Correct, I never said differently. I think the claim was that MLs "record" pre 2000 wasn't bad so it can't entirely be disregarded in their entirety of work. Obviously post 2000 is when they've done their most work but if we're looking at overall work, are we going to say someone like Wyoming is higher on the alltime list than ML because they have way more wins and narrowly an overall better winning percentage but lack the state titles and playoff wins. I guess the question is how much weight do you give to certain criteria?
Example: not gonna knock Massillon here because like I said, I dont care but I'm going to compare them to the Browns. The Browns won a crap ton of titles pre NFL (i think even the most all time) and won a ton of games, but haven't won a title since the merger. No one considers the Browns the best NFL team of all time even though their overall work gives them a case. Massillon won obviously the most poll titles of all time but just recently won a playoff title, so obviously we're giving them a lot of credit for work done pre the current system when the Browns don't really get the same thing. So like I said, how do you weigh it all? It's discretionary. For the record I do not think ML is the greatest program of all time. Just want to lay that out there.