That's what I said.Al Bundy;1003163 wrote:Students that attend a vocational school are allowed to participate in extra-curriculars for their home district, so I think you would have to count them in the numbers.
Everyone wants to come up with proposals to "level the playing field", but most of the proposals that I have seen just give the most dominant teams of the century an easier path to the title.Sonofanump;1003118 wrote:I am pretty sure that my idea (bottom 80 non privates) would also have MSML in the small school division and therefore winning the title in football every year.
Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.Al Bundy;1003168 wrote:Everyone wants to come up with proposals to "level the playing field", but most of the proposals that I have seen just give the most dominant teams of the century an easier path to the title.
So you want kids on this year's team to pay the penalty for last year's success? A team wins state, loses 20 once in a lifetime seniors and then the next year gets moved up a division? Wouldn't it just be easier to ban state champs from the next year's playoffs?Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
2 problems with thisSonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
Now we are going to punish teams for winning championships? Where do the d 1 winners move to?Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
Based off of what these guys want the D1 champ will move up to NCAA D3.genghis dong;1003341 wrote:Now we are going to punish teams for winning championships? Where do the d 1 winners move to?
I lived in Indianapolis for the last 3 years and had a cousin playing HS football. This the first I have heard of a "play-up" penalty.Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
Why do you want to penalize success? It may spread the championships around, but at the cost of a poorer "product".Sonofanump;1003258 wrote:Michigan and Indiana have a play-up penalty for success. I think it is for one year after winning state. I'd have no problem with that.
Leading to the inevitable "Can St. X (or whomever) beat Mt. Union"?rmolin73;1003442 wrote:Based off of what these guys want the D1 champ will move up to NCAA D3.
To keep the masses happy, no other reason for the suggestion.queencitybuckeye;1003832 wrote:Why do you want to penalize success?
I'd argue the masses are fine with the status quo, expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success.Sonofanump;1003889 wrote:To keep the masses happy, no other reason for the suggestion.
Straw man argument. Good programs will continue to be good programs. Why should a school with 518 boys be in a division with schools twice the enrollment? The easy thing to fix is the D-1 level. Increase the division to top 10% add any school that voluntary wants to compete in D-1 or the open division. Play a 11 week regular season schedule. 16 teams then qualify for the tournament. Problem solved.queencitybuckeye;1004074 wrote:I'd argue the masses are fine with the status quo, expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success.
What?? :huh:Bigdogg;1004109 wrote:Straw man argument.
Let's say you use a 1.5 multiplier for privates schools. The cut off for the top 70-80 schools would be near 600 boys. Only 4-5 privates would move up from D2 to D1. Now it solves the problem for those 50 schools between 520 and 600 enrollment.Bigdogg;1004109 wrote:Straw man argument. Good programs will continue to be good programs. Why should a school with 518 boys be in a division with schools twice the enrollment? The easy thing to fix is the D-1 level. Increase the division to top 10% add any school that voluntary wants to compete in D-1 or the open division. Play a 11 week regular season schedule. 16 teams then qualify for the tournament. Problem solved.
Take the rest of the schools and develop a classification system that works like I have proposed.
You may disagree with my opinion, but you appear to have no earthly idea what a strawman argument is. Yours is actually a strawman as you argue points that I didn't make.Bigdogg;1004109 wrote:Straw man argument. Good programs will continue to be good programs. Why should a school with 518 boys be in a division with schools twice the enrollment? The easy thing to fix is the D-1 level. Increase the division to top 10% add any school that voluntary wants to compete in D-1 or the open division. Play a 11 week regular season schedule. 16 teams then qualify for the tournament. Problem solved.
Take the rest of the schools and develop a classification system that works like I have proposed.
Thisqueencitybuckeye;1004188 wrote:You may disagree with my opinion, but you appear to have no earthly idea what a strawman argument is. Yours is actually a strawman as you argue points that I didn't make.
Well it been many years since I sat in a inductive and deductive logic class, but I am pretty sure you refuted the issue by stating the "majority of people are happy with the status quo", which is incorrect, and by refuting the whole argument by stating "expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success."queencitybuckeye;1004188 wrote:You may disagree with my opinion, but you appear to have no earthly idea what a strawman argument is. Yours is actually a strawman as you argue points that I didn't make.
Nothing distorted about it. I gave an opinion that the majority believes the status quo is no more flawed than any "fix" one might implement. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to stand corrected.Bigdogg;1004417 wrote:Well it been many years since I sat in a inductive and deductive logic class, but I am pretty sure you refuted the issue by stating the "majority of people are happy with the status quo", which is incorrect, and by refuting the whole argument by stating "expect for a few fans of "used to be" and "never were" programs who have to find excuses for their teams' lack of success."
Sounds like your logic is a little flawed.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
- Person A has position X.
- Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y.
- Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Exactly how do you know that is incorrect?Bigdogg;1004417 wrote:Well it been many years since I sat in a inductive and deductive logic class, but I am pretty sure you refuted the issue by stating the "majority of people are happy with the status quo", which is incorrect,
The original survey that got the OHSAA to take up the competitive balance proposal that was voted on last spring for one. That proposal, which barely failed did so because it did not address the D-1 issue, and one of the criteria was to penalize success. The OHSAA has stated that there will be another committee to study the issue. Sounds to me like the OHSAA has got a reason to continue to address this issue. That don't sound to me like the OHSAA thinks that the majority are happy with the status quo.Rocket08;1005222 wrote:Exactly how do you know that is incorrect?
If true why has the OHSAA already stated they will go back to the drawing board?queencitybuckeye;1005171 wrote:Nothing distorted about it. I gave an opinion that the majority believes the status quo is no more flawed than any "fix" one might implement. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
[h=2]con·jec·ture [kuhBigdogg;1005406 wrote:The original survey that got the OHSAA to take up the competitive balance proposal that was voted on last spring for one. That proposal, which barely failed did so because it did not address the D-1 issue, and one of the criteria was to penalize success. The OHSAA has stated that there will be another committee to study the issue. Sounds to me like the OHSAA has got a reason to continue to address this issue. That don't sound to me like the OHSAA thinks that the majority are happy with the status quo.
n-jek-cher][/h]