Nice strawman argument, no one said that they were an "awesome, unbeatable team".
However, YOU are backing an argument where "Enrollment has nothing to do with anything" was stated.
Please back up that assertion with some facts.
Hamspear missing report!
- Thread starter FortHillFan89
- Start date
Nice strawman argument, no one said that they were an "awesome, unbeatable team".
However, YOU are backing an argument where "Enrollment has nothing to do with anything" was stated.
Please back up that assertion with some facts.
I agree with you in part Hoosfan , it's a revelation. But 1500 might be a exaggeration. There are football towns, there are towns that have different demographics. Fort hill is a football town, they whole town rally's around that football team. It is to be commended from a football prospective. Freedom south riding, as a example , high enrollment, more foreign non football enrollment. It's a fact. Now, enrollment or not, I believe that all teams are going to put a product on the field based on the coaching in place. Fort hill is a product of quality football environment , and quality coaching
Okay, it has a little something to do with anything. I just think it's talked about too much when discussing why a team is good or not.
There is definitely a strong correlation between enrollment size and how good a football team is. The correlation is hidden because we don't really see a lot of games between teams of whoppingly different enrollment sizes and when we do it's often a situation where the smaller school is one of the best schools of their size or the larger school is one of the worst or both.
I don't think enrollment size overwhelms everything else, but the correlation is there.
I don't think enrollment size overwhelms everything else, but the correlation is there.
The first one that popped into my mind was 6a Franklin County.
And the first one that entered my mind on that point was the aforementioned 3a James Monroe.
I'll make this offer again.
I'll blindly take the team with the higher enrollment for every single game in the state against a lower-enrollment school and the bet will be $10 per contest.
If you think that enrollment size does not matter, please accept this bet and be willing to pay me.
I'd love to retire early.
I'll blindly take the team with the higher enrollment for every single game in the state against a lower-enrollment school and the bet will be $10 per contest.
If you think that enrollment size does not matter, please accept this bet and be willing to pay me.
I'd love to retire early.
We have played big schools with no football tradition or football inspirations. But typically (and underline typically) football schools tend to have a larger pool of players with the off season that strengthens their players. Throw a good coaching staff at a big school and you tend to have the recipe for success. Also deeper pockets to put fresh kids on the field. Fresh second stringers are usually better than tired starters.
Matt is running the numbers even as we speak to see if he can set you up.
But I would be totally astonished if the larger student schools don't have a 30% or higher advantage.
I can only speak for myself. I am not saying that higher enrollment doesn't increase chances of grabbing more talent. The numbers speak for itself. But I think it takes a whole lot more than enrollment numbers to make a successful program. Look at teams that have equal enrollment, why are some better than others. And why are some 5A and 6A teams not as good as Salem, or Lake Taylor. This is a crazy argument. Enrollment is only a small portion of what it takes to make a good football team.
Matt is running the numbers even as we speak to see if he can set you up.
I had the numbers run from 2000-2013 last summer.
I know EXACTLY how this turns out.I'm looking for a take who is stubborn and a slow-learner with lots of disposable money.
Of course!
NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT A HIGHER ENROLLMENT WILL GUARANTEE WINS OR CHAMPIONSHIPS!
In fact, almost everyone says exactly what you just did, yet people are persistent on dismissing enrollment altogether, all the time.
I have no understanding of how this can consistently be an argument on the boards. It's a theory that has already been proven rock-solid fact.
Higher enrollment will beat lower enrollment consistently by roughly a rate of 67% - 33%.
I get all your points, I just like going by straight up eye tests sometimes. But I've never been a betting man.
I get all your points, I just like going by straight up eye tests sometimes. But I've never been a betting man.
In the history of measurements, the eye test has been proven to be among the least reliable provider of accuracy.
I agree----only occasionally do smaller schools have enough talent to allow no player to go both ways. As good as Salem has been over the last 20 years or so, only one year were they able to have no player playing both ways---1998
by the way Gilliam Ratings would have Salem favored over Westfield by 6
When Westfield's offense is on the field, their defense is on the sidelines meeting with their defensive coaches watching video of previous plays while their computer in the pressbox spits out analysis of plays showing tendencies.
Vice versa when their defense is playing.
Tiny Essex blowing up Deep Run...a statistical oddity or....?
Just for the record, I've always felt that the larger enrollment schools always have the statistical advantage.
That's what I found so impressive about the Phoebus run, they were always the school with the smaller enrollment numbers. And I'm not buying into the recruiting argument...so let's don't get into that. One player here or there doesn't reshape or completely alter your program.
I've seen really good coaches make a mediocre team look really sharp and I've witnessed first hand a really bad coach totally ruin a quality teams season and aspirations.
I agree larger enrollment numbers help your cause, but sometimes, the coaching staff plays a big part.
This is a good discussion and there is NO WAY I would take Rod's bet....my wallet is light enough already...LOL!
Just for the record, I've always felt that the larger enrollment schools always have the statistical advantage.
That's what I found so impressive about the Phoebus run, they were always the school with the smaller enrollment numbers. And I'm not buying into the recruiting argument...so let's don't get into that. One player here or there doesn't reshape or completely alter your program.
I've seen really good coaches make a mediocre team look really sharp and I've witnessed first hand a really bad coach totally ruin a quality teams season and aspirations.
I agree larger enrollment numbers help your cause, but sometimes, the coaching staff plays a big part.
This is a good discussion and there is NO WAY I would take Rod's bet....my wallet is light enough already...LOL!
Essex knew what they were doing when they scheduled deep run. They knew that was a team they could beat that's only reason they were scheduled.
So why not schedule Northampton? Or K&Q? Or another cream puff. My point, I think was missed. Sometimes, it really doesn't have anything to do with enrollment numbers. Not all the time....but we do have some cases. And FWIW, there's no one on that Essex coaching staff that would turn down a game with anyone in the state. Bar none.
Last edited:
QB #10 Graves Fort Hill/ Sherando highlights.
http://www.hudl.com/athlete/4022180...m_expid=74649800-50.xVwcdGojSNiaNtQ6WnoKhQ.0#
http://www.hudl.com/athlete/4022180...m_expid=74649800-50.xVwcdGojSNiaNtQ6WnoKhQ.0#
Last edited:
I had the numbers run from 2000-2013 last summer.
I'm looking for a take who is stubborn and a slow-learner with lots of disposable money.
I've got two of the three criteria covered. It's this money thing I just can't seem to get right. But, somehow, all my money gets disposed of!
