Casto back at Riverheads
- Thread starter LMcCray
- Start date
Glad you had a good time. As for the system change, I remember that part, and I know how Goat talks, even though he is so rarely on I think he just says things to stir up stuff. I guess we just have 2 different views on that type statement, neither is wrong. I just look at that as indirectly saying something
Gunz, you know what they say about assumptions, don’t you?!?
I do, but I don't know how that connects to me or something I said???
No, not at all. In my view it is indirectly saying something possibly if he is correct that every time he brings the subject up that the same person comments about it.
I'll use a different example. If every time my team or your team loses we got on here and said, "here is the story of the game, it was a lot closer than what it looks, and #44 was really banged up" it would probably indirectly look as if we were making excuses.
What could be looked at as excuses can in fact be 100% true. I recall reading these type things from you about some number kid. I have no issue believing you were correct. And I have no issue believing that these other teams need to get better. Both can be 100% correct and still be viewed differently.
Look at it this way. Media reports on something. It can in fact be true. Whether you are for or against whoever or whatever they are reporting it can still be looked at as hating or indirectly trying to discredit the side being reported about
I just think there’s more value to taking posts at face value. Various people communicate very differently when typing. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen cell phone text conversations get hostile between two people from two different generations because of assumptions about a supposed “implied slight” that were dead wrong.
Assuming some sort of subtext exists or that you know what someone’s post “really means” is pretty narcissistic.
/rant
Assuming some sort of subtext exists or that you know what someone’s post “really means” is pretty narcissistic.
/rant
Um, how does that compute with your opinion with the earlier topic? Seems to contrast.
I even said I didn't see any direct link, but from his comments he said that every time its brought up that same guy comments. That doesn't mean it is indirectly saying something, its saying that I haven't seen anything directly saying something about complaining about a certain cutoff number
There’s a difference between every conversation going off the rails because you think there’s a subtext (that probably doesn’t exist) and me clearly identifying what happened at Riverheads based on the available evidence.
I can. Apparently mmqp said that every time he states his system (4 classes, 1st cutoff at 400) that Goat comes on and says something. When I commented that I hadn't seen anyone from Riverheads say that they have a problem with that number, but that Goat (or anyone else) commenting on the same subject that it could be indirectly saying something against it. It isnt like Goat is a regular poster lately.
As far as the other comment, it doesn't mean that either of us is wrong, but we seem to have a different definition of evidence. I see speculation, which doesn't mean it can't be true. But you saying you want to take posts at face value, which is good, but you also said something didn't seem right with the family issue. So yes, in a sense different situations, but still seems as different philosophies. To me, I don't see any way to clearly identify what happened unless privy to inside info.
I also don't see how the convo went off the rails, I didn't even state anything as a fact. I just stated from my recollection that nobody had said anything specifically about those numbers, if anything that if someone did indeed comment about the same thing every time that it would be indirectly associated with the system and about a certain team
You are correct that if people claim to know things you don’t, they might know things that you don’t. (inside info) Unfortunately for you, people aren’t going to dump every private conversation they have with “insiders” on this site just so you can validate their posts.
Try not to use double negatives. I’ve realized that’s where I tend to lose your thought. “Doesn’t mean it can’t be true” is a pretty long way of saying “it can be true”. And remember, less is more. You tend to just keep writing & writing until you like where you land.
Try not to use double negatives. I’ve realized that’s where I tend to lose your thought. “Doesn’t mean it can’t be true” is a pretty long way of saying “it can be true”. And remember, less is more. You tend to just keep writing & writing until you like where you land.
You obviously don't want to listen to anything, you are one who always thinks they are right. I couldn't care less what kind of conversations you had with someone. I have never once said that I KNOW what happened, or acted like what I said was correct. I haven't claimed to know something, haven't even acted like I was perfectly articulate writing on a message board where apparently I need to write correctly.
I honestly don't care what happened, but you have consistently deflected your comments, and when you say something that contradicts yourself, you try to call it something else. You appear to think that everything you write should and is interpreted exactly as you meant. And you also seem to like to call people out who you know nothing about. You appear to take whatever side of a situation that you are on, make it absolute fact, and when presented with contrary information you won't accept it.
