View Full Version : 10-01-07 Power Rankings
consumerman
10-01-07, 05:04 PM
http://calpreps.com/2007/ratings/National_all25.htm
consumerman
10-01-07, 05:15 PM
SLC has played 4 opponents this year
they have combined for 6 wins
and that includes 4 by MNW
??????
DLSfanNW
10-01-07, 05:55 PM
I am not sure what the rating is for their last opponent but The 'ragons first team defense gave up a touchdown to a team ranked in the 2000s game before last.
Not exactly the sign of an elite team.
I am not sure what the rating is for their last opponent but The 'ragons first team defense gave up a touchdown to a team ranked in the 2000s game before last.
Not exactly the sign of an elite team.
Are you serious? LOL Look at ALL of the elite teams. LOL
#1 StX gave up a TD to Winton Woods. Miami Northwestern gave up 21 points to #4849 Southridge. #2 Centenial gave up 21 and 14 points to teams ranked lower than 2,000.
http://calpreps.com/2007/ratings/National_all25.htm
Consumerman, are you joking by posting this?
For many months you have beem mocking the Freeman/Calpreps rankings. Last week you posted the power rankings and then later said you were joking.
Which is it this week?
Flip-flop. Flip-flop. Flip-flop.
SLC has played 4 opponents this year
they have combined for 6 wins
and that includes 4 by MNW
??????
SLC's schedule is rated TOUGHER than DLS's schedule. I suppose you don't want to know the reasons.
consumerman
10-01-07, 07:34 PM
SLC's schedule is rated TOUGHER than DLS's schedule. I suppose you don't want to know the reasons.
congrats for finally playing a meaningful out of state game
oh by the way you lost it
and congrats for a killer texas schedule where 3 teams have combined for 2 wins
sounds like the texas split division everybody and your uncle makes the playoffs
3 teams
2 wins
hard to dismoss away this even if you are daditis
oh they won the one game giving up 42 points
what an elite power
consumerman
10-01-07, 07:41 PM
Flip-flop. Flip-flop. Flip-flop.
reminds me of slc offense against mnw
interception-fumble interception-fumble interception-punt team gives up a safety
DLSfanNW
10-01-07, 07:42 PM
The 'ragons gave up over 300 yards to the 6766 team in the land?
Hey how about taking your foot off the gas when you have a 40 point lead? Show some class like MNW did when they took a knee rather then run up the score even more.
consumerman
10-01-07, 08:22 PM
SLC's schedule is rated TOUGHER than DLS's schedule. I suppose you don't want to know the reasons.
Consumerman, are you joking by posting this?
For many months you have beem mocking the Freeman/Calpreps rankings. Last week you posted the power rankings and then later said you were joking.
Which is it this week?
Flip-flop. Flip-flop. Flip-flop.
My response is there is a MAJOR difference between posting the new calprep computer rankings
and
saying these rankings PROVE my team is better than yours
which one of those two are you and which one is me?
naughty
10-01-07, 11:22 PM
SLC's schedule is rated TOUGHER than DLS's schedule. I suppose you don't want to know the reasons.
yea becasue you played northwestern. Oh by the way you lost that game. Take out MNW and your schedule is very very very very very very very very very very very weak.
yea becasue you played northwestern. Oh by the way you lost that game. Take out MNW and your schedule is very very very very very very very very very very very weak.
LOL Really?
If you want to see a WEAK schedule look at your beloved "one-hit wonder" Dreadnots. The highest rated team they have played is #1,093. LOL
Lakeland's schedule is weak year after year after year.
SLC's schedule is 9 points per game tougher than Lakeland's and that gap will grow as the season progresses.
My response is there is a MAJOR difference between posting the new calprep computer rankings
and
saying these rankings PROVE my team is better than yours
which one of those two are you and which one is me?
I've never used the calpreps ratings alone to prove anything and you know it.
Can you answer the question? (I doubt it because you NEVER do.)
Last week you said you were JOKING when you posted the Calpreps ratings. Now you post them as if they have meaning? LOL Which is it?
The 'ragons gave up over 300 yards to the 6766 team in the land?
Hey how about taking your foot off the gas when you have a 40 point lead? Show some class like MNW did when they took a knee rather then run up the score even more.
SLC NEVER takes it's foot off the gas. The starters played one series in the 2nd half. The 2nd and 3rd strings are going to play as hard as they can when they come in. Unfortunately, the SLC subs dominated the Central starters. Our 3rd stringers took a knee as time ran out.
congrats for finally playing a meaningful out of state game
oh by the way you lost it
and congrats for a killer texas schedule where 3 teams have combined for 2 wins
sounds like the texas split division everybody and your uncle makes the playoffs
3 teams
2 wins
hard to dismoss away this even if you are daditis
oh they won the one game giving up 42 points
what an elite power
SLC an elite power?
The power rating that YOU posted says SLC is the best football program in the nation (and it's not even close).
http://calpreps.com/2007/dynasty_ratings.htm
SLC an elite power?
The power rating that YOU posted says SLC is the best football program in the nation (and it's not even close).
http://calpreps.com/2007/dynasty_ratings.htm
Though one stops to ponder where that would be if they played OOS powers with the frequency certain other notable national powers do.
Still awaiting CNNSI and ESPN in the compilation poll, but O-H-I-O has 3 of the top 12 so far. Not too shabby.
DLSfanNW
10-02-07, 08:37 AM
SLC an elite power?
The power rating that YOU posted says SLC is the best football program in the nation (and it's not even close).
http://calpreps.com/2007/dynasty_ratings.htmBut not THIS year
Interesting to note that the #2 and #3 "dynasties" are just a few miles down the road from one another in Cincinnati. Best hs football town around....
Chicago
10-02-07, 09:06 AM
What did Colerain and St. Xavier do against each other in 2003-06?
I know Colerain won in 2006, and St. Xavier won twice in 2005, but what about 2003 and 2004?
What did Colerain and St. Xavier do against each other in 2003-06?
I know Colerain won in 2006, and St. Xavier won twice in 2005, but what about 2003 and 2004?
They did not play in those years. Unless they schedule in the regular season, there is no guarantee they will play one another. From '02 to '04, Colerain did play Elder and Moe several times, though, going 4-3 I believe.
Here is a link to a site with a great database of Ohio schedules/records over the last few years, if you don't already have it. X and Colerain are Region 4.
http://www.joeeitel.com/hsfoot/
They did not play in '04. From concha's post:
8/28 N Elder (7-4) [1:4] W 21-3
9/5 N Anderson (5-5) [1:4] W 48-10
9/11 H Princeton (3-7) [1:4] W 45-12
9/17 A Sycamore (4-6) [1:4] W 49-0
9/24 A Milford (2-8) [1:4] W 70-3
10/1 H Middletown (5-5) [1:4] W 55-7
10/8 A Fairfield (5-5) [1:4] W 56-14
10/15 H Lakota West (8-3) [1:4] W 69-20
10/22 H Oak Hills (4-6) [1:4] W 56-0
10/29 A La Salle (6-5) [1:4] W 35-7
11/6 H # Elder (7-4) [1:4] W 38-3
11/13 N # Centerville (11-1) [1:4] W 35-0
11/20 N # Archbishop Moeller (10-3) [1:4] W 34-6
11/27 N # Worthington Kilbourne (11-3) [1:3] W 34-3
12/4 N # Canton McKinley (11-4) [1:2] W 50-10
# - Ohio playoff game
PorkopolisPigskin
10-02-07, 09:49 AM
Are you serious? LOL Look at ALL of the elite teams. LOL
#1 StX gave up a TD to Winton Woods. Miami Northwestern gave up 21 points to #4849 Southridge. #2 Centenial gave up 21 and 14 points to teams ranked lower than 2,000.
I think it's hilarious that all you can find on St X is them letting up a single touchdown to a pretty good WWs team... oh and by the way, IT WAS IN THE 4TH QUARTER ON THE BACKUPS. There goes that argument.
DLSfanNW
10-02-07, 02:20 PM
Dad, Is it true your 'ragons(no D) first team gave up 10 points to the 6000 ranked team in the land?
Elite does not mean just offense.
Though one stops to ponder where that would be if they played OOS powers with the frequency certain other notable national powers do. You forget to mention that SLC's schedule is already among the toughest in the nation year in and year out. Granted, many of the toughest games come in the playoffs.
In 2004 and 2005 (which are included in the "dynasty" years on the link) SLC's playoff run was the toughest of ANY team in the nation in ANY state.
consumerman
10-02-07, 04:40 PM
You forget to mention that SLC's schedule is already among the toughest in the nation year in and year out. Granted, many of the toughest games come in the playoffs.
In 2004 and 2005 (which are included in the "dynasty" years on the link) SLC's playoff run was the toughest of ANY team in the nation in ANY state.
SLC played in the Texas 5A SMALL division playoffs in every year until 2006.
Still awaiting CNNSI and ESPN in the compilation poll, but O-H-I-O has 3 of the top 12 so far. Not too shabby.
. . . . and Texas has 2 in the top 5.
I find it interesting that many people blast the national polls, BUT when the the polls produce results that they like they quote them.
Concha, I'm not directing that last comment at you but rather at a few other posters who have blasted the calpreps rankings but now love to post them.
SLC played in the Texas 5A SMALL division playoffs in every year until 2006.
