Multiplier rule did what it was suppose to do!

[my2cents]

You can discuss every team in your region in the Football forum as long as you are discussing football. Your reasoning is exactly why there is a Public-Private Debate board and why this thread belongs in it.

Nice try, mine got sent here too.

[lazarus]

"I can't outlast you here. I have a job."

 

you have a job!?

 

and here i was guessing you were about 14.

[Ohio Vol]

I have a better idea here.

 

Throw out the multiplier, make all same-sized schools play each other.....but give the publics a 4-touchdown advantage to begin every game.

 

That way if a public loses, they REALLY have no excuse.

[TalentWinsGames]

"talent wins games"? I thought it was playing schools half your size. We do agree on one thing. Clint is a CHUMP!!! I'd say don't worry about our schedule. We lost to 1 team in our new classification this year, Tyner. It sounds to me like they should have beaten Alcoa when they played, so we're fine with how our 1st year in 2A went. I know DCA was down this year, as was CPA, as was Boyd. I don't care about who beat who and in what round. I think any of those schools would love to play TC year in and year out, won't happen too many RBS like schools for Clint to schedule. You are right about me being slow though, if that makes you feel better.

I thoroughly know the history of Boyd football. As well, I know a lot of TN high school football. So, please do not patronize me and assume that you know more than I about football. You made the statement that DCA, CPA, and Boyd could win 1-A. That was a dumb comment. I can say it in a constructive manner if that would make you feel better. Here, let me try. You made a few good points, but that one could have been worded differently. Does that make it better? Bottomline, Trousdale Co. would have won against all three teams.

Please, do not say that the better team lost. I am referring to your comments on the Tyner vs. Alcoa matchup. I know you may not have said it in those exact words, but you mentioned that Tyner should have won. Were you there? That's right you went off of a stat sheet. Let me tell you. Good teams do not fumble. The better team obviously won because they had more points in the end. I get frustrated when people claim the better team lost. How is that? Other than Missouri when Colorado was given five downs to end the game, no team/ person/ coach can make that claim. Good teams do not fumble. If Tyner was the better team, then they would have not given the ball up to Alcoa. Also, take a look at my name. Alcoa had too much talent for Tyner. Your lucky Boyd did not have to play. BTW, welcome to 2-A. If I were Akins, I would recruit some fast kids. He's living in East TN where speed dominates right now. Boyd looks too much like Goodpasture, slow. Also, ask Akins why you throw on 3rd goal when you have the #2 team in the state beat with 5 minutes remaining (referring to 1999).

Edited December 9, 2005 by TalentWinsGames

[Antwan]

I have a better idea here.

 

Throw out the multiplier, make all same-sized schools play each other.....but give the publics a 4-touchdown advantage to begin every game.

 

That way if a public loses, they REALLY have no excuse.

 

Nah...I have a better idea. You worry about Ohio...we'll take care of things here.

You have no idea of what the deal is here It is not like your state. I see a lot of things wrong there too (from my limited knowledge of Ohio). We really don't need your input...unless it is of substance. Your previous post does not warrant any credibility.

[Antwan]

"I can't outlast you here. I have a job."

 

you have a job!?

 

and here i was guessing you were about 14.

 

Gee...is there no limit to private school people's advantages? BUCCO has a job...wow...I'm impressed.

BUCK ROGERS...you still haven't answered the question. Is it tougher against larger schools? If so...was it easier or more difficult

when we moved up to 3a? Were we "avoiding" easier teams? I have the answer if you don't.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Antwan

[Bighurt]

This topic is titled "Multiplier rule did what it was suppose to do! - Public schools take back the Gridiron!".

 

I have 2 questions -

 

What was the multiplier rule suppose to do?

 

Are you happy now?

I don't know...move the problem up one class? ...and no.

My point is the goal of most proponents of the multiplier (I don't include Antwan in the "most" category. He has always been for a complete split.) appears to be that no private school would win a state championship in DI football. That is why I asked the second question.

 

However, it seems a little hypocritical when people post comments like - "Public schools take back the Gridiron!" and the topic posted on the Football board titled "Lipscomb and Goodpasture - Privates can't hang with the Publics". Private school supporters need to move on and not whine. However, public school supporters don't need to taunt the private schools that got multiplied to a higher classification. It is a little like bragging that you and 5 of your guys can beat up me and 2 of my guys.

 

IMHO

Edited December 9, 2005 by Bighurt

[Antwan]

I don't know...move the problem up one class? ...and no.

 

My point is the goal of most proponents of the multiplier (I don't include Antwan in the "most" category. He has always been for a complete split.) appears to be that no private school would win a state championship in DI football. That is why I asked the second question.