Forget about all the posts you have made in the past about this guy or that guy being hurt and that being the reason for a loss or closer game, that's just typical fan stuff. It may in fact hurt a bit of credibility when it comes frequently, but no big deal. I hope you team wins the championship, as I really liked the story with the small roster, etc and I certainly have no desire to see Riverheads win over and over.
But again, and the last time, from my perspective, and who knows maybe it is just mine, maybe not, but you did make reference about the issue and not seeming right. Then you disparaged the coaches for a singular incident. Then just today you want to believe what you read. If you can't see how not buying the 1st but wanting to for the latter looks contradictory then I don't know what to say.
Have a good one
Show me ONE post where I have said any school shouldn't be where they are playing.
Your problem is with math.... the reason they do 475 is to "somewhat" have equal amount of teams per division.
You are a small school "it's not fair guy" plain and simple
Your problem is with math.... the reason they do 475 is to "somewhat" have equal amount of teams per division.
You are a small school "it's not fair guy" plain and simple
Which is an IGNORANT way to do it. That type of thinking is how Maryland, for example, ends up with their D1 cut off being something like 900 students...we should make the D1 cut off 900 here in Virginia. Riverheads fans bickering with me here in this thread, you down with doing that?
I dont care if it is 900 or 750 or whatever. If its 900 Im not going to get on msg boards year after year whining if a team with 899 students wins a few state championships and then claim they manipulate their enrollment to stay in a lower class. That horse has turned into a fossil.
You obviously know I have no love for them, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that, no matter who the school is that it effects. Maybe I am misreading what is being talked about.
If I am reading it correctly, no matter where someone falls, it does at least make sense for the number of teams to be split evenly between the number of classes. So if there is 6 classes and 240 schools then 40 in each. But I think that teams would them have to have the option to move up in class (there really shouldn't be a need to move down) based on location. If this were to work, then use the 40 number, it should be as close to 10 teams in each region. And that may not even work.
Us small 1a and 2a schools are usually located closely to each other. Its possible for a school here or there to be situated wrong. But to me, to make up for the discrepancy in say 1a with school sizes, if things aren't close to even, you just create a big difference in larger classes. And things look worse in 1a with RH because of how the region was aligned. With several schools without football, and a couple not being eligible, there was only a couple legit playoff teams. They have infused a few new teams, but it makes no sense to me that move those teams in when 30 minutes down the road is PM.
Now if the issue is too many classes, then I can see the point, but even then if there is 4 (I think was your model), I think it should be split between 4. No matter what the system there will always be big schools and little schools. The only way to alleviate this is to go to whatever that system is in soccer (which I know nothing about), but if you win you move up to a different league. Otherwise you are moving teams based on success.
The only people whining on this thread are Riverheads fans like yourself. The mere mention of moving Riverheads to D2 bothers you guys. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's easy to be the big fish in the small pond. I'd be interested to see how you really would handle it if the VHSL adopted a cut off of 900 for D1 LOL!!!
My idea for 4 classes has ZERO to do with Riverheads. Their fans seem to think I modeled it around them and I did not. You base your disagreement around another issue and I'm fine with that. They base their issue around it with being moved up. At the end of the day the current system is fine and dandy and considering I have zero say in it, it will stay the same. Unless my prediction of the VHSL eventually going to 8 state champions comes real. Sound crazy? Money talks...
I'm not going to lie though, I do get a kick out of having people get on here and say that teams only need to "get better" but then take complete exception to their school being moved up. The hypocrisy is real.
We were the smallest team in 2A for 4 years from like 2011-2014. I never saw a single Riverheads person complain on here about us playing 2A and I never heard a coach or anyone in the community complaining. Youre the one with sour grapes wanting to move a school into a different classification because they won a few state championships in football. Just maybe its about coaching and not enrollment.
O, I agree with that. No matter what the team is, sometimes getting better isnt good enough. Take that 2nd Appomattox team, I don't know how much better anyone could have gotten to beat them. That years 1a champion rolled through the competition, lost an OT team to SD. I think by scores Appomattox was 35 better than every other team in Final 4
I think it is more coaching than enrollment, and even more the talent. I think from everything I see that Riverheads is exactly where they should be, but they obviously do have an advantage with top few enrollment, just like they would have the disadvantage if they were 2a.
