I'm going to say please see my post #273 for the answer- then I predict you will say that's not a good enough answer since your built in definition of "proof" seems to come down to beating Highlands. So therefore you discard anything else. There is no arguing with you because you refuse to see that there are a variety of ways to define improvement.

And please cite where I said there was a set time table on "improvement" from playing a tough schedule. No, on second thought, never mind- I really don't want to prolong any more conversation with you.

 

You say you saw them get incrementally better each game after the Moeller game last year. My entire point is this, they would of still gotten incrementally better after the 3rd game of the year no matter who they played. Noelker didn't do thy to them. I bet if they played SK instead they still would have gotten better as the season goes on. That is usually what happens with the majority of teams.

 

Are you saying if they wouldn't have played Moeller then they would have gotten worse as the season went on?

Oh, and as far as the set time table for improvement you asked about. Well seeing how it's high school football and players can only at for 4 years, well anything longer than that is an entirely new team. So yea, you better improve long before 5 years.

It seems certain posters definition of improvement only counts in wins and losses. No sense in arguing with them. In this case, you can't fix ignorance or stupidity.

True you can't fix stupidity but in your case I will try.

 

Please explain to me why playing SK wouldn't help CCH but playing Moeller would? You act as if playing any other team won't help CCH. If that is the case why does CCH even bother playing Beechwood each year if that isn't going to help them improve? Why doesn't CCH just play all GCL teams until districts start?

So you believe Grant Co would improve more by playing Trinity more than they would by playing Boone Co?

 

Please explain because it makes zero sense. How does a team improve by getting beat by 100 points than they would by playing a team that they can actually learn from an play a little closer to.

 

Also if improvements according to you don't mean to play better than wht improvements are you talking about?

 

Moral improvements? Lol.

 

 

There you go again, twist and turn and spin to fit your argument. Where did Boone Cty come from in the Trinity -vs- Grant discussion? Where did I say there wouldn't be improvements by playing the better competition? Are you posting from Colorado?

True you can't fix stupidity but in your case I will try.

 

Please explain to me why playing SK wouldn't help CCH but playing Moeller would? You act as if playing any other team won't help CCH. If that is the case why does CCH even bother playing Beechwood each year if that isn't going to help them improve? Why doesn't CCH just play all GCL teams until districts start?

 

You know what they say about those who make ASSumptions. You assume that SK would be willing to play CCH. You also assume that playing SK would make them better. What if CCH put the beat down on SK by running clock in the 2nd quarter, what would CCH get out of that game?

 

There are such things as rival games regardless of class. BW -vs- CCH is and has been a rivalry for years.

There you go again, twist and turn and spin to fit your argument. Where did Boone Cty come from in the Trinity -vs- Grant discussion? Where did I say there wouldn't be improvements by playing the better competition? Are you posting from Colorado?

 

Go back and read my posts. I said all along aging good teams can help. What I've been saying all along is playing a team like Trinity or Moeller will not garuntee it will make your team better.

 

You and bluedad seem to think it does garuntee that your team will get better. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Why do you think it is Trinity has trouble scheduling games? If it was as if you think, in that it garuntees your team will get better by playing a team like T then every coach in the state would be knocking down their door.

 

Why do you think that doesn't happen? It's not rocket science.

The reason is because most coaches have a lot more intelligence than some people on here and realize it does their team no good by playing a team that can put 100 points up on you. zero benefit at all.

Oh, and as far as the set time table for improvement you asked about. Well seeing how it's high school football and players can only at for 4 years, well anything longer than that is an entirely new team. So yea, you better improve long before 5 years.

 

Whatever - I didn't ask about it- you falsely stated that I agreed there was a set time table on improving and I asked you to cite where I said that.

It's impossible arguing with someone who is never wrong. "Better improve long before 5 years." Or what? The program folds? What an awfully dumb statement.

Go back and read my posts. I said all along aging good teams can help. What I've been saying all along is playing a team like Trinity or Moeller will not garuntee it will make your team better.

 

You and bluedad seem to think it does garuntee that your team will get better. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Why do you think it is Trinity has trouble scheduling games? If it was as if you think, in that it garuntees your team will get better by playing a team like T then every coach in the state would be knocking down their door.

 

Why do you think that doesn't happen? It's not rocket science.

The reason is because most coaches have a lot more intelligence than some people on here and realize it does their team no good by playing a team that can put 100 points up on you. zero benefit at all.

 

You say there's no benefit at all to playing Trinity or Moeller and losing by 100. I simply disagree. If you can't find something in a 100 point loss that can make your team better then you shouldn't be coaching.

 

Trinity's trouble scheduling games goes far behind teams being scared to play them. There are political messages involved as well, ask Scott Cty's coach. I'm sure you can't/won't(refuse) to see that and will revert back to your "who says that's true" theory/argument.

