The only year that is relevent is last year after a 2-9 campaign. Two years ago you throw out because we were regional finalist then as well. Last year alone, we lost 11 kids after a 2-9 campaign.

 

If you did indeed lose 11 players from a single incoming class then you definitely need to look inward for the cause and stop blaming the other schools. Want to keep them, then give them a reason to stay.

If you did indeed lose 11 players from a single incoming class then you definitely need to look inward for the cause and stop blaming the other schools. Want to keep them, then give them a reason to stay.

 

We did. They earned it themselves.

 

Perhaps your program needs to look inward to deal with its underage alcohol consumption problem. Trust me, any time anybody even mentions the name Beechwood, this will be brought up. We don't have football parents serving alcohol to players. Clean up your own house before passing judgement on others!

 

 

We have no concerns about losing players to BW ever again!!!!!

 

We look forward to the very public prosecution of the parents involved!!

Edited November 14, 201213 yr by jolmstead

If you did indeed lose 11 players from a single incoming class then you definitely need to look inward for the cause and stop blaming the other schools. Want to keep them, then give them a reason to stay.

 

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. But still too generic. 11 players. All impact players or were some of them kids that just felt that maybe football wasn't their thing. Or are you saying 11 kids transferred out?? If that's the case, then I would have to agree with old dad. You have way more problems than you think. If your supporting staff, luxurious stadium, state of the art training center and INDOOR practice facility can't keep the kids around, then something major is up in Independance!!

 

And you want to only go back one year. Well one year doesn't make a trend. You make it sound like it always happens to poor little SK. Does it happen all the time or was it a one year thing? And if they are kids that transferred out because of losing, then I wouldn't be complaining about. I wouldn't want my kids playing with those type of kids anyway!! Those are the type of kids that feel like they deserve everything for nothing. That's not who I'd want my kids around.

We did. They earned it themselves.

 

Perhaps your program needs to look inward to deal with its underage alcohol consumption problem. Trust me, any time anybody even mentions the name Beechwood, this will be brought up. We don't have football parents serving alcohol to players. Clean up your own house before passing judgement on others!

 

 

We have no concerns about losing players to BW ever again!!!!!

 

We look forward to the very public prosecution of the parents involved!!

 

 

You make no sense.

 

Way to stick to the subject there buddy. Why don't you try answering the questio? Your hate for Beechwood is eating you up. Just answer the question posed. It was one parent. There wasn't some conspiracy of parents drinking with kids. It may have been caused by a parent, but it was also reported by a parent and dealt with by the coach. Drinking was reported to the coach. It was a violation of the rules and the offending players were punished. Kids screw up, Kids get punished. It happens.

 

As for the prosecution: Like you, I hope that there is something legal happening, but I don't think there is. As far as I know, there hasn't been an investigation because no crime was ever reported by someone who actually witnessed it.

 

I'm still waiting for this list of 11 "Players" you lost. If they are on your mind, it shouldn't be hard to produce. You are a chronic excuse maker. You will always find a reason to blame others and the fault is never internal. Your team has a great season and you still can't let it go. Excuses, Excuses, Excuses. Excuse making is the mark of a loser and a losing attitude! We will continue to look to develop the next talents at Beechwood and you can continue to look for your next excuse.

The only year that is relevent is last year after a 2-9 campaign. Two years ago you throw out because we were regional finalist then as well. Last year alone, we lost 11 kids after a 2-9 campaign.

 

Are you naive enough to believe that one 2-9 season cost you 11 kids after a State Title Appearance in 2008, a Semifinal apperance in 2009, and a regional final appearance in 2010?

 

You don't lose 11 players because of one bad season after the run of success SK had before last year. My bet is those kids were looking to leave regardless of your success.

 

Back to SOS, it matters for teams trying to win State Titles. It does not matter for teams that are trying to get some wins and rebuild.

 

Nobody on here thinks SK should schedule a monster schedule, but they would have absolutely benefited from playing 1 school named Cooper, Conner, CovCath, or Highlands during the first 5 games. Scheduling is tough and after SK's success the 3 years prior to this scheduling cycle, I wouldn't be surprised if Conner and Cooper told SK 'thanks, but no thanks.'

