Is Prop 20 the best choice?????

[westsider]

If we want to "DUMB DOWN" our athletics and allow for dilluted champions?

 

YES...

The same goes for six classes ...

[kissinger]

The same goes for six classes ...

Spoken as a truly uninformed viewer. The difference is that six classes has nothing to do with more champions or dumbing down anything. It has to do with trying to address the huge disparity in size within (not between) the schools in Class A, and the same issue in Class 4A. The only way you do that, is shrink the number of teams in those classes so the gap is narrower in the one single sport where numbers have such an impact. You certainly don't want a system where there are 30 or so teams in the large and small classes while having about 80 in the two middle ones do you?

[RockPride]

So add two more state champions? That sounds like a dillution to me.

[Trinity alum]

I think it makes some sense to reduce the largest and smallest classes to 32 teams each. Thjat would reduce the size differences in those two classes. By their nature, those to classes are always going to have the biggest differences. Putting everyone else into three classes would make the new 2A, 3A and 4A slightly smaller than they are today. That would make the most sense to me.

[lexcard]

Adding classes is not dumbing down or diluting.

 

It may be necessary if the bottom of the class can not compete with the top of the class. That is not to say that every game in a class is nearly even but more that a 82-3 blowout every year between two teams in the same class is not likely.

 

An effect of wide class groups is the 'poor get poorer' syndrome. If a school does not compete over a period of time it will likely not get all the kids it could if they were at least competative or shooting for a chance at the playoffs most years. Kids who may be a positive factor may decide not to play that sport at all. Or if they are set on playing the sport they and their parents may look at other options (i.e. private school). A 'cellar-dweller' school sports program is just not healthy for kids, coaches or boosters and if creating more classes helps that situation then its a valid option.

 

Another option that could be used to help the matter is to use more than just school size to classify schools. Roster size and number of upper classmen are other factors that definitely have an on-the-field bearing and maybe should have bearing on a schools football class designation as well.

[RockPride]

^ this is coming from an area that has been as talent rich as anywhere in the state and is a perennial underachiever...JUST GIVE IT TO 'EM.

[kissinger]

So add two more state champions? That sounds like a dillution to me

So you are saying that if one of the teams who has currently won championship after championship were to win one as one of six classes or five classes instead of one of four that they:

1) will celebrate less;

2) will spend less on their rings and celebrations;

3) will no longer revel in being state champions;

4) will no longer feel special as being one of the elite?

 

If you feel that way RP, there really is only one answer. One class. One champion. Then there is no "dilution" as you say.

[leatherneck]

Adding classes is not dumbing down or diluting.

 

It may be necessary if the bottom of the class can not compete with the top of the class. That is not to say that every game in a class is nearly even but more that a 82-3 blowout every year between two teams in the same class is not likely.

 

An effect of wide class groups is the 'poor get poorer' syndrome. If a school does not compete over a period of time it will likely not get all the kids it could if they were at least competative or shooting for a chance at the playoffs most years. Kids who may be a positive factor may decide not to play that sport at all. Or if they are set on playing the sport they and their parents may look at other options (i.e. private school). A 'cellar-dweller' school sports program is just not healthy for kids, coaches or boosters and if creating more classes helps that situation then its a valid option.

 

Another option that could be used to help the matter is to use more than just school size to classify schools. Roster size and number of upper classmen are other factors that definitely have an on-the-field bearing and maybe should have bearing on a schools football class designation as well.

 

But making it easier for the celler dweller to win a state championship is not the answer; its not the message you should be sending to your student athletes You show me a consistent celler dweller and 9 times out of 10 I'll show you a school with an administration that is not committed to win. A head coach that is not committed to win. And players not committed to win. Its a fact that hurts and its harsh, and one that most people just don't want to admit to in this forum. Interestingly enough, on other threads in other forums, folks regularly criticize their own administrations, their own coaches and sometimes their own players for not being committed. But they won't admit it here as a reason for their inability to compete against those programs that have that committment This phenomenon, if you will, is probably best attributed to: "I can honestly criticize my program, but you can't." I'm sorry, but perhaps my Republican beliefs are coming through, but its time for some losing programs to look themselves in the mirror and ask if they are truly doing everything and I mean everything they can to produce a winner; to pull themselves up by the bootstaps (and don't tell me it can't be done at public schools. Boyle County did it with Danville in their back yard. Bellevue is doing it with NCC in their back yard. Newport is doing it and took the AA champions to the wire last year. If I thought about it for a few more minutes, others would come to mind. What those schools did was make a committment to win and win now!) Sometimes that means making the tough choice and getting rid of a hometown favorite who is a bad head coach. We've had to do it at Highlands. It wasn't fun, it wasn't easy, but it was done. It had to be done, as it was totally unfair to the kids who were busting their tails all year long to win. And we got back on our winning ways. If your school doesn't want to make the very large committment to winning that it takes (and the committment gets greater every year as football becomes better and better in this state. The years of so so football teams getting deep into the playoffs are a thing of the past and such will remain the case) don't penalize those that do. Don't dilute or water down what it takes to win. Accept your team's performance as the unpleasant consequence of making the decision not to do what it takes to win.

