Is it time for private schools to have theyre own playoffs in football

• Con_Alma

  skank;1000415 wrote:Who wants perfection? I personally never asked for it. ...

  I have no idea who wants perfection. I didn't state that you asked for such a thing.
  
  I responded to your comment of "wanting fairness" by claiming that you will never be satisfied when considering that by nature competitive athletics are not fair.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000415 wrote:... "Rules based on history don't directly correlate the present style and game." Sure looks to me like they do. Especially when you look at the fact that parochials have a 17-5 advantage in head to head matchups in state title games, .772, (there's your "history"), compared to the current 4 year stretch we're in now with parochials holding a commanding 79-14, .849 advantage. Hmm....Looks like they're getting worse.

  Rule changes tend to be reactive as opposed to proactive. That it is an indication that there is no certainty that rules based on past activity may or may not correlate to the future styles of play.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000421 wrote:Rule changes tend to be reactive as opposed to proactive. That it is an indication that there is no certainty that rules based on past activity may or may not correlate to the future styles of play.

  
  
  Past activities? Future styles of play? Dude, the numbers haven't changed since 1972, give me a break, as a matter of fact, they appear to be getting worse.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000449 wrote:...as a matter of fact, they appear to be getting worse.

  None of my comments related to the numbers or who has/hasn't won. My comments related to the game itself.
  
  Since it's the "numbers" you want to refer to, your comment was that they appear to be getting worse which makes my point. The rules didn't correct the perceived problem because they were based on the past as opposed to what would happen in the unknown future.
  
  Competitive athletics are not fair.
  
  Finally, I am not a "Dude".
  
  dude (d d, dy d) n. 1. Informal An Easterner or city person who vacations on a ranch in the West.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000459 wrote:None of my comments related to the numbers or who has/hasn't won. My comments related to the game itself.
  
  Since it's the "numbers" you want to refer to, your comment was that they appear to be getting worse which makes my point. The rules didn't correct the perceived problem because they were based on the past as opposed to what would happen in the unknown future.
  
  Competitive athletics are not fair.
  
  Finally, I am not a "Dude".
  
  dude (d d, dy d) n. 1. Informal An Easterner or city person who vacations on a ranch in the West.

  
  
  Sorry for the misunderstanding, sir. Care to talk about the topic at hand?
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000466 wrote:... Care to talk about the topic at hand?

  I do which is why I was.
• skank

  

  You continue to talk of the past and the future. Look, the numbers have been constant, since 1972. They're the only numbers we know. It's not like for a while parochials controlled the state, then, for a while, publics owned the state, there has been no give and take in the numbers....Only take.
• Con_Alma

  I continue to talk about your statements such as the numbers appearing to get worse and your desire to want fairness.
  
  If the numbers are getting worse the rules in place haven't worked. If they haven't worked it's because you can't make competitive athletics fair. They aren't and never will be.
  
  You will not be satisfied no matter the rules in place if it is fairness you are seeking.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000490 wrote:I continue to talk about your statements such as the numbers appearing to get worse and your desire to want fairness.
  
  If the numbers are getting worse the rules in place haven't worked. If they haven't worked it's because you can't make competitive athletics fair. They aren't and never will be.
  
  You will not be satisfied no matter the rules in place if it is fairness you are seeking.

  
  
  So then....We should just remain the same?
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000410 wrote:????
  
  Huh? Every parochial COULD have won a title this year but very few even made it to the playoffs.

  
  
  Let's look at two who didn't make the playoffs. Cin LaSalle, they went 7-3, their only losses, to three parochials. Finished #9 in region, looks like they should have scheduled 1 more public, huih? Elder, finished 2-8, their only two wins you ask? Yep, the only two Ohio publics they played....And one of those publics made the playoffs. Just examples.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000511 wrote:So then....We should just remain the same?

  Maybe, maybe not. I haven't commented on that yet. Since it's so important to you here you go.
  
  I think we should always strive towards fairness with the understanding that it's unattainable.
  
  My comments recently were in response to you posting "...all I want is fairness". If that's "all you want" you are never going to be satisfied because it doesn't exist in competitive athletics.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000527 wrote:Let's look at two who didn't make the playoffs. Cin LaSalle, they went 7-3, their only losses, to three parochials. Finished #9 in region, looks like they should have scheduled 1 more public, huih? Elder, finished 2-8, their only two wins you ask? Yep, the only two Ohio publics they played....And one of those publics made the playoffs. Just examples.

  Examples of what? It doesn't negate my comment of every parochial having the chance to win a title. That's what you quoted with this response.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000534 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. I haven't commented on that yet. Since it's so important to you here you go.
  
