SLC vs. MNW (No Insults Please)

Bordertown

New member
What do you say to the accusations that SLC, which could clearly afford another high school, chooses instead to have two full size schools split 9th and 10th in one and 11th 12th in the other yet both playing under one athletic umbrella and that this is done primarily for athletic reasons?

Do you think this gives Carroll an unfair advantage?

Do any other schools in Texas do this?

This is not uncommon in Texas. Southlake's enrollment is 2408 and they are the 4th largest school in their district out of 8 teams. The UIL combines the enrollment from both campuses.

Plano has 8 schools - 3 are senior high (11th & 12th) and 5 high schools (9th and 10th). The ADA of the high schools are included in the attendence zone of the senior high schools. The smallest Plano schools has an enrollment of 4,156 and the largest 5652.

Hope that helps.
 

SLCDad

Active member
What do you say to the accusations that SLC, which could clearly afford another high school, chooses instead to have two full size schools split 9th and 10th in one and 11th 12th in the other yet both playing under one athletic umbrella and that this is done primarily for athletic reasons?

Do you think this gives Carroll an unfair advantage?

Do any other schools in Texas do this?
Your premise is false.

SLC has one high school but two campuses. They are about 1 mile apart. There are shuttle buses going between the two every period. Many students have classes at both campuses.

SLC is about average in size for a 5A school in Texas and about 1/2 the size of some of the large 5A schools.

The school board made the decision about having a split campus. Yes, the athletic boosters wanted one school, however, that was only one of many considerations. Your statement that it was done "primarily for athletic reasons" is false. If you asked a school board member they would say that athletics was not the primary consideration.

If Southlake had decided to have two high schools, each would be a small 4A school with around 1,200 students per school (grades 9-12, boys and girls).

Lastly, SLC is not a rich school district. The community is upper middle class, but the school district itself is not rich. In fact, the expenditure per student is slightly below average for the area. The state takes away about 1/3 of the money that is raised through school property taxes in Southlake. The money is given to poorer districts. The state constitution in Texas says (roughly) that all public school districts should receive the same level of funding.
 

Chicago

New member
The fact that a school board member would say that athletics were not the primary consideration does not mean that athletics were not the primary consideration.

In related news, the Diamond Institute recommends using two months' salary as a guide for what to spend on an engagement ring, and the Wine Institute says wine is good for you.

Or, to quote (or, at least, paraphrase) the judge in My Cousin Vinny: I refuse to overturn years of Alabama jurisprudence because you find yourself in the unusual position of having clients who say they didn't do it.
 

SLCDad

Active member
The fact that a school board member would say that athletics were not the primary consideration does not mean that athletics were not the primary consideration.
Perhaps, but when someone says SLC has one combined high school in order to have a good football team, don't you think they need to provide at least some evidence to support that statement?

Also, since SLC is about the same size (both campuses combined) as all of the high schools in the area, how is SLC getting an advantage? I don't see it?

The combined campuses at SLC are similar in size to the schools they compete against. Where is the SLC advantage?
 

pied

Active member
Is it possible the boys were partial to their natural hair color and did not want to be forced to look like MnM?

What do you say to the accusations that SLC, which could clearly afford another high school, chooses instead to have two full size schools split 9th and 10th in one and 11th 12th in the other yet both playing under one athletic umbrella and that this is done primarily for athletic reasons?

Do you think this gives Carroll an unfair advantage?

Do any other schools in Texas do this?

To me those accusations do not make any sense. They might hold water, if SLC were a big school. As it is, they are in the smaller range of the 5A classification.

If they were to build one campus, their enrollment for classification purposes would not change at all.

I do know of several other schools who have done this, as well as some who had a ninth grade campus and 10-12 at the senior high campus.

DLSfanNW, I would ask you what competitive advantages does it offer?
 

