Titan32

I didn't mean to imply they didn't. But lets say in your county there is a public that is designated as the key facility for kids with these issues....it can be a factor in enrollment.

We have a many of the attributes mentioned repeatedly on the GID that folks say it takes to be successful in football. We work hard to maintain them. We also have a good program for physically and mentally challenged kids (another factor in the enrollment at many publics).

He includes Jasper in all his posts relating to success in SWI...I never quite get it. This years Jasper team was the best in a decade.

I don't think recruiting is an issue and we know kids move around to publics in the current environment so I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. It's not the issue. There are publics all over the state who have CYO like youth leagues, feeder systems etc. but all things being equal they are still disadvantaged in comparison to their enrollment equal on the private side of the fence....why? It's been said here already, it's not what privates have....it's what they don't have. They don't have a subset of the student population that doesn't do anything related to extracurriculars at all. They don't have to deal with that type of Human. In addition, EVERY public has this situation regardless of the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood the building happens to be in. All of them.

I don't think recruiting is an issue and we know kids move around to publics in the current environment so I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. It's not the issue. There are publics all over the state who have CYO like youth leagues, feeder systems etc. but all things being equal they are still disadvantaged in comparison to their enrollment equal on the private side of the fence....why? It's been said here already, it's not what privates have....it's what they don't have. They don't have a subset of the student population that doesn't do anything related to extracurriculars at all. They don't have to deal with that type of Human. In addition, EVERY public has this situation regardless of the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood the building happens to be in. All of them.

He is pulling feathers from his teeth.

As my grandpa (God rest his soul) would have said, "F@CK OHIO!"

Watching my youngest son (freshman) score his first varsity TD. The Courier and Press caught a picture of his smile the moment after he caught it, the image is priceless to me (thanks to friends at the Courier and Press).

Can we have our own association in the South too?

Yeah, agree....they "could" go back to something like this. I'm not going to get to attached to either theory LOL.

If they want to kinda stick with the theme of the last realignment...you might be onto something here. But if they want to make it more like before....not so much.

I have preaching this for years here on GID. The counter argument typically involves "affluent" public districts. That argument is BS...even the most affluent public district is still disadvantaged in terms of a subset of the enrollment number being kids that do little more than take up space. This is the only factor that even needs to be considered as to why enrollment alone doesn't work. Don't talk about the CYO or the publics that have good feeder programs.....that's just a distraction. All things being (thinks = all the stuff we say is needed for football success), two schools with basically the same enrollment, one public one private. There are simply higher numbers of prospective football players at the private. It is an advantage and the data proves it out. The question is does SF address it? It has helped, and with some tweaks (two year rolling cycle etc.) it can help even more. But at the end of the day will it just make room for more privates to slip in that aren't quite as good as the top tier privates at (all the stuff we say is needed for football success)? It still feels like there needs to be some sort of adjustment regarding how bad enrollment is at being the starting point for classification to begin with.

That play looked all messed up...two lineman acted like no idea who to go get.

I will also admit that my buddy Don Quixote and I think that SF isn't all that bad. I agree on the rolling two year adjustment. It's just nuts that the degree to which a team is governed relies on which year of the two year cycle they had success...that is really really dumb.

Yes...a long time indeed.

LOL....oh I know who the enemy is!

Come on tell us, tell us .....please!

I recall it...I'm sure I rebutted some of it LOL.

Intriguing analysis.

I swear to god this guy needs punctuation!

We have all seen it...but nice job reminding us of some interesting statistics! This stands out to me a bit. I had not looked at it this way. Before SF PPs (6% of our schools) made up 80% of State Championship winners. After SF PPs (6% of our schools) make up 33% of all State Champion winners. Semi-State drop off from 63% to 25% is huge as well.

Close enough...let's do that then..hypothetically.

A Catholic HS perhaps? You damn cheatin' Catholics all stick together don't ya? (LMAO...I kid...I kid)

That said...thank you for the respectable debate. You never hit below the belt and that is rare on here.