Really?
SLC played in the Texas 5A SMALL division playoffs in every year until 2006.
Your point?
SLC's 2004 and 2005 playoff runs were rated tougher than ANY playoff run in the nation BOTH of those years (any division, any state, both years).
Consumerman doesn't really understand what he is talking about. I'm wondering if he knows that in 2006 the two schools in the finals of the Texas 5A small division were BOTH LARGER than the two schools that played in finals of the Texas 5A large division. He probably doesn't realize that In both 2004 and 2005 SLC played several of the largest schools in Texas.
Consumerman doesn't really understand what he is talking about. I'm wondering if he knows that in 2006 the two schools in the finals of the Texas 5A small division were BOTH LARGER than the two schools that played in finals of the Texas 5A large division. He probably doesn't realize that In both 2004 and 2005 SLC played several of the largest schools in Texas.
I think he does. He is just trying to make a point. It's a bad point though, and everyone knows it.
D-Swizzel102
10-02-07, 07:33 PM
Are you serious? LOL Look at ALL of the elite teams. LOL
#1 StX gave up a TD to Winton Woods.
Correction: St. X's JV defense gave up a TD to Winton Woods.
consumerman
10-02-07, 08:33 PM
Your point?
SLC's 2004 and 2005 playoff runs were rated tougher than ANY playoff run in the nation BOTH of those years (any division, any state, both years).
Consumerman doesn't really understand what he is talking about. I'm wondering if he knows that in 2006 the two schools in the finals of the Texas 5A small division were BOTH LARGER than the two schools that played in finals of the Texas 5A large division. He probably doesn't realize that In both 2004 and 2005 SLC played several of the largest schools in Texas.
It is a FACT thst SLC NEVER played in the LARGE school playoffs until 2006 no matter how you dadspin it
the items you point out especially the 2006 examples are cases in point in how stupid the Texas system is and once again taint the first LARGE school championship SLC ever won
did SLC play Trinity in 2005?
why not?
Bordertown
10-02-07, 09:59 PM
It is a FACT thst SLC NEVER played in the LARGE school playoffs until 2006 no matter how you dadspin it
the items you point out especially the 2006 examples are cases in point in how stupid the Texas system is and once again taint the first LARGE school championship SLC ever won
did SLC play Trinity in 2005?
why not?
Oh boy here we go again. First Texas fans will tell you they do not like the split playoff system. But they have a system. Tell us about the great California system. Whoever wins a state title in Texas earns it on the field of play after playing a minimum 15 game season and in both division of Class 5A a 16 game season. The participants in the playoffs are not picked by a point system or picked to play in a "bowl" game to the exclusion of other teams.
Tell me why the "Large" school division delivers the best team? Why was it important to play Trinity in 2005 to validate a state championship? What is your hang up on enrollment? The following is the enrollment of SLC 2005 playoff opponents. As a point of reference SLC had an enrollment figure of 2,213.
1st round - Irving MacArthur - 2,569
2nd round - Allen - 3,948.5
3rd round - Abilene - 2,365
4th round - Plano - 4,706.87
5th round - Lufkin - 2,218
Championship - Katy - 3,209
Every team SLC beat in the "small school" division of 5A were larger in enrollment. In fact Plano would have been the largest school by enrollment in the North Coast Section by 625 students. Only Logan and Deer Valley would have been in the top 5 in enroll if SLC opponents in the lowly "small school division" had been combined with the North Coast Section 4A. By the way Trinity had an enrollment of 2,926. SLC played three schools that were larger than Trinity. And their were 64 teams in the SLC playoff bracket.
By contrast DLS opponents by enrollment in winning the North Coast 4A championship bracket of 8 teams (of a pool of 15 teams).
1st round - James Logan - 4,069
2nd round - Foothill - 2,328
Championship - San Leandro - 2,648
The fact is the competition (by enrollment of the opponent) in 2005 was superior than the competition faced by DLS. If size is so important why did SLC and DLS both agree to play Evangel a school with a coed enrollment of approximately 250?
Texas is looking at correcting its system, how is California coming on instituting a state championship bracket? You have to have a system before you can fix it. But if folks in California are happy with the Section system so be it.
consumerman
10-02-07, 10:08 PM
Oh boy here we go again. First Texas fans will tell you they do not like the split playoff system. But they have a system. Tell us about the great California system. Whoever wins a state title in Texas earns it on the field of play after playing a minimum 15 game season and in both division of Class 5A a 16 game season. The participants in the playoffs are not picked by a point system or picked to play in a "bowl" game to the exclusion of other teams.
Tell me why the "Large" school division delivers the best team? Why was it important to play Trinity in 2005 to validate a state championship? What is your hang up on enrollment? The following is the enrollment of SLC 2005 playoff opponents. As a point of reference SLC had an enrollment figure of 2,213.
1st round - Irving MacArthur - 2,569
2nd round - Allen - 3,948.5
3rd round - Abilene - 2,365
4th round - Plano - 4,706.87
5th round - Lufkin - 2,218
Championship - Katy - 3,209
Every team SLC beat in the "small school" division of 5A were larger in enrollment. In fact Plano would have been the largest school by enrollment in the North Coast Section by 625 students. Only Logan and Deer Valley would have been in the top 5 in enroll if SLC opponents in the lowly "small school division" had been combined with the North Coast Section 4A. By the way Trinity had an enrollment of 2,926. SLC played three schools that were larger than Trinity. And their were 64 teams in the SLC playoff bracket.
By contrast DLS opponents by enrollment in winning the North Coast 4A championship bracket of 8 teams (of a pool of 15 teams).
1st round - James Logan - 4,069
2nd round - Foothill - 2,328
Championship - San Leandro - 2,648
The fact is the competition (by enrollment of the opponent) in 2005 was superior than the competition faced by DLS. If size is so important why did SLC and DLS both agree to play Evangel a school with a coed enrollment of approximately 250?
Texas is looking at correcting its system, how is California coming on instituting a state championship bracket? You have to have a system before you can fix it. But if folks in California are happy with the Section system so be it.
why did SLC not play Trinity, the arguably best opponent, in the 2005 playoffs?
if they did not play, SLC championship is tainted and only 1/2 good
Bordertown
10-02-07, 10:44 PM
Dumb argument in my opinion. But this is the comment I was addressing - "It is a FACT thst SLC NEVER played in the LARGE school playoffs until 2006 no matter how you dadspin it". That was a true statement. But what does it have to do with being the best team.
Evangel and John Curtis were both playing Class 5A football in Louisiana in football and winning state until the LSHAA forced them to play in their enrollment classification of A and 2A respectively. Was John Curtis any less of a team in beating Hoover and winning the Louisiana 2A State Championship. There were 3 larger classifications in Louisiana. Is John Curtis championship tainted?
Also I noted that DLS is in the North Coast Section 4A with an asterisk. Seems by enrollment they should be class 3A. If the governing body were to rule that all schools must play in their enrollment classification. Would you agree with an argument that DLS was not the best team in the North Coast Section because they were only the 3A champions and not the 4A champions?
Do you think the Trinity coach you hold in such high esteem would have not made the same bonehead calls in 2005. Usually people get smarter with experience. He was the probably dumber in 2005 and would have handed SLC the championship.
I am sure you would agree that DLS is at best a 1/10th champion in California. I would think a one half championship carries 5x the prestige of being a sectional champ.
coletrain06
10-02-07, 10:45 PM
2nd round - Allen - 3,948.5
4th round - Plano - 4,706.87
Do the fraction students play on the football team? :shrug:
Bordertown
10-02-07, 10:50 PM
Yep because the rules are you can not have 12 on a team. The fractional students do come in handy on trick plays.
coletrain06
10-02-07, 10:54 PM
Yep because the rules are you can not have 12 on a team. The fractional students do come in handy on trick plays.
:laugh: :laugh:
consumerman
10-02-07, 11:18 PM
Dumb argument in my opinion. But this is the comment I was addressing - "It is a FACT thst SLC NEVER played in the LARGE school playoffs until 2006 no matter how you dadspin it". That was a true statement. But what does it have to do with being the best team.
Evangel and John Curtis were both playing Class 5A football in Louisiana in football and winning state until the LSHAA forced them to play in their enrollment classification of A and 2A respectively. Was John Curtis any less of a team in beating Hoover and winning the Louisiana 2A State Championship. There were 3 larger classifications in Louisiana. Is John Curtis championship tainted?
Also I noted that DLS is in the North Coast Section 4A with an asterisk. Seems by enrollment they should be class 3A. If the governing body were to rule that all schools must play in their enrollment classification. Would you agree with an argument that DLS was not the best team in the North Coast Section because they were only the 3A champions and not the 4A champions?
Do you think the Trinity coach you hold in such high esteem would have not made the same bonehead calls in 2005. Usually people get smarter with experience. He was the probably dumber in 2005 and would have handed SLC the championship.
I am sure you would agree that DLS is at best a 1/10th champion in California. I would think a one half championship carries 5x the prestige of being a sectional champ.
SLC's 2004 and 2005 playoff runs were rated tougher than ANY playoff run in the nation BOTH of those years (any division, any state, both years).
Did SLC play Trinity, the best possible opponent in Class 5A in 2005?
YES OR NO?
