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

• Al Bundy

  skank;582371 wrote:As I've said countless times on this very thread, it's not that kids choose privates, it's the lengths that the OHSAA allows them to go to attract these kids.

  The next thing you know there will be jobs offered to parents if they agree to enroll their kids at a certain school.
• Alma_Parker

  I suspect that I lack the requisite perspicuity to comprehensively apprehend the glory of your logic, but I do love your coinage of "cognize." And I do cognize myself that, at least, your own 'arguments,' against the privates make more sense than most of the others' on here. For a moment there, you and sherm had a fair exchange, until your reach into the "no weight room" zone when you know he was making a comparative statement and not an absolute one. I've said it two or three way, apparently well enough to make skank go back to sleep: it's about great programs, and all that goes into them, accreting over time, expanding out from the coach; it's not very much about north or south or catholic or public or rich or poor. A little bit, perhaps, but not very much. One view from somebody who knows the most about one little poor, small, and public program from the south, which has made the playoffs 28 times. Go Ironton. While skank and his buddies drone on about why they got screwed again, Coach Lutz will watch some film and re-load. I heard the JV and frosh both looked OK this year.
• Dean Wormer

  Skank my friend:
  
  I apologize for the iron head comment. I didn't mean it so much as an insult but as a point of fact that no amount of argument can change your mind. I think that your anger is better directed at the OHSAA instead of individual parochial schools. I believe just the opposite of you though. I think it is quite obvious that the OHSAA's transfer rule is blatantly biased against private schools. As a matter of fact I can't believe some elite lawyer hasn't brought a lawsuit on the private school's behalf.
• etak

  skank;582365 wrote:A parochial school supporter directing the word elitism at anyone but himself or his parochial pals is quite the funny. (at least based on what I've read on this site.)

  Then I guess you didn't read the entire thread.
• SUPER787

  Al Bundy;582416 wrote:The next thing you know there will be jobs offered to parents if they agree to enroll their kids at a certain school.

  What do you mean, "The next Thing?" That has been and still is going on. That's not the School doing it, but the boosters with deep pockets that can offer jobs to certain parents out of work that have athletes that will benefit the programs. That's not something the Ohio Athletic Association can do anything about. There is no way you will ever stop a person from hiring anyone he/she chooses.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  etak;582322 wrote:Excellent. Then I'll admit to being hypersensitive to the pervasive, persistent notion so many on this blogsite seem to have that private and parochial school attendees are elitist, and that all private and parochial school programs are fraught with cheaters and scammers. I came from a middle class family, and I had to work enough hours through my high school career to pay for half my tuition each year because my folks didn't have it. My social worker brother and his part-time employed wife have taken out a home equity loan to cover the tuition costs for their sons.They are not rich and they are not elitist. They have simply made a choice. Please consider these kinds of folks when making your prejudgements about private/parochial school patrons.

  I have stated before that if I had to live in Youngstown my kids would go to Mooney. But I still would not defend the guideline disparity as a minor aberration with a diminutive effect.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  Alma_Parker;582444 wrote:I suspect that I lack the requisite perspicuity to comprehensively apprehend the glory of your logic, but I do love your coinage of "cognize." And I do cognize myself that, at least, your own 'arguments,' against the privates make more sense than most of the others' on here. For a moment there, you and sherm had a fair exchange, until your reach into the "no weight room" zone when you know he was making a comparative statement and not an absolute one. ...

  I digressed. Perhaps due to posts other than sherms. Once the sarcasm erupts it is reined in reluctantly.
  

  Alma_Parker;582444 wrote:... I've said it two or three way, apparently well enough to make skank go back to sleep: it's about great programs, and all that goes into them, accreting over time, expanding out from the coach; it's not very much about north or south or catholic or public or rich or poor. A little bit, perhaps, but not very much. One view from somebody who knows the most about one little poor, small, and public program from the south, which has made the playoffs 28 times. Go Ironton. While skank and his buddies drone on about why they got screwed again, Coach Lutz will watch some film and re-load. I heard the JV and frosh both looked OK this year.

  As I agreed with sherm I shall with you in that programs do succeed. We will have to disagree on the ramifications the disparity in guidelines induces. Some institutions benefit greatly from them in my humble opinion.
• Al Bundy

  SUPER787;582753 wrote:What do you mean, "The next Thing?" That has been and still is going on. That's not the School doing it, but the boosters with deep pockets that can offer jobs to certain parents out of work that have athletes that will benefit the programs. That's not something the Ohio Athletic Association can do anything about. There is no way you will ever stop a person from hiring anyone he/she chooses.

