Johnny South":3az5yrid said:Should the better teams try to extend their games to the full four quarters of play to get the stats up for the better players in the six-man game, so they receive the attention that they deserve?
My intentions were not to discredit great players on poor teams. What I meant was that in a vacuum if you take two identical teams and team A played a schedule against Richland Springs, Happy, Borden County etc, and team B played a schedule consisting of Covingtons and Bynums that the tailback from team B will have much better stats. Does that mean that tailback B is better than tailback A? Of course not because they're the same player (keep in mind we're talking theoretically). The same applies in real life. A player isn't necessarily better than another player just because he has better stats. There are many factors involved and stats should be taken with a grain of salt.PaleRider":2zu2vx8t said:I think everyone should be very careful to assume a very good player on a "bottom dweller" might not be as good a player as a player that's very good on a great team. There is usually a player or two on some teams that aren't great, that given the same opportunity on a great team, wouldn't be just as good or better than some of the players on the great team. It'd be great if everyone could play on great teams and then we might have a better representation of "stats". But that ain't how it is in the real world. People don't move their "great players" to certain towns, but do to others. After all, they "ain't coming here to play in the band." If a person wants to have a moral argument about numbers, maybe It's how can a team have multiple JV's and a varsity and still play in class A while other schools suit up 90% of their boys and still only have 12 playing on varsity, and no JV. Right, it's the magical snapshot formula where you choose one of any of the multiple formulas to come up with just enough to stay under that 105 or 55 or whatever the next number will be. JMO