Bordertown
10-03-07, 12:46 PM
SLC's 2004 and 2005 playoff runs were rated tougher than ANY playoff run in the nation BOTH of those years (any division, any state, both years).
Did SLC play Trinity, the best possible opponent in Class 5A in 2005?
YES OR NO?
Originally Posted by Bordertown
Dumb argument in my opinion. But this is the comment I was addressing - "It is a FACT thst SLC NEVER played in the LARGE school playoffs until 2006 no matter how you dadspin it". That was a true statement. But what does it have to do with being the best team.
I think I answered you. Now please explain what size has to do with anything.
why did SLC not play Trinity, the arguably best opponent, in the 2005 playoffs?
if they did not play, SLC championship is tainted and only 1/2 good
This post is laughable coming from a California guy, considering the horrific playoff system that California has. Nonetheless, I'll answer the question.
I stated that SLC's playoff runs in both 2004 and 2005 were the toughest playoff runs faced by any team from any state in any division. That is a fact.
I stand by that statement.
Consumerman, I challenge YOU to name ONE school that faced a tougher playoff run than SLC either of those years.
-
Chicago
10-03-07, 01:55 PM
That's actually an opinion.
It may be strongly held, it may be the consensus, but it's an opinion.
That's actually an opinion.
It may be strongly held, it may be the consensus, but it's an opinion.
Of course. Let me rephrase.
SLC's playoff runs in BOTH 2004 and 2005 were rated the toughest playoff runs in the country in any state and any division using any and all high school ratings (both human and computer).
EaglePride01
10-03-07, 02:09 PM
Of course. Let me rephrase.
SLC's playoff runs in BOTH 2004 and 2005 were rated the toughest playoff runs in the country in any state and any division using any and all high school ratings (both human and computer).
Well, there is only one source that I know of that rates something to that extent and thats Calpreps. If you have any other sources I'd like to know. Regardless, I agree with you about the difficulty of those playoff runs. And what surprises me even more about them is that you guys usually go relatively untestested throughout the regular season, and one would expect for you to slip up at some point when faced with rapid increase in competition. But you guys manage to survive the gaunlet, and thats a testament to the quality of those SLC teams.
why did SLC not play Trinity, the arguably best opponent, in the 2005 playoffs?
if they did not play, SLC championship is tainted and only 1/2 good
Arguably they were the 14th best team in TX going into the playoffs. In '05:
*Four of the top five went D2
*Thirteen of the top fifteen went D2
*Fourteen of the top seventeen went D2
*Only five of the top twenty went D2
http://www.5atexasfootball.com/5astaterankings.htm
consumerman
10-03-07, 02:27 PM
did SLC play Trinity, the arguably best opppnent in the 2005 playoffs?
yes or no?
did SLC play Trinity, the arguably best opppnent in the 2005 playoffs?
yes or no?
No
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
Yes or No?
If not, we certainly should cease including them in any National, as we could never even determine they were the best in CA.
Chicago
10-03-07, 02:39 PM
Whoa.
http://www.5atexasfootball.com/5aplayoffs.htm
Now THAT's following things closely.
consumerman
10-03-07, 03:02 PM
No
that is sad that in those awesome texas playoffs where 5-5 and 3-7 teams and by design all 4th place district teams qualify, that the best team slc could have played was in another bracket
sad
who is the wizard that designed this calamity
consumerman
10-03-07, 03:05 PM
No
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
Yes or No?
If not, we certainly should cease including them in any National, as we could never even determine they were the best in CA.
DLS played #1 ranked LB Poly in 2001 and WON
SLC played #1 ranked MNW and lost
SLC played #2 ranked LB Poly in 2002 and WON
SLC-MNW = lost
SLC played eventual #2 Mater Dei in 1998 and WON
SLC-MNW lost
yes SLC plays on those awesome Texas leagues and playoffs where giving up 42 points counts as a big win and playing 6 rounds full of 3rd and fourth place district teams count as awesome playoffs
when they had their chance against a top ten team, they choked away 5 turnovers and lost on their home field advantage game
DLS played #1 ranked LB Poly in 2001 and WON
SLC played #1 ranked MNW and lost
SLC played #2 ranked LB Poly in 2002 and WON
SLC-MNW = lost
SLC played eventual #2 Mater Dei in 1998 and WON
SLC-MNW lost
yes SLC plays on those awesome Texas leagues and playoffs where giving up 42 points counts as a big win and playing 6 rounds full of 3rd and fourth place district teams count as awesome playoffs
when they had their chance against a top ten team, they choked away 5 turnovers and lost on their home field advantage game
Simple question:
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
Yes or No?
consumerman
10-03-07, 04:12 PM
Simple question:
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
Yes or No?
DLS has beaten 3 teams ranked HIGHER than any team SLC has ever beaten, regular season post season or in daditis dreams.
THAT IS A FACT
DLS has beaten 3 teams ranked HIGHER than any team SLC has ever beaten, regular season post season or in daditis dreams.
THAT IS A FACT
Again, simple question why is this so difficult?
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
Yes or No?
consumerman
10-03-07, 04:50 PM
Again, simple question why is this so difficult?
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
Yes or No?
no matter how tough the so-called Texas state playoffs are reputed to be, SLC has NEVER beaten the caliber of team that 1998 Mater Dei, or 2001-02 LB Poly presented to DLS.
N E V E R
They had their chance this year (finally) and had their lunch handed to them
so much for tough Texas playoffs
Y A W N
DLSfanNW
10-03-07, 04:54 PM
Does losing to CC count? Have they ever had the option? DLS cannot dictate the California playoff system anymore then SLC can in Texas.
Who are the highest ranked teams SLC has beaten?
consumerman
10-03-07, 04:58 PM
Does losing to CC count? Have they ever had the option? DLS cannot dictate the California playoff system anymore then SLC can in Texas.
Who are the highest ranked teams SLC has beaten?
but here lies the rub:
texas homers are claining how tough those playoffs are and how great their teams are for winning those playoffs
I would submit, playoffs with 3-7 and 5-5 teams, and in fact all third
and 4th place district finishers, and then SPLITTING the them into 2 playoffs so you can never be sure who the real best team is Texas 5A is, a very poor base to argue from
and find a post here where I claim DLS DLS has played the best all time toughest schedule ever and that proves DLS is the best
find it!
but here lies the rub:
texas homers are claining how tough those playoffs are and how great their teams are for winning those playoffs
I would submit, playoffs with 3-7 and 5-5 teams, and in fact all third
and 4th place district finishers, and then SPLITTING the them into 2 playoffs so you can never be sure who the real best team is Texas 5A is, a very poor base to argue from
and find a post here where I claim DLS DLS has played the best all time toughest schedule ever and that proves DLS is the best
find it!
I am just attempting to get you to answer a simple question. You posed one over and over trying to get a YES or NO answer. Why not reciprocate? If you forgot:
did SLC play Trinity in 2005?
why not?
why did SLC not play Trinity, the arguably best opponent, in the 2005 playoffs?
Did SLC play Trinity, the best possible opponent in Class 5A in 2005?
YES OR NO?
did SLC play Trinity, the arguably best opppnent in the 2005 playoffs?
yes or no?
So I will ask again....
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
Yes or No?
While I am sure the Texas playoffs are tough, I have always had some doubts as to being as tough as Texans want us to believe. Some districts are pretty stout, but there is plenty of opportunity in Tecksus to go 10-0 and never see another top competitor. And the ability of teams that actually have losing records to get inot the tourney every year is, quite frankly, a joke. I won't even bring up the many 3, 4 and 5 lossers who show up every year. Add in the division into 2 brackets...
It is Texas, but from the Ohio point of view it's easier to get in witha nice record (and even with a horrible one) and you aren't guaranteed to face the best of the best.
While I am sure the Texas playoffs are tough, I have always had some doubts as to being as tough as Texans want us to believe. Some districts are pretty stout, but there is plenty of opportunity in Tecksus to go 10-0 and never see another top competitor. And the ability of teams that actually have losing records to get inot the tourney every year is, quite frankly, a joke. I won't even bring up the many 3, 4 and 5 lossers who show up every year. Add in the division into 2 brackets...
It is Texas, but from the Ohio point of view it's easier to get in witha nice record (and even with a horrible one) and you aren't guaranteed to face the best of the best.
I think most Texans would agree with you as to the bolded parts. No one likes it, but then again coming up with very good solutions is easier said than done. The UIL certainly likes the two division format and that is not likely to change.
I would not be surprised to see a 6A this realignment if not the next.
I think many would agree running the table in Texas is at the top as far as difficulty nationwide, if not the top most years.
RockinL
10-03-07, 05:51 PM
SLC played in the Texas 5A SMALL division playoffs in every year until 2006.
Im sure youve been told this many times, but just in case......in most years, Div II is the tougher road to the final in the playoffs in Texas.
Well, there is only one source that I know of that rates something to that extent and thats Calpreps. If you have any other sources I'd like to know. Regardless, I agree with you about the difficulty of those playoff runs. And what surprises me even more about them is that you guys usually go relatively untestested throughout the regular season, and one would expect for you to slip up at some point when faced with rapid increase in competition. But you guys manage to survive the gaunlet, and thats a testament to the quality of those SLC teams.
Actually, there are two sources that you can use; Massey and Calpreps/Freeman. BOTH of those rating models say that the SLC playoff run in both 2004 and 2005 was the toughest of any playoff run in the country in any state and any division.
