Should the Enquirer foot note that these were All-A State titles????..............and then also footnote that any Track and Cross Country State titles were won against classified competition in 3 classes????... and then also note that any Football State titles were won against classified competition in 6 classes. Just so you know everyone can be informed.

Who cares. All of the athletes worked hard to win their tournament (with teams that qualify from allover the state) and they deserve to be recognized. 20 years from now are the CCH guys gonna be saying "Man that's bull how NewCath was mentioned in the State Championship Enquirer Article." ? Doubt it.

20 years from now are the CCH guys gonna be saying "Man that's bull how NewCath was mentioned in the State Championship Enquirer Article." ?

 

20 years from now will the NCC guys be saying how they won a state championship? I bet the CCH guys will be. One is a nice tournament win, the other is the State Championship. There's a difference.

Both are state championships in many minds, hence the debate. Listing the award doesn't lessen what others did and it's a heck of an accomplishment and honor so I say go ahead and list them.

CCHS would be championed across the state for winning the 6-A state football championship (The best of 32 teams); while the All "A" teams must survive a regional competition and a total of 120+ other teams to achieve their accomplishment?? Just sayin'????

 

Football has classes - we all know that. There's nothing anyone can do about that. Comparing sports that have classes to those that don't is apples to elephants. If there was a football playoff where only the 16 smallest 6-A schools played each other, leaving out the larger 16, would you call that winner a State Champ? You mentioned All-A teams have to face 120+ schools.... State Champs have to defeat the whole state... Is that the same achievement? I grew up believing only having 1 state champ was something special - just my old school opinion. I'm obviously not for classification. Seem to be in the minority on that one.

I'm sorry, but who cares?

 

Is this really the stuff that people get upset about now days?

I'm sorry, but who cares?

 

Is this really the stuff that people get upset about now days?

 

I almost posted something similar. If you have time to worry about this, your life is pretty dang good.

I may be in the minority here but I agree with plant. There should be a footnote explaining the difference. As written, the article is misleading and inaccurate which is a shame because it is nicely done.

I'm sorry, but who cares?

 

Is this really the stuff that people get upset about now days?

 

I almost posted something similar. If you have time to worry about this, your life is pretty dang good.

 

You both took time to post what a waste of time this is? . . oh well. you could follow Clyde's lead and start reading, then stop, then start again, then stop. then maybe start again.

You both took time to post what a waste of time this is? . . oh well. you could follow Clyde's lead and start reading, then stop, then start again, then stop. then maybe start again.

 

And short of the 5 seconds it took for that post and the 10 seconds it's taking for this post I have not thought about it. It's consuming quite a bit of people's time on this site. I just don't think it's a big deal. Didn't even have to read past the first post in the thread to know what it's about.

When did you start reading again??

 

You both took time to post what a waste of time this is? . . oh well. you could follow Clyde's lead and start reading, then stop, then start again, then stop. then maybe start again.

 

 

I guess since my initial post and subsequent responses has bothered a few I should clarify.

 

 

My "I stopped reading..." was meant as a criticism of the "sloppy reporting" comment.

 

 

It didn't literally mean "I will henceforth read no more."

Football has classes - we all know that. There's nothing anyone can do about that. Comparing sports that have classes to those that don't is apples to elephants. If there was a football playoff where only the 16 smallest 6-A schools played each other, leaving out the larger 16, would you call that winner a State Champ? You mentioned All-A teams have to face 120+ schools.... State Champs have to defeat the whole state... Is that the same achievement? I grew up believing only having 1 state champ was something special - just my old school opinion. I'm obviously not for classification. Seem to be in the minority on that one.

 

IMO if you are critical of the "All A" then to be consistent you would have to be critical of classes in football.

 

Mayfield won the A . Are they state champs? Or since they didn't have to play Collins and Trinity should we put an asterisk next to their name?

 

NCC won a "class" tournament just like Mayfield did in football. No different to me.

IMO if you are critical of the "All A" then to be consistent you would have to be critical of classes in football.

 

Mayfield won the A . Are they state champs? Or since they didn't have to play Collins and Trinity should we put an asterisk next to their name?

 

NCC won a "class" tournament just like Mayfield did in football. No different to me.

 

If anyone or any team claiming the All A is a state title doesn't compete for the actual state title then it would be a lot different.

 

Articles like that lead to bozos wanting to argue because they "read it in the paper."

 

I think you nailed it Clyde, to the average fan reading the paper it is a state championship.

If anyone or any team claiming the All A is a state title doesn't compete for the actual state title then it would be a lot different.

 

Articles like that lead to bozos wanting to argue because they "read it in the paper."

 

I think you nailed it Clyde, to the average fan reading the paper it is a state championship.

 

How stupid is the "average fan"? It says right in the paper "Beechwood All-A Baseball". If the "average fan" is too stupid to know what "All-A" means then pretty sure they aren't going to read footnotes to know what the difference is between St. Henry Girls winning a 1A Track Championship and a an All-A Volleyball Championship.

IMO if you are critical of the "All A" then to be consistent you would have to be critical of classes in football.

 

I don't like them but I understand in today's world the safety aspect of having them. Realistically, I know they aren't going away - but there could be less of them. I think there's enough evidence out there to show that a stud team in any class could move up a class or 2 and still contend.

 

Mayfield won the A . Are they state champs? Or since they didn't have to play Collins and Trinity should we put an asterisk next to their name?

 

Again, football is different. It has official classes, hence an official State Champ in each class, so no asterisk. My objection was labeling teams as State Champs that did not win the KHSAA State Championship tournament. You can say I'm stuck on semantics and procedures, but I believe only the KHSAA can award State Championships.

 

NCC won a "class" tournament just like Mayfield did in football. No different to me.

 

My issue isn't who won what, or how they did it - it's lumping All-A and KHSAA champs together and labeling them all as "Kentucky State Champs" which I believe should only be reserved for the teams holding the trophy that says "KHSAA" on it.