BleacherCoaches.com

Yah know, there's a reason there is the pros, and college football, and minor leagues, and high school. It's because everyone is on a different level. Single A teams in the west pac have less kids and lack size, its a totally different league then the LHAC. It's like comparing fire and water. Just shut up whoever you are who feels u need to call the west pac weakpac and who say that it isnt as good. You're probably some 50 year old man who feels it nescisary to sit on here and make fun of other teams because you have nothing better to do. Get a life and quit acting like your twelve.

Your schedule gets set up right your'e gauranteed 4 wins in westpac maybe 5 on its really bad yrs its a weak conference they are lucky none of the single a teams in laurel highlands or even bellwood are district 5 or they wouldn't be playing the wpial champ every yr.

portage is D6 not D5, just throwin that out there.

The west pac produces some great players and athletes just like the other conferences, but the difference is with less kids than these bigger conferences have, the west pac may have 1 or 2 good players and the bigger conferences have 6-8 good players on a team. The top 2 on the west pac teams would definitely start on the bigger schools teams and be good also, but they just don't have as many kids to choose from. Just because you are good and play in a bigger school doesn't mean you are always better than a top west pac kid. Now alot of times teams like ferndale, c.v, shade, and rockwood doesn't have a player that may always be a player at a bigger school, but the other teams have legit players that would fare well on these bigger schools rosters. And sometimes these 4 schools that are at the bottom produce players good enough also.

With how many district titles?

I enjoy watching the westpac i think its an exciting conference to watch i just dont think its as well balanced as your other conferences i think its easier to win westpac than lhac no one can argue that im just saying "bad teams" in lhac every now and then have 3 good yrs to make it interesting up and down where "bad teams" in westpac are repeatedly bad every yr

Let's be honest here, the west pac doesn't compare team wise to the bigger conferences. Now to say the players are bad and can't play and be a star on these bigger teams is downright wrong. Max and tony strasier were two kids that come to mind that would have been stars and these bigger schools teams as they were in the west pac. Team wise, a j-town/f.h/b.m would downright tear up the west pac teams in a game. Like I said though 1-2 good players to 6-8 or more good players means a lot. And with more players you get more size and all! Coaches are better in the bigger schools than the west pac also!

Portage will struggle for the next 2 to 3 years and be lucky to hit the .500 mark. Small school....it goes in cycles....and this just isn't a good cycle for the Mustangs. Athletes are few and far between.

sppawfan wrote: Max and tony strasier were two kids that come to mind that would have been stars and these bigger schools teams as they were in the west pac.

I like how Max plays, but Tony seems to be a diva in my eyes.

Although I've only seen him play once as soph and once as junior he really does not even dominate westpac games much less being able to dominate on a top caliber laurel highlands team. Yes, he will go get a jump ball now and then, but if you watch him every play he's is nowhere close to being a dominating player. Defensively very soft, takes plays off, not fast, not aggressive blocking, doesn't use his long arms. (i'm not saying he can't tackle or can't block at all...obviously he does his job, but to call him dominant is misguided). He needs to be the best that he can be and not just enough to be better than opponent. division 1 schools will thro his tape right in the trash Unless he has a state record breaking senior year he isn't getting those division 1 scholarships like he wants.