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.

 

It's funny really, it seems every December when I go up to Louisville, the stands are filled with teams that are better than those on the field.

St. X and Trinity want to be good in basketball but it still is not football and that is what runs the hearts of those schools. Basketball is the only sport they are not successful in.

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.

 

 

Very good point on the sustained level of commitment necessary. Our program at Mason has had a lot of improvement, but if we can sustain what we are doing now over the long haul, it can have a much better future when we have more 2nd generation players and all of the benefits that go with building a program over a 20-30 year period. Alot of the programs at the top have 3rd and 4th generation guys on their team.

 

On a side note- congratulations to former All State Football Royal Chris Lofton who was named to the All-SEC BASKETBALL team.:thumb:

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.

 

 

So was RockPride in Slytheren?

 

I couldn't resist.

 

Actually it was a great idea and I like that concept very much Trinity alum. :thumb:

So was RockPride in Slytheren?

 

I couldn't resist.

 

Actually it was a great idea and I like that concept very much Trinity alum. :thumb:

Very nice.:thumb:

Probably not the right format, but definitely the right time,

 

 

Here's a link to learn more about the House system at Trinity, why it was implemented, and how it's run:

 

Trinity's site

 

Also, here's a few Quick Facts about Trinity (pdf file)

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.

 

 

There are a number of factors that go into "why is baketball different" but I believe that H's post was the closest to answering this conundrum. First, as has been shown with prior posts,the big private (read Catholic) schools, X and T, are the only private schools that consistently win football championships. Therefore, the issue, properly framed, would be why don't the big private schools dominate basketball like they dominate football? I do believe that the answer is numbers, or enrollment. Football is a sport that suffers, in general, a higher injury rate than basketball. For example, of few years ago I read that the injury rate in the NFL is 100% each year. By the end of the season many high school teams have 3, 4, or more starters at the beginning of the season out with injuries. And bear in mind that many of these starters go both ways. Because of limited numbers, there is often a vast drop off between the injured first stringer and the second stringer replacement. However, at X and T, often the replacement is merely next year's allstater, who happens to be a junior this year. Also, these schools often platoon on offense and defense so the injured starter was only 1/22 of the team on the field, not 1/11th. There are, of course, a host of other reasons but I believe that this is the predominant reason. It also answers Tony Danza's (whose opinions I generally respect) question earlier in the post as to why numbers matter so much in football.

So was RockPride in Slytheren?

 

I couldn't resist.

 

Actually it was a great idea and I like that concept very much Trinity alum. :thumb:

HEy now..

For H and Diogenes, I enjoyed reading your very logical and well stated thoughts.

 

With that argument for football vs. basketball, I would be interested in your opinions on why privates dominate girls sports. Here ishttp://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?p=1609825#post1609825 the thread:

I think the only answer is Private Basketball teams need to work harder.

 

 

Yeah and the publics should work harder in football :lol: :lol: :lol:

There are a number of factors that go into "why is baketball different" but I believe that H's post was the closest to answering this conundrum. First, as has been shown with prior posts,the big private (read Catholic) schools, X and T, are the only private schools that consistently win football championships. Therefore, the issue, properly framed, would be why don't the big private schools dominate basketball like they dominate football? I do believe that the answer is numbers, or enrollment. Football is a sport that suffers, in general, a higher injury rate than basketball. For example, of few years ago I read that the injury rate in the NFL is 100% each year. By the end of the season many high school teams have 3, 4, or more starters at the beginning of the season out with injuries. And bear in mind that many of these starters go both ways. Because of limited numbers, there is often a vast drop off between the injured first stringer and the second stringer replacement. However, at X and T, often the replacement is merely next year's allstater, who happens to be a junior this year. Also, these schools often platoon on offense and defense so the injured starter was only 1/22 of the team on the field, not 1/11th. There are, of course, a host of other reasons but I believe that this is the predominant reason. It also answers Tony Danza's (whose opinions I generally respect) question earlier in the post as to why numbers matter so much in football.

 

Why thanks Diogenes :thumb:

 

So I have now solved the problem. Trinity must open up a second school that only has an enrollment of about 500 and the only sport that is offered is b-ball

1. You can only play 5 guys at a time in basketball.

 

2. A basketball team with 8 quality players is loaded.

 

3. In basketball, it is much easier for one or two players to completely dominate the game.

 

4. The demographics involved with private schools is a factor.

 

5. Football is a very expensive sport. Privates definately have an advantage.

 

6. Basketball is played on many different levels. Self improvement is easier in basketball. Imoroving in football requires coaching and facilities. Kids play basketball all the time at home.

 

7. You need at least 30 good football players to win at a high level. A weakness at any position can be easily exposed.

 

:thumb:

It's funny really, it seems every December when I go up to Louisville, the stands are filled with teams that are better than those on the field.

 

 

I wouldn't know. More often than not, my team is on the field.

It's funny really, it seems every December when I go up to Louisville, the stands are filled with teams that are better than those on the field.

 

 

Drives me crazy when the better team loses :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Drives me crazy when the better team loses :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

 

TD, if you don't think the better team sometimes loses, you are mistaken. I believe CovCath was a better football team than Highlands was this past season, but Highlands beat them. It happens.