SLCDad

Active member
Here are the enrollments in 5A District 5. (all are 9-12 boys and girls)

District 5 Enrollment
Colleyville Heritage 2425
Grapevine 2242.5
Haltom City Haltom 2609.5
Justin Northwest 2210.5
Keller 2789
Keller Central 2370
N Richland Hills Richland 2103
Southlake Carroll 2408 (combined campuses)

If you compare SLC's size to the surrounding districts you will find that SLC is smaller than most of the schools.

District 6: 4 schools are larger
District 7: 5 schools are larger
District 8: 8 schools are larger
District 9: 6 schools are larger

How can anyone reasonably conclude that SLC has an advantage due to size? SLC is smaller than most of the schools in the area.

(By the way, some of the schools in SLC's district are growing much faster than SLC. Justin Northwest and Keller Central are probably already bigger than SLC which would make SLC the 6th largest school in it's district.)
 

SLCDad

Active member
To me those accusations do not make any sense. They might hold water, if SLC were a big school. As it is, they are in the smaller range of the 5A classification.

If they were to build one campus, their enrollment for classification purposes would not change at all.
SLC went to a split campus to save money. The high school grew to big for the existing building. They expanded and converted the Jr. High building to the 9-10 campus to accomodate the growth and save money. Building a 2nd high school would have been much more expensive because of the duplicate facilities that would be required.
 

DLSfanNW

New member
To me those accusations do not make any sense. They might hold water, if SLC were a big school. As it is, they are in the smaller range of the 5A classification.

If they were to build one campus, their enrollment for classification purposes would not change at all.

I do know of several other schools who have done this, as well as some who had a ninth grade campus and 10-12 at the senior high campus.

DLSfanNW, I would ask you what competitive advantages does it offer?
I am not talking about one big campus but rather two totally different schools. This would give twice as many kids a chance to compete in high school sports but would probably water down the talent pool at one school.

I was under the impression that SLC was one of the bigger schools and the city could support two separate high schools but the decision was made to just crack one big high school into two parts possibly to remain dominant in football. This does not sound any more implausible then spending $18,000,000 on a high school football stadium or building an indoor facility in which to practice.
 

djtomr941

New member
Hey Dad, you make a quasi jab at DLS because they lost 6 games in the past 3 yrs; you could also note that they lost 6 games in the past 15 yrs. It seems like you are putting them on a lower level due to their recent history. Yet, you also try to expose MNW because of their LACK of recent history, like over the past 5, 10, 20 yrs. Here is your offering re MNW:

""How many state titles have the Bulls won before 2006? What is their record over the last 20, 10, 5 years? Are they a new power in Florida? Have they ever been nationally ranked before 2006? I know they didn't make any noise on the national scene until late in season last year. Do you think the Bulls were better than the Dreadnaughts last year? ""

Your rating criteria re opponents just seems to be inconsistent.

Look at how many NFL players are from Miami NW. A lot. Florida is a hard state to dominate over time, but I can assure you this, Miami NW this year, would blow away Lakeland from last year. Chris Rainey wouldn't be able to bust long runs against the physical, quick Miami NW defense.

I will be shocked if SLC has over 200 yards of offense.
 

pied

Active member
I was under the impression that SLC was one of the bigger schools and the city could support two separate high schools but the decision was made to just crack one big high school into two parts possibly to remain dominant in football. This does not sound any more implausible then spending $18,000,000 on a high school football stadium or building an indoor facility in which to practice.

Curious, how did you get that impression? The facts are pretty easy to find.

There are 225 schools in 5A. There are 134 schools in 5A with bigger enrollments.
 

SLCDad

Active member
I am not talking about one big campus but rather two totally different schools. This would give twice as many kids a chance to compete in high school sports but would probably water down the talent pool at one school.

I was under the impression that SLC was one of the bigger schools and the city could support two separate high schools but the decision was made to just crack one big high school into two parts possibly to remain dominant in football. This does not sound any more implausible then spending $18,000,000 on a high school football stadium or building an indoor facility in which to practice.
Your assumptions are not correct. SLC is a small 5A school that has classrooms in two locations. It's not much more than that.

