|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 9, 2019 15:45:28 GMT -5
I defined division 1 players differently than you. Neither of us have a objective definition. No surprise you ignored my main intention on making such a comment. The main point was that those rosters were talented and that they could have had better records. I bring up teams like Bellevue and Clear Fork (though Bellevue is clearly the better example), because they are similar population pools and they over perform with what they have. And regarding the argument that we could never get assistants to drive a considerable to come coach, I'm just showing examples where it had happened. I said it was possible, and that Hawkins got some of his assistants to drive a decent distance. I personally asked Coach Cooper while he was with the team, and he said he commuted 40 minutes from his farm in Wynford. I know they had another guy from Wynford, and I also know they had some assistants from Galion (no, the galion guys didn't drive 35 minutes, that is why I put a qualifier after I put 35+ minutes). Yes, the majority will be local guys, but the main point is that it's possible to attract some assistants from further away if the right coach comes around. Feel free to disagree. There is only one way to quantify Div1 players. If they receive a Div1 scholarship. Coy didn't, he was on TU's roster as a Freshman, not after that. Yale IS NOT a Div1 football school. Boatwright was never on a Div1 roster. He never played a down of football at any collegiate level. Bartman was a LB at BG for 5 years with a total of 9 solo tackles. I'll give you one not "definitely 4 or more". How do you define a Div1 player? Because you say so? I DID NOT say "never"...READ, don't make up stuff. I said. "not many assistants would drive a 60 mile round round trip". If one assistant told you he commuted 40 miles and his place was in the Wynford District that means he lived 18 miles West of Wynford high school. I never knew the Wynford District stretched 18 miles West of the high school. Maybe he was as big of an exaggerator as you.  |
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 9, 2019 15:59:31 GMT -5
Highlight for me where you get that idea? And trace back the dialogue about the discussion on assistants, I have made comments that suggest that is not the case. You keep hitting on the idea of needing to bring assistants in from a far. Besides, it was a question not a statement. The reason I asked about your coach's record was because I did not know it. AND I always wonder why a school hires a coach with a losing record but then questions them when they lose at their school. Like I said before, track the dialogue, find out who brought up assistants, and I think it'll become clear why I am talking about assistants.. As for your other observation, I'm sure you can come up with some ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 9, 2019 16:10:59 GMT -5
I defined division 1 players differently than you. Neither of us have a objective definition. No surprise you ignored my main intention on making such a comment. The main point was that those rosters were talented and that they could have had better records. I bring up teams like Bellevue and Clear Fork (though Bellevue is clearly the better example), because they are similar population pools and they over perform with what they have. And regarding the argument that we could never get assistants to drive a considerable to come coach, I'm just showing examples where it had happened. I said it was possible, and that Hawkins got some of his assistants to drive a decent distance. I personally asked Coach Cooper while he was with the team, and he said he commuted 40 minutes from his farm in Wynford. I know they had another guy from Wynford, and I also know they had some assistants from Galion (no, the galion guys didn't drive 35 minutes, that is why I put a qualifier after I put 35+ minutes). Yes, the majority will be local guys, but the main point is that it's possible to attract some assistants from further away if the right coach comes around. Feel free to disagree. There is only one way to quantify Div1 players. If they receive a Div1 scholarship. Coy didn't, he was on TU's roster as a Freshman, not after that. Yale IS NOT a Div1 football school. Boatwright was never on a Div1 roster. He never played a down of football at any collegiate level. Bartman was a LB at BG for 5 years with a total of 9 solo tackles. I'll give you one not "definitely 4 or more". How do you define a Div1 player? Because you say so? I DID NOT say "never"...READ, don't make up stuff. I said. "not many assistants would drive a 60 mile round round trip". If one assistant told you he commuted 40 miles and his place was in the Wynford District that means he lived 18 miles West of Wynford high school. I never knew the Wynford District stretched 18 miles West of the high school. Maybe he was as big of an exaggerator as you. Where did you get that definition? Oh yeah, you made it up, just like I made up mine (FCS football is division 1 btw). Feel free to engage with the main point or... not... And speaking of not reading, I said 40 minutes, not 40 miles (and the fact that we are taking about this asinine). The main point is if there were people willing to commute for Coach Hawkins, there will be people willing to commute if Ontario attracts the right coach. And if we have to work with what assistants we have, they can told what to do, be handed a schedule, and developed over time. It's not as big a limiting factor as you think it is (in my opinion). |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 9, 2019 17:37:43 GMT -5
Made it up?? My definition of a Div1 player is an absolute. You are not a Div1 player unless you get a Div1 scholarship. I would never say a kid is Div1 if not one of the 130 head coaches at Div1 schools thought he was worthy of a scholarship.
You're feeding us more lies by telling us "FCS is division 1". FBS is now what used to be called Division 1.
In this thread I've only talked miles. That is an exact measure. Minutes of travel can vary over the same exact distance based on many factors.
