Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
-
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 857
- Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:30 pm
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
Typical West...excuse after excuse after excuse. And I'm sorry West old boy, but Berlin would have beat BC, BM, PC, CH, FH, without it even being close. They'd also beat Westmont I bet. And I'd also go out on a limb and say they'd hang, and probably win over Somerset as well.west33 wrote: They got somerset coming off of a great long football season and some players are still dinged up.
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 345
- Joined: September 28th, 2010, 9:42 pm
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
You were good up until somerset. Westmont and CH would give berlin a little bit of a challenge for a half.peytonsaturday wrote:Typical West...excuse after excuse after excuse. And I'm sorry West old boy, but Berlin would have beat BC, BM, PC, CH, FH, without it even being close. They'd also beat Westmont I bet. And I'd also go out on a limb and say they'd hang, and probably win over Somerset as well.west33 wrote: They got somerset coming off of a great long football season and some players are still dinged up.
-
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 857
- Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:30 pm
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
Let me rephrase. If they were to play 10 times, I'd bet Berlin would hang with them all 10, and win 5 or 6. This is totally hypothetical and will obviously never happen, but I don't think Berlin would get blown out by them.woninthetrenches wrote:You were good up until somerset. Westmont and CH would give berlin a little bit of a challenge for a half.peytonsaturday wrote:Typical West...excuse after excuse after excuse. And I'm sorry West old boy, but Berlin would have beat BC, BM, PC, CH, FH, without it even being close. They'd also beat Westmont I bet. And I'd also go out on a limb and say they'd hang, and probably win over Somerset as well.west33 wrote: They got somerset coming off of a great long football season and some players are still dinged up.
-
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 903
- Joined: May 17th, 2005, 9:42 pm
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
Everyone knows there is an issue. The media knows it, the PIAA knows it and the schools all know it. As long as the PIAA is afraid to divide into private/public classes due to lawsuit threats the cheating will continue! Cory is spot on.El-Moldo wrote:...From today's tribune, front page sports section, by Cory Isenberg: "But the (upcoming) new PIAA six class sports classification system does nothing to address the advantage and domination of private and charter schools in many sports, especially at the small-school level. It is heartbreaking to watch community-based teams forced to compete against all-star teams from schools with no boundaries".
- BisonLine74
- Grad Assistant
- Posts: 238
- Joined: August 30th, 2005, 2:49 pm
- Location: Butler, PA
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
I didn't want to be the first to point that out, but I'm glad you did. As a whole the LHAC is and should be a better conference. Every year. Without fail. However, just because the WestPAC had a team that could probably contend and another that would probably win 8-9 games doesn't mean anybody is saying the smaller conference is better. If there ever is a day that the LHAC is inferior to the WestPAC there will be rioting and all sorts of hatefulness. That would be so embarrassing I don't see a point in discussing it ever again.
It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.
-
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 857
- Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:30 pm
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
I agree. From top to bottom the LHAC is far better than the West pac. The bottom team in LHAC (BC) would hang 40 up on Ferndale.BisonLine74 wrote:I didn't want to be the first to point that out, but I'm glad you did. As a whole the LHAC is and should be a better conference. Every year. Without fail. However, just because the WestPAC had a team that could probably contend and another that would probably win 8-9 games doesn't mean anybody is saying the smaller conference is better. If there ever is a day that the LHAC is inferior to the WestPAC there will be rioting and all sorts of hatefulness. That would be so embarrassing I don't see a point in discussing it ever again.
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
Westy can only hope for a co-op with another team. BMCHS can draw from as many other districts as necessary.
It ain't over until it's over.
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
There are many relevant points which have been made here in this discussion. It doesn’t really make any sense to state that people only make the private/boundary-less school complaint when one of these teams is good and wins….well, of course that’s going to happen. It’s human nature. No one gets bent out of shape regarding the terrible seasons that Bishop Carroll has had recently---they are not causing someone else to miss out on opportunities. Everyone wants what’s best for their kids or the kids at their school. When a public school community puts together a group of kids in a team sport that combines talent, work ethic and intelligence and these kids are able to achieve a state title, that is really special. It’s also special when a boundary-less school does it (not taking anything away from BG—they have a special group of kids right now and have worked to earn what they’ve achieved).