 

IMO, had SK played Highlands, Cooper, Conner or CovCath, they would have lost the game. They would have gone into district play a better team with a record of 5-1 instead of 6-0, and have the exact same record of 9-3 right now.

 

Regardless, SOS matters when trying to win titles. There is nothing wrong with playing less of a schedule to get some wins if that is what is best for your program. The fact remains that SOS is not a myth regardless of SK's post season success. Playing tough teams make teams better. Playing weak teams give teams a false sense of worth and security.

Are you naive enough to believe that one 2-9 season cost you 11 kids after a State Title Appearance in 2008, a Semifinal apperance in 2009, and a regional final appearance in 2010?

 

You don't lose 11 players because of one bad season after the run of success SK had before last year. My bet is those kids were looking to leave regardless of your success.

 

Back to SOS, it matters for teams trying to win State Titles. It does not matter for teams that are trying to get some wins and rebuild.

 

Nobody on here thinks SK should schedule a monster schedule, but they would have absolutely benefited from playing 1 school named Cooper, Conner, CovCath, or Highlands during the first 5 games. Scheduling is tough and after SK's success the 3 years prior to this scheduling cycle, I wouldn't be surprised if Conner and Cooper told SK 'thanks, but no thanks.'

 

IMO, had SK played Highlands, Cooper, Conner or CovCath, they would have lost the game. They would have gone into district play a better team with a record of 5-1 instead of 6-0, and have the exact same record of 9-3 right now.

 

Regardless, SOS matters when trying to win titles. There is nothing wrong with playing less of a schedule to get some wins if that is what is best for your program. The fact remains that SOS is not a myth regardless of SK's post season success. Playing tough teams make teams better. Playing weak teams give teams a false sense of worth and security.

 

And were these 11 kids already in the program or were some of them kids that were "supposed" to go to SK as freshman and they chose other programs. A lot of questions to answer before we understand the entire story. If 11 existing impact players left in one year, then I would be on your side and say something is going on. But I find it hard to believe even half of those kids were existing impact players. No 2-9 team could lose 11 impact players and have the wins of SK, even with the schedule they played.

Are you naive enough to believe that one 2-9 season cost you 11 kids after a State Title Appearance in 2008, a Semifinal apperance in 2009, and a regional final appearance in 2010?

 

You don't lose 11 players because of one bad season after the run of success SK had before last year. My bet is those kids were looking to leave regardless of your success.

 

Back to SOS, it matters for teams trying to win State Titles. It does not matter for teams that are trying to get some wins and rebuild.

 

Nobody on here thinks SK should schedule a monster schedule, but they would have absolutely benefited from playing 1 school named Cooper, Conner, CovCath, or Highlands during the first 5 games.[/b] Scheduling is tough and after SK's success the 3 years prior to this scheduling cycle, I wouldn't be surprised if Conner and Cooper told SK 'thanks, but no thanks.'

 

IMO, had SK played Highlands, Cooper, Conner or CovCath, they would have lost the game. They would have gone into district play a better team with a record of 5-1 instead of 6-0, and have the exact same record of 9-3 right now.

 

Regardless, SOS matters when trying to win titles. There is nothing wrong with playing less of a schedule to get some wins if that is what is best for your program. The fact remains that SOS is not a myth regardless of SK's post season success. Playing tough teams make teams better. Playing weak teams give teams a false sense of worth and security.

 

You might not remember, but we did play one program named St. X in the preseason. Much better test than any of the programs you cited.

You might not remember, but we did play one program named St. X in the preseason. Much better test than any of the programs you cited.

 

Cooper, Conner and CovCath would have allowed for some success, but also expoited weaknesses in schemes and positions that need work. They would have been competitive games.

 

I bet after the X scrimmage, you thought. 'Man, we need better players'.

 

Huge difference!

You might not remember, but we did play one program named St. X in the preseason. Much better test than any of the programs you cited.

 

What about the answers to all the other questions. You throw a bunch of generic statements out there and then don't answer on the specifics or comment on the reasoning of some the arguments that others bring up. You generalize to make it sound worse than it really is. Once someone asks about more detail, you divert to other things and never really answer questions or challenges to your points.