Ridgley will look to get Massillon in the Federal League

[Obie Wan]

Why dont the larger schools dominate titles in each division then?

Interesting question. Let's check it out the results for last year:
DI: 4/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DII: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DIII: 2/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DIV: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DV: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DVI: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.

That's 18 of 24 regional champs from the larger half of each division.

Coincidence? Or domination?

[tiger74]

more kids can help but how many actually go out for football or other sports. to me it seems that more kids tend to help the catholic schools. because they seem to win alot more then publics as far as titles.the catholics are 17-7 against public schools {title game only} since the playoffs started in 72. they have faced other catholics 7 times. all told they are 24-14 against everybody. I didn't count parma padua as I didn't know if they were a catholic school or not. To me just because 2 schools have a winning record over us doesn't mean we should think we are at a disadvantage. Didn't we beat fairfield back in the day and they have more kids. We have also beaten mentor and held are own against st. eds. Brunswick has more kids and how have they done in the playoffs. They have NOT done as well as are tigers who have LESS kids. Mckinley had a lucky bounce go there way in 97 when they won there game over iggy and they were loaded with talent. Also if we play are best players and sub in kids ever now and again
I think we will be fine. Look other schools can have kids that sub off the bench and it doesn't hurt them. It is up to the coaches to work with the kids to play better. Look to me if you just play certain people from JR. high on and don't build depth this can really hurt your team. I think that is why we went 5-5 my senior year. We would have beaten mentor had we not fumbled. There are TWO teams that seem to beat us pretty good but the rest of the teams we are able to have good CLOSE games with. You talk about mentor being young well do you think any of the teams cared when we were young in 03 and 04. I am going to say no. They mentor played some tough teams and that made them better. I think playing the tough teams in 03/04 really helped get are team ready for our 05 playoff run. Tell me how we are still able to play against mckinley and beat them when they have more kids. It doesn't look good when you try to schedule a team like JACKSON and they say NO. What about hoover. You know it gets real old when we try to schedule local teams and the answer is NO!!! Why do we keep trying to get a date with the supermodel {who thinks they are better then they are} and NO is the answer. That just makes my head spin, oh great now I am seeing stars. :stars:

[tiger#22]

First, 7 of those schools have been to a title game (Fairfield, Mentor, X, Iggy, Centerville, Brunswick, and Lincoln). That's almost half.


The largest 16 schools have 18 title game appearances and 11 titles. 7 have been to a title game. The next smaller group has 5 appearances and 4 titles. 4 different schools have played in the title game.



Almost half that is the best you can come up with? With one of those schools (Gahanna) being 30 years ago for their only appearance and the other school getting a gift (Brunswick) from a Colerain forfeit. That doesnt give alot of argument for those 16 largest schools. Instead of saying how many titles they have, why dont you tell us how many of those 16 schools have those 11 titles? It is so easy to twist stats to fit your argument isnt it.

[tiger#22]

Interesting question. Let's check it out the results for last year:
DI: 4/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DII: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DIII: 2/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DIV: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DV: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.
DVI: 3/4 regional champs in the larger half of enrollment.

That's 18 of 24 regional champs from the larger half of each division.

Coincidence? Or domination?

1 year doesnt make an argument,,,from 1972 - 2006 every class or division, did the larger enrollment school win the title?
Keep trying though your still getting an A for effort...:laughing:

[Obie Wan]

1 year doesnt make an argument,,,from 1972 - 2006 every class or division, did the larger enrollment school win the title?
Let me get this straight: you're making the assertion that the larger school has no advantage, but you don't have the information that would support that? Why don't you collect that data and post it?

You think you're right? Prove it.

[tiger#22]

Let me get this straight: you're making the assertion that the larger school has no advantage, but you don't have the information that would support that? Why don't you collect that data and post it?

You think you're right? Prove it.

I know I am right, you have been trying to prove me wrong for 3 days to no avail.

[tiger#22]

What exactly is your point? Schools with larger enrollments have absolutely no advantage over schools with smaller enrollments?

