(NOT that this is necessarily THE answer...I don't claim to have that on ANY subject, but...)

 

...I'm thinking it might have MOST to do with Administrative support.

 

Like ChiefSmoke mentioned, the sport of football -- to be done FIRST-CLASS -- requires more than other sports. And not JUST in funding (though that is the BIGGEST thing it requires more). But it also relates to attention and praise to exceptional performance being allowed to be given; realization that football generally requires more equipment, space, time, off-season preparation, etc. than any other sport; etc.

 

In some places I've been, the PARADIGM seemed to be to consciously implement policies that make sure NOT to set athletes and athletics in general "up on a pedestal" out of fear that non-athletes might feel "less important" in doing their activity (or INactivity).

 

The reason this is more of a PUBLIC school problem than happens in the privates? The over-emphasis by college teacher-education programs on students' almighty "SELF-ESTEEM." Can't do anything to hurt anyone's feelings...the belief in "equality of outcome" as well as "equality of opportunity" (as it SHOULD be)...can't be too "demanding" on kids and have too high "expectations" of them.

 

Private schools just aren't as hamstrung by this over-emphasis. If a kid's a bad apple, you don't give him 80 chances to get better. He gets a warning and told if he does it again, it'll mean SERIOUS consequences (and they FOLLOW-THROUGH with them!).

 

Similarly, if a kid that's not in football or not in a sport at all WHINES about "how much the football team gets," the private school is less likely to bend over backwards to make sure that child (and his parents) is appeased (which usually means, something must be TAKEN AWAY from football).

 

Seems to me, that in almost ALL private schools that have football, and in the much smaller relative percentage of public schools with EXCEPTIONAL football programs , the ADMINISTRATION is willing to admit that football has different needs -- and GREATER needs than other sports and other activities AND is willing to give football what it needs (be that funding, numbers of coaches, facilities, etc.).

 

These administrations realize the value of a GREAT football program to overall student morale at the BEGINNING of the school year (a CRUCIAL time for setting the tone with POSITIVE school spirit) as well as the FINANCIAL value of having a team that many people WANT to come pay to see. So, they wisely refuse to "cow-tow" to whiners and they give football more support because of the extraordinary nature of the NEEDS of the sport.

CoachJ, I'd agree with most of what you said. The one area where I'd disagree is the idea that you have to take away from football to give something to someone else. I am most familiar with Trinity. At Trinity there is a HUGE effort to find activities for all students. I remember when my sons started at Trinity we were told that if a small group of students would identify an interest, they would make sure that there would be a faculty sponsor to work with them. There were over 80 active groups and clubs. A few years ago the administration decided there were still kids falling through the cracks due to the size of the school, so they divided the school into ten houses and assigned faculty to work with each house. That allows these faculty members to get to know a smaller group of students really well. It also makes it easier for the faculty to spot the kid that isn't integrating into the student body. It is a lot of work and I suspect that most of the extra work isn't paid. I know that most of these activities have nothing to do with sports but I believe that getting kids involved in school activities will also get them to particioate in sports. You are right that a lot of it comes down to administrative support, but the faculty has to make a major committment. I have heard (third hand at best) that every faculty member at Trinity is told that they are expected to be part of at least one extracurricular activity. That is asking a lot from a faculty that is already under paid, but it seems to work. As a coach, you know far better than I that you'd get a big raise if they had to pay you for all of the time outside of teaching that you put in.

I have heard (third hand at best) that every faculty member at Trinity is told that they are expected to be part of at least one extracurricular activity.

 

I think you are correct.

Trininty does not have 17 Varsity Coaches...

We know.....but we do have 17 (maybe 16, or even 15) on payroll...

As for Guru's original statement about Covington Catholic, the premise is very debatable. Bowling Green laid an egg in the finals, and that can't be overlooked. I suspect that if you ask LexCath's coaches and players the question of which team was better, they'll be looking toward the north.

 

That is kinda like comparing scores. Lex Cath beat Highlands who beat Cov Cath. The St X contingent will tell you Highlands was horrible and it was a flip of the coin as to who was better between BG and Lex Cath. The best 2 teams in 3A played in the championship game. Lex Cath was the better team, but an ugly turnover filled game by BG made the score worse.

That is kinda like comparing scores. Lex Cath beat Highlands who beat Cov Cath. The St X contingent will tell you Highlands was horrible and it was a flip of the coin as to who was better between BG and Lex Cath. The best 2 teams in 3A played in the championship game. Lex Cath was the better team, but an ugly turnover filled game by BG made the score worse.

 

Why muddy the water with Highlands and X, how about LexCath head to head with both CCH and BG?

 

For the record, I carry the capitalism flag and playing the bias card won't score you any points.

The second best team in 3A lost in the state title game. You can't apoint a team that can't get out of the region 2nd best in the state. That's a really poor statement.

 

I will check with you in the future so I don't make anymore poor statements...

