D-I verse D-II

[FrankL]

I just want your opinon on which Divison is better in tennessee highschool football. Here are a few facts over the past eight years....58 public schools are 0-221 (0%) against private schools....139 or 69% of public schools that have played against private schools have a losing record against them.....Private schools have a 1040-546 (66%) winning record against public schools in the past eight years.

[boneal52]

This will get moved reeeeeeal fast.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

Sorry this belongs on the public/private debate.

[DanielPhipps]

FrankL - this thread was started at relatively the same time as another similar thread, on the football board. Same figures, same everything. Are you also mafiaman?? You know that those stats you told are purely fictitious and in no way could be true. I think you are just trying to start a heated argument. This thread should be locked because it is only out to stir up trouble, not genuinely debate a controversial topic. Please lock this thread before it gets out of hand.

[rollredroll]

DanielPhipps, the stats are actually true for the period of 1993-2000 (see the attached link for the website of Earl Nall). I would guess that the trend was probably similar for 2001 and 2002.

 

We appreciate the effort, FrankL, but this is old news. I would vote that we would lock the thread more so for the fact that it is statistics like these that are the basis for many of the arguments already on the P/P board, and they already have been rehashed ad nauseum.

 

http://enall.home.att.net/privpub.htm

[Edited by rollredroll on 3-11-03 3:50P]

 

[CoachtFAN]

The fact is, statistics can be manipulated any way you want them. Only 28% of privates have a winning record against public school. Earl Nall (who is a good man) is a little biased against privates. Notice that in those 58 publics who never won in those 8 years, he doesn't give their overall records either. I bet most of those teams didn't win more than 1 or 2 games in the season anyway. Notice that overall, privates won only a little more than half of their games, and that was with completely dominant teams in the BA era. He also doesn't account for all of the GOOD public teams who actually dominate football. Earl Nall can manipulate his statistics any way he wants -- he's an intelligent mathematician. All these stats do is give rebels a chance to try and douse the flames with more cheap fuel. I don't think this thread is legit. It has run its course. Please lock it.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

I really don't see a reason to lock it.

 

If the statistics say one thing, but you believe there is a different story then what better place to discuss them then on here.

 

If you don't want to talk about this particular thread, then just don't comment on them. I don't comment on most of the public/ private threads because I don't really think they are that interesting. If coachT or another moderator thinks that it needs to be locked, that is fine...but its been dead on here lately, why not see how it goes, and then lock it if it gets out of hand.

 

By the way, top to bottom D2 is better then D1 in football and probably wrestling IMO, I give baseball and basketball the edge to D1. (If you say all privates versus publics though and include those who do not give financial aide such as Goodpasture or Lipscomb, it might be a different story).

 

These threads that pertain to the public/ private debate have been going on for over a year (some of us old timers discussed it way back last summer).

[WarriorFan]

Why lock this thread when the stats show the truth? If someone cannot deal with the truth, then why come to the public versus private discussion? Another attempt to get the truth covered up.....

[CoachtFAN]

Brandon100 - You are new to this debate. Please read my previous post.

 

The fact is, stats (in this case Earl Nall's) can be manipulated to say anything you want. These stats were manipulated to incite riots against private schools. They are not presented with all sides of the stats (refer to previous post). Where do all the other public schools (almost 100) in that time period who didn't play privates fit in to these percentages. Their overall records would probably align with the overall records of the publics who do play privates. The ratio would be about the same.

 

But why didn't Earl Nall include the overall records of the 58 teams who didn't beat a private once? Or why didn't he give the the overall losing record percentages of every school, regardless of whether they play privates or not? Because Earl Nall wanted to make it look like privates were controlling the game. You can't dispute the facts, and I don't, BUT you must include ALL of the facts. These facts were presented in partial format to look grossly disproportionate to reality.

 

Out of 300 public schools, how many would you expect to have a losing record. Probably 60%, but let's go with conservative estimates of 50%, half and half. That's only 20% difference, and you have to figure that some privates are good and gonna win games.

 

Also, remember Earl Nall chose a section of years that coincides with the rise and decline of the BA Dynasty. Look at several other privates who were dominant in those years. Now, look at the current state of football. Most privates do not dominate the scene these days.

 

Earl Nall chose a specific time period which he KNEW was not truly characteristic of reality. He also chose to leave some of the facts missing (like overall records, in case you forgot). I choose to disagree with Nall on the basis of misconstrued statistics.

 

I hope you all will see the truth in such a blinded hatred against private schools.

[Edited by CoachtFAN on 3-12-03 11:52A]

 

[WarriorFan]

Coach T Fan, you will find from old posts that I have been in this debate since last summer on this board. I am not new, and I know what I am talking about. Actually, CoachTFan, the Brentwood Academy dynasty has been going on since the early 1970's. More state championships were won by BA in the 1980's, as well as state championship runner-up's in the 1980's than in the 1990's. BA teams of the 2000's are no where near the teams of the 1980's, I can assure you. I played for BA, and have followed them since the 1970's. My belief is that it is ok to show how dominate the privates are, because they ARE that much better.

Now....let's talk about you becoming a CoachT plus member, and not just a poster. It appears that you have posted less than 80 times with 12 good marks. You are a "new poster", but it is evident you have some good things to say. $12 is not alot to help this board stay alive...

[Edited by Brandon100 on 3-12-03 8:13P]

[Edited by Brandon100 on 3-12-03 8:22P]

 

[CoachtFAN]

Brandon100 - I do believe there are dominant privates and I'm not trying to take away from them. I'm merely telling whiners in the public section that they can't just try and manipulate facts to say that privates get gold balls delivered to them on silver platters. That's what this thread was really started for. It was to make privates look perfect like something was wrong: recruiting. That's what every private bashing debate boils down to.

 

By the way, you plus members are funny. Every single post you make ends with asking for money and a membership with coacht... almost like a telemarketer. I'll think about it.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

We are helping coachT.

 

 

coachTfan...

 

how much of a fan can you be and not be a plus member?