I can almost guarantee if a coach is hired from 50 miles away, assistants won't follow him to Ontario. I can't think of a head coach with a good record within 50 miles that would be interested...can you? They'd have to settle for assistant coaches and that's a crap shoot
|
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 9, 2019 18:37:29 GMT -5
Made it up?? My definition of a Div1 player is an absolute. You are not a Div1 player unless you get a Div1 scholarship. I would never say a kid is Div1 if not one of the 130 head coaches at Div1 schools thought he was worthy of a scholarship. You're feeding us more lies by telling us "FCS is division 1". FBS is now what used to be called Division 1. In this thread I've only talked miles. That is an exact measure. Minutes of travel can vary over the same exact distance based on many factors. I can almost guarantee if a coach is hired from 50 miles away, assistants won't follow him to Ontario. I can't think of a head coach with a good record within 50 miles that would be interested...can you? They'd have to settle for assistant coaches and that's a crap shoot No it's not, you made it up. The term is socially constructed, and varies from the perspective of each person. Prove otherwise. You are just reiterating your opinion on what it should be. And regarding whether FCS is Division 1, what is it? Division 2? Division 1.5? All of these are semantics arguments that stray from the main point (which I'm about to give up rehashing). Ontario is similar in size to Bellevue, it has produced some very good teams in terms of talent, and it has has underperformed with those teams year after year. I don't think we should claim the genetics in this community are so deficient in comparison to some other community in Ohio in order to explain why we are consistently worse (and it doesn't make sense in terms of probability). There are other things that we can control in order to produce a better team, so what is the point of doing nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 9, 2019 21:54:04 GMT -5
I’m hesitant to jump into this conversation. There are clearly D1 caliber football players who never get a scholarship to a D1 school. The recruiting process is an imperfect science. Proof is there are walk ons that become significant contributors that earn a scholarship. Why weren’t they offered right out of high school? Inexact science. There are lots of good football players that go overlooked just like there are lots of scholarship flops.
|
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 9, 2019 22:22:32 GMT -5
I’m hesitant to jump into this conversation. There are clearly D1 caliber football players who never get a scholarship to a D1 school. The recruiting process is an imperfect science. Proof is there are walk ons that become significant contributors that earn a scholarship. Why weren’t they offered right out of high school? Inexact science. There are lots of good football players that go overlooked just like there are lots of scholarship flops. Yep, your approach to defining div 1 athletes is just as valid. You'll likely get some push back from a certain somebody though lol. |
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 9, 2019 22:35:39 GMT -5
I’ve also said before that there are no breeding programs in places like Bellevue or Clear Fork. It’s random hooking up there like everywhere else. Coaches have some control over the substrate they have to work with. They can build and develop a system from youth up or they can wait and pray about what gets handed to them in high school. It can be done, even in Ontario (see the basketball program). Now, they don’t have control over all the influences on their players. They get what the parents and community hand them. Toughness (or lack of), entitlement, selflessness, etc. Stability helps a lot. How many head coaches have been through Ontario since Bellevue or Clear Fork had their last change? Like a college coach wants enough time to get “his recruits” into the system I’d want a few years guaranteed to implement my system if I took a job like that (which isn’t going to happen). Norwalk did it. Some with good decisions (coaching upgrade and a dumbed down non-conference schedule) and some by luck (a few better than usual players) and now all the sudden they expect to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Oct 10, 2019 7:34:55 GMT -5
You keep hitting on the idea of needing to bring assistants in from a far. Besides, it was a question not a statement. The reason I asked about your coach's record was because I did not know it. AND I always wonder why a school hires a coach with a losing record but then questions them when they lose at their school. Like I said before, track the dialogue, find out who brought up assistants, and I think it'll become clear why I am talking about assistants.. As for your other observation, I'm sure you can come up with some ideas. Want better results get Crestline, Ridgedale, Riverdale and Bucyrus back on your schedule. it work so will for so many years. |
|
|
|
Post by maplecityjake on Oct 10, 2019 16:06:20 GMT -5
I’ve also said before that there are no breeding programs in places like Bellevue or Clear Fork. It’s random hooking up there like everywhere else. Coaches have some control over the substrate they have to work with. They can build and develop a system from youth up or they can wait and pray about what gets handed to them in high school. It can be done, even in Ontario (see the basketball program). Now, they don’t have control over all the influences on their players. They get what the parents and community hand them. Toughness (or lack of), entitlement, selflessness, etc. Stability helps a lot. How many head coaches have been through Ontario since Bellevue or Clear Fork had their last change? Like a college coach wants enough time to get “his recruits” into the system I’d want a few years guaranteed to implement my system if I took a job like that (which isn’t going to happen). Norwalk did it. Some with good decisions (coaching upgrade and a dumbed down non-conference schedule) and some by luck (a few better than usual players) and now all the sudden they expect to win. Bellevue has had 3 Head Coaches the last 68 years. Huron had also been a place of stability as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 10, 2019 19:30:15 GMT -5
