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.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?
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?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.
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?
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.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 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.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?
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.
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.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.
You misinterpreted my posts greatly. I'm talking about current rankings and performance.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.
I'll be shocked if MNW holds SLC to less than 450 yards.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.
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.
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, you may be confused.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.
Yeah, you are right. SLC is just lucky to be 79-1 since they moved up to 5A. Thanks for the clarification. LOLhe 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, you are confused.the confusion is yours when strength of schedule is the big seperator and all the texas teams have a biased advantage
"[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).
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.
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.