Page 5 of Now we are going to quibble over semantics... Advertisement Sep 15, 05, 09:27 AM #42 ladiesbballcoach View Profile View Forum Posts Registered Use... 121 comments | 6427 Views | Go to page 1 →
Sep 15, 05, 06:04 PM #61Originally Posted by theguruAdvertisement
Sep 16, 05, 09:23 AM #62Originally Posted by cshs81
Guru, explain please the following question without bringing any other sport.
If it's okay to seperate FB into classes based on size. Why is not okay to also provide seperation based on how schools get their students. I don't think that anyone would argue that private schools have a competitive advantage over similar sized public schools. Just like big 4A schools have a competitive advantage over small single A schools. So if it's okay to make classes based on competitive advantage in FB, which is currenlty being done. Why is it not okay to also apply that same theory to Private schools. They still compete for a state championship, it's just in another classification.
Before you answer, let me say that I'm not a private school hater. If I lived in a metro area, I'd send my children to private school. And I'm not married to the position that they need to be seperated. It's just that I see it as a futher evolution of the class system. Too many who are advocating positions are basing thier arguements on pure emotion. I need some logic for me to change my position.
Sep 17, 05, 12:19 AM #63Originally Posted by MexicanBob
I'll gladly take a shot at this one. The REAL smoke and mirror trick is being done by those advocating this "separation." Here's why and how the classification argument IS valid.
Asking for a "level playing field" is playing to the emotional aspect of competitive athletics rather than true competition. "My school is treated unfairly because..." is all perception when you understand that in truth there is no "fairness" in pure competitive athletics. But by taking one and only one aspect of "unfair competition" and deciding that it is the answer to all the problems associated with "level playing fields" is a joke. Far more inequities exist between being Bellevue and Male in basketball or, Silver Grove in baseball versus PRP than in the stated differences between NewCath and Danville for example. You simply cannot expect 1A schools to have the athletes, the resources, the facilities or the support base universally that is available to schools 3 to 8 times their size yet ignore that fact when making an argument about competitive advantages by private schools! Blindly attacking one aspect of compettitive disadvantages while clearly ignoring a more major flaw smacks of bias and vendetta. And recruiting isn't the only major issue here, at least not in the sense we are all being lead to believe. There are far, far more disagreements annually around the state about student athletes transferring from one public school to another (see anything associated with sports in and around Eastern Kentucky in recent years) than between public and private institutions. Just read the papers. No that's not a shot at mountain schools, just a statement of the facts. No, this proposal is a shot by a limited number of non-athlete administrators listening to an even more limited number of self-serving athletic directors and coaches and playing on the emotional aspects of other even less informed administrators. This is all about some former "haves" trying their best to get back what they think they've lost without having to put in the time, work and effort to EARN it back.
Sep 17, 05, 10:04 AM #64Originally Posted by bulldog77
You ramble and make no sense.
I asked a specific question for the Guru to answer. He still hasn't.
Let me address a couple of points in your rambling post.
1) I have no emotion tied to this issue.
2) I haven't brought up fairness or level playing fields. If you're going to address my post. Address MY post and not everyone elses.
3) You still haven't explained the following: Fact: FB is split into 4 classifications because there is a recognized competitive advantage in having larger enrollment. The member schools decided to balance that advantage, the schools will compete against LIKE schools for championships. Fact: the private schools have a competitive advanatge that public schools CAN'T get. So why shouldn't the same rule be applied and split the private into one seperate class. There would be 48 schools competing for one state title. Which is roughly the number of schools in each class now.
I'd really like the Guru to give me an answer. He's the only one that seems to be able to make a point without getting emotional or upset.
Sep 17, 05, 10:15 AM #65
Originally Posted by MexicanBob
- Join Date
- Jun 02
Sep 17, 05, 02:34 PM #66
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't NCC boys win the All 'A' Classic State Tournament in 2000?
- Join Date
- Mar 05
- central ky.
Sep 17, 05, 07:28 PM #67Mex,
I am not trying to be funny but I either have missed or don't understand your question? Please ask it again and I will do my best.