 

Clop, clop, clop (which for the unknowing, is me stepping down from the soap box, again).

[stickymitts]

But making it easier for the celler dweller to win a state championship is not the answer; its not the message you should be sending to your student athletes You show me a consistent celler dweller and 9 times out of 10 I'll show you a school with an administration that is not committed to win. A head coach that is not committed to win. And players not committed to win. Its a fact that hurts and its harsh, and one that most people just don't want to admit to in this forum. Interestingly enough, on other threads in other forums, folks regularly criticize their own administrations, their own coaches and sometimes their own players for not being committed. But they won't admit it here as a reason for their inability to compete against those programs that have that committment This phenomenon, if you will, is probably best attributed to: "I can honestly criticize my program, but you can't." I'm sorry, but perhaps my Republican beliefs are coming through, but its time for some losing programs to look themselves in the mirror and ask if they are truly doing everything and I mean everything they can to produce a winner; to pull themselves up by the bootstaps (and don't tell me it can't be done at public schools. Boyle County did it with Danville in their back yard. Bellevue is doing it with NCC in their back yard. Newport is doing it and took the AA champions to the wire last year. If I thought about it for a few more minutes, others would come to mind. What those schools did was make a committment to win and win now!) Sometimes that means making the tough choice and getting rid of a hometown favorite who is a bad head coach. We've had to do it at Highlands. It wasn't fun, it wasn't easy, but it was done. It had to be done, as it was totally unfair to the kids who were busting their tails all year long to win. And we got back on our winning ways. If your school doesn't want to make the very large committment to winning that it takes (and the committment gets greater every year as football becomes better and better in this state. The years of so so football teams getting deep into the playoffs are a thing of the past and such will remain the case) don't penalize those that do. Don't dilute or water down what it takes to win. Accept your team's performance as the unpleasant consequence of making the decision not to do what it takes to win.

 

Clop, clop, clop (which for the unknowing, is me stepping down from the soap box, again).

 

Bravo... :thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

But making it easier for the celler dweller to win a state championship is not the answer; its not the message you should be sending to your student athletes You show me a consistent celler dweller and 9 times out of 10 I'll show you a school with an administration that is not committed to win. A head coach that is not committed to win. And players not committed to win. Its a fact that hurts and its harsh, and one that most people just don't want to admit to in this forum. Interestingly enough, on other threads in other forums, folks regularly criticize their own administrations, their own coaches and sometimes their own players for not being committed. But they won't admit it here as a reason for their inability to compete against those programs that have that committment This phenomenon, if you will, is probably best attributed to: "I can honestly criticize my program, but you can't." I'm sorry, but perhaps my Republican beliefs are coming through, but its time for some losing programs to look themselves in the mirror and ask if they are truly doing everything and I mean everything they can to produce a winner; to pull themselves up by the bootstaps (and don't tell me it can't be done at public schools. Boyle County did it with Danville in their back yard. Bellevue is doing it with NCC in their back yard. Newport is doing it and took the AA champions to the wire last year. If I thought about it for a few more minutes, others would come to mind. What those schools did was make a committment to win and win now!) Sometimes that means making the tough choice and getting rid of a hometown favorite who is a bad head coach. We've had to do it at Highlands. It wasn't fun, it wasn't easy, but it was done. It had to be done, as it was totally unfair to the kids who were busting their tails all year long to win. And we got back on our winning ways. If your school doesn't want to make the very large committment to winning that it takes (and the committment gets greater every year as football becomes better and better in this state. The years of so so football teams getting deep into the playoffs are a thing of the past and such will remain the case) don't penalize those that do. Don't dilute or water down what it takes to win. Accept your team's performance as the unpleasant consequence of making the decision not to do what it takes to win.

 

Clop, clop, clop (which for the unknowing, is me stepping down from the soap box, again).

I understand your point and agree with it. But I do have a question, in regards to the girls basketball program at LexCath. Are you saying for the 11th region teams to compete, they should start looking to draw some of the better players from areas surrounding their school?

 

Or would you agree that a school that can bring in the star from 5-6 different communities to field one team has a big advantage?

[Trinity alum]

I understand your point and agree with it. But I do have a question, in regards to the girls basketball program at LexCath. Are you saying for the 11th region teams to compete, they should start looking to draw some of the better players from areas surrounding their school?

 

Or would you agree that a school that can bring in the star from 5-6 different communities to field one team has a big advantage?

First, LexCath doesn't "bring in" anyone. These are kids that choose LexCath. I think it is an important distinction. What is it about LexCath that attracts these kids? I believe part of it is their sports program, but I also believe that many other factors are involved. The bottom line is that it costs a lot of money to attend, even with financial aid. It is also a hardship to make a long commute. I think that everyone should be looking at why families choose these schools and endure great hardship to do so. If the free alternative becomes as attractive to families as the expensive alternative we won't have to discuss private advantages.