  
  I know it is going on. That statement was made in jest because one of the posters on here who whines the most about private schools is a fan of a public school program who was able to get a star recruit from another state because his dad was given a job.
• Alma_Parker

  tsst_fballfan;582789 wrote:I digressed. Perhaps due to posts other than sherms. Once the sarcasm erupts it is reined in reluctantly.
  
  As I agreed with sherm I shall with you in that programs do succeed. We will have to disagree on the ramifications the disparity in guidelines induces. Some institutions benefit greatly from them in my humble opinion.

  
  Fair enough. As in most cases, we're somewhere between black and white. And a civil discussion among folks with presumably similar interests (e.g. Good outcomes for kids, community purpose and pride, and kick-ass football in Ohio) is a welcome break from the kind of negative energy that seemed to have started this thread and evidenced by some of the pilers-on.
  
  So if for a moment we set aside the two-track, good/less-good, private/public idea and remember as several folks have pointed out that there are plenty of not-so-good football programs in private schools of all sizes (which means we probably should also set aside the enrollment-multiplier ideas), what else can we look at? I've heard somewhere that one or more states uses a system where teams can voluntarily 'play-up' but not down. So Ironton and Ursuline and Mogadore and DeSales could voluntarily bump up a class or two if they wished. This would allow them to accrue even more prestige. Lots of the geniuses on here are convinced that Ursuline could win D-II every year if they had a shot.. and some folks at the program might be willing to move up a notch or two. Presumably this would give the program even more to be proud of. But it avoids the unhappy outcomes of the mono-class tournaments that some states have for basketball where the spectacularly good small town 'one-timer' program dies early against the much bigger school. Could anything like this work? Would anybody do it?
• tsst_fballfan

  

  Alma_Parker;583094 wrote:Fair enough. As in most cases, we're somewhere between black and white. And a civil discussion among folks with presumably similar interests (e.g. Good outcomes for kids, community purpose and pride, and kick-ass football in Ohio) is a welcome break from the kind of negative energy that seemed to have started this thread and evidenced by some of the pilers-on.
  
  So if for a moment we set aside the two-track, good/less-good, private/public idea and remember as several folks have pointed out that there are plenty of not-so-good football programs in private schools of all sizes (which means we probably should also set aside the enrollment-multiplier ideas), what else can we look at? I've heard somewhere that one or more states uses a system where teams can voluntarily 'play-up' but not down. So Ironton and Ursuline and Mogadore and DeSales could voluntarily bump up a class or two if they wished. This would allow them to accrue even more prestige. Lots of the geniuses on here are convinced that Ursuline could win D-II every year if they had a shot.. and some folks at the program might be willing to move up a notch or two. Presumably this would give the program even more to be proud of. But it avoids the unhappy outcomes of the mono-class tournaments that some states have for basketball where the spectacularly good small town 'one-timer' program dies early against the much bigger school. Could anything like this work? Would anybody do it?

  The viewpoint shared by Sykotyk earlier seemed conceivable. It does not solve every issue but maintaining status quo can not be considered the resolution. Establishing exceedingly similar if not egalitarian guidelines needs to be the starting point. Utilizing divergent guidelines to govern organizations in direct competition in an association is, in my opinion, causation of threads of this type. I don't begrudge those showing emotion in their denouncing of the issues anymore than I would a fan yelling from the stands about a bad call. If the differences didn't exist nor would these threads.
  
  sherm has attempted to draw comparison based on performance using the MAC schools in particular. You don't see complaints along those lines simply because with the exception of Delphos those schools share the same guidelines as other D5 D6 schools. In my opinion it has little to do with performance. The issue is more about advantages created by the guideline difference that some schools benefit greatly from. Their disproportionate performance is a symptom of the larger issue.
  
  IMHO Divisional changes, self instituted, would do little and be more of the proverbial bandaid.
  