But I think the biggest reason for the success is the level of competition, and that is no knock on the 1a teams. There have been some extremely good teams recently in 2a, while there are typically only a few who can actually win in 1a. Yes maybe only a few in 2a, but they difference is pretty noticeable
No sour grapes from me. If I've said it 100 times, I've said it 101 times now: Riverheads has won their titles fair and square and they are THE class of D1. No doubt.
I do agree with you that coaching across D1 needs to get better. And I do think too many teams rely on the "Fun and Gun" style of offense where they base their entire offense around one athlete. I recall Chilhowie being put in a position where they had 4th and Inches against you guys a couple years ago and they didnt even have a freaking short yardage, under center play in their playbook. Go back further and Honaker shows up against Altavista with a HUGE oline..and what did they try to do? Air it out. Against Juan Thornhill. 5 INT's later and their season was over. The only 1A school I've ever seen get away with that style of offense vs. Riverheads was the Brad Bradley-era William Campbell squads. But that was the exception and not the norm.
I think you see similar stuff out of average and below teams on every level. Just more apparent at 1A because you can have a huge difference in the best and second best athlete on the field. As you go up, that Gap usually gets closer.
Too many coaches just run a cluster of plays and not an offense or system. Unlike the top teams
@mmqp, is the crux of your argument to keep more small schools engaged in football? I remember you mentioning that a lot of smaller schools in Maryland have folded their programs instead of competing in the under 900 D1 that is in place there. If that is your contention then I would agree with you in that sense. My only issue has nothing to do with the cut off number, but with the haphazard multiple changes over the last 10-15 years. I am sure someone involved in this is educated enough to do a projection of the future state of enrollment so a more bullet proof alignment can be put in place. I don't like the current structure but I am not so sure there is another system that has relatively even numbers of teams in each division.
There are currently 317 high schools that would be in this system. Its obvious that you wont have 79 in each division which is an equal number of teams in each of the 4 divisions you would propose. I pulled the current alignment and ADM numbers (whether you agree with them or not) and applied what I thought to be your proposal.
D1 <400 would consist of 39 teams with the largest two being Galax and Mathews 400
D2 401-750 would consist of 66 teams with the largest two being Staunton and Poquoson 741
D3 751-1300 would consist of 76 teams with the largest two being Jamestown and Hanover 1295
D3 >1301 would consist of 135 teams with the largest two being Woodbridge and TC Williams
at 2855 and 3515 respectfully
There is definitely a disparity in the number of teams in each division if I have your numbers for cutoffs correct. Seeing this, I have to believe that's why we have the 6 divisions we have with the cutoffs where they are. That means 52-54 teams in each of the 6 classifications. Conceptually I agree that a change is needed but I do not agree this would be the logical one to go with. Just my two cents and it has nothing to do with who Riverheads would compete with.
There are currently 317 high schools that would be in this system. Its obvious that you wont have 79 in each division which is an equal number of teams in each of the 4 divisions you would propose. I pulled the current alignment and ADM numbers (whether you agree with them or not) and applied what I thought to be your proposal.
D1 <400 would consist of 39 teams with the largest two being Galax and Mathews 400
D2 401-750 would consist of 66 teams with the largest two being Staunton and Poquoson 741
D3 751-1300 would consist of 76 teams with the largest two being Jamestown and Hanover 1295
D3 >1301 would consist of 135 teams with the largest two being Woodbridge and TC Williams
at 2855 and 3515 respectfully
There is definitely a disparity in the number of teams in each division if I have your numbers for cutoffs correct. Seeing this, I have to believe that's why we have the 6 divisions we have with the cutoffs where they are. That means 52-54 teams in each of the 6 classifications. Conceptually I agree that a change is needed but I do not agree this would be the logical one to go with. Just my two cents and it has nothing to do with who Riverheads would compete with.
Yes, that is exactly what the goal is is to keep the small schools engaged. It's really not that apparent in Virginia, yet, but in a lot of areas to our north and south, smaller schools are ditching football altogether. In Maryland, at least 5 schools off the top of my head that sit under 400 students dont even bother to field a team. Pocomoke, Mardela, North Dorchester, St. Michaels and Crisfield. Pocomoke dropped their program back in the early 80's after getting beat by a "1A" school in Broadneck 80-0. Same thing is happening in North Carolina. And as the private schools go, so do the public schools follow..and here in Virginia we're already seeing schools in the private ranks go with 8 Man football. If the VHSL isnt careful it might just happen to the public schools as well. We already see the struggles that Charles City and King & Queen are having (I have no pity on Park View, Manassas Park or Bruton) and I think it's only going to get worse. I dont want to end up with something like Maryland has honestly. I can joke about it, but who benefits from that type of system?