Made it up?? My definition of a Div1 player is an absolute. You are not a Div1 player unless you get a Div1 scholarship. I would never say a kid is Div1 if not one of the 130 head coaches at Div1 schools thought he was worthy of a scholarship. You're feeding us more lies by telling us "FCS is division 1". FBS is now what used to be called Division 1. In this thread I've only talked miles. That is an exact measure. Minutes of travel can vary over the same exact distance based on many factors. I can almost guarantee if a coach is hired from 50 miles away, assistants won't follow him to Ontario. I can't think of a head coach with a good record within 50 miles that would be interested...can you? They'd have to settle for assistant coaches and that's a crap shoot No it's not, you made it up. The term is socially constructed, and varies from the perspective of each person. Prove otherwise. You are just reiterating your opinion on what it should be. And regarding whether FCS is Division 1, what is it? Division 2? Division 1.5? All of these are semantics arguments that stray from the main point (which I'm about to give up rehashing). Ontario is similar in size to Bellevue, it has produced some very good teams in terms of talent, and it has has underperformed with those teams year after year. I don't think we should claim the genetics in this community are so deficient in comparison to some other community in Ohio in order to explain why we are consistently worse (and it doesn't make sense in terms of probability). There are other things that we can control in order to produce a better team, so what is the point of doing nothing? First of all, allow me to clear up for you the college football only designations. In 1978 the NCAA clarified the differences between the levels of college football. Division I(roman numeral, not number)-A is now the FBS(Football Bowl Subdivision). Those colleges are required to spend a certain amount of money on football and are required to average at least 15,000 tickets sold per game per year over a 2 year period. They are required to give 85(no more or fewer) full scholarships in a year. Division I-AA is now the FCS(College Championship Subdivision). They are not required to spend as much money on football, they are not required to average 15,000 tickets sold per game. They are required to give full ride or partial scholarships up to a total of 63 each year. Just because YOU or anyone else says/thinks a player is a FBS player is clearly subjective. The ONLY thing that makes him a TRUE FBS player is if he receives a scholarship by one of the 130 FBS schools. You obviously live in a subjective world. All you have to do is look at TODAY'S Bellevue roster and Ontario's roster. Is Bellevue's QB 5-7? What is the size of Bellevue's O-line and D-line? If both schools needed a new head coach at the same time, which would get the most interest from the best candidates? BTW in the same 5 year period you are enamored with Bellevue's records were 6-4, 7-3, 7-3, 6-4, 8-2. No 9 or 10 win seasons, an average of less than 7 wins per year. OH, have you heard of the last name Santoro, from Bellevue? They've produced more great athletes by far, than any family name in Ontario. GENETICS If you don't think there's genetics involved in certain communities you're clueless. All you need to do is look at rosters of MAC schools. They're all smaller schools than Ontario yet year after year they have more players on their rosters and they always have 15-20 kids that are 6-3 to 6-6 and weigh 250 to 275. Big strapping farm boys. Double figures have PLAYED college football for at Power Five Conference schools. In the history of Ontario there has never been ONE kid big and strong enough to play for a Power Five Conference. Those districts have many more kids stay in the communities and reproduce more of the same. Much the same in Clear Fork and Shelby. Very few of Ontario's past good players stay or come back to Ontario. Ontario is a much more transient community. ALL OF THIS is available for YOU, to do some homework. Yet what do you do? GUESS...usually incorrectly. OH, a while back you mentioned "once in a generation talent" for Ontario. Where is that? |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 10, 2019 19:58:13 GMT -5
I’m hesitant to jump into this conversation. There are clearly D1 caliber football players who never get a scholarship to a D1 school. The recruiting process is an imperfect science. Proof is there are walk ons that become significant contributors that earn a scholarship. Why weren’t they offered right out of high school? Inexact science. There are lots of good football players that go overlooked just like there are lots of scholarship flops. KEY WORD, "caliber". If given a scholarship to a FBS school you WILL go down in history as a TRUE FBS player. |
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 11, 2019 10:39:19 GMT -5