What advantage do they have then? They dont win all the titles, they dont always beat a team for the title with a smaller enrollment. The larger enrollment doesnt mean they have more depth or out of the top 16 at least 5 or 6 more teams would have titles. This is hypothetical but it has been obvious watching Steubenville and Cardinal Mooney the last few years they could have beaten ALOT of D1 schools that have much much larger enrollments. So what exactly is the advantage?
There are schools in the top 10 of enrollments that barely sniff the playoffs, do they not have a feeder system? Coaching? Middle school development?
When you have 1,000 boys in your school how is there not 10% that you could find to play football and play it well.

[austinsm11]

What advantage do they have then? They dont win all the titles, they dont always beat a team for the title with a smaller enrollment. The larger enrollment doesnt mean they have more depth or out of the top 16 at least 5 or 6 more teams would have titles. This is hypothetical but it has been obvious watching Steubenville and Cardinal Mooney the last few years they could have beaten ALOT of D1 schools that have much much larger enrollments. So what exactly is the advantage?
There are schools in the top 10 of enrollments that barely sniff the playoffs, do they not have a feeder system? Coaching? Middle school development?
When you have 1,000 boys in your school how is there not 10% that you could find to play football and play it well.

Why does an advantage always have to equal a win? Playing at home is an advantage. Does it always equal a win?

Please for once answer the following question:
You are really downplaying the enrollment numbers. You never did answer OW's original question. If enrollment isn't that big of a deal, then why does the OHSAA (and every other state for that matter) have division based on enrollment?

[tiger#22]

Why does an advantage always have to equal a win? Playing at home is an advantage. Does it always equal a win?

Please for once answer the following question:

As soon as you answer what the advantage is?

[austinsm11]

As soon as you answer what the advantage is?

The advantage is that there are more students to choose from. I understand that good coaching, feeder system, etc. can beat that advantage.


By your rational, the team with home field ADVANTAGE should win 100% of the time.

Now answer mine. Or keep avoiding them. You're good at it.

[tiger#22]

The advantage is that there are more students to choose from. I understand that good coaching, feeder system, etc. can beat that advantage.


By your rational, the team with home field ADVANTAGE should win 100% of the time.

Now answer mine. Or keep avoiding them. Your good at it.

If that is such an advantage why dont more then the majority of larger schools win titles? With only 3 schools in the top 16 of male enrollments winning titles in 35 years that doesnt say much for your advantage does it.

As far as to why the OHSAA separated divisions based on enrollments I have no idea you will have to ask them. But I can tell you they will tell you that having more boys in your school doesnt mean you will win titles or hell even make the playoffs for that matter.
This argument is tedious and overdone.. next topic or better yet back to the original topic of Massillon in the Fed.

[Obie Wan]

As far as to why the OHSAA separated divisions based on enrollments I have no idea you will have to ask them. But I can tell you they will tell you that having more boys in your school doesnt mean you will win titles or hell even make the playoffs for that matter.
You are dead wrong. Again.

Why do you think that OHSAA went from 3 divisions to 5 to 6? Hint: because the smaller teams in each division weren't making the playoffs and weren't doing well when they did get there.

Why do you think that OHSAA wanted to realign DI this year? Hint: because the smaller teams weren't making the playoffs and weren't doing well when they did get there.

It's very clear from their actions exactly what OHSAA thinks about the correlation between enrollment and quality. It's equally clear that you are one of the few without the capacity to understand or acknowledge it.

[austinsm11]

If that is such an advantage why dont more then the majority of larger schools win titles? With only 3 schools in the top 16 of male enrollments winning titles in 35 years that doesnt say much for your advantage does it.

As far as to why the OHSAA separated divisions based on enrollments I have no idea you will have to ask them. But I can tell you they will tell you that having more boys in your school doesnt mean you will win titles or hell even make the playoffs for that matter.
This argument is tedious and overdone.. next topic or better yet back to the original topic of Massillon in the Fed.

Yeah, your posts have looked very foolish. You don't even know what your point is. You try to claim things like the larger schools don't dominate in all divisions and then when OW does the research for your claims you are proved wrong once again. You can't even provide correct facts for your own claims. When OW proves you wrong it was a fluke and you make excuses. Then you want him to look up the past 35 years. How about you actually do some research to prove your point instead?