  I think we should always strive towards fairness with the understanding that it's unattainable.
  
  My comments recently were in response to you posting "...all I want is fairness". If that's "all you want" you are never going to be satisfied because it doesn't exist in competitive athletics.

  
  
  Ok, fair enough, (no pun intended), and I understand and agree that you will never have 100% fairness, or perfection in any situation, but I think the numbers I posted show an approximate 70-30 fairness as it is now, and I personally think that is unacceptable. Especially when 40 years is enough of an experiment.
• sherm03

  

  skank;1000551 wrote:Ok, fair enough, (no pun intended), and I understand and agree that you will never have 100% fairness, or perfection in any situation, but I think the numbers I posted show an approximate 70-30 fairness as it is now, and I personally think that is unacceptable. Especially when 40 years is enough of an experiment.

  OK skank, so what's your solution? What do you think should be done to correct the unfairness that you see?
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000548 wrote:Examples of what? It doesn't negate my comment of every parochial having the chance to win a title. That's what you quoted with this response.

  
  
  My examples show that in at least these two cases, it was parochials keeping parochials out of the playoffs. The parochials that aren't making the playoffs, at least in the two instances I provided, are still having success against publics, in some situations, even against public playoff teams.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000551 wrote:Ok, fair enough, (no pun intended), and I understand and agree that you will never have 100% fairness, or perfection in any situation, but I think the numbers I posted show an approximate 70-30 fairness as it is now, and I personally think that is unacceptable. Especially when 40 years is enough of an experiment.

  You have expressed that you think it's unacceptable many times. It doesn't matter what you or I think as it relates to the members. What matters are the voting members.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000555 wrote:My examples show that in at least these two cases, it was parochials keeping parochials out of the playoffs. The parochials that aren't making the playoffs, at least in the two instances I provided, are still having success against publics, in some situations, even against public playoff teams.

  That has nothing to do with the fact that all parochials who had a chance at winning a title which is what you quoted from me with the examples. I don't understand how they are related.
• skank

  

  sherm03;1000554 wrote:OK skank, so what's your solution? What do you think should be done to correct the unfairness that you see?

  
  
  I have no idea, but before you make a big deal about it, that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. If it didn't the OHSAA wouldn't be looking for answers either. Maybe the only solution IS seperate playoffs, as I stated earlier, at first I was opposed, now, not so much.
• GoChiefs

  

  skank;1000407 wrote:Ok then, which one went public since last year, Ignatius or Mooney? Remember also, the only two parochials that COULD win a title did.

  Whoops, my bad. 4-2 still don't help you public whiners case.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000572 wrote:I have no idea, but before you make a big deal about it, that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. If it didn't the OHSAA wouldn't be looking for answers either. ...

  It also doesn't mean there is a problem when you consider that fact that the OHSAA's actions are reactionary to the requests of a number of members.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000558 wrote:You have expressed that you think it's unacceptable many times. It doesn't matter what you or I think as it relates to the members. What matters are the voting members.

  
  
  True, but if they want to do what is best, in my, and approximately, (according to this site), 50% of the member fans, it would be in their best interest to make a change of some kind. I think they are finally realizing that too, what with their proposal from last year, as bad as it was.
• skank

  

  GoChiefs;1000577 wrote:Whoops, my bad. 4-2 still don't help you public whiners case.

  
  
  Ok, I've been trying to be less combatative, and here is a MODERATOR stirring up crap, while I'm in the middle of a relaxed conversation.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000585 wrote:True, but if they want to do what is best, in my, and approximately, (according to this site), 50% of the member fans, it would be in their best interest to make a change of some kind. I think they are finally realizing that too, what with their proposal from last year, as bad as it was.

  Not necessarily. If you are going to use this site's poll for reference you must take into consideration that nearly the same amount of voters have determined that "what's best" is to not make a change.
  
  The proposal from the OHSAA was a reactive effect to a handful of members requesting attention to a defined issue. The OHSAA decided to let the members determine if action was appropriate. The members made their determination through vote.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000561 wrote:That has nothing to do with the fact that all parochials who had a chance at winning a title which is what you quoted from me with the examples. I don't understand how they are related.

  
  
  True, but I know where you were going with that statement, of course EVERYONE has the (supposed) same chance at winning a title at the beginning of the season.
• Al Bundy

  skank;1000590 wrote:Ok, I've been trying to be less combatative, and here is a MODERATOR stirring up crap, while I'm in the middle of a relaxed conversation.

  Presenting facts that don't support your case is "stirring up crap"?