  And btw I love kick-ass football in Ohio!
• fish82

  

  tsst_fballfan;583222 wrote:The viewpoint shared by Sykotyk earlier seemed conceivable. It does not solve every issue but maintaining status quo can not be considered the resolution. Establishing exceedingly similar if not egalitarian guidelines needs to be the starting point. Utilizing divergent guidelines to govern organizations in direct competition in an association is, in my opinion, causation of threads of this type. I don't begrudge those showing emotion in their denouncing of the issues anymore than I would a fan yelling from the stands about a bad call. If the differences didn't exist nor would these threads.
  
  sherm has attempted to draw comparison based on performance using the MAC schools in particular. You don't see complaints along those lines simply because with the exception of Delphos those schools share the same guidelines as other D5 D6 schools. In my opinion it has little to do with performance. The issue is more about advantages created by the guideline difference that some schools benefit greatly from. Their disproportionate performance is a symptom of the larger issue.
  
  IMHO Divisional changes, self instituted, would do little and be more of the proverbial bandaid.
  
  And btw I love kick-ass football in Ohio!

  
  If the "advantages" are that egregious, then why do so few privates consistently dominate? As sherm illustrated, there a multitude of private schools that don't even sniff the playoffs, let alone a title.
• Bigdogg

  fish82;583378 wrote:If the "advantages" are that egregious, then why do so few privates consistently dominate? As sherm illustrated, there a multitude of private schools that don't even sniff the playoffs, let alone a title.

  
  Yet there are many more public schools proportionally that never sniff the playoffs either.
• sherm03

  

  Bigdogg;583555 wrote:Yet there are many more public schools proportionally that never sniff the playoffs either.

  Only because there are more public schools. Private schools make up a small number of the total number of the schools. Of that small number, a small number of teams do well year in and year out. Public schools make up a very large number of the total schools. Of that very large number, a small number of teams do well year in and year out.
  
  Bottom line, a very small number of teams...public or private...do well year in and year out.
  
  I think the idea of giving teams the option to play up is a good idea. I think teams like Mooney, Ursuline, Delphos, Newark Catholic, Coldwater, and Versailles would all move up. Those teams are always competitive, and would still do well if they moved up a division or 2.
  
  But it also doesn't penalize the smaller Catholic schools who constantly underperform just because they are private.
• Thinthickbigred

  fish82;583378 wrote:If the "advantages" are that egregious, then why do so few privates consistently dominate? As sherm illustrated, there a multitude of private schools that don't even sniff the playoffs, let alone a title.

  
  You have different eras.............Newark Catholic....70s..80s..90... Cinci Moeller...70s..80.. Cleve Ignatius...90s...00s... Delphos St Johns..00s.......Ursulin..00s... Mooney ...50s..60s..70s.80s..90s..00s..........Cinci Elder..00s......Toledo catholic teams have been sporadic..Watterson and DeSales have been sporadic .....on and on and on and on Info is public knowledge
• sherm03

  

  Thinthickbigred;583581 wrote:You have different eras.............Newark Catholic....70s..80s..90... Cinci Moeller...70s..80.. Cleve Ignatius...90s...00s... Delphos St Johns..00s.......Ursulin..00s... Mooney ...50s..60s..70s.80s..90s..00s..........Cinci Elder..00s......Toledo catholic teams have been sporadic..Watterson and DeSales have been sporadic .....on and on and on and on Info is public knowledge

  
  So you are proving that it is just a small number of private schools that do well on a consistent basis?
  
  Thank you! It only took you 500 posts to come around!!
• skank

  

  Al Bundy;582798 wrote:I know it is going on. That statement was made in jest because one of the posters on here who whines the most about private schools is a fan of a public school program who was able to get a star recruit from another state because his dad was given a job.

  
  Let's be serious here for a second. Do you honestly believe....That DIEBOLD....A company based out of Green....That builds safes, Bank Vault Doors, voting machines, ATM machines, and the such....Had something to do with transfering an employee....ALLLLLLLLLL THE WAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY....To benefit the Massillon football program?
  
  Maybe you should look into the Perry wrestling program, they get kids from out of state....And they STILL can't beat Lakewood St. Edward, who....btw, just happens to be a....say it with me....Parochial school.
• Bigdogg

  sherm03;583591 wrote:So you are proving that it is just a small number of private schools that do well on a consistent basis?
  
  Thank you! It only took you 500 posts to come around!!

  
  And a small number of public do well also. Why is it you do not understand that the facts show a significant number of private schools win a disproportionate proportion of state championships because they are creaming the best students and the best athletes out of the total population of students available. It is as simple as that.
• sherm03

  

  Bigdogg;583609 wrote:And a small number of public do well also. Why is it you do not understand that the facts show a significant number of private schools win a disproportionate proportion of state championships because they are creaming the best students and the best athletes out of the total population of students available. It is as simple as that.