No one on here has claimed that the school with the larger enrollment will always win. You won't find it anywhere on this thread.

Let's take 10 average teams from Division VI and 10 average teams from Division I and have them play each other. What do you think the outcome will be? I agree that there are teams like Mooney, Massillon, etc. with outstanding programs that will defy the odds. But what do you think happens in the above scenario between DI vs. DVI?

[longtimefirsttime]

Improbable is not synonomous with impossible. Who's more likely to hit a home run: Omar Vizquel or Barry Bonds? After all, both have done it before.


Are you saying the Ignatius players are on steroids? I knew it! :wink:

[ChronicTiger]

If that is such an advantage why dont more then the majority of larger schools win titles? With only 3 schools in the top 16 of male enrollments winning titles in 35 years that doesnt say much for your advantage does it.



How many titles did those three schools win?

[Kamd50]

Wow, this arguement is something like the Energizer bunny:jestera:

[Seeker]

Please remember to attack the post not the poster.
Please do not call people names, including doing so in a sarcastic sense.

:vconst:

[tiger#22]

Yeah, your posts have looked very foolish. You don't even know what your point is. You try to claim things like the larger schools don't dominate in all divisions and then when OW does the research for your claims you are proved wrong once again. You can't even provide correct facts for your own claims. When OW proves you wrong it was a fluke and you make excuses. Then you want him to look up the past 35 years. How about you actually do some research to prove your point instead?



This wasnt enough proof for you?

This is the list of schools in Ohio with more then 900 boys, tell me how many of them won a title or have even been in the title game.
Fairfield 1,246
St. X 1,173
Cinc Oak Hills 1,161
Mentor 1,148
Mason 1,113
St Ignatius 1,086
Hamilton 1,076
Lakota East 1,016
Lakota West 989
Centerville 965
Brunswick 961
Kettering Fairmont 950
Strongsville 944
Gahanna Lincoln 935
Cinc Western Hills 923
Beavercreek 920

[austinsm11]

This wasnt enough proof for you?

This is the list of schools in Ohio with more then 900 boys, tell me how many of them won a title or have even been in the title game.
Fairfield 1,246
St. X 1,173
Cinc Oak Hills 1,161
Mentor 1,148
Mason 1,113
St Ignatius 1,086
Hamilton 1,076
Lakota East 1,016
Lakota West 989
Centerville 965
Brunswick 961
Kettering Fairmont 950
Strongsville 944
Gahanna Lincoln 935
Cinc Western Hills 923
Beavercreek 920

Didn't OW answer this already? I believe that answer was 7 times more than the bottom 16 schools. Isn't 7 times more pretty significant? How about something more original? You are out of gas.

[austinsm11]

Again, take 10 average DI teams and match them up against 10 average DVI teams. Who ya got?

[Obie Wan]

Here are a couple of size-related factoids from the 2001 season:
- 27 of the 32 DI playoff qualifiers were from the largest 2/3 of schools.
- If the DVI limit were lowered by a mere 8 boys, 25% of the DVI playoff teams would have been in DV.

[Mass6]

What are you talking about? We are twisting the facts! If the top 16 teams have more playoff title appearances, then it is a fluke.

Yea, you're right. What in God's name was I thinking? No, wait.....16 top teams, more playoff title appearances....................................... .........................still thinking (that's what idiots do)................................=more titles!!! :jestera:

[massillon catholic]

I'll never forget one of our "over-sized" coaches telling me that Massillon will never win a championship because "we don't have the numbers". With that attitude thank God he isn't on the staff anymore!

[ChronicTiger]

Didn't OW answer this already? I believe that answer was 7 times more than the bottom 16 schools. Isn't 7 times more pretty significant? How about something more original? You are out of gas.

Thats pretty significant! Tiger#22, what do you think of this? And what about my other question, those three schools you brought up, how many state championships do they have?

[tiger#22]

Thats pretty significant! Tiger#22, what do you think of this? And what about my other question, those three schools you brought up, how many state championships do they have?

Day late and a dollar short as usual, try jumping into the middle of the debate not when it is over. If you want the answers go do some research.