 

However, it seems a little hypocritical when people post comments like - "Public schools take back the Gridiron!" and the topic posted on the Football board titled "Lipscomb and Goodpasture - Privates can't hang with the Publics". Private school supporters need to move on and not whine. However, public school supporters don't need to taunt the private schools that got multiplied to a higher classification. It is a little like bragging that you and 5 of your guys can beat up me and 2 of my guys.

 

IMHO

 

Agreed

[Ohio Vol]

Antwan,

 

First off, I am a former (and future) resident of the state of Tennessee.

 

Second, I'm fully aware of the myopia that develops within a particular set of issues when there is no outside perspective from how others in a similar situation address it. Every year around playoff and championship time, the familiar cries start up over how great or how deficient a particular system is. Nearly every state has a system unique to itself; not many people have the ability (or time) to investigate how certain ones do it. Since Ohio is my current residence and a terrific state for football (and also has no splits or multipliers), I believe it to be beneficial to see how it goes here as well (see my other thread on the final playoff update in Ohio).

 

Third, the 4-touchdown suggestion wasn't my own; that actually came to me from a head coach at a Knoxville-area public school shortly before I left East Tennessee three years ago. Of course, he didn't add in the other part about "not having an excuse". Thank you though, for pointing out the vacuousness of that particular statement; my only hope is that the coach (who was serious as a heart attack when he suggested it) can see the reaction on here.

 

That said, yes, Ohio does have problems. Every state in the country has a problem of some sort as a it pertains to high school sports, but the primary issue that a governing body has to deal with is how to address them (if they can be addressed and overcome) without damaging the kids or the schools who the governing body is supposed to help.

 

I believe that there are far too many of these bodies that have policies in place that do harm to the kids and the schools. Oregon, for example, has limits to how many kids can dress for a given game. That hurts younger players who now won't even have the chance to play in a blowout game, and prevents other kids from coming out to play football if they know going in that they can put in a full effort and practice well and still be stuck at home on Friday nights.

 

Ohio's primary problem comes from inconsistent application of major rules, with a strange apparent bias against private schools. When Lakewood St Edward's had an ineligible player participate in four games (the transfer paperwork had been improperly filed), the punishment was handed down in midseason that those four games would be forfeited (this was in 2004). It put St Ed's in serious jeopardy of not making the playoffs; they ended up getting in as a 5-5 #8 seed (out of 8), then they went out and beat the #1 seed. That same year, Akron Buchtel (a public city school) had a player who not only was ineligible (I believe for academics), but also violated transfer rules. He played in all 10 games....and no punishment was doled out. The inconsistency shocked a lot of people, needless to say.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Ohio Vol

[Antwan]

Antwan,

 

First off, I am a former (and future) resident of the state of Tennessee.

 

Second, I'm fully aware of the myopia that develops within a particular set of issues when there is no outside perspective from how others in a similar situation address it. Every year around playoff and championship time, the familiar cries start up over how great or how deficient a particular system is. Nearly every state has a system unique to itself; not many people have the ability (or time) to investigate how certain ones do it. Since Ohio is my current residence and a terrific state for football (and also has no splits or multipliers), I believe it to be beneficial to see how it goes here as well (see my other thread on the final playoff update in Ohio).

 

Third, the 4-touchdown suggestion wasn't my own; that actually came to me from a head coach at a Knoxville-area public school shortly before I left East Tennessee three years ago. Of course, he didn't add in the other part about "not having an excuse". Thank you though, for pointing out the vacuousness of that particular statement; my only hope is that the coach (who was serious as a heart attack when he suggested it) can see the reaction on here.

 

That said, yes, Ohio does have problems. Every state in the country has a problem of some sort as a it pertains to high school sports, but the primary issue that a governing body has to deal with is how to address them (if they can be addressed and overcome) without damaging the kids or the schools who the governing body is supposed to help.

 

I believe that there are far too many of these bodies that have policies in place that do harm to the kids and the schools. Oregon, for example, has limits to how many kids can dress for a given game. That hurts younger players who now won't even have the chance to play in a blowout game, and prevents other kids from coming out to play football if they know going in that they can put in a full effort and practice well and still be stuck at home on Friday nights.

 

Ohio's primary problem comes from inconsistent application of major rules, with a strange apparent bias against private schools. When Lakewood St Edward's had an ineligible player participate in four games (the transfer paperwork had been improperly filed), the punishment was handed down in midseason that those four games would be forfeited (this was in 2004). It put St Ed's in serious jeopardy of not making the playoffs; they ended up getting in as a 5-5 #8 seed (out of 8), then they went out and beat the #1 seed. That same year, Akron Buchtel (a public city school) had a player who not only was ineligible (I believe for academics), but also violated transfer rules. He played in all 10 games....and no punishment was doled out. The inconsistency shocked a lot of people, needless to say.