Massey doesn't rank California teams but since California doesn't have a state wide playoff any team from California wouldn't be considered in this context anyway.
It is a FACT thst SLC NEVER played in the LARGE school playoffs until 2006 no matter how you dadspin it
the items you point out especially the 2006 examples are cases in point in how stupid the Texas system is and once again taint the first LARGE school championship SLC ever won?
What is your point?
Did SLC play some of the largest schools in Texas? YES (In fact SLC played more large schools than anybody else.)
Did SLC play the highest ranked teams in Texas? YES (More than anybody else. The D2 bracket was STACKED.)
Was the SLC playoff run the toughest that anyone has seen in Texas for many years? YES
Were the 2004 and 2005 SLC playoff runs the toughest in the nation (any state any division)? YES
If you have a point please make it. (I don't think you can.)
consumerman
10-03-07, 07:11 PM
go back to that dinner in Nebraska and tell us what you were smoking
DLS has beaten 3 teams ranked HIGHER than any team SLC has ever beaten, regular season post season or in daditis dreams.
THAT IS A FACT
SLC's schedule is ranked HIGHER than the DLS schedule every year.
THAT IS A FACT.
While I am sure the Texas playoffs are tough, I have always had some doubts as to being as tough as Texans want us to believe. Some districts are pretty stout, but there is plenty of opportunity in Tecksus to go 10-0 and never see another top competitor. And the ability of teams that actually have losing records to get inot the tourney every year is, quite frankly, a joke. I won't even bring up the many 3, 4 and 5 lossers who show up every year. Add in the division into 2 brackets...
It is Texas, but from the Ohio point of view it's easier to get in witha nice record (and even with a horrible one) and you aren't guaranteed to face the best of the best.
Do you recall the debate we had a couple of years ago about the Texas vs. Ohio playoffs? Somebody did an analysis and found that Ohio and Texas have about the same percentage of teams with 0 or 1 loss when the playoffs begin.
Adding the 3, 4, or 5 loss teams in Texas does NOT make the playoffs easier because the great teams are in the playoffs also. Texas adds a sixth round to the playoffs which makes the playoffs HARDER not easier.
Think of it this way. Suppose Ohio kept the last 5 games of their playoffs exactly as they are now. However, suppose they added an additional playoff game that became a new first round. In that case, the Ohio playoffs would be tougher than they are today. Teams would still have to face the same 32 team bracket that they face today PLUS they would have to face an additional new first round opponent. That is what Texas has done.
consumerman
10-03-07, 07:48 PM
Do you recall the debate we had a couple of years ago about the Texas vs. Ohio playoffs? Somebody did an analysis and found that Ohio and Texas have about the same percentage of teams with 0 or 1 loss when the playoffs begin.
Adding the 3, 4, or 5 loss teams in Texas does NOT make the playoffs easier because the great teams are in the playoffs also. Texas adds a sixth round to the playoffs which makes the playoffs HARDER not easier.
Think of it this way. Suppose Ohio kept the last 5 games of their playoffs exactly as they are now. However, suppose they added an additional playoff game that became a new first round. In that case, the Ohio playoffs would be tougher than they are today. Teams would still have to face the same 32 team bracket that they face today PLUS they would have to face an additional new first round opponent. That is what Texas has done.
Ohio playoffs are not split in 2
so in reality Texas 6 rounds of playoffs split in 2 would not equal ohio five rounds plus one mor egame
ohio would have to DOUBLE the amount of teams in the playoffs and then split the total teams in 2 to be equal with Texas
STUPID ISN'T IT
consumerman
10-03-07, 07:50 PM
SLC's schedule is ranked HIGHER than the DLS schedule every year.
THAT IS A FACT.
which TOP THREE TEAM has SLC ever beat?
DLS has THREE on their belt
SLC has played ONE top three team and WAS MANHANDLED
the comparison is weak
consumerman
10-03-07, 07:57 PM
it is too bad SLC failed so miserably in their first chance to prove themselves on a national stage as their backers now have to resort to "our playoffs were so tough five years ago"
ALSO daditis spent a year criticizing DLS saying their accomplishments were ANCIENT HISTORY - national champs 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 .. now that SLC got whipped he wants to talk SLC 2002 and 2004
MR HYPOCRITE STRIKES AGAIN
playoffs with 3-7 and 5-5 teams
split divisions so even after winning your bracket you can NEVER claim to be the best in your own state, let alone the nation
and this all could have been avoided by not choking away 5 turnovers in your first game on a national stage
it is too bad SLC failed so miserably in their first chance to prove themselves on a national stage as their backers now have to resort to "our playoffs were so tough five years ago"
playoffs with 3-7 and 5-5 teams
split divisions so even after winning your bracket you can NEVER claim to be the best in your own state, let alone the nation
and this all could have been avoided by not choking away 5 turnovers in your first game on a national stage
Yes or No?
Has DLS played one game in a state wide playoff ever?
consumerman
10-03-07, 08:13 PM
be careful SLC we will sick another out of state team on you
be careful SLC we will sick another out of state team on you
Yes or No?
Is it realy that hard to answer???
be careful SLC we will sick another out of state team on you
FYI- my team is 2-0 against OOS competition(FL/CO)
CrusaderDidz
10-03-07, 08:33 PM
SLC has played 4 opponents this year
they have combined for 6 wins
and that includes 4 by MNW
??????
wow colerain plays a lot worse teams than Lake Highlands and Rockwall (besides Hoover Alabama) and you don't complain about them being ranked.
consumerman
10-03-07, 08:34 PM
it is ok you DLS haters
MV has an excellent chance of beating them this week so you can return the favor soon possibly
consumerman
10-03-07, 08:35 PM
wow colerain plays a lot worse teams than Lake Highlands and Rockwall (besides Hoover Alabama) and you don't complain about them being ranked.
HUH??
who cares about colerain
nobody is on here making a fool of themselves talking colerain all day and all nite and falling for that perfect cHity crap
Bordertown
10-03-07, 08:37 PM
did SLC play Trinity, the arguably best opppnent in the 2005 playoffs?
yes or no?
No, now explain coming out of the North Coast Section why that is important.
I am still waiting for you to explain why the "large" versus "small" bracket in any way deminishes SLC's championship.
CrusaderDidz
10-03-07, 08:48 PM
be careful SLC we will sick another out of state team on you
haha a few 5-5 teams slip into the Texas playoffs but no 3-7 teams do and you shoudn't be saying anything about the 2 divisions(too split up schools with larger populations) in the Texas playoffs when Calforina does it by region. By the way you shouldn't rag on southlake against national competion, I saw the 2005 #4 St. Xavier bombers play within 2 weeks of The #1 Southlake dragons and southlake was way more talented. I also wouldn't boast about beating out of state teams when you beat a terrible Elder team 38-56, my team was 5-5 and we beat them just as bad (13-34).
consumerman
10-03-07, 08:49 PM
No, now explain coming out of the North Coast Section why that is important.
I am still waiting for you to explain why the "large" versus "small" bracket in any way deminishes SLC's championship.
did they play Trinity in 2005, arguably the best opponent in 5A?
not playing them would be like saying we won the ohio state championship, but St X was in the other bracket and we did not play them
I dont see why you guys are so stubborn about this
it is a flawed, watered down dual winner playoff
Stupid with a capital S
consumerman
10-03-07, 08:51 PM
haha a few 5-5 teams slip into the Texas playoffs but no 3-7 teams do and you shoudn't be saying anything about the 2 divisions(too split up schools with larger populations) in the Texas playoffs when Calforina does it by region. By the way you shouldn't rag on southlake against national competion, I saw the 2005 #4 St. Xavier bombers play within 2 weeks of The #1 Southlake dragons and southlake was way more talented. I also wouldn't boast about beating out of state teams when you beat a terrible Elder team 38-56, my team was 5-5 and we beat them just as bad (13-34).
DLS dominated the game and was leading 42-12 and 49-18 (one ELder TD was a fluke fumble return)
so ELder scored 20 points against DLS second and third stringers
wow
DLS was consensus most impressive team at the Herbie
consumerman
10-03-07, 08:52 PM
haha a few 5-5 teams slip into the Texas playoffs but no 3-7 teams do
wanna bet??????????????????
CrusaderDidz
10-03-07, 08:53 PM
SLC's schedule is ranked HIGHER than the DLS schedule every year.
THAT IS A FACT.
2005 Plano team was better than the "#4" St. Xavier team. Southlake trailed them 3 quarters but came back in the 4th to win 37-27. You can't always trust the rankings, just look at Byrnes (SC) last year.
CrusaderDidz
10-03-07, 08:58 PM
wanna bet??????????????????
I've never heard of a team near where i lived going 3-7 and going to the pplayoffs. the only way that would be possible is if they won 3 district games and everyone else in their ditrict lost abunch of district games. That could maybe happen in Brownesville or somewhere where there's never a state or even quarter final team.
2005 Plano team was a lot better than the "#4" St. Xavier team. Southlake trailed them 3 quarters but came back in the 4th to win 37-27. You can't always trust the rankings, just look at Byrnes (SC) last year.
They have obviously given the "special" kids access to the computer.