No it's not, you made it up. The term is socially constructed, and varies from the perspective of each person. Prove otherwise. You are just reiterating your opinion on what it should be. And regarding whether FCS is Division 1, what is it? Division 2? Division 1.5? All of these are semantics arguments that stray from the main point (which I'm about to give up rehashing). Ontario is similar in size to Bellevue, it has produced some very good teams in terms of talent, and it has has underperformed with those teams year after year. I don't think we should claim the genetics in this community are so deficient in comparison to some other community in Ohio in order to explain why we are consistently worse (and it doesn't make sense in terms of probability). There are other things that we can control in order to produce a better team, so what is the point of doing nothing? First of all, allow me to clear up for you the college football only designations. In 1978 the NCAA clarified the differences between the levels of college football. Division I(roman numeral, not number)-A is now the FBS(Football Bowl Subdivision). Those colleges are required to spend a certain amount of money on football and are required to average at least 15,000 tickets sold per game per year over a 2 year period. They are required to give 85(no more or fewer) full scholarships in a year. Division I-AA is now the FCS(College Championship Subdivision). They are not required to spend as much money on football, they are not required to average 15,000 tickets sold per game. They are required to give full ride or partial scholarships up to a total of 63 each year. Just because YOU or anyone else says/thinks a player is a FBS player is clearly subjective. The ONLY thing that makes him a TRUE FBS player is if he receives a scholarship by one of the 130 FBS schools. You obviously live in a subjective world. All you have to do is look at TODAY'S Bellevue roster and Ontario's roster. Is Bellevue's QB 5-7? What is the size of Bellevue's O-line and D-line? If both schools needed a new head coach at the same time, which would get the most interest from the best candidates? BTW in the same 5 year period you are enamored with Bellevue's records were 6-4, 7-3, 7-3, 6-4, 8-2. No 9 or 10 win seasons, an average of less than 7 wins per year. OH, have you heard of the last name Santoro, from Bellevue? They've produced more great athletes by far, than any family name in Ontario. GENETICS If you don't think there's genetics involved in certain communities you're clueless. All you need to do is look at rosters of MAC schools. They're all smaller schools than Ontario yet year after year they have more players on their rosters and they always have 15-20 kids that are 6-3 to 6-6 and weigh 250 to 275. Big strapping farm boys. Double figures have PLAYED college football for at Power Five Conference schools. In the history of Ontario there has never been ONE kid big and strong enough to play for a Power Five Conference. Those districts have many more kids stay in the communities and reproduce more of the same. Much the same in Clear Fork and Shelby. Very few of Ontario's past good players stay or come back to Ontario. Ontario is a much more transient community. ALL OF THIS is available for YOU, to do some homework. Yet what do you do? GUESS...usually incorrectly. OH, a while back you mentioned "once in a generation talent" for Ontario. Where is that? You are grasping at straws. Where did I call these players FBS caliber players (and why do you need a scholarship to be considered one... you made that up too?)? Division 1 doesn't mean FBS, which is again, something you made up and asserted as truth. It's simply your opinion (just as my definition is my opinion, it's not objectively right and I'm not claiming it to be). Yes, I'm enamored with Bellevue's coaching, even when they go 6-4 at times (they play better competition too btw). Their players were coordinated to a tee, they executed their game plans well, they have a intricate system of communication from the sidelines that puts them in, and they always have good numbers. If you watched them anytime they played Ontario, surely you saw a significant coaching difference... They maximize what they have. And you are missing the whole point of the discussion entirely. No one expects Ontario to dominate year in and year out. What we SHOULD expect is good discipline, inspired play, creativity from our coaching staff, decent numbers from year to year, good decisions, and good game plans. There is no genetic difference in any community that prevents this from occuring. For example, if you have a 5-7 QB, switch him out for your best athlete and adapt your offense accordingly. I will always forgive losses if we are experimenting with how to maximize what we have, if our players are playing with some enthusiasm, and if we are being beat cleanly (meaning without stupid turnovers and stupid coaching decisions). What you are defending makes no sense. You can argue that there are no better alternatives, but you can't argue that what we are watching is fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 11, 2019 21:07:03 GMT -5
I'm "grasping" at truth and facts. You have a lousy memory and forget the BS you spouted when you told us Ontario had "at least 4 FBS players" on a team. When in fact only ONE actually received a scholarship from a FBS school. BTW you NEVER used the word "caliber". MORE untruths.
Even a dolt could comprehend that if a player is given a scholarship to an FBS school, it follows that he IS an FBS player.
There is NO SUCH THING as "Division 1" in college football. It is a FACT that the top Division in college football is called FBS or Football Bowl Subdivision. Saying otherwise proves you are illiterate when it comes to college football. Don't take it from me, do the research and become educated. Instead of making a fool of yourself.
You can be "enamored" all you want, you can't have one of Bellevue's coaches.
Surely you aren't so foolish to imply the coaches are purposely playing an inferior QB. Who is this team's "best" athlete?? BE CAREFUL.
You are the "stupid" one. You prove it with every post.
I'm stating a FACT. ONCE AGAIN....this team lacks TALENT when compared to the 8 schools on the schedule. Not even a coach from Bellevue can solve the TALENT problem. If you can't see that you are beyond help.