 

Thanks for the advice, now I know it is where you are from that determines how good you are and not how you perform on the field.:lol:

 

For everyone, the purpose of this thread was not to hurt anyone's feelings after Bowling Green laid an egg in the finals, the purpose of this thread is to figure out why the private schools don't have the same success on the hardwood, or stated another way, why the public schools dominate basketball but fall short in football.

I will check with you in the future so I don't make anymore poor statements...

 

Thanks for the advice, now I know it is where you are from that determines how good you are and not how you perform on the field.:lol:

 

For everyone, the purpose of this thread was not to hurt anyone's feelings after Bowling Green laid an egg in the finals, the purpose of this thread is to figure out why the private schools don't have the same success on the hardwood, or stated another way, why the public schools dominate basketball but fall short in football.

 

The private schools have only, to use your word, dominated in 4A. They have not dominated at the 3A, 2A, or A level. In A football in the last 30 years a private school has won 0 out of 30 championships. In 2A in the last 30 years, private schools have 1 out of 30 championships. In 3A in the last 30 years, private schools have won 6(5 really one was vacated) out of 30 championships. In 4A is where the only domination has occured. Private schools have won 20 out of 30. I would say this is proof that the public schools are not really falling short in football except at the 4A level. The main reason for that is the high level of emphasis in the programs at St. X and Trinity.

I guess the only way I can explain is make an analogy... A bad analogy, but another way to look at it...

 

If Murray State had Joe Montana at QB and played Texas in football, Texas would win 100/100 times.. could name the score, play the reserves, etc....

 

In basketball, if Murray State had Michael Jordan on their team, I would like my chances a lot more for the Racers to beat the Longhorns.

 

I am not saying everyone is as good as Michael Jordan, but it is nothing to have insanely good high school basketball talent and can ride this person as long as you want. In football, one cannot do that. There are other factors, but just another way to convey a point stressed already by some.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Gunner, you are out of context, please read all my posts in this thread again.

Trinity and St. X dominate high school football in Kentucky. This year LexCath won it all in 3A (and the second best team in 3A was probably CovCath), Owensboro Catholic was close in 2A and NCC dominated the 1A game. However, in basketball, 15 out of the 16 regions were won by public schools. In other words, the public schools dominated this year in basketball. Why?

 

Why can't the private schools have anywhere near the same level of success in basketball that they have in football? Or, stated another way, why can't the public schools have anywhere near the same level of success in football that they have in basketball?

Is it coaching? Resources? The best athletes playing basketball and not football? Administrators standing in the way of football while they give their all to basketball?

 

Something is not right here folks...

 

I am addressing this point of your second question. To quote you, "Or stated another way, why can't the public schools have anywhere near the same level of success in football that they have in basketball." I think the public schools have had a great level of success in football is my point. Of the last 120 football championships, public schools have won 94(93 one vacated) of them. Public schools have won 78 out of 87 state basketball championships. I think the success is about even in football if you look at proportions of public vs. private schools. I think there are 51 private schools in the KHSAA and about 224 public schools. Private schools make up about 18% of the members. In football about 21% of the championships have been won by private schools in the last 30 years(120 championships). In basketball the private schools are a shade behind with 11% of the championships in the last 87.

 

The publics have had "near" the same level of success that they have had in basketball as they have had in football. What has the publics/private debate all in a tizzy is such a small sample size is being used and only the recent performances are being looked at. At least on the boys side of things. The girls side of things is another story.

Trinity and St. X dominate high school football in Kentucky. This year LexCath won it all in 3A (and the second best team in 3A was probably CovCath), Owensboro Catholic was close in 2A and NCC dominated the 1A game. However, in basketball, 15 out of the 16 regions were won by public schools. In other words, the public schools dominated this year in basketball. Why?

 

Why can't the private schools have anywhere near the same level of success in basketball that they have in football? Or, stated another way, why can't the public schools have anywhere near the same level of success in football that they have in basketball?

 

Is it coaching? Resources? The best athletes playing basketball and not football? Administrators standing in the way of football while they give their all to basketball?

 

Something is not right here folks...

 

Nice question to elicit input from members:thumb:

I couldn't tell if the focus was why privates "couldn't [can't]" win in basketball, or publics allegedly "aren't" as successful in football. I don't think one is necessarily the flip side of the other (IMO). Also, perhaps there's a little apple/orange issue that could be clarified in your question.

 

You start out with the Trinity/StX statement - which seems to be about an ongoing domination over a period of years.

Then you mention the A/AA/AAA football results for this year along with the basketball results for this year.

 

A one year snap shot is tricky for analysis purposes. Also, instead of just looking at the football champion, what if we looked at all the regional champions in each class? Would that higher # offer a more representative comparison?

 

Also, what happens if we include other sports in the analysis? That could add/detract to others excellent opinions about this. Don't a few schools dominate the minor sports? That would probably help support the larger school #'s, money, facilities point I believe.

