they see fit, either by size of their building, other factors, etc.

So, what does the MAC do to make them so successful that no other public school league/or teams in those leagues, do?

Sykotyk

Rocket08 wrote:

skank wrote: Not jealous of anyone, I'm from Massillon..

Your postings say different

Also, you have every right to be jealous since your team has never hosted a trophy after a State Championship Game

Let me tell you, it's awesome.

I also want to know why you refuse to address the fact that the schools from the MAC can get it done, but you can't.

You've posted, like 4 or 5 times, but continue to dodge

And don't give me that outlier crap, we're talking about 40% of their league that's won multiple State Championships, that's no outlier. That's a trend, and has been a trend for over a decade.

You can't minimize that

If my team was extended perks that were not extended to ALL competing OHSAA member schools, they would probably be more competative.

Sykotyk wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

Sykotyk wrote: Al, point out a substantive difference between the MAC and any other conference in the state.

Besides, 4 of 10 teams are good. The 6 other teams, you don't hear much of other than Anna this year. There's nothing special about the conference, just the coincidence that four good teams play in it and six bad teams play in it.

Taking an outlier and using it for your argument doesn't discount that since the playoffs existed, the private schools win far more titles on average than there are private schools in the general pool of teams.

Sykotyk

Your point is that we can't use the MAC as an example because only 40% of the teams are good? Not sure I agree with that statement, but let's look at that number. The number of private schools that have won state titles isn't even close to 40%. There are a small percentage of private schools that have won most of the private school titles. I know I am using an outlier, but so are you. To put in your own words,

"Taking an outlier and using it for your argument doesn't discount that since the playoffs existed, the MAC schools win far more titles on average than there are private schools in the general pool of teams"

You've missed my point regarding the MAC. They have won state titles with four of their teams recently (and five, if you count Versailles previously) because they're simply good teams that compete well into the playoffs in their region.

You've yet to make a solid point that the MAC operates any dfiferently than any other public league that makes them more likely to win or play in a state title game. My point regarding the six (or five, depending on how many years you go back) 'bad' teams is that you make it sound as if they're just as capable to do what the four primary contenders of the MAC do in the playoffs.

Because, to you, the MAC is something special and breeds success. So, why are five teams completely imcapable of competing for the title. Obviously, it's the MAC that's special, right?

My argument that it isn't their conference, but that certain teams in the MAC and their track to the playoffs give them a good spring board to the state finals which they may or may not win or even be competitive in.

Again, if you want to argue the MAC in line with the private schools, explain what's different about them. We know what's different between the privates and the publics throughout the whole state. No geographic boundaries for enrollment, not required to take non-productive or accomplished students, and the ability to cap their enrollment at any number they see fit, either by size of their building, other factors, etc.

So, what does the MAC do to make them so successful that no other public school league/or teams in those leagues, do?

Sykotyk

You are correct in stating that not all MAC teams win state titles, but not all private schools win titles either. Every school in the state has the option of going to open enrollment if they don't want boundaries.

That would be religious discrimination and never happen.

thechosenone wrote: That would be religious discrimination and never happen.

It happens in other states and there is no reason that it could not happen here. I just don't think it will.

The logistics of organizing a separate set of play-offs etc. would be a nightmare, not to mention the additional expense and the need for extra officials, workers, etc. Sports have not been a real money maker for quite a while and I just don't think that this duplication is feasible, economically prudent, or particularly wise at this time. Some things are best left as is and I think this is one of those things. I'm a public school coach and have been one my entire coaching and teaching career, and the challenge of competing against the very best has always appealed to me. Every once in a while, we have had some very nice things happen to us and when it happens, there is no other feeling like it...to know that you have taken on the best out there and ended up on top. Let's keep the bar high. Now, I must tell you that I am not and never have been a football coach, but I think the philosophy of playing the best to be the best carries over into all of the sports out there.

skank wrote:

Rocket08 wrote:

skank wrote: Not jealous of anyone, I'm from Massillon..