  
  Why is it that you do not understand that the facts show that a significant number of schools (both private and public) win a disproportionate proportion of state championships because the good programs continue to be good programs year in and year out?
  
  Maybe you missed it before when I posted it. But here you go.
  
  34 private schools have won 92 titles.
  65 public schools have won 99 titiles.
  
  There are 715 total schools that field a football team in the state of Ohio.
  
  So no, a "significant number" of private schools do not win a disproportionate proportion of state championships. A small number of private schools have won about half of the titles. And a small number of public schools have won about half of the titles.
• skank

  

  Dean Wormer;582506 wrote:Skank my friend:
  
  I apologize for the iron head comment. I didn't mean it so much as an insult but as a point of fact that no amount of argument can change your mind. I think that your anger is better directed at the OHSAA instead of individual parochial schools. I believe just the opposite of you though. I think it is quite obvious that the OHSAA's transfer rule is blatantly biased against private schools. As a matter of fact I can't believe some elite lawyer hasn't brought a lawsuit on the private school's behalf.

  
  You are correct, go back throught the thread and you'll see several times where I have stated this.
• SUPER787

  skank;583607 wrote:Let's be serious here for a second. Do you honestly believe....That DIEBOLD....A company based out of Green....That builds safes, Bank Vault Doors, voting machines, ATM machines, and the such....Had something to do with transfering an employee....ALLLLLLLLLL THE WAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY....To benefit the Massillon football program?
  
  Skank, that does sound like a stretch. But, I will mention something that happened in our family. Back in the sixties, when the Eagle Bakery in Alliance was burned down during the riots, my uncle was offered a job with the City of Massillon if he would move there with his 5 sons. The boys didn't want to move and the family stayed in Alliance. They became: 1 lineman of the year and 4 first and 2nd team All Ohio Linemen.
  Like I stated earlier, don't blame the schools for booster actions.
  Cheers.

• Al Bundy

  SUPER787;583804 wrote:

  skank;583607 wrote:Let's be serious here for a second. Do you honestly believe....That DIEBOLD....A company based out of Green....That builds safes, Bank Vault Doors, voting machines, ATM machines, and the such....Had something to do with transfering an employee....ALLLLLLLLLL THE WAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY....To benefit the Massillon football program?
  
  Skank, that does sound like a stretch. But, I will mention something that happened in our family. Back in the sixties, when the Eagle Bakery in Alliance was burned down during the riots, my uncle was offered a job with the City of Massillon if he would move there with his 5 sons. The boys didn't want to move and the family stayed in Alliance. They became: 1 lineman of the year and 4 first and 2nd team All Ohio Linemen.
  Like I stated earlier, don't blame the schools for booster actions.
  Cheers.

  
  There is also an Oregon company that hosts a combine in Massillon, but that couldn't have anything to do with Massillon bringing in players from that state because a public school would never do that. I'm sure he went there for the great education. They passed 14 out of 26 standards. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcardfiles/2009-2010/DIST/044354.pdf

• skank

  

  Al Bundy;584022 wrote:

  SUPER787;583804 wrote:
  There is also an Oregon company that hosts a combine in Massillon, but that couldn't have anything to do with Massillon bringing in players from that state because a public school would never do that. I'm sure he went there for the great education. They passed 14 out of 26 standards. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcardfiles/2009-2010/DIST/044354.pdf

  
  Massillon "brought" in...."players"? Players? From Oregon. Players? Plural....Players? Maybe KK should have gone to Mooney, he would have had his education paid for.

• skank

  

  Just admit it Bundy, Mooney recruits....Recruits....Recruits.
• Al Bundy

  skank;584064 wrote:

  Al Bundy;584022 wrote:
  Massillon "brought" in...."players"? Players? From Oregon. Players? Plural....Players? Maybe KK should have gone to Mooney, he would have had his education paid for.

  
  He isn't having education paid for at Massillon?

• Al Bundy

  skank;584064 wrote:

  Al Bundy;584022 wrote:
  Massillon "brought" in...."players"? Players? From Oregon. Players? Plural....Players? Maybe KK should have gone to Mooney, he would have had his education paid for.

  
  He isn't having his education paid for at Massillon?