Jump to content

Goal15

10 Post Members
  • Posts

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

12 Good

Converted

  • Wide Layout
    No

Converted

  • Set Default Read Receipt for Private Messages
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Absolutely. Not a bad idea. We can't even get relegation in MLS though! :lol2:
  2. I agree with Josh Moore as well. The postseason should be overhauled across the board. Figure out what is best for each individual sport and do it. I guess I just see things differently than you. To me your Collegiate example has nothing to do with school size and everything to do with Collegiate being in one of the two toughest regions in the state. You could replace them with 95% of the large schools in the state and still come away with the same results, and in most cases probably worse results. Put Collegiate in an easier region and they would win it 9/10 years, and probably pretty comfortably, against many large schools. But we think they should only compete against schools of its size? That doesn't make sense to me. On the flip side there are a ton of large schools that rarely get out of its district. Applying the same logic means we need to do something different for these schools as well. I just don't see the depth in the state to split into 3 classes, and definitely not just by enrollment numbers. If you did so, I think you would have schools like Collegiate and St. Henry on the boys side who would dominate year after year, usually with blowouts, until they play each other in the finals. Then the narrative would be "nobody else has a chance to win a state title playing against SCHOOL X". I'm not as familiar on the girls side but I am guessing there are female equivalents. I could be talked into 2 classes in soccer, but only if enrollment is just one factor and not the only factor. Soccer is unique and student numbers don't overwhelmingly determine competitiveness.
  3. This makes zero sense in your argument. Why make an exception for basketball? Tradition? Please. There should be no exceptions. Every sport should be treated differently to do what is best for the kids. If the current format is what's best for basketball, then so be it. This same argument can be made for big schools in the toughest regions who more than likely never have a shot of even getting out of their district/region. All about perspective.
  4. I'm pretty sure you said "No school has a shot at winning a state title". Only disputing that statement with a recent example as its very incorrect. Are there a ton of small schools who have a shot at winning? No, but there aren't a ton of big schools who have a shot at winning either. It's not as simple as breaking it down by size. If you did classes by size only and had a small school tournament, the same 2-3 schools would win it every year, and with even more blowouts than the current state tournament.
  5. Totally disagree with this statement. Maybe a lot of schools, but not the ones at the top. Heck, that Trinity squad in 1998 had a bench who could have competed for and maybe even won the state title that year. Not much has changed for those top tier schools. For a long time they have had a full roster of (high level) club players. But now the gap to the second tier is much smaller as most of those kids are now club players too, although most likely at a lower level, while back then it was probably half and half. I just don't think the top tier is quite at the level it used to be. No way to know for sure though. Just my opinion. I still take those X teams with Bick, Schickel and Riggs over any teams I have seen today though. Our state has done a good job at providing a lot more opportunities for your average soccer player. While these kids were probably playing mostly rec in the 2000s, now they are improving more at mid/low level club. The depth has increased, which is awesome, and that is a big reason why the second tier has closed that gap. However, in my opinion, that has come at the expense of our best of the best across the state. As talent has spread out, the opportunities we provide those elite kids have decreased. It's probably why I think the top level has come down recently. I know a couple of girls coaches who watched a boys game recently (and they rarely watch boys soccer) of a school they were very familiar with back in the 2000s. They came away unimpressed and said the level just wasn't the same these days, and this was a top 5 team this year. Yes a small sample size, but I know I'm not the only one.
  6. I think you made my point for me. I agree, it is spread out everywhere, therefore we have parity because teams are thinned out. I agree completely there is way more depth now. The middle of the pack and even some at the bottom are much better than 15-20 years ago, and that is due to the points you made. But I don't see it at the top. As for club, it has been pretty much universally agreed on that we have way too many clubs in the state now which is spreading out the talent across all teams. Yes, no club dominates state cup, but that's because the level isn't as strong at the top. There are always exceptions, but most state champs struggle in regionals these days. This is an entirely different discussion though. My only point is that parity in club at state cup doesn't mean the level is higher in club (and doesn't mean anything in regards to the level in high school). In fact, I would argue that means the level is lower.
  7. I like this and have thought of something similar here with teams in each region. Bottom line, if someone took the time and effort to come up with other solutions it could be done. What we have now is average at best. Blow it all up and start from scratch. You can still make participation a priority but look to balance it a bit more with competitiveness.