 

 

This post was has more credibility. Don't get me wrong. I am interested in hearing opinions...not idiotic ones like the one you quoted.

 

North Carolina limits varsity players too. I too disagree with that.

 

I don't know what the answer is. I do know there is a lot of animosity between publics and privates (DI and DII). I see a total split coming in 3 years.

Right or wrong...that's what is going to happen...IMHO.

 

As far as the violations in Ohio you mentioned. Maybe you don't know the whole story. If you do...that's not right. It sounds like our system is better in that regard.

[Ohio Vol]

 

I don't know what the answer is. I do know there is a lot of animosity between publics and privates (DI and DII). I see a total split coming in 3 years.

Right or wrong...that's what is going to happen...IMHO.

 

It'd be a shame to see that happen. The reason I've never (and will never) advocated a split or multiplier is because I believe it to be a built-in excuse. I was reading a thread in the main football forum where someone had mentioned putting open zone public schools in D-II, then someone else threw out the idea (facetiously) of putting open zones in their own division, private non-financial aid in their own division, private financial aid in their own division, and everyone else in their own...or else just stop the season after 10 games and give everyone a trophy and participation award.

 

My personal feeling is that the advantages and disadvantages between any of the factions are too great to quantify, let alone legislate away. There is no way to legislate equality, and is egalitarianism in football really a desired goal to begin with?

 

There are certainly schools (both public and private) that have the type of facilities that smaller college teams lack, and there are others (both public and private) that practice in overgrown weeds. But no one is suggesting that those schools or districts with higher property values should have their own division.

 

Just to quickly explain the Ohio divisional setup...there are 6 divisions; 1 is the largest and 6 is the smallest. To determine divisional alignment, the total number of able-bodied boys in the freshman, sophomore, and junior classes are tallied up; there then is a threshold for each division (i.e. 529+ is Division 1, 363-528 is Division 2, etc) that is as close to equal school numbers in each division. Each division has between 116-124 schools; the total number is 716. Schools do NOT have the option to move up a division for any reason. The able-bodied stipulation in student body count is to ensure that public schools are not disadvantaged by having those physically unable to play counted against them. There's one champion per division, so there's 6 title teams out of 716. (As I mentioned in the Ohio update thread, it's an even split this year; I can look up previous years if you'd like to see how it looks over time)

 

The state is then broken down into four regions per division, and the top 8 teams in each region make the playoffs. Each division has different boundary lines to allow for a like number of schools to be in each region. The maps can be views in PDF format here. Just a quick warning for dialups: that link will take a while to load.

 

As I mentioned before, every system has its strengths and flaws. The big question is how to address them in a way that works to the benefit of the schools and the kids involved. I guess if there was an easy answer, we wouldn't be having this discussion though.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Ohio Vol

[Ohio Vol]

Here's how the last 25 years of Ohio look; this year has been excepted. Every division except D-6 has had 25 state title games played; D-6 has had 11 since it was first formed in 1994. Remember, Division 1 is the biggest and 6 the smallest. Also keep in mind that Ohio does not have splits or multipliers

 

Division 1 -- 25 games, 50 total appearances......25 private appearances, 25 public appearances.....privates 15-10, publics 10-15.....title game has been private vs private 5 times, public vs public 5 times

 

Division 2 -- 25 games, 50 total appearances.....12 private appearances, 39 public appearances...privates 8-4, publics 17-21.....title game has been private vs private 2 times, public vs public 16 times

 

Division 3 -- 25 games, 50 total appearances.....30 private appearances, 20 public appearances...privates 21-9, publics 4-16.....title game has been private vs private 9 times, public vs public 4 times

 

Division 4 -- 25 games, 50 total appearances.....13 private appearances, 37 public appearances...privates 9-4, publics 16-21.....title game has been private vs private 2 times, public vs public 14 times

 

Division 5 -- 25 games, 50 total appearances.....16 private appearances, 34 public appearances...privates 9-7, publics 16-18.....title game has been private vs private 1 time, public vs public 10 times

 

Division 6 -- 11 games, 22 total appearances.....7 private appearances, 15 public appearances...privates 3-4, publics 8-7.....title game has been private vs private 3 times, public vs public 7 times

 

Non-religious private school CAPE (no longer exists) is 3-1 in 4 title games

Non-religious private school Gahanna Columbus Academy is 2-0 in 2 title games

 

For a complete spreadsheet including scores, check here. This year's scores and matchups have not yet been updated.