Your right- playing the best never makes you better-

 

said no coach in any sport, ever.

Again, you've been asked several times already and have refused to answer and show any proof. How does CCH getting embarrassed year in and year out by playing the GCL teams make them better?

 

Again, if you won't dodge the question again, how has it made the team better? Have they won anything? Have they even beaten Highlands in the last 5 years to win district? Have they won ANYTHING?

So what about when CCH hdoes lose to another NKY team besides Highlands?

This was the case when Conner just beat them in 2012 yet CCH fans always seem to ignore things like that and put themselves right next to HHS in NKY

 

 

That has been my point from the start. SK doesn't get any credit and CCH seems to get the automatic bid as the 2nd best team in NKY no matter what. It's a bias that has been going on way too long with a team that can't even win their district.

 

2010,2011,2012 CCH wasn't even close to being the #2 team in NKY which is why I keep asking why do they get the automatic bid to the #2 spot every year?

 

2010 - Ryle was the best team

2011 - Who was better? They beat the best 6A team Boone County

2012 - Who was better? Conner? Conner beat Cooper & CovCath. CovCath beat Campbell and Dixie, who both beat Simon Kenton. Dixie beat Conner. Not much clarity this year.

Edited April 23, 201412 yr by Builder1214

Again, you've been asked several times already and have refused to answer and show any proof. How does CCH getting embarrassed year in and year out by playing the GCL teams make them better?

 

Again, if you won't dodge the question again, how has it made the team better? Have they won anything? Have they even beaten Highlands in the last 5 years to win district? Have they won ANYTHING?

 

Kind of like the old quote, "if you've got to ask 'how much'?, you can't afford it anyway".

If you've got to ask how playing a better team makes you better, there's no convincing you- but hey, I'll try.

 

Speaking specifically to last year, the Moeller game was immediately after the Dixie game where the starting QB and RB were effectively lost for the season. Some young kids had to step up real quick and either grow up fast or cash it in. Playing Moeller and coming out injury free, while also doing some good things on the field (albeit, very few good things) showed the team that they could "handle it."

 

From that point on, they continued to grow as players and as a team and ended up bettering the previous years record. Now after losing those key guys at Dixie- and then playing Moeller- anyone predicting that they would better the previous years record may have been called nuts. But they did- and that's what I would define as "making themselves better".

 

Either you buy it or you don't- I really don't care- but the kids bought it and that's all that matters.

 

I'm sure the SK fans are ready to move on now that I have answered your question.

I'm kind of wondering what Simon Kenton needs to do to improve in 2014? What do they need to keep doing to be successful?

I'm kind of wondering what Simon Kenton needs to do to improve in 2014? What do they need to keep doing to be successful?

 

According to Blue, we have to schedule some GCL teams. Evidence indicates it won't make us any better but it will assure his team their 'rightful' place as first loser in the NKY final season polls.

in all seriousness, this season is huge for SK. If the boys have a 2012 season, it's a victory (considering the losses, including several all state guys over the past few seasons). We all know that bringing in a new QB isn't easy. A return to 2011 (Kuntz's first season) would be a step backward. A 2013 season would be awesome, but not likely.

Kind of like the old quote, "if you've got to ask 'how much'?, you can't afford it anyway".

If you've got to ask how playing a better team makes you better, there's no convincing you- but hey, I'll try.

 

Speaking specifically to last year, the Moeller game was immediately after the Dixie game where the starting QB and RB were effectively lost for the season. Some young kids had to step up real quick and either grow up fast or cash it in. Playing Moeller and coming out injury free, while also doing some good things on the field (albeit, very few good things) showed the team that they could "handle it."

 

From that point on, they continued to grow as players and as a team and ended up bettering the previous years record. Now after losing those key guys at Dixie- and then playing Moeller- anyone predicting that they would better the previous years record may have been called nuts. But they did- and that's what I would define as "making themselves better".