AGAIN....where is the "once in a generation talent" Ontario has coming?
|
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 11, 2019 22:12:29 GMT -5
I'm "grasping" at truth and facts. You have a lousy memory and forget the BS you spouted when you told us Ontario had "at least 4 FBS players" on a team. When in fact only ONE actually received a scholarship from a FBS school. BTW you NEVER used the word "caliber". MORE untruths. Even a dolt could comprehend that if a player is given a scholarship to an FBS school, it follows that he IS an FBS player. There is NO SUCH THING as "Division 1" in college football. It is a FACT that the top Division in college football is called FBS or Football Bowl Subdivision. Saying otherwise proves you are illiterate when it comes to college football. Don't take it from me, do the research and become educated. Instead of making a fool of yourself. You can be "enamored" all you want, you can't have one of Bellevue's coaches. Surely you aren't so foolish to imply the coaches are purposely playing an inferior QB. Who is this team's "best" athlete?? BE CAREFUL. You are the "stupid" one. You prove it with every post. I'm stating a FACT. ONCE AGAIN....this team lacks TALENT when compared to the 8 schools on the schedule. Not even a coach from Bellevue can solve the TALENT problem. If you can't see that you are beyond help. AGAIN....where is the "once in a generation talent" Ontario has coming? I thought you were above inventing quotes and resorting to ad hominems. If you can bold where I said that in any of my posts... word for word, I'll concede my points, call myself an idiot, and delete my account off this site. If not, maybe you should be getting your memory checked. I have said variations of us having 4 division 1 athletes, never FBS. About there being no "division 1" in football, give me some text that supports your claim. Every website I have read refers to FBS and FCS as being sub divisions of division 1... meaning both are d-1. Keep reiterating your opinion, you have no facts to back your case that you have an objectively correct definition. It isn't wrong (because it is simply an opinion), but no authority has established what qualifications are required to be met in order to be called a division 1 athlete. Either cite a proper authority that say clearly "there is no division 1 football" or learn that terms can take on different meanings for different people. The rest of your post just shows that you don't care about understanding what I'm trying to say. What do you think my main points are? What are the base assumptions that I am making? What type of argument am I trying to make? I'll respond if I feel I need to clarify anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 13, 2019 16:01:06 GMT -5
I'm "grasping" at truth and facts. You have a lousy memory and forget the BS you spouted when you told us Ontario had "at least 4 FBS players" on a team. When in fact only ONE actually received a scholarship from a FBS school. BTW you NEVER used the word "caliber". MORE untruths. Even a dolt could comprehend that if a player is given a scholarship to an FBS school, it follows that he IS an FBS player. There is NO SUCH THING as "Division 1" in college football. It is a FACT that the top Division in college football is called FBS or Football Bowl Subdivision. Saying otherwise proves you are illiterate when it comes to college football. Don't take it from me, do the research and become educated. Instead of making a fool of yourself. You can be "enamored" all you want, you can't have one of Bellevue's coaches. Surely you aren't so foolish to imply the coaches are purposely playing an inferior QB. Who is this team's "best" athlete?? BE CAREFUL. You are the "stupid" one. You prove it with every post. I'm stating a FACT. ONCE AGAIN....this team lacks TALENT when compared to the 8 schools on the schedule. Not even a coach from Bellevue can solve the TALENT problem. If you can't see that you are beyond help. AGAIN....where is the "once in a generation talent" Ontario has coming? I thought you were above inventing quotes and resorting to ad hominems. If you can bold where I said that in any of my posts... word for word, I'll concede my points, call myself an idiot, and delete my account off this site. If not, maybe you should be getting your memory checked. I have said variations of us having 4 division 1 athletes, never FBS. About there being no "division 1" in football, give me some text that supports your claim. Every website I have read refers to FBS and FCS as being sub divisions of division 1... meaning both are d-1. Keep reiterating your opinion, you have no facts to back your case that you have an objectively correct definition. It isn't wrong (because it is simply an opinion), but no authority has established what qualifications are required to be met in order to be called a division 1 athlete. Either cite a proper authority that say clearly "there is no division 1 football" or learn that terms can take on different meanings for different people. The rest of your post just shows that you don't care about understanding what I'm trying to say. What do you think my main points are? What are the base assumptions that I am making? What type of argument am I trying to make? I'll respond if I feel I need to clarify anything. You're very very confused. Let's see if I can help. The NCAA has three Divisions for all sports OTHER THAN football. Division I, Division II, Division III. The NCAA does not use the numbers 1, 2, 3. Like you've been doing. They use the Roman Numerals I, II, III to designate their three Divisions. For FOOTBALL ONLY(what the discussion has been about), the NCAA uses the acronym FBS to delineate the 130 top/largest football schools ONLY from the next group called FCS schools. Comprendes? |
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 13, 2019 17:15:02 GMT -5
I thought you were above inventing quotes and resorting to ad hominems. If you can bold where I said that in any of my posts... word for word, I'll concede my points, call myself an idiot, and delete my account off this site. If not, maybe you should be getting your memory checked. I have said variations of us having 4 division 1 athletes, never FBS. About there being no "division 1" in football, give me some text that supports your claim. Every website I have read refers to FBS and FCS as being sub divisions of division 1... meaning both are d-1. Keep reiterating your opinion, you have no facts to back your case that you have an objectively correct definition. It isn't wrong (because it is simply an opinion), but no authority has established what qualifications are required to be met in order to be called a division 1 athlete. Either cite a proper authority that say clearly "there is no division 1 football" or learn that terms can take on different meanings for different people. The rest of your post just shows that you don't care about understanding what I'm trying to say. What do you think my main points are? What are the base assumptions that I am making? What type of argument am I trying to make? I'll respond if I feel I need to clarify anything. You're very very confused. Let's see if I can help. The NCAA has three Divisions for all sports OTHER THAN football. Division I, Division II, Division III. The NCAA does not use the numbers 1, 2, 3. Like you've been doing. They use the Roman Numerals I, II, III to designate their three Divisions. For FOOTBALL ONLY(what the discussion has been about), the NCAA uses the acronym FBS to delineate the 130 top/largest football schools ONLY from the next group called FCS schools. Comprendes? I can start using a Roman numeral if it helps you understand what I'm saying. You still haven't cited an authority that denotes that FCS football is not Division I football. Until you do, your opinion means nothing. I understand the difference between the two, you just just haven't proven that it is not Division I football. Also, ignore the other questions I asked. I don't mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 14, 2019 22:24:07 GMT -5
The authority is the NCAA.
