2025 Massillon Tigers

Mtiger25 said:
Yea a lot of those are not correct at all. Savior's is definitely off. You're right about Neal he's more 6'1 maybe 6'2 but the weight listed must've been when he was in elementary school lol. He's a big kid. I'm sure at some point they'll get it all corrected for everyone
Click to expand...
I just seen a article that came out yesterday on Rabun Gap from ON SI (sports Illustrated) and they already know about Saviors offers. It shows their up coming schedule and under Massillon it says RB Savior Owens with 4 D1 offers. Word spreads quick lol
 
@Maxie had mentioned a few months ago that a GA site had Valdosta at less wins. I decided to take a deep dive into these numbers… here is what I found. (Research done in collaboration with Georgia historians and Georgia media).

Valdosta counts 965 wins. The GA site counts 959.
This 959 number is more accurate than the 965 recorded by Valdosta. Here’s how they have less wins…

2018– They recorded an extra win where there is none existing. Bizarre due to the close proximity in years… how could a mistake have been made this recently? I confirmed with local Georgia media, CalPreps, and GAHSFB that there was no forfeit or extra game. That total takes the wins down to 964.

1942– A cancelled game (due to gate receipts) versus Moultrie was counted as a win for Valdosta. This was a mere attempt to boost wins during the first extensive count by the Wildcats in the 1970s. The game was considered no-contest in the books at the time. This takes the win total down to 963.

1929– 4 forfeits…. Valdosta played with an ineligible player and was forced to forfeit 4 games. In the 1970s Valdosta’s historian decided that he didn’t like the state’s decision to force forfeits and counted those games as wins without any backing (he was honest when he said many of his decisions were biased). The state and the GA football historic society still count those as forfeit losses and not wins. This takes Valdosta down to 959 wins.

The Wildcats are in essence tied with Massillon. Right now the Booster Club has lowered the win total to 960– I believe that by the time the season starts the two teams will be tied at 959. I am also in a conversation with the NFHS to lower the amount officially. Valdosta has not responded to any queries at this point.
 
Seth 🐅🏈 said:
@Maxie had mentioned a few months ago that a GA site had Valdosta at less wins. I decided to take a deep dive into these numbers… here is what I found. (Research done in collaboration with Georgia historians and Georgia media).

Valdosta counts 965 wins. The GA site counts 959.
This 959 number is more accurate than the 965 recorded by Valdosta. Here’s how they have less wins…

2018– They recorded an extra win where there is none existing. Bizarre due to the close proximity in years… how could a mistake have been made this recently? I confirmed with local Georgia media, CalPreps, and GAHSFB that there was no forfeit or extra game. That total takes the wins down to 964.

1942– A cancelled game (due to gate receipts) versus Moultrie was counted as a win for Valdosta. This was a mere attempt to boost wins during the first extensive count by the Wildcats in the 1970s. The game was considered no-contest in the books at the time. This takes the win total down to 963.

1929– 4 forfeits…. Valdosta played with an ineligible player and was forced to forfeit 4 games. In the 1970s Valdosta’s historian decided that he didn’t like the state’s decision to force forfeits and counted those games as wins without any backing (he was honest when he said many of his decisions were biased). The state and the GA football historic society still count those as forfeit losses and not wins. This takes Valdosta down to 959 wins.

The Wildcats are in essence tied with Massillon. Right now the Booster Club has lowered the win total to 960– I believe that by the time the season starts the two teams will be tied at 959. I am also in a conversation with the NFHS to lower the amount officially. Valdosta has not responded to any queries at this point.
Click to expand...
WOW!! Great research, Seth. Thank you for all your hard work. Sure sheds a different light on the entire situation, doesn't it? LOL.
 
Egret said:
WOW!! Great research, Seth. Thank you for all your hard work. Sure sheds a different light on the entire situation, doesn't it? LOL.
Click to expand...
It’s very interesting… Valdosta is both biased and has made some very glaring mistakes in their account. That is one thing that I can say the Tiger historians have not been. Every game is verified and backed with proof. Valdosta…. not so much.
 