As for the stadium, when the new Dragon Stadium was built SLC was playing in a very, very small stadium. They had had the same stadium since the 1A or 2A days. It was bad. When the new stadium was built, it was one of the smaller new stadiums in the the area. All of the schools in SLC's district play in stadiums that are larger or about the same size.

Regarding the indoor practice facility, many school in Texas have them. They are used year round by many school groups. They aren't all that expensive to build.
 

SLCDad

Active member
Hey Dad, you make a quasi jab at DLS because they lost 6 games in the past 3 yrs; you could also note that they lost 6 games in the past 15 yrs. It seems like you are putting them on a lower level due to their recent history. Yet, you also try to expose MNW because of their LACK of recent history, like over the past 5, 10, 20 yrs. Here is your offering re MNW:

""How many state titles have the Bulls won before 2006? What is their record over the last 20, 10, 5 years? Are they a new power in Florida? Have they ever been nationally ranked before 2006? I know they didn't make any noise on the national scene until late in season last year. Do you think the Bulls were better than the Dreadnaughts last year? ""

Your rating criteria re opponents just seems to be inconsistent.
You misinterpreted my posts greatly. I'm talking about current rankings and performance.

DLS is no longer on top of high school football. They may not make the top 20 next year and won't be in the top 10 in the preseason rankings. That's just the truth.

Regarding my questions about MNW, that is what they were.....QUESTIONS. I was asking about the team history. Not trying to make a point.

MNW will be in the top 5 next year (probably #2 or #1). DLS won't be in the top 10. THAT is the point. SLC is very happy to have MNW as an opponent to replace DLS on the schedule.
 

SLCDad

Active member
Look at how many NFL players are from Miami NW. A lot. Florida is a hard state to dominate over time, but I can assure you this, Miami NW this year, would blow away Lakeland from last year. Chris Rainey wouldn't be able to bust long runs against the physical, quick Miami NW defense.

I will be shocked if SLC has over 200 yards of offense.
I'll be shocked if MNW holds SLC to less than 450 yards.

(Are you aware that in 2006 SLC played 6-7 games, and won every one, against teams that were ranked higher than ANY team on MNW's schedule?)
 

SLCDad

Active member
Here are the Massey Rankings comparing 2006 SLC vs. 2006 MNW.

Team........................W-L-T.......Rating.......Power.....Offense....Defense... Sched

Northwestern.............15-0-0.......2.529........61.40......57.20......25.92...30.26
Southlake Carroll.........16-0-0......3.205........77.58.......61.34......37.96... 49.12


These aren't my numbers. They come from an independent source. SLC wins in every category but the biggest difference is stength of schedule.

Would you like to see another independent source (the Freeman Rankings)? They say pretty much the same thing.
 

consumerman

New member
Hey Dad, you make a quasi jab at DLS because they lost 6 games in the past 3 yrs; you could also note that they lost 6 games in the past 15 yrs. It seems like you are putting them on a lower level due to their recent history. Yet, you also try to expose MNW because of their LACK of recent history, like over the past 5, 10, 20 yrs. Here is your offering re MNW:

""How many state titles have the Bulls won before 2006? What is their record over the last 20, 10, 5 years? Are they a new power in Florida? Have they ever been nationally ranked before 2006? I know they didn't make any noise on the national scene until late in season last year. Do you think the Bulls were better than the Dreadnaughts last year? ""

Your rating criteria re opponents just seems to be inconsistent.

he is very inconsistent in everything EXCEPT trying in any way to bash DLS

he is very consistent in that

your points are valid

SLC has NEVER played in the largest 5A Division in Texas until this year and they won because of a choke fake punt call by the Euless Coach (or should I say clueless). SLC had scored 16 points thru 59 minutes of action.