The NCAA uses Roman Numerals. I use Roman Numerals. Those in the know use Roman Numerals. Do as you wish.
They list 351 schools being in Division I. They list 130 schools in FBS, THE top level of college football. What happened to the other 221? The other 221 either DO NOT have a football team OR their football team DOES NOT qualify as an FBS program, but does qualify as an FCS program, the level BELOW FBS.
An example, Georgetown has one of the top basketball programs in a the country, a Division I basketball program. They have a football team, but it DOES NOT qualify to be in the TOP level of college football, FBS. Their football team is a FCS team.
From 1978 to 2004 the top level of football teams were said to be in Division I-A. The level below that was designated as Division I-AA. That changed in 2005. From 2005 though today, the top level of football teams are designated to be FBS, the next lower level is FCS.
The NCAA treats football completely differently than all other sports, as far as the Division designations.
If you receive a football scholarship from Notre Dame, Ohio State, Akron U, Kent State or the other 126, you're an FBS football player.. The top 11,050 college players in the country. If you receive a scholarship from Campbell, Incarnate World, Kennesaw, Sacred Heart or the others, you're a FCS football player. The vast majority a notch below the 11,050. Proven by the fact that of the 256 players drafted by the NFL in 2018, 237 were FBS players, 19 were FCS players.
This IS NOT my opinion. They are FACTS.
Don't take my word for it. Do the research and become learned.
|
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 15, 2019 8:20:26 GMT -5
The authority is the NCAA. The NCAA uses Roman Numerals. I use Roman Numerals. Those in the know use Roman Numerals. Do as you wish. They list 351 schools being in Division I. They list 130 schools in FBS, THE top level of college football. What happened to the other 221? The other 221 either DO NOT have a football team OR their football team DOES NOT qualify as an FBS program, but does qualify as an FCS program, the level BELOW FBS. An example, Georgetown has one of the top basketball programs in a the country, a Division I basketball program. They have a football team, but it DOES NOT qualify to be in the TOP level of college football, FBS. Their football team is a FCS team. From 1978 to 2004 the top level of football teams were said to be in Division I-A. The level below that was designated as Division I-AA. That changed in 2005. From 2005 though today, the top level of football teams are designated to be FBS, the next lower level is FCS. The NCAA treats football completely differently than all other sports, as far as the Division designations. If you receive a football scholarship from Notre Dame, Ohio State, Akron U, Kent State or the other 126, you're an FBS football player.. The top 11,050 college players in the country. If you receive a scholarship from Campbell, Incarnate World, Kennesaw, Sacred Heart or the others, you're a FCS football player. The vast majority a notch below the 11,050. Proven by the fact that of the 256 players drafted by the NFL in 2018, 237 were FBS players, 19 were FCS players. This IS NOT my opinion. They are FACTS. Don't take my word for it. Do the research and become learned. I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you assuming that I believe FCS and FBS are both on the same level in terms of competition? Because I don't believe that. I said division I players, not players at the highest level of college football. Division I (even if I use 1, you know what I am referring to) players refers to both FCS and FBS players. They are subdivisions (NCAA words, not mine). Look at the academic all American team. Notice how they group both FCS players and FBS players onto one team. academicallamerica.com/news/2018/12/10/2018-google-cloud-academic-all-america-ncaa-division-i-football-team-announced.aspx What do you think I'm arguing when I make a claim like that anyways? What do you think the purpose was (I mentioned I could use all-ohio status to reinforce my point)? |
|
|
|
Post by dude on Oct 15, 2019 10:30:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 15, 2019 11:50:40 GMT -5
I hear you saying Ontario coaching has failed to maximize their players’ potential. Accurate?