Bordertown
10-03-07, 09:01 PM
Ohio playoffs are not split in 2
so in reality Texas 6 rounds of playoffs split in 2 would not equal ohio five rounds plus one mor egame
ohio would have to DOUBLE the amount of teams in the playoffs and then split the total teams in 2 to be equal with Texas
STUPID ISN'T IT
I am truly waiting for your "logic" to slap me in the face. Texas has two 5A champions and California has at least 10. Every system has its flaws including the Ohio system which has a concept of "Harbin Cows". But few systems are as flawed as the non system in California in my opinion. I can buy into the logic that California should have a north and south zone. But sections with classification containing 15 teams is hard for me accept as the best the great state of California can produce.
Do you think DLS would have won 60 straight games in either of the watered down Texas playoff systems (pick either Div I or II) or the Ohio system. Before you start attacking the foundation of another schools success, you might want to check out the fault line your own schools success is built.
I know you are not as dumb as you are projecting yourself. A major source of funding for the UIL comes from the playoffs. Are there some bad teams in the first two rounds in Texas? Yes, 90% get eliminated in the first round and 10% fall under the theory "a blind hog finds an acorn". By the third round the pretendors have been eliminated. Rest assured the final 16 teams in each of the two divisions belong. That is 16 quality teams you have to win 4 games against. I will remind you the North Coast Section Class 4A bracket has 8 (of 15 teams) make the playoffs. I think if you are intellectually honest you will agree that some of the those teams do not belong.
I will remind you that in the 2005 playoffs that DLS beat James Logan 68-0. This is a team that had a 9-1 record. Also Monte Vista beat Amador Valley (7-3) 41-7. I have a hard time believing a quality team in the playoffs lose by 68 points.
While SLC did not play Trinity, the prestige of what they accomplished does not deserve your insults.
CrusaderDidz
10-03-07, 09:03 PM
They have obviously given the "special" kids access to the computer.
haha ya i'm a pretty big lenny cause I dissed two teams that were over rated (Byrnes went from #2 at the begining of the year to not ranked at the end) and i said a 13-1 team that barely lost to the 2nd best team in the country was under rated. I didn't see colerain play that year but from what I hear #5 (sorry i was wrong there) St. X got lucky both times they beat them so they were probably better than Plano that year if that makes you feel any better.
steeler 01
10-03-07, 09:19 PM
I will remind you that in the 2005 playoffs that DLS beat James Logan 68-0. This is a team that had a 9-1 record. Also Monte Vista beat Amador Valley (7-3) 41-7. I have a hard time believing a quality team in the playoffs lose by 68 points.
2005
2nd round
SLC 45 Allen 15
3rd round
SLC 52 Abilene 0
2006
Semi-Finals
SLC 38 Allen 0
These teams must have not been quality teams by your logic.
Bordertown
10-03-07, 09:27 PM
I've never heard of a team near where i lived going 3-7 and going to the pplayoffs. the only way that would be possible is if they won 3 district games and everyone else in their ditrict lost abunch of district games. That could maybe happen in Brownesville or somewhere where there's never a state or even quarter final team.
It can happen when you have a 5 or 6 team distict and 4 teams advance.
Texas High annually plays a 3A school 30 miles south - Atlanta. Historically Atlanta plays a 4A preseason schedule and goes 1-4. In 2003 Atlanta was 6-4 and won the 3A division II championship. I know I am going against the grain, but a win/loss record only tells part of the story. Which would you rather have a team going into the playoffs with a 6-4 record and winning the playoffs or a 9-1 that loses 68-0 in the first round.
While I agree the Texas system has flaws, as I think every Texas poster on this board will agree. What the Texas system does have is that every school in the playoffs have earned their spot on the field by head to head play. A math formula or quorum of Yappi experts do not decide their fate as happens in some system. I will take DLS as an example. Out of the 15 schools in Class 4A in the North Central Section, they will play just 2 teams. Is that a representative sample to hang a #1 seed on a team?
Bordertown
10-03-07, 09:29 PM
2005
2nd round
SLC 45 Allen 15
3rd round
SLC 52 Abilene 0
2006
Semi-Finals
SLC 38 Allen 0
These teams must have not been quality teams by your logic.
I guess not.
consumerman
10-03-07, 09:55 PM
I am truly waiting for your "logic" to slap me in the face. Texas has two 5A champions and California has at least 10. Every system has its flaws including the Ohio system which has a concept of "Harbin Cows". But few systems are as flawed as the non system in California in my opinion. I can buy into the logic that California should have a north and south zone. But sections with classification containing 15 teams is hard for me accept as the best the great state of California can produce.
Do you think DLS would have won 60 straight games in either of the watered down Texas playoff systems (pick either Div I or II) or the Ohio system. Before you start attacking the foundation of another schools success, you might want to check out the fault line your own schools success is built.
I know you are not as dumb as you are projecting yourself. A major source of funding for the UIL comes from the playoffs. Are there some bad teams in the first two rounds in Texas? Yes, 90% get eliminated in the first round and 10% fall under the theory "a blind hog finds an acorn". By the third round the pretendors have been eliminated. Rest assured the final 16 teams in each of the two divisions belong. That is 16 quality teams you have to win 4 games against. I will remind you the North Coast Section Class 4A bracket has 8 (of 15 teams) make the playoffs. I think if you are intellectually honest you will agree that some of the those teams do not belong.
I will remind you that in the 2005 playoffs that DLS beat James Logan 68-0. This is a team that had a 9-1 record. Also Monte Vista beat Amador Valley (7-3) 41-7. I have a hard time believing a quality team in the playoffs lose by 68 points.
While SLC did not play Trinity, the prestige of what they accomplished does not deserve your insults.
you really DONT GET IT
Texas posters are on this board claiming how great their teams are because of the gauntlet they have to play in the post season. WHen I was new to this, I said heck winning SIX playoff games to become a state champion HAS to be an impressive accomplishment. I used to get puzzled though when I saw end of year rankings and the top Texas teams were noted as being Texas CLass 5A division 1 and Texas class 5A division 2. I said to myslef are these typos? Are there really TWO champions? Maybe one is private and the other is public.
Then I learned, no FOUR teams within each district qualify for the playoffs (very poor in my eyes). ANd then all these teams are divided into TWO separate divisions that will never play each other (very very poor in my eyes). What is more, is that most teams DON'T know which division they might qualify for until the regular season is over (nonsense). And then it came to light that yes 3-7 and 5-5 teams routinely make the playoffs (very very very poor).
All this would not be AS BIG A DEAL except for the biased homers who claim how tough the Texas playoffs are.
___________________________________________
now the other side of coin
I do like DLS and follow them with interest as do others. I loved to see them rise to beat teams that many thought would have humbled them - including the Mater Dei's, St. Louis and LB Poly's of the world.
But I have NEVER talked about how great or difficult the North Coast Section is. I have never said californai teams were superior because of the post season gauntlet they have to run through.
SO attacking those items and asking us to defend them is not logical as we do not say how great those items are.
That is the difference.
I guess bashing DLS for being in the top classification in their section and not playing more teams in their section but instead playing much better state and national powers such as Mission Viejo etc. etc. is your attempt at getting even
I dont get it
If you brag and brag and brag and then someone points our SERIOUS flaws in the system, the best you can do is say well your system sucks too
that is low on the debating platform
CrusaderDidz
10-03-07, 10:00 PM
you really DONT GET IT
Texas posters are on this board claiming how great their teams are because of the gauntlet they have to play in the post season. WHen I was new to this, I said heck winning SIX playoff games to become a state champion HAS to be an impressive accomplishment. I used to get puzzled though when I saw end of year rankings and the top Texas teams were noted as being Texas CLass 5A division 1 and Texas class 5A division 2. I said to myslef are these typos? Are there really TWO champions? Maybe one is private and the other is public.
Then I learned, no FOUR teams within each district qualify for the playoffs (very poor in my eyes). ANd then all these teams are divided into TWO separate divisions that will never play each other (very very poor in my eyes). What is more, is that most teams DON'T know which division they might qualify for until the regular season is over (nonsense). And then it came to light that yes 3-7 and 5-5 teams routinely make the playoffs (very very very poor).
All this would not be AS BIG A DEAL except for the biased homers who claim how tough the Texas playoffs are.
___________________________________________
now the other side of coin
I do like DLS and follow them with interest as do others. I loved to see them rise to beat teams that many thought would have humbled them - including the Mater Dei's, St. Louis and LB Poly's of the world.
But I have NEVER talked about how great or difficult the North Coast Section is. I have never said californai teams were superior because of the post season gauntlet they have to run through.
SO attacking those items and asking us to defend them is not logical as we do not say how great those items are.
That is the difference.
I guess bashing DLS for being in the top classification in their section and not playing more teams in their section but instead playing much better state and national powers such as Mission Viejo etc. etc. is your attempt at getting even
I dont get it
If you brag and brag and brag and then someone points our SERIOUS flaws in the system, the best you can do is say well your system sucks too
that is low on the debating platform
Again, your criticizing Texas for splitting up the bigger and smaller schools in to only 2 brackets when California has something like 6 different champions.
consumerman
10-03-07, 10:03 PM
Again, your criticizing Texas for splitting up the bigger and smaller schools in to only 2 brackets when California has something like 6 different champions.
ignore button employed
ThEfOoTbAlLsTaTe
10-03-07, 10:03 PM
B-town and SLCdad.. you guys are wasting your time. Here you have 2 Calisoft jokes and concha (as usual) speaking out of their rear-ends. IMO.. we'll always have to agree to disagree.. because there's no way I'll every acknowledge either state (Calisoft or Slohio) as being deeper or tougher overall, than Texas, football-wise.