2006 was SLC's only large school championship in a playoff system that has many 3-7, 4-6 and 5-5 teams in the playoffs

make your own conclusions
 

consumerman

New member
Here are the Massey Rankings comparing 2006 SLC vs. 2006 MNW.

Team........................W-L-T.......Rating.......Power.....Offense....Defense... Sched

Northwestern.............15-0-0.......2.529........61.40......57.20......25.92...30.26
Southlake Carroll.........16-0-0......3.205........77.58.......61.34......37.96... 49.12


These aren't my numbers. They come from an independent source. SLC wins in every category but the biggest difference is stength of schedule.

Would you like to see another independent source (the Freeman Rankings)? They say pretty much the same thing.

independent does not mean flawless
strength of schedule is the main rating seperator, at one time a high percentage of all the top 50 strength of schedule rankings in the nation were from texas

that is very flawed but is the main seperator for slc

that certain people have to be reminded OVER AND OVER is sad
 

SLCDad

Active member
independent does not mean flawless
strength of schedule is the main rating seperator, at one time a high percentage of all the top 50 strength of schedule rankings in the nation were from texas

that is very flawed but is the main seperator for slc

that certain people have to be reminded OVER AND OVER is sad
Consumerman, you may be confused.

I posted the Massey ratings. You are confusing them with the Freeman ratings. Nobody has ever discussed the Massey strength of schedule ratings on this board.
 

Chicago

New member
"[DLS] may not make the top 20 next year and won't be in the top 10 in the preseason rankings. That's just the truth."

It's hard to pass that off as a fact at this point (although it certainly didn't stop you from trying).

I believe DLS was a bit junior-heavy this year, with a pretty good sophomore class on the JV team (opinion), and ended up ranked #13 in USA Today and #19 in Cal Preps (fact).

I am not sure how (a) being in the second ten last year (in both a human poll, as they say, AND one of your dearly-loved computer polls), and (b) having possibly a better team coming back, lead to "won't be in the top 10 in the preseason rankings. That's just the truth."

It's possible, of course, that DLS won't be ranked in the top ten, but it's not a fact, either.

It's certainly possible to assert that SLC is a great football team without pointing out that DLS won its last National Championship in 2003. But it doesn't seem to be possible for everyone.

Someday I may start a thread on something like "How would England be different today if the Black Prince had died in 1396 rather than 1376" just to see how long it takes you to point out that SLC is 79-1 the last five years.
 

consumerman

New member
Consumerman, you may be confused.

I posted the Massey ratings. You are confusing them with the Freeman ratings. Nobody has ever discussed the Massey strength of schedule ratings on this board.

the confusion is yours when strength of schedule is the big seperator and all the texas teams have a biased advantage

if slc would travel and play someone out of state that would be a first step

until then we have flawed strength of schedules and people who use that to prop up their own wishes
 

consumerman

New member
SLC is very happy to have MNW as an opponent to replace DLS on the schedule.



another factual error

how can they replace dls when dls was never on the schedule
 

consumerman

New member
It's certainly possible to assert that SLC is a great football team without pointing out that DLS won its last National Championship in 2003. But it doesn't seem to be possible for everyone.


he is obsessed with bashing dls which is kinda foolish

and to think if those texas coaces learn when NOT to call a fake punt we would not have to be going thru this
 

SLCDad

Active member
he is very inconsistent in everything EXCEPT trying in any way to bash DLS

he is very consistent in that

your points are valid

SLC has NEVER played in the largest 5A Division in Texas until this year and they won because of a choke fake punt call by the Euless Coach (or should I say clueless). SLC had scored 16 points thru 59 minutes of action.

2006 was SLC's only large school championship in a playoff system that has many 3-7, 4-6 and 5-5 teams in the playoffs

make your own conclusions
Yeah, you are right. SLC is just lucky to be 79-1 since they moved up to 5A. Thanks for the clarification. LOL


Fortunately the Euless Trinity fans and team have enough class to not make excuses for the loss like Consumerman did. SLC took control of the game in the 4th quarter with three long drives. They outgained Trinity by almost 100 yards for the game.