Too late, though. You’re in the weeds. Been there, brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 15, 2019 12:48:48 GMT -5
I hear you saying Ontario coaching has failed to maximize their players’ potential. Accurate? Too late, though. You’re in the weeds. Been there, brother. Yeah, I didn't know it would be such a controversial claim lol. I've said my main point at least 5 times, and it hasn't been engaged with. Instead, we are debating semantics and made up claims by Willard. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 15, 2019 14:26:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 15, 2019 14:55:58 GMT -5
I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you assuming that I believe FCS and FBS are both on the same level in terms of competition? Because I don't believe that. I said division I players, not players at the highest level of college football. Division I (even if I use 1, you know what I am referring to) players refers to both FCS and FBS players. They are subdivisions (NCAA words, not mine). Look at the academic all American team. Notice how they group both FCS players and FBS players onto one team. academicallamerica.com/news/2018/12/10/2018-google-cloud-academic-all-america-ncaa-division-i-football-team-announced.aspx What do you think I'm arguing when I make a claim like that anyways? What do you think the purpose was (I mentioned I could use all-ohio status to reinforce my point)? I'm pointing out the errors in your opinions by reminding you what you ACTUALLY said and by using factual data. You never mentioned the acronyms FBS and FCS until I pointed out they were different and more specific than Division I when it came college football. Your claim was that Ontario had at least 4 Division 1(not I) players on a team/teams in first half of of this decade, but you only mentioned 3, not 4 or more. Your claim was not accurate as only 1 of the 3 got a scholarship. The Colleges you claimed they got scholarships to are both FBS schools(Toledo, BG) not FCS schools. So you knew Youngstown State or Dayton, the only 2 FCS schools in Ohio, didn't count when you said Division 1. Surely you know that "all-ohio[sic] status" includes politics and that no FBS coaches use it as a recruiting tool. NOTICE... CoSID has a trademark on "Academic All-America". Also notice on their website it's called the " Goggle Cloud Academic All-America". Commercialization of college sports of the highest order. |
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 15, 2019 15:27:25 GMT -5
I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you assuming that I believe FCS and FBS are both on the same level in terms of competition? Because I don't believe that. I said division I players, not players at the highest level of college football. Division I (even if I use 1, you know what I am referring to) players refers to both FCS and FBS players. They are subdivisions (NCAA words, not mine). Look at the academic all American team. Notice how they group both FCS players and FBS players onto one team. academicallamerica.com/news/2018/12/10/2018-google-cloud-academic-all-america-ncaa-division-i-football-team-announced.aspx What do you think I'm arguing when I make a claim like that anyways? What do you think the purpose was (I mentioned I could use all-ohio status to reinforce my point)? I'm pointing out the errors in your opinions by reminding you what you ACTUALLY said and by using factual data. You never mentioned the acronyms FBS and FCS until I pointed out they were different and more specific than Division I when it came college football. Your claim was that Ontario had at least 4 Division 1(not I) players on a team/teams in first half of of this decade, but you only mentioned 3, not 4 or more. Your claim was not accurate as only 1 of the 3 actually got a scholarship. The Colleges you claimed they got scholarships to are both FBS schools(Toledo, BG) not FCS schools. So you knew Ashland or Dayton, the only 2 FCS schools in Ohio, didn't count. Surely you know that "all-ohio[sic] status" includes politics and that no FBS coaches use it as a recruiting tool. NOTICE... academicallamerica.com has nothing to do with the NCAA. CoSID had a trademark on "Academic All America" My guess is, more FCS players than FBS players meet their criteria. 1. When I said division 1, I meant both FBS and FCS. You will not convince me that FCS is not Division I until you cite the relevant NCAA materials that make it clear that they are not considered D I. This is my trump card. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_Football_ChampionshipThe FCS championship is literally called the Division 1 Football Championship Lol. 2. Until you can define your opinion as objective, your opinion on what counts as Division I matters about as much as mine. In that case, you should deal with what I intended to say (which I have clarified many times). I never claimed that they got scholarships and you have to quote me if you want to prove me wrong. 3. Why do you think an institution that hands out awards for academic all american merges the groups into a category called Division I? 4. Ashland is division 2 (excuse me, division II, how will you be able to know what I mean lol). Youngstown State is the other school that is FCS Division I. This is coming from the guy who accuses me of not doing research lol. 5. Are you saying that All-Ohio status does not indicate whether the player was a good high school player in any sense? I don't think you are saying that, but you are not making a point if that is not what you are saying. 6. Feel free to address my main point pls and thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 15, 2019 23:09:21 GMT -5
1. You are the only person I know, that when they say "division 1" they mean both FBS and FCS FOOTBALL schools.
Unlike ALL other sports in Division I(not 1), the NCAA treats Football completely differently. There is a HUGE difference between FBS and FCS. Most FCS players do not get "full rides", where EVERY FBS player MUST be given a "full ride". FBS schools can give only 85 scholarships, FCS schools are allowed only 62. FBS schools MUST average selling at least 15,000 tickets/game. FCS has no ticket sales requirements. FBS schools MUST sponsor at least 16 sports. FCS schools have no such requirement.