 

Either you buy it or you don't- I really don't care- but the kids bought it and that's all that matters.

 

I'm sure the SK fans are ready to move on now that I have answered your question.

You make it sound like life or death when they came out of the Dixie game. Don't worry, it was as miraculous as you make it out t be that the CCH football was able to go on and play Moeller. Trust me they would have been able to play anyone, just because Moeller was their next scheduled opponent wasn't any big deal. Trust me I think the Colonels would have been able to play and come out of any game with enough players to make it through the season.

 

Usually when people say they play someone to make them better it means that the team actually gets better because of the opponent and then goes on to win the rest of the way or at least beat their biggest competition. CCH didn't improve after the Moeller game or they would have beat Highlands. Just like a HHS fan told me on here 2 years ago that if Cooper would of played Highlands then that would of made Cooper good enough to beat BG in the state championship game...that kind of thought process is flawed in more ways than I can explain. Just because you play a team that destroys you, it doesn't make you better all the time, if it did it would show in the results and CCH still didn't do any better last year than the did the previous seasons. But if you want to make it sound like a moral victory to the players because they were able to play a game against Moeller even though they got their butts kicked, then keep telling yourself that. That goes a long way I guess in getting a district title, or any chamionship.

 

Ppast far as bettering the previous years record, that really doesn't tell much because all the teams differ from year to year. high School football tends to do that when you lose players every year. You beat Conner who lost their biggest offensive threat they've had in a long time in Cam Fogle so they were down as we're other teams etc. don't get me wrong, having a better record than the year before is always good, I just can't compare the teams as being better. Do you think last years team was actually better than the Blake Bir led team? I don't.

 

Basically all I'm saying is to get better by playing Moeller then they should of beaten HHS. Especially when you and some others claim if Highlands wasn't I. Their district then CCH would be winning state titles, well HHS didn't win state last year so where was CCH?

You make it sound like life or death when they came out of the Dixie game. Don't worry, it was as miraculous as you make it out t be that the CCH football was able to go on and play Moeller. Trust me they would have been able to play anyone, just because Moeller was their next scheduled opponent wasn't any big deal. Trust me I think the Colonels would have been able to play and come out of any game with enough players to make it through the season.

 

Usually when people say they play someone to make them better it means that the team actually gets better because of the opponent and then goes on to win the rest of the way or at least beat their biggest competition. CCH didn't improve after the Moeller game or they would have beat Highlands. Just like a HHS fan told me on here 2 years ago that if Cooper would of played Highlands then that would of made Cooper good enough to beat BG in the state championship game...that kind of thought process is flawed in more ways than I can explain. Just because you play a team that destroys you, it doesn't make you better all the time, if it did it would show in the results and CCH still didn't do any better last year than the did the previous seasons. But if you want to make it sound like a moral victory to the players because they were able to play a game against Moeller even though they got their butts kicked, then keep telling yourself that. That goes a long way I guess in getting a district title, or any chamionship.

 

Yeah - about what I thought would happen. Should have known better than to answer your question since I knew you wouldn't accept the answer to begin with.

Yeah - about what I thought would happen. Should have known better than to answer your question since I knew you wouldn't accept the answer to begin with.

You misunderstood my reply. I wasn't putting your post down at all, I thank you for finally answering the question.

 

I was just saying it sounded a little melodramatic as if CCH football would have cancelled the rest of the season because of the injuries in Dixie game and it sounded as if you were saying that the Moeller game, even though they got crushed, proved they could go on and play and compete. Sorry if that sounded rude, I didn't mean for it to come across like that. It was just the way it sounded to me, a bit melodramatic. We all knew CCH would still go on and play and play good. We didn't need them to play Moeller to know that.

According to Blue, we have to schedule some GCL teams. Evidence indicates it won't make us any better but it will assure his team their 'rightful' place as first loser in the NKY final season polls.