I'll bet the DLS team isn't making excuses for their loss to Canyon even though DLS couldn't take advantage of three interceptions in the 2nd half.

SLC has faced the toughest playoff gauntlett of ANY team in the nation in each of the last three years. Check any rating you want. You choose. That is the truth.
 

SLCDad

Active member
the confusion is yours when strength of schedule is the big seperator and all the texas teams have a biased advantage
Consumerman, you are confused.

The strength of schedule ratings for Massey have NEVER been posted here. I'm wondering if you have ever looked at them.

Please document what you say.
 
Last edited:

SLCDad

Active member
"[DLS] may not make the top 20 next year and won't be in the top 10 in the preseason rankings. That's just the truth."

It's hard to pass that off as a fact at this point (although it certainly didn't stop you from trying).

I believe DLS was a bit junior-heavy this year, with a pretty good sophomore class on the JV team (opinion), and ended up ranked #13 in USA Today and #19 in Cal Preps (fact).

It's nice to see some substance regarding how the DLS team will be in 2007. I enjoy that stuff but it's scarce from the DLS fans. There isn't much talk about key players, returning players, etc.

The point I was making was that MNW will be higher ranked that DLS in 2007. Do you disagree with that? MNW will certainly be a top 5 team (probably #2) and DLS won't be in the top 10 (preseason). The point I was making is that SLC is very happy to have MNW as an opponent because of the rankngs. It will be a TERRIFIC game, most likely #1 vs. #2. That is a more significant match-up that SLC vs. DLS would have been. Do you disagree with that?
 

consumerman

New member
Consumerman, you are confused.

The strength of schedule ratings for Massey have NEVER been posted here. I'm wondering if you have ever looked at them.

Please document what you say.

it has been documented ad nauseum

that you cant remember the umpteen times you have been corrected and still bring the same flawed arguments is tiresome
 

consumerman

New member
SLC is just lucky to be 79-1 since they moved up to 5A

yes but in the playoffs they have been in the SMALLER of the two divisions of 5A every year except 2006 and they squeaked thru on a bad fake punt call

not impressed in 2006 and they played in the lower division all the years prior to that

those are facts
 

consumerman

New member
least you forget

you always point out the great strength of schedule slc plays

you can use reference a or reference b or reference xyz

one of your references listed a 7-5 team that was OUTSCORED this year as a top team in the country (I believe top 250 team) which to quote you is a lot better team than any mnw has played

that team would NOT be a top 250 team in california, let alone the nation, being 7-5 and outscored

that destroys your proof source and your argument falls like a house of cards

to rebring this up over and over is in my opinion, foolish
 

pied

Active member
SLC is just lucky to be 79-1 since they moved up to 5A

yes but in the playoffs they have been in the SMALLER of the two divisions of 5A every year except 2006 and they squeaked thru on a bad fake punt call

not impressed in 2006 and they played in the lower division all the years prior to that

those are facts

Also a fact. The first time DLS played a Souther team in the playoffs, which was the first time ever in CA, they lost.

That might lead some sceptics to think, if CA had a state wide playoff system like TX/FL/OH that the streak might have been in more jeapordy.
 

consumerman

New member
Also a fact. The first time DLS played a Souther team in the playoffs, which was the first time ever in CA, they lost.

That might lead some sceptics to think, if CA had a state wide playoff system like TX/FL/OH that the streak might have been in more jeapordy.

it may be, however,

no one eqautes the talent level of the 2006 team to teams during the streak

there were no dj williams, maurice drews, derek landris, or matt gutierrezs on the 2006 team

to say a flat loss to a team in 2006 by a team with in most experts opinion much less talent than the streak teams equates to delegitimizing the streak is a long shot at best

the 2006 team had maybe 1 division 1 prospect

previous dls teams have had 10 or more

so be wise in your assessment and dont jump to conclusions to self-serve your argument
 
.
Top