HOWEVER, when a boundary-less school ends the season for the special group from a public school, there is going to be hard feelings. As it’s been stated already, a boundary-less school playing in class A does not have to adhere to the same regulations as a public school, but they still have to compete in the same class and under the same conditions. The fact that a boundary-less school can assemble a roster comprised of kids from essentially anywhere in the world but still play in the same classification and playoff system as public schools (with boundaries) whom have to assemble their roster with kids from within their BOUNDARY, I don’t see how anyone can deny the rub here. It’s not really cheating, as some have stated. I won’t go as far as to say BG or any other boundary-less school recruits. That is really irrelevant to the main issue, because public schools have been shown to recruit as well. But, the mere fact that if a public school puts one kid on their roster from another school district (even if their “home” school doesn’t offer the sport that they are playing) it forces them to take on the entire applicable enrollment for that sport from the co-op players home school----this is not level, equal or right. I don’t see how anyone can deny this. Too often, supporters of boundary-less schools take this personal and critics of boundary-less schools make it personal. It’s not really a question of whether or not one person likes the school or not, it’s more making the point that the system contradicts itself. If public schools should have to absorb all of the eligible enrollment in a co-op situation and may have to move up a class based upon that enrollment figure, then why should a boundary-less school not have to do the same?
I will offer this scenario and ask anyone can refute it to please do so……I see this situation as being no different than if the NCAA enacted regulations that no longer allowed Penn State football to have anyone on their roster that graduated from a school outside of Pennsylvania but continued to allow the Pitt and Temple football teams to recruit the world to comprise their rosters. Obviously, we can all see the tremendous advantage this would afford to Pitt and Temple. Can you imagine the tremendous amount of outcry and backlash that would come from our media and the fans? This is the same situation as what we currently have in the PIAA. Schools are all required to report enrollment and compete in a specific class, but the manner in how they assemble their rosters and report their enrollment is governed by different policies. One group has to deal with more strict restrictions than the other group, but yet they compete against one another in the playoff system. This will become an issue when the group with stiffer restrictions feels their kids have missed out on an opportunity because the group with less strict restrictions was able to beat them. We place a tremendous amount of importance on High School athletics in our part of the country (usually too much in most cases), so you can’t be surprised when fans/parents/coaches get frustrated because their kids have to live the rest of their lives wondering “what if…..”
No matter how you look at it, you’re not comparing apples to apples when a school with no boundaries plays against a team with boundaries.
HOWEVER, when a boundary-less school ends the season for the special group from a public school, there is going to be hard feelings. As it’s been stated already, a boundary-less school playing in class A does not have to adhere to the same regulations as a public school, but they still have to compete in the same class and under the same conditions. The fact that a boundary-less school can assemble a roster comprised of kids from essentially anywhere in the world but still play in the same classification and playoff system as public schools (with boundaries) whom have to assemble their roster with kids from within their BOUNDARY, I don’t see how anyone can deny the rub here. It’s not really cheating, as some have stated. I won’t go as far as to say BG or any other boundary-less school recruits. That is really irrelevant to the main issue, because public schools have been shown to recruit as well. But, the mere fact that if a public school puts one kid on their roster from another school district (even if their “home” school doesn’t offer the sport that they are playing) it forces them to take on the entire applicable enrollment for that sport from the co-op players home school----this is not level, equal or right. I don’t see how anyone can deny this. Too often, supporters of boundary-less schools take this personal and critics of boundary-less schools make it personal. It’s not really a question of whether or not one person likes the school or not, it’s more making the point that the system contradicts itself. If public schools should have to absorb all of the eligible enrollment in a co-op situation and may have to move up a class based upon that enrollment figure, then why should a boundary-less school not have to do the same?
I will offer this scenario and ask anyone can refute it to please do so……I see this situation as being no different than if the NCAA enacted regulations that no longer allowed Penn State football to have anyone on their roster that graduated from a school outside of Pennsylvania but continued to allow the Pitt and Temple football teams to recruit the world to comprise their rosters. Obviously, we can all see the tremendous advantage this would afford to Pitt and Temple. Can you imagine the tremendous amount of outcry and backlash that would come from our media and the fans? This is the same situation as what we currently have in the PIAA. Schools are all required to report enrollment and compete in a specific class, but the manner in how they assemble their rosters and report their enrollment is governed by different policies. One group has to deal with more strict restrictions than the other group, but yet they compete against one another in the playoff system. This will become an issue when the group with stiffer restrictions feels their kids have missed out on an opportunity because the group with less strict restrictions was able to beat them. We place a tremendous amount of importance on High School athletics in our part of the country (usually too much in most cases), so you can’t be surprised when fans/parents/coaches get frustrated because their kids have to live the rest of their lives wondering “what if…..”
No matter how you look at it, you’re not comparing apples to apples when a school with no boundaries plays against a team with boundaries.
-
- Moderator Team
- Posts: 11116
- Joined: June 24th, 2011, 10:43 am
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
Honestly rather than splitting things up, if they just moved all the A and AA Catholic schools to AAA. And moved the bigger Catholic schools into 5A or 6A. And left A, AA clean of private schools - everyone would probably be happier. Seems the fans of the small schools out there are the most vocal.
- BisonLine74
- Grad Assistant
- Posts: 238
- Joined: August 30th, 2005, 2:49 pm
- Location: Butler, PA
Re: Bishop Guilfoyle vs. Farrell Open Game Thread
I'll second that....can we get a vote and push it through?
It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.