Sorry, they can save all the overrated Colerain and DLS crap.
consumerman
10-03-07, 10:06 PM
B-town and SLCdad.. you guys are wasting your time. Here you have 2 Calisoft jokes and concha (as usual) speaking out of their rear-ends. IMO.. we'll always have to agree to disagree.. because there's no way I'll every acknowledge either state (Calisoft or Slohio) as being deeper or tougher overall, than Texas, football-wise.
Sorry, they can save all the overrated Colerain and DLS crap.
yeah those calisoft teams are 3-0 in the herbie
and have more current players in the nfl than any other state
dont let the facts get in the way of your bias
and how tough was texas best team against a florida team
can you say soft as chiffon toilet paper
y'all
Bordertown
10-03-07, 11:05 PM
Again, your criticizing Texas for splitting up the bigger and smaller schools in to only 2 brackets when California has something like 6 different champions.
Wrong they have 10 Section with 48 championships awarded in 11 man football. The Southern Section awards 13. Texas watered down system has 10.
Bordertown
10-03-07, 11:30 PM
you really DONT GET IT
[QUOTE]
Then I learned, no FOUR teams within each district qualify for the playoffs (very poor in my eyes). ANd then all these teams are divided into TWO separate divisions that will never play each other (very very poor in my eyes). What is more, is that most teams DON'T know which division they might qualify for until the regular season is over (nonsense). And then it came to light that yes 3-7 and 5-5 teams routinely make the playoffs (very very very poor).
I think the vast majority of the Texans on the board will not defend the 4 teams make the playoff from a district is "very poor". But it is in my opinion a more valued championshiip than a Sectional Championship. Over 6 games it is a gauntlet whether you wish to acknowledge the fact. But as water down as it may be every team "earns" their way in because of "head to head competition". The "best" four teams in a district advance and the rest stay home. The problem with any other system is there are areas of the state that would play football with no chance of advancing. The cities along the Rio Grande River are natoriously bad and any subjective, poll, etc... would exclude those kids.
All this would not be AS BIG A DEAL except for the biased homers who claim how tough the Texas playoffs are.
The problem with your opinion is you do not attend high school playoff games in California much less than Texas, so you really do not have a basis to compare.
But I have NEVER talked about how great or difficult the North Coast Section is. I have never said californai teams were superior because of the post season gauntlet they have to run through.
I am not sure about that statement. I think you have tried to defend the caliber of teams in the North Coast Section. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
I guess bashing DLS for being in the top classification in their section and not playing more teams in their section but instead playing much better state and national powers such as Mission Viejo etc. etc. is your attempt at getting even
I dont get it
I don't think I have bashed DLS but have used DLS as a frame of reference for you. It is based on an inference you made that until SLC won 5A Div I in 2006, somehow they past was tainted as they were not in the largest classification in Texas. Please go re-read your post. I am attempting to show you the error in your 4.0 logic. Before you criticize anothers system you need to be ready to defend your system. When you defile a school like SLC because of the "flawed" Texas playoff system, you must defend how DLS show be held in higher esteem. The DLS streak is impressive, but it would not have happened in Texas, Ohio or Florida. Well I take that back, it may have happened in Texas because you would have been in TCIL, TAPPS or SPC. I correct myself, but it would not have happened in UIL.
If you brag and brag and brag and then someone points our SERIOUS flaws in the system, the best you can do is say well your system sucks too
that is low on the debating platform
Intellictual honesty maybe. As a point of clarification have never said Texas system "sucks". Have admitted its flaws. But again a flawed system is better than "no system" - wouldn't you agree?
consumerman
10-03-07, 11:52 PM
Before you criticize anothers system you need to be ready to defend your system.
you still dont get it
I dont say how great the cali system is
And I can point out flaws all day and all night in another system
I dont need your permission
you still dont get the big picture
you know what Coach Lad said after beating Mater Dei (ranked #1, #1 and #5nationally in 1994, 1996 and 1997) in their epic meeting in 1998
"We don't know if we are as good as any team in the country, but we can be considered one of the best teams in ths state"
compare that with things dadits and even Coach Dodge said
when I first came to this board I was amazed at the cocky, biased we are the best texas posters
nothing has changed excpet they have gotten worse
if they had more humility and did not endlessly spray their opinions as fact and forever make a mockery of debate then I would have no need to point out flaws in their reasoing logic and facts
especially after their best team got their lunch handed to them in their first ever chance at national exposure
you still DONT GET IT
consumerman
10-03-07, 11:55 PM
I don't think I have bashed DLS but have used DLS as a frame of reference for you. It is based on an inference you made that until SLC won 5A Div I in 2006, somehow they past was tainted as they were not in the largest classification in Texas.
it is a FACT that SLC never played in the Large school playoffs until 2006
I can not change that and neither can you
it is a FACT that any championship ANY Texas team wins (large or small school) is a watered down split championship as they have not played or beaten the other "champion" no matter which of the 2 divisions they played in
I can not change that and neither can you
consumerman
10-04-07, 12:02 AM
The problem with your opinion is you do not attend high school playoff games in California much less than Texas, so you really do not have a basis to compare.
really?
because I did not go to the Canyon game in 2006 means I didnt go to playoff games in
1970?
1972?
1973?
1975?
1976?
1977?
1978?
1979?
1981?
1982?
1987?
etc etc
is that it?
what were you doing in 1972 when I saw nationaly ranked Saratoga lose to Oak Grove at Spartan Stadium?
what were you doing in 1978 when I saw Oak Grove with offensive coordinator Mike Holmgren (heard of him?) and QB Marty Mornhinwheg (heard of him) beat Los Gatos, Live Oak, Los ALtos and St. Francis to cap a CCS championship?
what were doing in 1981 when I saw state #1 Bellarmine win the CCS championship?
or are you like daditis (also known as wacky daddy) that football history started in 2002
SON
I have more knowledge experience and wisdom on high school sports and football than you will have 20 years from now
consumerman
10-04-07, 12:07 AM
The DLS streak is impressive, but it would not have happened in Texas, Ohio or Florida
and your proof is???????????????????
SLC getting smacked by a team from Florida?
SLC never beating anational top 5 team?
DLS beating 3 teams ranked #1 or #2 in the country??
what is your proof???????????????
consumerman
10-04-07, 12:31 AM
I saw Jim McMahon a SUPER Bowl Winning QB play in high school
I saw Steve Bartkowski, the NFL overall #1 draft pick, play in high school
I saw Rich Campbell the NFL overall #6 draft pick play in high school
I saw Marty Mornhinwheg, a future NFL head coach, play in high school
I saw Mike Holmgren, the offensive coordiantor for Oak Grove, develop and execute game plans that won Oak Grove the CCS championship in 1978
I saw David Diaz-Infante, a future NFL lineman standout play in high school
I saw Mervyn Fernandez, a futre CFL MVP and NFL player play in high school
etc etc etc
but you are right, I never attended any high school games or playoffs
except the ones already mentioned and about 100 others
B-town and SLCdad.. you guys are wasting your time. Here you have 2 Calisoft jokes and concha (as usual) speaking out of their rear-ends. IMO.. we'll always have to agree to disagree.. because there's no way I'll every acknowledge either state (Calisoft or Slohio) as being deeper or tougher overall, than Texas, football-wise.
Sorry, they can save all the overrated Colerain and DLS crap.
My rear-end dispenses roughly the same quality output as your brain, truth be told. Say hi to TexasFrog, if he ever recovers from embarrassing himself yet again about Texas facing an out of state power. But please detach yourself from his leg first.
CrusaderDidz
10-04-07, 07:12 AM
Wrong they have 10 Section with 48 championships awarded in 11 man football. The Southern Section awards 13. Texas watered down system has 10.
I was saying that i didn't know the exact way Calfornia did it but that I did know they did it by region and when I said two brackets I was talking only about 5A.
Do you recall the debate we had a couple of years ago about the Texas vs. Ohio playoffs? Somebody did an analysis and found that Ohio and Texas have about the same percentage of teams with 0 or 1 loss when the playoffs begin.
Adding the 3, 4, or 5 loss teams in Texas does NOT make the playoffs easier because the great teams are in the playoffs also. Texas adds a sixth round to the playoffs which makes the playoffs HARDER not easier.
Think of it this way. Suppose Ohio kept the last 5 games of their playoffs exactly as they are now. However, suppose they added an additional playoff game that became a new first round. In that case, the Ohio playoffs would be tougher than they are today. Teams would still have to face the same 32 team bracket that they face today PLUS they would have to face an additional new first round opponent. That is what Texas has done.
SLCDad:
In 2006, the Texas 5A tourneys started:
- with over one-third of the teams with 4 or more losses
- one team in five was at .500 or worse
- at least eight teams had losing records
- some of these teams actually played each other in the first round
- in several round two (and even later) matchups you had teams with 6, 7 or even 8 losses between them.
- there were teams that went through three rounds facing teams that collectively had lost a dozen or more games
This doesn't pad records?