Your "trump card" isn't an Ace. Why doesn't the FCS 24 school playoff crown a Division I Champion? You're the one that wants to declare FBS and FCS players equal in your mind if they play football for either.
2. Mine is not an opinion, all I've done is present facts and data. You have lied again. This was in your post of Oct. 6, 2019 at 5:44 on this thread. "There were definitely at least 4 division 1 players over the course of those years. John Coy(Toledo), Bronson Krull(Yale), Drew Boatwright(Bowling Green), Zac Bartman(Bowling Green) were all on division 1 rosters". You claimed them as Division I players due to them being on FBS school rosters. YET, Boatwright NEVER appeared on a BG roster, Coy was on a TU roster as a Freshman, never to be seen again. Yale is not in the same football category as TU or BG, both FBS schools. Bartman was at BG for 5 years, but only had a total of 9 solo tackles in those 5 years. With that said, I give you Bartman, 1 out of 4 and not an "at least".
3. Due to not enough FBS players meeting their qualifications to fill their First and Second teams?
4. Before I read this post I realized I misspoke and YSU instead of Ashland with Dayton are Ohio's only FCS schools and changed it. LOLZ
5. DO NOT misrepresent what I said. I absolutely know what I'm saying in this area. If you don't realize there are politics involved in All-Ohio teams, you're beyond help. The media are the voters, they only see the players in their area. They promote the ones from their area, trading their votes for other media votes from different parts of the state. THE KEY is that NO, ZERO, NOTA FBS coaches use All-Ohio teams for recruiting purposes,, they could care less.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 16, 2019 6:52:46 GMT -5
Legit question. Who do you put $1000 down on even bet in a game between North Dakota State (last years FCS champion) and say Akron (the doormat of the MAC)?
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Oct 16, 2019 7:09:58 GMT -5
Legit question. Who do you put $1000 down on even bet in a game between North Dakota State (last years FCS champion) and say Akron (the doormat of the MAC)? Who is going to tell the kids who played at NDS they are not D1 athletes? |
|
|
|
Post by shelbyrr11 on Oct 16, 2019 8:17:19 GMT -5
Legit question. Who do you put $1000 down on even bet in a game between North Dakota State (last years FCS champion) and say Akron (the doormat of the MAC)? I haven't read the rest of the trainwreck that happened above, but I can sure as hell take a stab at this. An even bet implies profitability in the long-run so long as any selected team can generate a probability of victory that exceeds 50% (i.e. win more than half the games). I technically call this my opinion, but it would likely be an opinion shared among most folks who try to make a prediction model based off of this "system" (the "system" being NCAA football). To examine the difference between a North Dakota State and an Akron, one would need to accept that the sample sizes garnered from one season of play can be reliable when comparing like-programs, such as two FBS programs, but tends to become less reliable as you compare unlike-programs, such as FBS vs. FCS. However, overall, I think our biggest weapon in predicting these games would be to amalgamate ALL games played by ALL teams and use the Law of Large Numbers to sooth any volatility in predicting this game. Instead of trying to compare North Dakota State and Akron, we should be comparing all teams with a similar signature to North Dakota State and all teams with a similar signature to Akron and see what the most likely outcome would be. In any given season, there are overlaps in games scheduled between higher and lower tier programs. Ohio State played Miami (OH) this year. There's one example. Ohio State vs. Michigan State is another example. Or, you could look at more even matchups where Villanova plays Temple. Either way, if we gather all of these examples and results, we can find a big sandbox of scenarios where Team X played Team Y and see what happened. This method works best when there exists a LOT of teams. Think Drew Pasteur in predicting Ohio high school football, where he simply examines W/L and margin of victory into his model. While Drew could get more accuracy out of his system by looking into player injuries, coaching changes, levy failures, etc., he understands that the network of 700 high schools gives him enough data to make predictions. I don't see college football as much different, as they have a considerable amount of teams when compared to other sports like the NBA, MLB, NFL. Now. You have $1,000 that is burning a hole in your pocket. ND State or Akron? In my view, the only (best) way to know how to predict this game (minimizing your "gut" instinct and maximizing your data usage) would be to create an index value for each of the teams based on their performances on the year (and compare them to similar historical performances by many other teams over many years) and see how ND State and Akron compare to one another. Whoever has the highest chance of winning will earn the wager. ...it's that easy. |
|
|
|
Post by usa70pp on Oct 16, 2019 13:51:39 GMT -5
There should have been a third option. "Who cares?"
|
|