You know what they say about those who make ASSumptions. You assume that SK would be willing to play CCH. You also assume that playing SK would make them better. What if CCH put the beat down on SK by running clock in the 2nd quarter, what would CCH get out of that game?

 

There are such things as rival games regardless of class. BW -vs- CCH is and has been a rivalry for years.

I understand rivalries.

 

Talk about ASSumptions, you made a huge one thinking CCH would have a running clock against SK. Let's try not to be hateful and have a regular discussion. You seem to be leaning toward being a complete arse so try reeling it in and discuss it like an adult.

 

The simple point is, CCH hasn't shown they have gotten better by playing GCL teams. That is the simple point made long ago as well as no proof they couldn't get better by playing teams like SK etc.

 

If playing GCL schools equates to getting better then CCH better find a new plan because that one isn't working.

Whatever - I didn't ask about it- you falsely stated that I agreed there was a set time table on improving and I asked you to cite where I said that.

It's impossible arguing with someone who is never wrong. "Better improve long before 5 years." Or what? The program folds? What an awfully dumb statement.

 

You sure did ask about it. OMG go read the first line of the post I quotes from you. Wow, I wish I could say what I want to about you but is get banned.

 

All I will say to all the kids out there is don't do drugs.

How did playing Lasalle in 2012 help CCH get better? Conner didn't play a GCL team but still beat CCH

 

Are you all admitting here and now that CCH wasn't one of the best in NKY that year? What about 2010?

 

A coue teams better than CCH just in 2012 alone didn't have to play GCL teams to get better and were better than CCH. How did that happen?

I understand rivalries.

 

Talk about ASSumptions, you made a huge one thinking CCH would have a running clock against SK. Let's try not to be hateful and have a regular discussion. You seem to be leaning toward being a complete arse so try reeling it in and discuss it like an adult.

 

The simple point is, CCH hasn't shown they have gotten better by playing GCL teams. That is the simple point made long ago as well as no proof they couldn't get better by playing teams like SK etc.

 

If playing GCL schools equates to getting better then CCH better find a new plan because that one isn't working.

 

I'm fine, no need resort to name calling. I'm just trying to simplify things for the challenged people such as yourself who refuse to recognize and acknowledge simple things such as Strength of Schedule having an impact on rankings and learning lessons in the face of defeat against superior competition.

 

 

I made no such assumption in the SK/CCH example, I posed a hypothetical question. It's hard to have an adult conversation when one side simply refuses to be open minded and grasp simple concepts.

The whole assumption that you don't get better by playing better teams is ridiculous in my opinion. You learn a lot more from a loss than you do from a win in most cases..Playing good teams will enhance your weaknesses which will allow you to work on them to make you better. If you play a bunch of bad teams you get a false sense of how good you are because you are never challenged.

Go back and read my posts. I said all along aging good teams can help. What I've been saying all along is playing a team like Trinity or Moeller will not garuntee it will make your team better.

 

You and bluedad seem to think it does garuntee that your team will get better. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Why do you think it is Trinity has trouble scheduling games? If it was as if you think, in that it garuntees your team will get better by playing a team like T then every coach in the state would be knocking down their door.

 

Why do you think that doesn't happen? It's not rocket science.

The reason is because most coaches have a lot more intelligence than some people on here and realize it does their team no good by playing a team that can put 100 points up on you. zero benefit at all.

 

OK- one more attempt at the "proof" angle you are desperate for:

CCH's record since 2009- playing a GCL school each of those years

2009 6-6 (lost to Ryle, Lex Cath, LaSalle, Highlands, St X Ky and Johnson Central)

2010 6-6 (lost to Ryle, LaSalle, NCC, Highlands, St X Ky and Johnson Central)

2011 10-3 (lost to LaSalle and twice to Highlands)

2012 9-4 (lost to LaSalle, Conner and twice to Highlands)

2013 10-3 (lost to Moeller and twice to Highlands)

 

The last three years in N Ky they lost to Conner once and Highlands six times.

 

So although I know your pride won't allow you to admit it, it seems very clear to me that improvement happened. Did the improvement happen in spite of, or because of, the tough scheduling? My firm opinion is the latter. The program voluntarily ramped itself up by taking on the big boys- the community of parents who had a choice to make on their son's academic and athletic future, took notice and became excited about the future, which increased interest in the program. Plus I agree with Names in that much value is added seeing a team with better speed and strength from the players side and game planning and scheme on the coaches side.

How did playing Lasalle in 2012 help CCH get better? Conner didn't play a GCL team but still beat CCH

 

Are you all admitting here and now that CCH wasn't one of the best in NKY that year? What about 2010?

 

A coue teams better than CCH just in 2012 alone didn't have to play GCL teams to get better and were better than CCH. How did that happen?

 

In a mud bowl.. CCH was better than Conner that year if the game was played in normal playing conditions..imo