  8. Hit the nail on the head here! And this is what Tackett doesn't understand. He only thinks "success breeds success". That shows a lack of understanding of the sport of soccer. Each sport is different, and each sport should be treated differently. Why does basketball and football get special treatment? There shouldn't be blanket decisions made to cover all sports.
  9. This is just not true. Look at Collegiate on the boys side. They very well could have won the title last year, and may have if Haji was healthy. Collegiate is one of the top teams in the state every year. Classes in soccer would be ok as long as you don't do it by school size only. There are plenty of small schools who can compete with the big boys. Definitely don't need 3 classes. That would be terrible. Two classes could work but more factors than size need to impact classification.
  10. I'd probably go with X's teams of 2007, 2008, and 2009 and then also the Trinity team of 1998 as the best high school teams I have seen. It's all relative though. I feel like the competition at the top was a little better back then than it is now. I actually thought there was a lot of parity this year in boys soccer.
  11. They are good, but I don't think they rank as one of the all-time greats. I think some of their past teams would beat them by a comfortable margin. Their teams of the late 2000s were star studded and also extremely deep. I don't see the star power as much on this squad, but they are very good.
  12. I'm not sure Tackett made a clear, focused point at any time during this conversation. He sounded like a guy who didn't really have substance to back up his opinions so he rambled on about a lot of different things. I'm not sure he clearly answered any of Josh's questions. He seems to live in the past a lot with sports that are progressing and growing, not only in this state but in the country, and doesn't really understand the surrounding culture as the youth game changes. It also doesn't sound like the KHSAA wants to put forth the work to be progressive as these sports expand. Tackett hides behind his "membership". He should provide names and roles of who he says the KHSAA is talking to and where they are getting this feedback. Is he stopping at the administration? If so, that is a giant mistake as they aren't in the game and probably have very little idea of how each sport operates. Coaches should have the most input with ADs next. I've been involved in soccer for quite some time in this state and I don't know anyone who has been asked for input regarding any of these topics. So that tells me it is probably only administrative personnel who are providing feedback, or even being asked for feedback, or the people involved are not reaching out to their area schools for feedback. EDIT: Looks like you can find the advisory committee for each sport on the KHSAA website. This still seems like a very narrow voice for all member schools. How do we know they are reaching out to schools in their region and actually speaking for them as a whole? I would be interested to see meeting minutes from these committees. There also seems to be a real lack of understanding of different sports, specifically the smaller, non-revenue generating ones. For example, high school success has very little to do with the growth of soccer in a particular area. That is all tied to club soccer. Each sport is different and should be treated as such for the betterment of the game (including participation!). There should be committees with people who actually understand and know these sports to make the best decisions for the game and kids. Asking football and basketball people to make decisions for soccer, volleyball, etc makes zero sense. For some reason football can be treated like it is some crazy different animal and none of the normal rules apply. Some of the stuff he said about football completely contradicted his points about some of the smaller sports. Every sport is different, not just football. Finally while Tackett seems to emphasize that the KHSAA's sole responsibility is participation (although I don't agree with that at all), he also goes on and on about the business side of high school athletics which blows my mind. These two things do not go hand in hand. And why is this even a consideration? These are non-profit organizations and should be treated as such. I understand a little for football and basketball as they do generate some revenue, but the majority of sports just try to break even each year. Figuring out ways to generate more revenue should be of little to zero influence in how some of these sports are run. That is putting the mighty dollar above what is best for the kids. That district and region revenue he mentions is so minimal for most sports. We shouldn't be worried about how to bring more "consumers" out to games or how to improve the "product" on the field. This is high school athletics, not the NCAA. We should worry about what is best for the kids in each individual sport, and if we do that I bet more people will come out to games and the level will improve.
  13. Roe made it. He was first team. The list in the post above only has 10 players on the first team for the East. Roe is the name missing. Click the Herald Leader link to see the full, correct list.
  14. What is the purpose of this thread? It is high school soccer man. Not the pros. Chill out.
  15. I'd at least like to see overtime golden goal with less players and see what happens. Penalties are awful, winning or losing, and as stated relates very little to the actual game.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.