Your postings say different

Also, you have every right to be jealous since your team has never hosted a trophy after a State Championship Game

Let me tell you, it's awesome.

I also want to know why you refuse to address the fact that the schools from the MAC can get it done, but you can't.

You've posted, like 4 or 5 times, but continue to dodge

And don't give me that outlier crap, we're talking about 40% of their league that's won multiple State Championships, that's no outlier. That's a trend, and has been a trend for over a decade.

You can't minimize that

If my team was extended perks that were not extended to ALL competing OHSAA member schools, they would probably be more competative.

Once again, you have no answers. Just more unbelievable bunk from a jealous Massillon fan.

Why don't you just give it up and let a public school supporter who can put 2 sentences together do your bidding.

You're failing miserably

Yes, because according to the other big thread on this page the Public schools recruit . Which makes for a unfair advantage.
But, Of course once this is proven the State will have no choice but to strip the 4 Private schools of their State Championship Trophies they won this year, because the only way they could have won them was by being bigger cheaters than the public schools from Stark county.

If separate playoffs emerged why would the private schools continue to be members of OHSAA???

Why wouldn't they simply create their own governing body??

I thought open enrollment allowed bordering school districts to enroll and pay the local cost per student in order to attend. Am I incorrect?? If that's the case there are still geographic border restrictions.

Con_Alma wrote: I thought open enrollment allowed bordering school districts to enroll and pay the local cost per student in order to attend. Am I incorrect?? If that's the case there are still geographic border restrictions.

My understanding is that there are public schools who will accept students from anywhere as long as they pay.

That could very well be. I have only been exposed to one situation locally that permitted bordering school districts to apply which is where by my confusion came from.

Thanks for the clarification

Open enrollment helped, but the issue still is that these private/parochial schools do not represent the entire public as far as numbers are concerned. Tuition in and of itself is a deterrent to a percentage of the population who does not offer something positive to that private/parochial school such as high academic or athletic prowess! Scholarships, work programs and loans, yes these help offset some of the disadvantaged income population to attend, but once again only to those who can help the school. How quickly would those things go away if that student acted in a way detrimental to the school?

Bottom line, there are some students in society that do not fit into a mold that all schools desire. This population can be denied by privates, not by publics! There is your number difference. Until this is accredited for, I will never feel that the athletic teams are on level ground.

streak--your point is well taken. There is an "economic bias" to private schools. That being said, there is also a heavy time commitment for the families to assist in keeping these schools solvent. The biggest reason for people making the choice to sacrifice and "double-pay" is that in most private schools there is an administration, student and parent commitment to excellence in academics as well as athletics. Rightly or wrongly, you can't find that environment in very many public programs!!

I could if I could take around 30 percent of my population off the books!~ LOL Most of the problems Piketon faces with discipline issues comes from a small percentage of the overall population! Just go look at Jasper Elementary, the elementary for Piketon schools and their kindergarten classes. Parents are allowed to choose who they want for a teacher, ranked 1st to 3rd. Being that I know most of the teachers, ranking them was easy, we put our son in a class with other students who were his friends and colleagues of me and his mother. There are 6 classes, do you think every parent was as informed as me and my wife, no! What classes do you think have the best and brighest with the fewest problems! LOL

If you could take 2 of those classes away, I guarantee you the kids left over would be bright, athletic, courteous and well motivated! Thats a private school! LOL

I understand why a parent would want to send their kid to a school like Mooney, or Desales! Great academics and athletics with a good moral social scene! What I am saying is that publics cant be like that because they cant LIMIT their numbers.

streak--I agreed with you just commenting on why those choices are made. Your example speaks for itself!!

You are one of the few that understand that! LOL I understand why a person would want to send their kid to a private. The only private schools around here are Pike Christian Academy and Miracle City Academy, neither of which offer high school sports yet.