 

I think there is a point of diminishing returns but do you really think SK would not improve any playing an Elder instead of Holy Cross? I can see both points in the argument but I think SK is positioned to be a team that would see improvement with greater competition. I've always believed it is helpful to go against the best. Obviously injuries and confidence issues need to be considered but I don't think they would affect a team like SK in the way that others might be. They are big enough and good enough that they would compete. As others have said, I think we'll probably see something with the next round of contracts.

I think there is a point of diminishing returns but do you really think SK would not improve any playing an Elder instead of Holy Cross? I can see both points in the argument but I think SK is positioned to be a team that would see improvement with greater competition. I've always believed it is helpful to go against the best. Obviously injuries and confidence issues need to be considered but I don't think they would affect a team like SK in the way that others might be. They are big enough and good enough that they would compete. As others have said, I think we'll probably see something with the next round of contracts.

I look at it this way, it goes two ways. If people truly believe playing better teams makes you better, then shouldn't teams like Boone or Grant Co etc who have played better trams most of their entire seasons over the past several years have improved them? Grant Co and Boone were still horrible. P,along better teams didn't make them better so that is what I've been saying. Just because you play a better team doesn't automatically make you better. There is no evidence that CCH got any better over the past 5 years by playing the GCL teams, none whatsoever.

 

Does anyone truly believe if CCH didn't play Moeller then they would have lost to BW or Conne or Ryle etc. last year?

I think there is a point of diminishing returns but do you really think SK would not improve any playing an Elder instead of Holy Cross? I can see both points in the argument but I think SK is positioned to be a team that would see improvement with greater competition. I've always believed it is helpful to go against the best. Obviously injuries and confidence issues need to be considered but I don't think they would affect a team like SK in the way that others might be. They are big enough and good enough that they would compete. As others have said, I think we'll probably see something with the next round of contracts.

 

A GCL school would be too big of a jump. But there is no reason Cov. Cath, Lex Cath, Boyle or Ballard or Male could not be on the schedule. SK also finished a home and home with Scott Co. the year before last.. I believe you need to have another 6A school on your pre-district schedule.

I look at it this way, it goes two ways. If people truly believe playing better teams makes you better, then shouldn't teams like Boone or Grant Co etc who have played better trams most of their entire seasons over the past several years have improved them? Grant Co and Boone were still horrible. P,along better teams didn't make them better so that is what I've been saying. Just because you play a better team doesn't automatically make you better. There is no evidence that CCH got any better over the past 5 years by playing the GCL teams, none whatsoever.

 

Does anyone truly believe if CCH didn't play Moeller then they would have lost to BW or Conne or Ryle etc. last year?

 

So you don't believe better competition makes you better?

A GCL school would be too big of a jump. But there is no reason Cov. Cath, Lex Cath, Boyle or Ballard or Male could not be on the schedule. SK also finished a home and home with Scott Co. the year before last.. I believe you need to have another 6A school on your pre-district schedule.

 

The Elder team I watched play last year would not have been to big of a jump.

So you don't believe better competition makes you better?

 

Not one game. Not really. If you already are a great team then it can help but if you aren't a beat down really doesn't do much of anything.

 

As I said, over the past 5 years I see no proof CCH playing GCL teams helped them in any way. As I said earlier I did t see Grant Co improve at all. What has it done for Holmes? I think it is a myth more than anything.

 

What improves a team is playing teams closer to your playing ability to see how your team copes in close games etc. Getting beat by 30 points does nothing for a team but being within a TD late in a game with a chance to win will do more for a team than anything.

 

It's a nice sentiment to play great teams but reality shows more often than not that it really doesn't make a team better in the end.

 

Take T last year. All we heard about was their SOS and they kept losing to those teams and what did it get them? Didn't make them better. They didn't even win their district or make it to the title game etc.

 

If cooper would have played HHS and GCL teams in 2012 instead of the schedule they had then I doubt they get out of round 2 in the playoffs simply because beats owns kills confidence and morale. Their schedule was perfect that year and it showed.