[ladiesbballcoach]

First, LexCath doesn't "bring in" anyone. These are kids that choose LexCath. I think it is an important distinction. What is it about LexCath that attracts these kids? I believe part of it is their sports program, but I also believe that many other factors are involved. The bottom line is that it costs a lot of money to attend, even with financial aid. It is also a hardship to make a long commute. I think that everyone should be looking at why families choose these schools and endure great hardship to do so. If the free alternative becomes as attractive to families as the expensive alternative we won't have to discuss private advantages.

 

I believe what brings kids to Lex Catholic depends on what group you are looking at. If you are a girls basketball player, their basketball team is probably #1. If you are a 4.0 student, it might be academics. If you are Catholic, I would hope it is their faith.

 

I also believe you have hit upon a point that is a problem, at least as I understand it. These better schools that you mention are not open, financially, to everyone. I believe I have heard the stat of 50% can be paid through financial aid. But for some families the other 50% is not affordable.

 

As a result, fair or not, true or not, the perception comes across once again that this is the "rich" getting something that the "poor" cannot afford.

 

Fighting a perception is EXTREMELY difficult to do. The Dems find this out as they are labeled the "liberal" party. The Reps, the "conservative" party.

 

Not saying this is true, but saying it is what is perceived and very difficult to convince people that it is not necessarily the truth. They will mumble and walk away saying, "I don't care what you say, they're the rich."

[rockmom]

I believe what brings kids to Lex Catholic depends on what group you are looking at. If you are a girls basketball player, their basketball team is probably #1. If you are a 4.0 student, it might be academics. If you are Catholic, I would hope it is their faith.

 

I also believe you have hit upon a point that is a problem, at least as I understand it. These better schools that you mention are not open, financially, to everyone. I believe I have heard the stat of 50% can be paid through financial aid. But for some families the other 50% is not affordable.

 

As a result, fair or not, true or not, the perception comes across once again that this is the "rich" getting something that the "poor" cannot afford.

 

Fighting a perception is EXTREMELY difficult to do. The Dems find this out as they are labeled the "liberal" party. The Reps, the "conservative" party.

 

Not saying this is true, but saying it is what is perceived and very difficult to convince people that it is not necessarily the truth. They will mumble and walk away saying, "I don't care what you say, they're the rich."

 

The part I bolded is a could be. It depends upon what a family is willing to sacrifice. I agree there are definitely other families that could never begin to afford it. The problem I have is the people who send their kids to public schools who are as well off or better off than many private school parents, who complain that there's got to be something fishy going on if we can afford to send our kids there. Meanwhile, those families are taking week-long vacations in Florida, drive new(er) cars, clothe their children in Abercrombie & Fitch, etc. Not all, but many.

 

It's a choice a family makes. We don't mind, nor begrudge our public school family counter-parts their choices. But, it's ridiculous for the majority to presume there's impropriety afoot based simply on the assumption that there's no way a family can afford the 50% or greater unless they're affluent.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The part I bolded is a could be. It depends upon what a family is willing to sacrifice. I agree there are definitely other families that could never begin to afford it. The problem I have is the people who send their kids to public schools who are as well off or better off than many private school parents, who complain that there's got to be something fishy going on if we can afford to send our kids there. Meanwhile, those families are taking week-long vacations in Florida, drive new(er) cars, clothe their children in Abercrombie & Fitch, etc. Not all, but many.

 

It's a choice a family makes. We don't mind, nor begrudge our public school family counter-parts their choices. But, it's ridiculous for the majority to presume there's impropriety afoot based simply on the assumption that there's no way a family can afford the 50% or greater unless they're affluent.

I would agree with you. I am just pointing out the perception that is out there. Right or wrong, it is the perception you deal with.

 

I would add, parents don't have any money to help their kids education but they smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day, 40-50 pounds overweight, with a case of Bud in the fridge and satellitte dish on the roof.

[BR90]

I understand your point and agree with it. But I do have a question, in regards to the girls basketball program at LexCath. Are you saying for the 11th region teams to compete, they should start looking to draw some of the better players from areas surrounding their school?

 

Or would you agree that a school that can bring in the star from 5-6 different communities to field one team has a big advantage?

You should know better then to ask that question? They need to work harder and get better coaches. How dare you say it is unfair. They didnt "get any players" the players choose them. Just because they have the ability to get kids from where they want (other counties,states, or from other school districts) and the other schools dont, does not mean that is a edge. Did you read the post? It is because of the commitment to winning by the schools that want to win, that do. You know the other school's players dont work hard in the off season, and their coaches dont break down tape or know the x's and the o's of the game enough to win. So all of those good players are willing to pay 1000's to go to a school that does. that is totally fair and even. all those other schools are great big whinner's and Losers