Also, please be specific by what you mean when you said, "Fact: the private schools have a competitive advanatge that public schools CAN'T get."
Sep 17, 05, 07:50 PM #68
Guru, why all the bashing of the All "A" Classic?
- Join Date
- Jul 01
- Harlan, Kentucky, USA
I think it's because its existence has basically eliminated the need for basketball classes in Kentucky. You can still compete for a small school title, and if you're good enough (Paintsville, Harlan, University Heights) you can also compete in the Sweet Sixteen in March. It is the best of both worlds.
Like Westsider, I've been going since 1990 and it's by no means a hollow title for anyone who has won one. The fact that's it not KHSAA sponsored has absolutely no significance to anyone who has played in an All "A" Classic.
Sep 17, 05, 09:03 PM #69I am not bashing, I think the All A Classic is great but it is NOT a state championship.
Sep 18, 05, 10:49 AM #70Originally Posted by KyTmcNcc
Sep 18, 05, 11:07 AM #71Originally Posted by theguru
In Knott County they play Junior Pro and AAU. June Buchanon has a team for the 3-4 grades and a team for the 5-6 teams. The other public schools do not officially have teams from each school. Teams are composed of players that have "coaches" that go out and ask family, friends, and so forth if their kid will play for them. So you have about 6 teams in each age level that will have players that are mixed from the public schools. Heck, when my boys played one son was on one team and my other was on the other. It's hard to root that way. We let them pick who they wanted to play for.
Same goes for AAU. JBS has one team and then you'll see a couple of teams mixed. JBS's goal is to teach the game. The others is to win, and play their family.
Sep 18, 05, 11:20 AM #72While the "All A" is not santioned by the KHSAA, it is a state championship. And while it may not mean too much to some, ask the teams that have won it what they think.
Sep 18, 05, 01:57 PM #73Originally Posted by MexicanBob
Emotional? Huh? Hardly the case.
Rambling? I'll simplify it, no problem.
I never said YOU were emotional about the issue. The point is that those at the state level who are pressing this issue are playing on the emotional aspects of the argument rather than logic.
You mention that the privates have a competitive advantage that the publics can't get. As do the supporters of this proposal. My point is there are precisely the same, or at least very similar, competitive disadvantages that are NOT being addressed by this proposal. A small Class A school CANNOT GET 2,000 students. Therefore they CANNOT compete reasonably with a school such as Male, Henry Clay, et al in unclassified sports. You recognize the state's position in football, why is there no such recognition of the disparities in other sports? As a true sportsman yourself, you cannot believe that size does not matter in basketball or baseball. Therefore a clear competitive advantage that is ignored by the state in sports aside from football and track. My point again is, why address the issue of public/private without addressing, what is in my mind, a more pressing disadvantage in sports other than football.
And one cannot argue we're JUST talking about football here because we aren't when it comes to this issue. This proposal will affect all sports.
I suggest that the true issue is less about real competition and more about egos and has been programs that won't put in the work to catch up with the success some (and I emphasize some) private school programs have had.
And with all due respect my friend, perhaps I didn't address your post specifically but I was adding a comment to the discussion as much as responding to your post.
Sep 18, 05, 05:47 PM #74Originally Posted by MexicanBob
To answer your question because even if it was the way you are stating (it is not) it is still apples and oranges. Football is classified because it is not fair for a school with 100 boys to have to compete with a school with a 1000 boys. This is exactly why basketball and baseball should be classified too.
Now, on to how schools get their students, I will repeat this again because everyone either ignores it or just doesn't get it:
You can't self impose restrictions on your own school district and then complain that others won't do the same. The practice is not only stupid but it is un-american.
Sep 18, 05, 06:45 PM #75I agree with theguru about how schools get their students. Is football classified based on the number of students in the top three classes (sophomores, juniors, and seniors) in a high school? If so, don't they include the girls in that number? Since Covington Catholic is an all boys school, aren't they classified based on their sophomores, juniors, and seniors who are all boys?