I totally agree with you that with those type of cut offs that I propose it wouldnt be easy. I would think with the numbers you just posted there could be a 16 team playoff in D1, a 32 team playoff in D2 and D3 and then split D4 into two and have two titles for that division. I've always felt that around half of the schools in each division should make the playoffs, anymore than that is too much and any less makes leaves out teams that deserve a shot. In the current system, 0-10 Stonewall Jackson doesnt deserve a shot for example lol.
What did Coach Casto call it after last years state title game, Basketball on the football field or something to that effect. He's right. A school like Riverheads will grind that up and spit it out and my guess is 80% or more schools in 1A run that stuff. If, and I say IF, Riverheads ever loses to another 1A school it will be to a school like Franklin or Sussex that pound the ball or Galax who is more balanced but tends to keep it on the ground unless forced to throw. Just my prediction on that.
I think there's a happy medium somewhere, but I don't know what it is. Everyone knows I'm no Riverheads guy, and I know that I have never thought your proposal was about them. If someone did think that, then I am just reading you wrong, they just want something to complain about, or have the so called guilty conscience.
As far as the playoff teams, I have the opinion that it was better with the 2 sides, and thus eliminating those 0-10 teams. And we were actually getting some good upsets (16 seed Waynesboro, 14 seed Stuarts Draft and I believe 11 seed Union that same year. So we had a 14 seed win 2 rounds). I think that is better than what was in place before where 9-1 teams missed playoffs.
I'm not sure the exact number of teams redpride was using if he included the few teams that don't have certain programs. Because if not, their exclusion would make things hard to even things out.
For me, I think the number should divide by number of classes. But like I said, i think for hardship reasons teams should be able to move up. I don't think it has to be exact split because of this, but close to it. There will always be the larger and smallest, but I don't think there has really been a big difference in wins with larger and titles besides 1a, and maybe not when RH did move up. I think it's hard to use the statistics of "double the size, etc" because it is relative. I will use a different team to Express my point, use Windsor since they are mentioned. I don't know what their number is or use Galax as the last 1a school to win. Say Windsor has 500 and Galax 250. That is double the size. But a 250 difference. Windsor could have a difference in roster size of 20. But look at TC Williams, there is no school within 600 of them.
What makes it look worse for 1a is the fact that there is no baseline for the bottom, whereas every other class has that. There is a standard for 2-6, but theoretically the smallest school for football in 1a could be a school of 25. So that effects the ratios.
In the end we can have wonderful ideas of how to organize this but none of us have any way of impacting the decision. I agree with @Gunz and the East/West concept for playoffs. If you don't want to travel then win games so you host. I had heard scuttlebutt with that being the downfall of that system. Again, I don't care about the cutoff or which division Riverheads is in but I am hopeful that we end up with an alignment that last for more than 4 years. And whatever the cutoff number is we will be under it...….lol
Lol exactly. And that is all this is is talk. Passing the time away as there is nothing else going on. CFL is on, but meh
Riverheads almost lost to Essex 2yrs ago running spread. The key isn't so much about your offense. It's about teams stopping Riverheads consistently. I really hope Rapp gets a chance at them this year bc I think they have the tools to knock them off
And they would have beat them had they had an ounce of discipline. With that style of offense, less discipline is involved. You would know better than I would, but did Essex have issues with penalties coming into that game? They had what seemed like a half dozen PF's in that one. And I dont mean to sound critical of them, they blow me away with their size year in and year out. They would grind people to death with a Riverheads style offense IMO. Give it a year or two to get running full gear.
Might want to check Riverheads record verse Region A/Eastern side teams....I would bet it is pretty impressive
Well to be fair, its probably better against the other side. They have been impressive against everyone in 1a. Not saying 2a haven't been, but I'm guessing the comments are about 1a.
I'd be willing to bet that most of their losses in 1a are to teams in their own region
Dont think they have ever lost to a region A team at least not in the last 25 years.
