OCC History

[Deleted]

Anything on the OCC awebgsu?

[awebgsu]

OCC Basketball Champions

'15-'16 Lexington [4]
'14-'15 Ashland [1]
'13-'14 West Holmes [1]
'12-'13 Mansfield Senior [8]
'11-'12 Lexington [3] and Mansfield Senior [7]
'10-'11 Lexington [2]
'09-'10 Mansfield Senior [6]
'08-'09 Madison [1]
'07-'08 Lexington [1] and Mansfield Senior [5]
'06-'07 Mansfield Senior [4]
'05-'06 Mansfield Senior [3]
'04-'05 Mansfield Senior [2]
'03-'04 Mansfield Senior [1] and Wooster [1]

[Deleted]

Thanks.

Seeing that sparks some thoughts. Interesting that Mansfield has been shut out the past 3 seasons. Wooster and Ashland, 2 of the 3 biggest schools in the league, have won only 2 titles.

[Willard Fillmore]

When Mansfield was winning titles weren't they the largest school?

[Deleted]

Ashland, Mansfield and Wooster have always been very close with enrollment. Being the biggest school does not win league titles which is obvious from the Champions awebgsu posted above.
Maybe a better piece of info to know is from the OCC start to present time, Mansfield was being coached by Gregg Collins for 5 yrs, Effie James for 4 yrs and Jt Reese the last 4 yrs.

[Willard Fillmore]

You were the one who broached the subject of "biggest" schools. One of the reasons that Wooster and Ashland "2 of the 3 biggest schools in the league" have each won only one title in 13 years, is that Mansfield the OTHER of the 3 largest schools in the league has won 8 titles.

[Deleted]

Point being the largest school has not won every title, as some seem to think. Or as other use a school or school's enrollment as an excuse to avoid. 9 times in the OCC titles have been won by schools who were not the largest in the conference.

[Willard Fillmore]

Of the 16 titles won, including co-titles, 10 were won by who you described as the 3 "biggest schools in the league". Which is logical and usually the case in most leagues, but can be over come by 3 very good players on a team, a very good coach and/or a very good program.

[Deleted]

BUt the interesting thing is of the last 9 titles won or shared, 5 have not been from those 3. Does this prove that in the big money sports enrollment is not the deciding factor? Some would still argue.

[Willard Fillmore]

May 17, 2016 15:12:50 GMT -5 Willard Fillmore said:

No, in this case proves that a spate of studs can overcome not having one of the largest pools to draw from. That and the quality of coaching going down hill at a school. 

[Deleted]

So you agree that being the biggest school in a conference does not mean you will win the conference. Some try to argue that the enrollment of a school will determine their success in sports. I would tend to disagree with that as a blanket statement.

[awebgsu]

Taking coaching out of the equation, and assuming a school's enrollment's basketball talent followed a standard bell curve distribution...at some point enrollment becomes a non-factor as anyone with a certain enrollment or higher would be able to have a full roster of "10" ability. What that magic number is though...I don't know.

[Deleted]

I have not collected data for any bell curves lately but I agree with that. If we are talking Lucas and Mason I feel I could predict that outcome accurately probably 99% of the time.

[Willard Fillmore]

May 17, 2016 22:00:03 GMT -5 @scooter said:

So you agree that being the biggest school in a conference does not mean you will win the conference. Some try to argue that the enrollment of a school will determine their success in sports. I would tend to disagree with that as a blanket statement.

As I said above and on many occasions, there are a few things that once in a while can help a smaller school overcome the largest gene pool. 

[Deleted]

"once in a while"? Try 6 of the last 9 years.

[Willard Fillmore]

First, 6 is incorrect. Remember, it was YOU on May 17, 2016 at 7:20am that said 5, not 6. Secondly, Wooster is larger than Senior and Ashland slightly smaller soon to be larger. Thirdly, you're talking about a grain of sand from the beach in the entirety of high school basketball. Thus a very very very small sample size.

[Deleted]

First, Count for yourself, 6 is correct. Second, which of the three is larger is irrelevant to me as I put all three in the group of being the biggest 3 in the OCC. Third, my reference was on the timeframe of the OCC so it's all that was needed.