 

Others have offered several excellent opinions on this. It would take a long post to do it justice.

 

Cheers, Woody Jr

But the numbers issue is taken care of in football by classification. Schools with larger pools of boys in the school to draw from take on each other for championships.

 

 

True, but the only KY football class that has been dominated by private schools, indeed by any two schools, is 4A. And what is the most salient characteristic of those two schools relative to the other 52 teams in their classification? Enrollment. Each of these schools have at least 40% more kids to build teams from (compared to the largest co-ed schools) and as many as 150% more than the smallest 4A's. If X and T each had to field two teams based on a randomized division of their student bodies (thus putting them squarely in the middle of 4A with respect to enrollment), I doubt they would be so dominant. Good? Definitely. But would they win, on average 2 of 3 championships? No way in H-E-double hockeysticks.

 

Basketball has simply never been the numbers sport that football is. It can be shown (indeed has been shown) from KHSAA Sweet 16 Championship history that, given the enrollment disparities that exist, smaller schools are more successful winning basketball titles than they are at winning football titles.

The best 2 teams in 3A played in the championship game. Lex Cath was the better team, but an ugly turnover filled game by BG made the score worse.

I agree with the premise that Bowling Green was the #2 team in 3A, but given the Purples' performance in Louisville, you can't blame others for questioning it.

(NOT that this is necessarily THE answer...I don't claim to have that on ANY subject, but...)

 

...I'm thinking it might have MOST to do with Administrative support.

 

Like ChiefSmoke mentioned, the sport of football -- to be done FIRST-CLASS -- requires more than other sports. And not JUST in funding (though that is the BIGGEST thing it requires more). But it also relates to attention and praise to exceptional performance being allowed to be given; realization that football generally requires more equipment, space, time, off-season preparation, etc. than any other sport; etc.

 

In some places I've been, the PARADIGM seemed to be to consciously implement policies that make sure NOT to set athletes and athletics in general "up on a pedestal" out of fear that non-football players might feel treated "less important" in doing their activity (or INactivity).

 

The reason this is more of a PUBLIC school problem than private? The over-emphasis by college teacher-education programs on students' almighty "SELF-ESTEEM." Teachers are trained to believe that it is almost a mortal sin to do anything that might hurt a child's feelings (even if that child's behavior is wrong)...the belief in "equality of outcome" as well as "equality of opportunity" (as it SHOULD be)...that you as an authority figure should not be too "demanding" on kids and have too high "expectations" of them (might "stress them out" or "burn them out").

 

Private schools -- to their benefit -- just simply don't allow themselves to be as hamstrung by this over-emphasis. If a kid's a bad apple, you don't give him 80 chances to get better. He gets a warning and told if he does it again, it'll mean SERIOUS consequences (and they FOLLOW-THROUGH with them!). That trickles down to the athletics programs -- coaches put up with less bad behavior, less "me-first" attitude, less "what about MY playing time" issues -- and they get BACKED UP by their administrators where at publics, a lot of times, they don't for fear of lawsuit or upsetting the wrong "important community person."

 

Similarly, if a kid that's not in football or not in a sport at all WHINES about "how much the football team gets," the private school is less likely to bend over backwards to make sure that child (and his parents) is appeased (which usually means, something must be TAKEN AWAY from football).

 

Seems to me, that in almost ALL private schools that have football, and in the much smaller relative percentage of public schools with EXCEPTIONAL football programs , the ADMINISTRATION is willing to admit that football has different needs -- and GREATER needs than other sports and other activities AND they are willing to give football what it needs (be that funding, numbers of coaches, facilities, etc.).

 

These administrations realize the value of a GREAT football program to overall student morale at the BEGINNING of the school year (a CRUCIAL time for setting the tone with POSITIVE school spirit) as well as the FINANCIAL value of having a team that many people WANT to come pay to see. So, they wisely refuse to "cow-tow" to whiners and they give football more support because of the extraordinary nature of the NEEDS of the sport.

 

I strongly believe it's easier to have a successful program with average athletes, coaches, facilities, etc. but a SUPPORTIVE administration than to have GREAT athletes, coaches, facilities, etc. a NON-supportive administration coachesYou can have average great athletes and coaches but have a non-supportive administration. It is the NUMBER ONE thing a coach should look at in my opinion before taking any head coaching job.

 

Nice post Coach and I agree totally. As I have always maintained, the differing levels of success in football is caused by NOTHING other than the differing levels of committment found at each program; committment from the administration down to the players. And I'm not talking about the level of committment over the last couple of years. It takes more than a couple of years of full blown committment to be successful in football against programs that have had that level of committment for 20 years or so.

I agree with the premise that Bowling Green was the #2 team in 3A, but given the Purples' performance in Louisville, you can't blame others for questioning it.

 

Based on what I saw of BG in that game, and its the only game I saw them play, they were not the second best team in 3A last year. But again, I qualified my opinion by saying it was based on what I saw of them in the state game.