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

• GoChiefs

  

  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.

  This is the 'basement' princess, MODERATOR status has nothing to do with it. Get the fuck out of here with that.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000599 wrote: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.

  Then why question the comment? I simply stated the fact that all parochials have the chance at winning the title when you previously stated that only 2 did.
• GoChiefs

  

  Al Bundy;1000601 wrote:Presenting facts that don't support your case is "stirring up crap"?

  Kinda funny coming from a dude that does nothing but go into threads just to stir shit up ain't it? More hypocrisy.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000595 wrote: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.

  
  
  Yes, but their determination was made in response to the proposed idea, the fact that it was determined a proposal was needed in the first place speaks volumes. To me at least.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000604 wrote:Then why question the comment? I simply stated the fact that all parochials have the chance at winning the title when you previously stated that only 2 did.

  
  
  Ok then 2 out of 6 is still 33.3%, do parochial schools represent more or less than 33.3% of all schools that play football in Ohio?
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000608 wrote:Yes, but their determination was made in response to the proposed idea, the fact that it was determined a proposal was needed in the first place speaks volumes. To me at least.

  They didn't necessarily determined that a proposal was needed but rather that a proposal would help satify the requests of those who inquired by allowing the members to determine the outcome as opposed to the OHSAA.
• skank

  

  Al Bundy;1000601 wrote:Presenting facts that don't support your case is "stirring up crap"?

  
  
  No, but calling me a whiner does.
• GoChiefs

  

  skank;1000608 wrote:Yes, but their determination was made in response to the proposed idea, the fact that it was determined a proposal was needed in the first place speaks volumes. To me at least.

  A lot of proposals are made up just to appease a handful of people when they complain about something all the time.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000611 wrote:Ok then 2 out of 6 is still 33.3%, do parochial schools represent more or less than 33.3% of all schools that play football in Ohio?

  I don't understand your point. All parochials had a chance as opposed to 2.
• GoChiefs

  

  skank;1000614 wrote:No, but calling me a whiner does.

  Where were you singled out anywhere in my post? You're becoming just as sensitive as your buddy thinthick. IMO, that's all it is, is whining. Just calling it like I see it.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000612 wrote:They didn't necessarily determined that a proposal was needed but rather that a proposal would help satify the requests of those who inquired by allowing the members to determine the outcome as opposed to the OHSAA.

  
  
  So, then, they wasted time and money just to "satisfy"....The whiners?
• GoChiefs

  

  skank;1000621 wrote:So, then, they wasted time and money just to "satisfy"....The whiners?

  Like I said, it happens quite often.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000621 wrote:So, then, they wasted time and money just to "satisfy"....The whiners?

  Why would you assume that? I never referenced any school as a whiner. It's not a waste at all if it gave the members the opportunity to clarify their position through vote to those who didn't know of said position directly.
  
  That's very valuable in and of itself. add to it the discussions it created amongst members to assist them in coming to their conclusions before voting.
  
  A waste? Not necessarily. It seems as if you are assuming many things about this.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000616 wrote:I don't understand your point. All parochials had a chance as opposed to 2.

  
  
  See, EVERYONE had a chance to win a title, right? You guys play it off as only 2 parochial schools had a chance to play for a title....And 2 won it, right? That is 2 out of 6, right? That is 33.3% of state champions right? Parochial schools in Ohio do not make up 33.3% of member schools, right?
• sherm03

  

  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. Maybe the only solution IS seperate playoffs, as I stated earlier, at first I was opposed, now, not so much.

  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.

  Here's the issue with separating the playoffs. If you do that, then certain public schools will just be the ones that win all the titles. Now, let's ignore D2 for a minute since that is traditionally dominated by many different public schools. Take the private schools out of D1, and there may be some disparity. However, realistically, teams like Colerain and Hilliard Davidson would certainly win a good number of those D1 titles. D3? Well that's just going to be a cakewalk for Steubenville almost every single year. D4-D6, well those divisions are going to belong to the MAC (and I know you hate me bringing them up, but there is no doubt that they would totally dominate without any private schools to oppose them). So while separating the playoffs will give public schools state titles, it will not help to even anything out because it's just going to be the same teams winning every year.
  