In contrast, the Ohio D1 tourney had one (1) team with 4 losses. That was the worst record in the 32-team field. Also, due to the interplay between Ohio's best during the year and the frequency of competition with top teams outside of Ohio, the likelihood of a tourney final between undefeateds is very low. The last time it happened was in 2000. Last year, only two traditional elites entered the tourney undefeated, and they were in the same region (leaving just one undefeated traditional power undefeated for the last two rounds).
consumerman
10-04-07, 10:47 AM
SLCDad:
In 2006, the Texas 5A tourneys started:
- with over one-third of the teams with 4 or more losses
useless and disgusting
- one team in five was at .500 or worse
embarrasing
- at least eight teams had losing records
triple embarrasing
- some of these teams actually played each other in the first round
- in several round two (and even later) matchups you had teams with 6, 7 or even 8 losses between them.
the so called vaunted texas playoffs have been exposed
- there were teams that went through three rounds facing teams that collectively had lost a dozen or more games
cupcake city 101 no wonder those little twerps had those perfect city smiles in that article - its ok they got their comeuppance when they played a real team
This doesn't pad records?
In contrast, the Ohio D1 tourney had one (1) team with 4 losses. That was the worst record in the 32-team field. Also, due to the interplay between Ohio's best during the year and the frequency of competition with top teams outside of Ohio, the likelihood of a tourney final between undefeateds is very low. The last time it happened was in 2000. Last year, only two traditional elites entered the tourney undefeated, and they were in the same region (leaving just one undefeated traditional power undefeated for the last two rounds).
ridiculous
SLCDad:
In 2006, the Texas 5A tourneys started:
- with over one-third of the teams with 4 or more losses
- one team in five was at .500 or worse
- at least eight teams had losing records
- some of these teams actually played each other in the first round
- in several round two (and even later) matchups you had teams with 6, 7 or even 8 losses between them.
- there were teams that went through three rounds facing teams that collectively had lost a dozen or more games
This doesn't pad records?
In contrast, the Ohio D1 tourney had one (1) team with 4 losses. That was the worst record in the 32-team field. Also, due to the interplay between Ohio's best during the year and the frequency of competition with top teams outside of Ohio, the likelihood of a tourney final between undefeateds is very low. The last time it happened was in 2000. Last year, only two traditional elites entered the tourney undefeated, and they were in the same region (leaving just one undefeated traditional power undefeated for the last two rounds).
More fun with numbers
Ohio D1:
115 schools
32 playoff teams(27%)
5 teams with 0 losses
9 teams with 1 loss
Texas 5A:
245 schools
128 playoff teams(52%)
8 teams with 0 losses
12 teams with 1 loss
Hard to figure there is a significant number of undefeateds or one loss teams comparitively?
Again, I don't think you'll find many Texans at all to defend the D1/D2 setup. Most hate it.
The fact is, nearly all of the underserving teams are ousted in week one, making the comparison a little more close.
It would appear that if Ohio were to expand the playoffs to 64 teams, the ratios would be nearly identical, correct?
More fun with numbers
Ohio D1:
115 schools
32 playoff teams(27%)
5 teams with 0 losses
9 teams with 1 loss
Texas 5A:
245 schools
128 playoff teams(52%)
8 teams with 0 losses
12 teams with 1 loss
Hard to figure there is a significant number of undefeateds or one loss teams comparitively?
Again, I don't think you'll find many Texans at all to defend the D1/D2 setup. Most hate it.
The fact is, nearly all of the underserving teams are ousted in week one, making the comparison a little more close.
It would appear that if Ohio were to expand the playoffs to 64 teams, the ratios would be nearly identical, correct?
This is the point. What is the point of having legions of teams that have already proven that they will get pasted? As far as I know, a losing team has never made it into the Ohio D1 tourney (or a .500 team, correct me here anyone?). When Ignatius made it in 2001 with 4 losses and won, they at least had the excuse of a brutal schedule and injuries in the regular season (losses were to Elder, McKinley, St. Eds and St. X - the last three by a combined 10 points).
The level of competition in the Ohio D1 tourney starts off higher. And the elite teams that are there have typically faced regular season levels of comp that are well above that of their average Texas equivalents. Nearly all the big dogs are there, in one arena, just about every year (ex. Mooney this year would be an exception). The same cannot be said of either of Texas 5A's two brackets.
This is the point. What is the point of having legions of teams that have already proven that they will get pasted?-I agree, and I think you know that nearly every Texan agrees.
As far as I know, a losing team has never made it into the Ohio D1 tourney (or a .500 team, correct me here anyone?).-No reason to doubt that. I have no reason to doubt that would be the case if only the same percentage(roughly 25%) were allowed to the playoffs in Texas.
When Ignatius made it in 2001 with 4 losses and won, they at least had the excuse of a brutal schedule and injuries in the regular season (losses were to Elder, McKinley, St. Eds and St. X - the last three by a combined 10 points).
The level of competition in the Ohio D1 tourney starts off higher.-Agree, but since the playoffs are extended on week in Texas, does it really matter? If you eliminated the bottom half and had a five week playoff , you'dbe in the same place. I don't see how adding the sixth week fundamentally changes that? The top team will still be playing each other, they simply ahve to wait one more week, right?
And the elite teams that are there have typically faced regular season levels of comp that are well above that of their average Texas equivalents.-You would think so, but the numbers don't seem to support it. The fact is there are more undefeated teams and one loss teams percentage wise in Ohio.
There are 130 more schools in 5A than D1 and only 3 additional undefeated teams.
Likewise there were only 12 one loss teams in Texas compared to 9 in Ohio. That hardly is keeping up.
Nearly all the big dogs are there, in one arena, just about every year (ex. Mooney this year would be an exception). The same cannot be said of either of Texas 5A's two brackets.
here you go
pied:
If you make a list of the top programs in recent years in 5A and in D1. I have done this analysis before. Ohio's top teams play one another MUCH more frequently in the regular season than those in Texas do. Historically the likes of X, Elder, Moe, Colerain, Eds, Iggy, Massillon, McKinley and the like play others in that list about 3 times on average in the regular season and you can add another game on average for the tourney. And they play out of state elites much more also. Only an idiot like TexasFrog would even dream of contesting that.
That translates to losses for elites. Last year, for example, apart from X and Colerain, how many Ohio traditional elites/powers made it to the tourney undefeated? Certainly not Fremont Ross, Lancaster or Brunswick. Hilliard Davidson? They are an emerging power/elite at best even with the win.
How about in Texas? SLC, Trinity, Lufkin, Westfield, North Shore, Katy...does Cedar Hill qualify? And if memory serves, the numbers of undefeateds in '05 and ;04 in Texas were even higher (couldn't find brackets with the records - got a reference to help confirm? I believe the numbers were around a dozen or more undefeateds).
The point behind the 128 teams is that it seems very California-ish. Win four games and voila! Tourney time! You're amongst the best! Silly. The only other issues specific to the tourney are the division of potential contenders into two brackets (we agree here). Add the above point about Texas elites being more likely to show up for round one with no blemishes, and I think the major differences are covered.
The level of competition in the Ohio D1 tourney starts off higher. And the elite teams that are there have typically faced regular season levels of comp that are well above that of their average Texas equivalents. Nearly all the big dogs are there, in one arena, just about every year (ex. Mooney this year would be an exception). The same cannot be said of either of Texas 5A's two brackets.
The top 32 teams in the Texas brackets are ranked every bit has high as the 32 teams in the Ohio bracket. A FEW Ohio teams have faced a tougher regular season schedule but on average the Texas teams have faced an equal schedule. (Actually, my guess is that the Texas schedule's are tougher on average.)
Every time I have looked at the playoff SOS of the Texas champs, it has come out tougher than the playoff SOS of the Ohio champ. Obviously that could change from year to year but every time I have looked, Texas was tougher.
More fun with numbers
Ohio D1:
115 schools
32 playoff teams(27%)
5 teams with 0 losses
9 teams with 1 loss
Texas 5A:
245 schools
128 playoff teams(52%)
8 teams with 0 losses
12 teams with 1 loss
Hard to figure there is a significant number of undefeateds or one loss teams comparitively?
Again, I don't think you'll find many Texans at all to defend the D1/D2 setup. Most hate it.
The fact is, nearly all of the underserving teams are ousted in week one, making the comparison a little more close.
It would appear that if Ohio were to expand the playoffs to 64 teams, the ratios would be nearly identical, correct?
12.2% of Ohio teams have zero or one loss when the playoffs begin. 8.1% of Texas teams have zero or one loss.
The top 32 teams in the Texas brackets are ranked every bit has high as the 32 teams in the Ohio bracket.
What a shocker. Texas is 2x the size of Ohio.
A FEW Ohio teams have faced a tougher regular season schedule but on average the Texas teams have faced an equal schedule.
At the 128 team level? 64? At the end of the day on these boards we are talking elites/state powers. A significant number of Ohio's elites play two to four games against other top programs just in the regular season. I am fascinated just as to how the Texas teams catch up after that. Certainly not by the SOS of the cupcake first round or two of the Texas 5A tournamentS.
Every time I have looked at the playoff SOS of the Texas champs, it has come out tougher than the playoff SOS of the Ohio champ. Obviously that could change from year to year but every time I have looked, Texas was tougher.