Seth 🐅🏈 said:
It’s very interesting… Valdosta is both biased and has made some very glaring mistakes in their account. That is one thing that I can say the Tiger historians have not been. Every game is verified and backed with proof. Valdosta…. not so much.
Click to expand...
Our wins are verified, but some Mck fans swear we made up some wins that we added a few years ago that were prior to 1894 because Massillon showed no proof the games were played and always said our history began in 1894.Not that we care what they think and someone acknowledged them enough to count them.
 
TigerBeast78 said:
Our wins are verified, but some Mck fans swear we made up some wins that we added a few years ago that were prior to 1894 because Massillon showed no proof the games were played and always said our history began in 1894.Not that we care what they think and someone acknowledged them enough to count them.
Click to expand...
Jim, Gary, Don, and others have definitely done their research.
McK will always find some way to cry!!
 
TigerBeast78 said:
Our wins are verified, but some Mck fans swear we made up some wins that we added a few years ago that were prior to 1894 because Massillon showed no proof the games were played and always said our history began in 1894.Not that we care what they think and someone acknowledged them enough to count them.
Click to expand...
If you want to irritate Mutt fans tell them there wins should be divided into 3 separate categories.. #1 McKinley, #2 McKinley,Lincoln, Lehman #3 McKinley, Lincoln, Lehman, Timken.. I have pizzed off many of them with this. The funny part is the more schools they merge the worse they get.
 
firewatch said:
If you want to irritate Mutt fans tell them there wins should be divided into 3 separate categories.. #1 McKinley, #2 McKinley,Lincoln, Lehman #3 McKinley, Lincoln, Lehman, Timken.. I have pizzed off many of them with this. The funny part is the more schools they merge the worse they get.
Click to expand...
Technically it's true and they do get worse with mergers. I can understand them questioning the recent added wins that were prior to 1894. I don't understand it myself how for over 100 years it was said we started playing football in 1894 then a few years ago after all this time it was changed, but I still believe it and know we just didn't make this crap up. You don't just make things up like that , it would be too easy to disapprove if it wasn't true.
 
TigerBeast78 said:
Technically it's true and they do get worse with mergers. I can understand them questioning the recent added wins that were prior to 1894. I don't understand it myself how for over 100 years it was said we started playing football in 1894 then a few years ago after all this time it was changed, but I still believe it and know we just didn't make this crap up. You don't just make things up like that , it would be too easy to disapprove if it wasn't true.
Click to expand...
I think a few guys started looking into the old Massillon papers. There were a lot of old records kept on microfilm at the library. People like Ron Prunty went in and looked extensively… I want to do a piece about some things I found in the records— a lot of cool stuff about the late 1890s semi-pro Massillon teams.
 
Seth 🐅🏈 said:
I think a few guys started looking into the old Massillon papers. There were a lot of old records kept on microfilm at the library. People like Ron Prunty went in and looked extensively… I want to do a piece about some things I found in the records— a lot of cool stuff about the late 1890s semi-pro Massillon teams.
Click to expand...
Thanks,I knew it came from somewhere and knew it's not something Massillon historians would of made up
 
Mtiger25 said:
So what year are we claiming to be the start if it wasn't 1894?
Click to expand...
1891 is the official start of the team of high school players (whether a club sport or other). 1894 is only the first year vs Canton. 1903-04 is the first team to be officially recognized as a “varsity sport”. The HS supported the team in the earlier couple of years without officially making it a varsity sport. The team did represent the HS from at least 1891 on, however. This was not separate from the HS. We may have even begun football earlier but there is no record. The first press coverage is seen in 1891.
 
Seth 🐅🏈 said:
1891 is the official start of the team of high school players (whether a club sport or other). 1894 is only the first year vs Canton. 1903-04 is the first team to be officially recognized as a “varsity sport”. The HS supported the team in the earlier couple of years without officially making it a varsity sport. The team did represent the HS from at least 1891 on, however. This was not separate from the HS. We may have even begun football earlier but there is no record. The first press coverage is seen in 1891.
Click to expand...
Seth you continue to be a rock star!.. thanks for all this research
 
pup pounder said:
7 touchdown win in baseball 😃
Click to expand...
Wow. Reminds me of a basketball score I read about last year. This high school team in Texas beat a team 100 to 0 in high school basketball. Seems nearly impossible to shut a team out in basketball. My only thinking was this team turned the ball over on almost every possession or had terrible shooters or a combination of both of those things .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top