  As I, and a number of people have said, a multiplier would not be met by much opposition. However, basing a multiplier solely on whether a school is private or not is not the best scenario. That's why I said designating feeder schools would be a viable solution. That way, everyone is affected by kids coming in from outside of their feeder system.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000635 wrote:See, EVERYONE had a chance to win a title, right? You guys play it off as only 2 parochial schools had a chance to play for a title....And 2 won it, right? That is 2 out of 6, right? That is 33.3% of state champions right? Parochial schools in Ohio do not make up 33.3% of member schools, right?

  Are you asking me? I will respond as if you are.
  
  I do NOT play it off as if only 2 had the opportunity to win a title. Do not include me with your "you guys" statements. I have consistently said ALL parochials had a chance to win one just as ALL public schools do.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000632 wrote:Why would you assume that? I never referenced any school as a whiner. It's not a waste at all if it gave the members the opportunity to clarify their position through vote to those who didn't know of said position directly.
  
  That's very valuable in and of itself. add to it the discussions it created amongst members to assist them in coming to their conclusions before voting.
  
  A waste? Not necessarily. It seems as if you are assuming many things about this.

  
  
  I wasn't refering to YOU personally as saying any school whined, again though, maybe the vote would have been different had the proposal been different.
• Con_Alma

  sherm03;1000638 wrote:Here's the issue with separating the playoffs. ...

  The biggest issue with separating the playoffs is there will be no reason for the private schools to remain in the OHSAA and the OHSAA will not be willing to lose the revenue brought in by those privates.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000642 wrote:I wasn't refering to YOU personally as saying any school whined, again though, maybe the vote would have been different had the proposal been different.

  I can't assume why or what you are posting. I only can go by the words you put down when you respond to me.
  
  Indeed the vote might have been different but isn't that an assumption? Is it anymore accurate to assume that anymore than the assumed position that the members don't want things to change?
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000640 wrote:Are you asking me? I will respond as if you are.
  
  I do NOT play it off as if only 2 had the opportunity to win a title. Do not include me with your "you guys" statements. I have consistently said ALL parochials had a chance to win one just as ALL public schools do.

  
  
  Sorry, I worded that wrong, It should read, You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that although every parochial had the chance to play for a title, only two made it, to me that sounds as if you're trying to justify a balanced system, I simply said in the end, 33.3% of the schools that won a state title this year were parochial, and parochial schools do not make up 33.3% of member schools.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000646 wrote:I can't assume why or what you are posting. I only can go by the words you put down when you respond to me.
  
  Indeed the vote might have been different but isn't that an assumption? Is it anymore accurate to assume that anymore than the assumed position that the members don't want things to change?

  
  
  Agreed, that's why I said, "maybe", the vote would have been different.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000648 wrote:Sorry, I worded that wrong, It should read, You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that although every parochial had the chance to play for a title, only two made it, to me that sounds as if you're trying to justify a balanced system, I simply said in the end, 33.3% of the schools that won a state title this year were parochial, and parochial schools do not make up 33.3% of member schools.

  Well you are wrong. I am not trying to justify anything. Parochial schools won 33% of the titles because those teams were better than those that didn't win.
  
  To me I don't care if there are only 2 parochial schools in the State and the win 33% of the titles. It appears to me that it is you that want a balance between titles and type of member schools...kind of like a quota.
  
  Heck, I'd rather have one true champion....one division, all schools....but see that's not what the members want so I don't get my way.
• Con_Alma

  skank;1000651 wrote:Agreed, that's why I said, "maybe", the vote would have been different.

  ...making it completely irrelevant. The vote to change didn't happen. that we know and that's what matters right now.
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000654 wrote:Well you are wrong. I am not trying to justify anything. Parochial schools won 33% of the titles because those teams were better than those that didn't win.
  
  To me I don't care if there are only 2 parochial schools in the State and the win 33% of the titles. It appears to me that it is you that want a balance between titles and member schools...kind of like a quota.
  
  Heck, I'd rather have one true champion....one division, all schools....but see that's not what the members want so I don't get my way.

  
  
  Then YOU'D be wrong, because that's not what I want, I do however want something better than we have, according to the numbers I posted earlier, there is a competative balance issue wether anyone like it or not. Those numbers are 40 years worth of data, if it were just 6, 7, or 8, that's one thing, but 40 years?
• skank

  

  Con_Alma;1000656 wrote:...making it completely irrelevant. The vote to change didn't happen. that we know and that's what matters right now.

  
  
  Obviously.