I would like for somebody, anybody, to explain to me how state titles matter in old money when for the first 50 years of football in this state there were none?

 

Because it's difficult to judge how impressive a winning record is, given that it depends heavily on who you played. You have to be the best in your class to earn a state title. For example, Dixie Heights had a better record than Trinity this past year, but Trinity beat them soundly for the state title.

 

It should not be the only measure, but it is a better one than 'total wins' as that is more dependent on how long your school has been around than how good they are.

I would like for somebody, anybody, to explain to me how state titles matter in old money when for the first 50 years of football in this state there were none?

 

Excellent point I had not even considered.

 

I guess the counter question is "What was the value of those wins?"

 

Pleading ignorance here...was there some type of "Bowl" game or rankings from those time periods we could defer to in order to substantiate wins?

 

Considering those years football would have been a lot more of a localized sport is it fair to judge the wins of a Somerset against local, rural competition the same as the wins of a Male against Jefferson County competition?

 

I don't know.. just talking points.

Of interesting note...of my nine New Money teams:

FIVE are private

One is a military school which is different from a public school

One is a Magnet school in Louisville

 

Boyle and Belfry are the only two that are basically a common public school in KY

 

Of my seven Old Money Schools

...only Male has been the benefactor of a special designation. The rest are simply KY public schools.

 

...perhaps we see a trend here of where the best players are going as time passes.

 

Beechwood is a public school.

Danville is definitely Old Money. You dont win 10 titles, and 3 runner ups, and not be considered. They haven't won a title since 03 and lost a Helluva game to Newport Central Catholic in 06. They're also top 10 in in wins. I will go out on a limb here and some may agree and some may not, but if Danville would've stayed in 1A they would have more than 10 titles!

 

I agree. It's IF, and we all know what's said about those, but they were one of the schools that got caught in the new realignment.

I would like for somebody, anybody, to explain to me how state titles matter in old money when for the first 50 years of football in this state there were none?

 

I may have missed it but I was thinking the titles people were referring to were since 1959 while their win totals was what was driving their definition of old money.

I have high hopes for Desales. 1A has some possible contenders, and 4A might produce some. I suppose we'll have to see.

 

Wanted to call out this specific post.

 

I had left off DeSales but with the direction of that program and the trajectory it is on I could definitely see them entering the "New Money" category soon.

I am curious why you qualify St. X as 'new money' and Bowling Green as old. I understand the argument for calling Trinity new (though I don't agree with it), but calling St. X new doesn't make sense. St. X is older than Bowling Green (1917 vs 1922) has a higher total win record (731 vs 654) and has won state titles since the 60's (1962-2009 vs 1994-2013).

 

I'm really confused by your logic here.

 

Pure ignorance...for some reason, I didn't think X was that old.

Wanted to call out this specific post.

 

I had left off DeSales but with the direction of that program and the trajectory it is on I could definitely see them entering the "New Money" category soon.

 

Yeah, there are not there yet, but I think they have they potential to do it. We'll see in a few years time.

 

Pure ignorance...for some reason, I didn't think X was that old.

 

No worries. I was surprised to find out that Bowling Green and Owensboro were such old schools.

It's always nice to hear the histories of the various schools around the state.

I would like for somebody, anybody, to explain to me how state titles matter in old money when for the first 50 years of football in this state there were none?

 

I was wondering the same thing.

Somerset are the Buffalo Bills of KY HS Football...more runner's up without winning than any other school :bag:

 

At least they made it to the title game, heck, a lot of teams don't even get that far! Always felt sorry for the Bills.

 

WIDE RIGHT!!!!:ohbrother:

I would add into the Old Money Gone Broke category, if not no biggie I have no ties to this program at all.

 

Pikeville

 

3x back to back to back state champs 87-88-89 & had that run of 33 consecutive wins during that stretch.

 

5 times they have been to the finals 72-87-88-89-91

 

Still highly competitive 90-99 with a 107-29 record during that time, but began to taper off somewhat after 2004 & now seems to be gaining a little steam as we move towards the future.

^^^ Love it

 

Pikeville got rich off telecom then went bankrupt and have began to reinvent themselves in the age of the smartphone

I would like for somebody, anybody, to explain to me how state titles matter in old money when for the first 50 years of football in this state there were none?

They did have the so called "Mythical" state champions. I'm guessing they go by that. Just guessing.

Old Money: Highlands Trinity St. X Male Danville New Money: Beechwood Bowling Green Central Belfrey Boyle NCC Cov Cath and Fort Campell are hard to choose between New and Old Money' date=' but definitely belong in one of them. I also think that teams with a high win total don't necessarily belong in the 'old money'. A total win record can be greatly padded by the school's age and by easy schedules. A good total win record is an indicator of old money, but without some titles they don't make the cut. This is also why I would call Bowling Green new money rather than old. As for the 'Future Money' I have high hopes for Desales. 1A has some possible contenders, and 4A might produce some. I suppose we'll have to see.[/quote']

 

Scuba

 

I don't see Mayfield who is clearly old money. Did you make a mistake or really feel they don't belong

 

 

 

 

 

 

The omission