Perhaps this is due to the way Ohio's regions are organized. The very best programs have historically been concentrated in Regions 1 and 4 (for illustration, 80% of D1 titles are from these regions and 2/3 of the programs that have won a title). So in addition to a cupcake warmup round, Ohio elites might miss a highly rated opponent in the regional finals as the regions are overall less comeptitive. Not sure though. An interesting conundrum.
................
12.2% of Ohio teams have zero or one loss when the playoffs begin. 8.1% of Texas teams have zero or one loss.
I believe it is over 9% last year for Texas. I think there were 14 one-lossers, not 12.
Anyway, as I pointed out, look at the undefeated elites. Ohio had just two and they were doomed to meet in the early rounds. At least three or four of the six Ohio undefeateds were from traditional nonpowers and four were from the weaker Regions 2 and 4. All the traditional major powers but two from Regions 1 and 4 (by far the strongest historically) had one or more losses.
I would appreciate if one of you could provide a link to the brackets, with records, for '04 and '05. If I am not mistaken, the numbers for Texas were higher in those years.
The top 32 teams in the Texas brackets are ranked every bit has high as the 32 teams in the Ohio bracket.
What a shocker. Texas is 2x the size of Ohio.
You missed what I posted. Texas has two brackets and the top 32 teams in EACH bracket are ranked every bit has high as the top 32 in Ohio. Probably higher.
--
I believe it is over 9% last year for Texas. I think there were 14 one-lossers, not 12.
Anyway, as I pointed out, look at the undefeated elites. Ohio had just two and they were doomed to meet in the early rounds. At least three or four of the six Ohio undefeateds were from traditional nonpowers and four were from the weaker Regions 2 and 4. All the traditional major powers but two from Regions 1 and 4 (by far the strongest historically) had one or more losses.
I would appreciate if one of you could provide a link to the brackets, with records, for '04 and '05. If I am not mistaken, the numbers for Texas were higher in those years.
Here is the '05 bracket. Can't find one for '04 with the W/L records.
http://www.5atexasfootball.com/stateplayoffs.htm
Here is an '04 w/out the records:
http://www.texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=991
You my be right, I'll let you look it up. one thing is those two years there were only 96 teams, not 128. If it is possible I think I like that system less than the current one.
Not trying to be funny, but defining "traditional" power would be a little difficult.
You could list SLC, but they were not even in the discussion prior to '02, really until December '02.
You would have Midland Lee, but they are down now. Northshore had one great year, Trinity has gone 10-0 once I believe? Lufkin has been pretty constant besides their gaffe last year.
Katy would be the most consistent I think.
Chicago
10-04-07, 04:38 PM
Pied,
Didn't they alternate which division had 32 and which had 64 from year to year?
I really hated that.
skyway28
10-04-07, 04:47 PM
LOL Really?
If you want to see a WEAK schedule look at your beloved "one-hit wonder" Dreadnots. The highest rated team they have played is #1,093. LOL
Lakeland's schedule is weak year after year after year.
SLC's schedule is 9 points per game tougher than Lakeland's and that gap will grow as the season progresses.
Lakeland has A LOT more history and tradition than SLC. They won a mythical national title in the 1920s, roughly 40 years before SLC even had a football team. Bill Castle became the coach of Lakeland in 1976. How did SLC do that year? Lakeland beat a Manatee team ranked in the top 5 nationally in 1984. When was the first time SLC beat a nationally ranked team? They have won 71.3 % of their games ALL-TIME after fielding their first team in 1906. Lakeland is 143-11 with five state titles the last 11.5 years. They have not had a losing season in over 35 years. They have been nationally ranked in ten seasons since 1996. One-hit wonder? Yeah, you're a freakin' fool!
By what measure is SLC's schedule 9 points better? Oh, you want to use the Freeman computer rankings. See the last sentence of the above paragraph.
Pied,
Didn't they alternate which division had 32 and which had 64 from year to year?
I really hated that.
Yes originally it was the Small school that had 32 teams. The changed the terminology from Large school/Small school to Division 1/Division 2 after the first two years.
Probably had something to do with the Small School champion being bigger than the Large school champion the first year or two.
A quick check gives me 16 undefeateds in Texas 5A in '05 plus 14 one-lossers. Of the undefeateds, there are some very recognizable names: Westfield, North Shore, SLC, Longview, Lufkin, Katy, Abilene?, Carter?, Copperas Cove?, Plano?....
Ohio D1 was the same as in '06, with 6 undefeateds (3 or 4 are traditional powers depending on your opinion) and 8 one-lossers. Three (half) of the undefeateds were in one region.
Back in '04, Ohio D1 only had 3 undefeateds and 6 one-lossers. In '03 it was 5 and 12. '02 was 5 and 9. '01 was 6 and 10.
I guess a typical Ohio D1 year looks to have 5-ish undefeateds and nine or so one-lossers. If memory serves, Texas was light on undefeateds in 2006, historically speaking.
UncleBaldy
10-04-07, 05:18 PM
SLCDad:
In 2006, the Texas 5A tourneys started:
- with over one-third of the teams with 4 or more losses
- one team in five was at .500 or worse
- at least eight teams had losing records
- some of these teams actually played each other in the first round
- in several round two (and even later) matchups you had teams with 6, 7 or even 8 losses between them.
- there were teams that went through three rounds facing teams that collectively had lost a dozen or more games
This doesn't pad records?
In contrast, the Ohio D1 tourney had one (1) team with 4 losses. That was the worst record in the 32-team field. Also, due to the interplay between Ohio's best during the year and the frequency of competition with top teams outside of Ohio, the likelihood of a tourney final between undefeateds is very low. The last time it happened was in 2000. Last year, only two traditional elites entered the tourney undefeated, and they were in the same region (leaving just one undefeated traditional power undefeated for the last two rounds).
Good points Concha. You might also want to contrast that with the Kentucky playoff system. For the size of the state and number of schools, Kentucky has one too many playoff games which means teams that are 4-6 and 3-7 routinely get into the playoffs and that will be getting worse as Kentucky moves to six classes/divisions. I think last year I calculated that at least 65-70% (somewhere around there) of the high school teams from state will go to the playoffs. Could you imagine if they did that in Ohio?
Good points Concha. You might also want to contrast that with the Kentucky playoff system. For the size of the state and number of schools, Kentucky has one too many playoff games which means teams that are 4-6 and 3-7 routinely get into the playoffs and that will be getting worse as Kentucky moves to six classes/divisions. I think last year I calculated that at least 65-70% (somewhere around there) of the high school teams from state will go to the playoffs. Could you imagine if they did that in Ohio?
It took how many years to get to 32 teams? Not likely to beyond that. They'd have to start the season a week earlier or go one week farther into December (brrrrrrrrrr).... It ain't freaking ice hockey.
SLCDad:
In 2006, the Texas 5A tourneys started:
- with over one-third of the teams with 4 or more losses
- one team in five was at .500 or worse
- at least eight teams had losing records
- some of these teams actually played each other in the first round
- in several round two (and even later) matchups you had teams with 6, 7 or even 8 losses between them.
- there were teams that went through three rounds facing teams that collectively had lost a dozen or more games
This doesn't pad records?
In contrast, the Ohio D1 tourney had one (1) team with 4 losses. That was the worst record in the 32-team field. Also, due to the interplay between Ohio's best during the year and the frequency of competition with top teams outside of Ohio, the likelihood of a tourney final between undefeateds is very low. The last time it happened was in 2000. Last year, only two traditional elites entered the tourney undefeated, and they were in the same region (leaving just one undefeated traditional power undefeated for the last two rounds).
There is one concept that you seem to overlook.
Why does adding teams with worse records weaken the playoffs? It doesn't. It makes the playoff tougher. All of the top teams are still there but they must play an additional game.
Can you explain how reducing the number of teams in the Texas playoffs would make the playoffs easier?
Bordertown
10-04-07, 06:33 PM
Why does Texas have roughly 52% of the 5A teams make the playoffs? Its money. The UIL gets 15% of the gate. If you shrunk the Texas playoffs to 64 teams and one division you would eliminate 64 games. Lets assume the average 5A playoff game attracts 10,000 (remember Texas supporters some of the inner city schools do not put buns in the seats and will drop the average). The cost of a ticket is $8 (bit higher than normal due to stadium rentals). The gate for one game is roughly $80,000 and the UIL will get 15% or $12,000. Those 64 games will generate the UIL $768,000 in revenues. The total gate exceeds $5,000,000. Guess what the remaining $4,250,000 goes to the schools after expenses are paid. Assume the schools get $20,000 each that will pay for some equipment.
Also as poor as some of the teams records my be they EARNED their way into the playoffs.
What I still do not understand what division SLC has played in has anything to do with the type team they are.
There is one concept that you seem to overlook.
Why does adding teams with worse records weaken the playoffs? It doesn't. It makes the playoff tougher. All of the top teams are still there but they must play an additional game.
Can you explain how reducing the number of teams in the Texas playoffs would make the playoffs easier?
I haven't said it makes them easier. I just think it is silly to have that much cannon fodder in the tourney. I think it pads records for later rounds.
Also as poor as some of the teams records my be they EARNED their way into the playoffs.
Going 3-7 and 4-6 is earning your way? Not in Ohio. In Ohio it's called losing and a quick trip home while the winners play in the tourney. Apparently standards vary between Ohio and Texas. It explains alot.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.