[austinsm11]

Day late and a dollar short as usual, try jumping into the middle of the debate not when it is over. If you want the answers go do some research.

Since you won't answer anyone's questions, I guess you are finally admitting to yourself that you are wrong and it is over. Good for you.

[Perry74]

I can understand both sides to the Tigers joining a league or not to. I think Tiger Don had the best suggestion in his article. I know that trying to get enough tickets for a local Fed stadium is a problem, but the atmosphere at Perry last season was good.

What ever happens in the future, it will no doubt not make everyone in Tigertown happy, but I for one, enjoy the competition against Massillon not only in football, but in all the sports. It adds some electricity. I'm looking forward to the scrimmage next month. It will give the Panthers a good idea where they are at and what they need to work on.

[tiger#22]

Since you won't answer anyone's questions, I guess you are finally admitting to yourself that you are wrong and it is over. Good for you.

I proved my point, you have proved nothing other then jumping on with someone else yet you have no given no facts or arguments to defend what you believe in. It is over because you nor anyone else have been able to prove it to be false.
Perry74 has brought this topic back on track...I am sure there is someone else you can follow blindly around here...

[austinsm11]

I proved my point, you have proved nothing other then jumping on with someone else yet you have no given no facts or arguments to defend what you believe in. It is over because you nor anyone else have been able to prove it to be false.
Perry74 has brought this topic back on track...I am sure there is someone else you can follow blindly around here...

You asked me specifically how many of the top 16 teams have been in title games. I replied 7 times as many as the bottom 16 teams. I asked if that was significant to you. You didn't answer.

You claim that it is not an advantage because the larger school doesn't win every single time. I guess you will keep up with your lame arguement until Fairfield wins EVERY SINGLE YEAR. I think I also asked you why the team with home field advantage didn't win EVERY SINGLE TIME. You didn't answer

I asked if you pair 10 average DI teams against 10 average DVI teams. Who do you think would win? You didn't answer



I guess you have a good excuse now that Perry74 brought it back on topic to not answer any of the questions. I guess it is time to go running with our tail between our legs.

[tiger#22]

You asked me specifically how many of the top 16 teams have been in title games. I replied 7 times as many as the bottom 16 teams. I asked if that was significant to you. You didn't answer.

You claim that it is not an advantage because the larger school doesn't win every single time. I guess you will keep up with your lame arguement until Fairfield wins EVERY SINGLE YEAR. I think I also asked you why the team with home field advantage didn't win EVERY SINGLE TIME. You didn't answer

I asked if you pair 10 average DI teams against 10 average DVI teams. Who do you think would win? You didn't answer



I guess you have a good excuse now that Perry74 brought it back on topic to not answer any of the questions. I guess it is time to go running with our tail between our legs.

Seriously dude I have been debating this with obiewan now for about 3 days and you jump in about once a day on obiewans tail like a little flea dying for attention with no relevant facts or info other then Xeroxing every fact that he looked up. It is done and over, it is ok to be wrong sometimes and in this case that is where you ended up (wrong). Now run along and go jump on another tail.

[MassFan3]

http://www.ncaabbs.com/funnies/general/capacity.jpg

[MassFan3]

WOW.....

http://www.ncaabbs.com/funnies/general/deargod.jpg

[austinsm11]

Seriously dude I have been debating this with obiewan now for about 3 days and you jump in about once a day on obiewans tail like a little flea dying for attention with no relevant facts or info other then Xeroxing every fact that he looked up. It is done and over, it is ok to be wrong sometimes and in this case that is where you ended up (wrong). Now run along and go jump on another tail.

Ok, I am just dying for attention. You are right. Please humor me and give me my attention by answering the questions just once.

Speaking of facts, what relevant facts have you posted? Are you talking about the ones that showed that the biggest 16 schools in DI are 7 times more likely than the bottom 16 to be in the title game? Usually when people debate they give facts that are FOR their argument, not against. LOL.

[Seeker]

Sorry, this one's done.

It's too bad because it was interesting and entertaining.

Unfortunately, a couple of people were unable to practice self-control and ruined it for everyone else.

Oh well, we can't control the maturity level of the posters, just what they post.