You know me well.

 

Both teams platoon, the field is level.

Delusional.

I subscribe to the theory that two things determine elite programs:

 

- Well Developed Talent Pool: Either by a machine like functioning feeder system or by a program who consistently brings the best talent in because parents want their kids to play there

 

- Limiting two way players/platooning

 

 

 

With that said... if I have 200 boys... and 60 of them play football... and I platoon...simple logic tells me I most likely will not have the same number of elite players as if I had 400 boys... and 100 play football... and I platoon.

I subscribe to the theory that two things determine elite programs:

 

- Well Developed Talent Pool: Either by a machine like functioning feeder system or by a program who consistently brings the best talent in because parents want their kids to play there

 

- Limiting two way players/platooning

 

 

 

With that said... if I have 200 boys... and 60 of them play football... and I platoon...simple logic tells me I most likely will not have the same number of elite players as if I had 400 boys... and 100 play football... and I platoon.

 

I totally agree

My list would have Beechwood in before Boyle. No disrespect intended, but they've got more titles.

 

I'd also have Highlands at number 1. With the size of the school, it's incredible that they are always reloaded and consistently the best team in nky. Pound for pound, Highlands has got to be one of the top programs in the country. Obviously, Trinity is well deserving too.

 

Highlands punches way above its weight, but Trinity is the King. There really isn't a strong argument against it.

I subscribe to the theory that two things determine elite programs:

 

- Well Developed Talent Pool: Either by a machine like functioning feeder system or by a program who consistently brings the best talent in because parents want their kids to play there

 

- Limiting two way players/platooning

 

 

 

With that said... if I have 200 boys... and 60 of them play football... and I platoon...simple logic tells me I most likely will not have the same number of elite players as if I had 400 boys... and 100 play football... and I platoon.

That is the way people, in Kentucky, rationalize the success of Highlands and Trinity. Everyone thinks Trinity wins because they have more students, the fact is, Trinity wins because many of the best football players in Louisville that want to play for Trinity, because Trinity has dedicated themselves to success. It wouldn't matter if Trinity had 200 students or 2000 students, with their success many of the better players want to play there.

 

The same can be said for Highlands, Highlands is smaller, so it must be their youth program. What about the community that makes it the program that it is? The only rational explanation of their success must be their youth program. How else could people explain them being smaller but still being so successful?

 

Everyone wants a magic recipe for success, and if they can't achieve that, they blame it on being small, or not having the "talent pool".

 

Just by virtue of having more students in the school does not automatically translate to finding more successful, gifted, driven athletes.

 

How about the large 6A programs that don't win all the time? They have so many students to draw from.

 

The real answer is, the school, the program, and the community have to make football a priority, and drive for success. If they do that, they will have more players, if they have more players they can platoon and wear other teams down.

Come on, Ram. Be careful painting everyone who disagrees with you with that wide a brush.

 

When you say "people from Kentucky" believe this or that, I don't know who you are speaking for exactly. I think most of us are capable of forming our own opinions instead of you stating them for us.

 

There are MANY factors that play into the success of a football program. Talent pool is one of them, but certainly not the only one. I didn't see anyone say that it was.

Everyone wants a magic recipe for success, and if they can't achieve that, they blame it on being small, or not having the "talent pool".

 

Just by virtue of having more students in the school does not automatically translate to finding more successful, gifted, driven athletes.

 

The real answer is, the school, the program, and the community have to make football a priority, and drive for success. If they do that, they will have more players, if they have more players they can platoon and wear other teams down.

 

Never heard either mentioned around my program out here in rural WKY but I get your drift

^^^

Can't disagree with your points Ram... but there is a whooooole lot more to it.

 

As I eluded to in my post you qupoted...talent pool is huge but it is not just limited to what is in your school district. It is determined by how it is cultivated, also by what gets introduced (transfers, families moving into an area for a specific reason, recruiting the hallways for athletes who may otherwise play a different sport) .

 

I have always talked about "Talent Pool Flow". It is a bit controversial because everyone wants to think in their biased mind that THEIR program has achieved success solely with homegrown talent and hard work and thus become defensive. In my opinion "recruiting" doesn't happen nearly as much as envious fans of other schools would like to insist, but talent pool flow is a real and tangible thing that most of your top programs have benefited from..and some have been the victim of.

 

If there was a Masters in HS Football my thesis would be on this subject.

 

Simply put..though you may draw a firm district line, though you may have a county or state line, though you may have busing limitations... for every single area there is one collective "talent pool".

 

That pool is fluid (no pun intended) and external and internal factors can effect how it moves. The vats majority of the time, people simply fall in line with what is dictated or what is easier. In other words "the school bus picks my kid up and takes him to the school he attends" or "School A is academically and athletically superior, but it is a 45 drive out of the way of my commute so we just go to School B". In older days there was also a social/community aspect to it. Everyone you knew..everyone your kid was friends with... they all stuck together. Kids didn't want to leave their friends and their parents didn't want to make them. Rural areas in particular fell under this model the most because the distance was so great, the career opportunities for parents so limited, and the logistics more difficult.

 

In today's times though the dynamic has changed tremendously. Now kids can communicate with people 150 miles away instantly and easily. Travel ball, AAU, and Summer Camps create friendships and teammates that spread further away. Selling homes, finding places to live, and better roads help the parents. College recruiting starts much earlier and people are competitive as ever wanting their kids to have the best opportunity to excel. Now those issues, especially in rural areas, that kept families "landlocked" are all changed.

 

In suburban or metro areas this has been in play for a long time. People move to the School District they want at an early stage. People follow coaches. Now when you have a program like Highlands or Trinity, people want their kids to grow up around that success. So instead of raising a family in Ludlow,,, they move to Ft. Thomas when Johnny is in 2nd Grade. That's why when Little Joey attends Jefferson County Schools until he leaves the 8th Grade, his family sends him to Trinity. Meanwhile Joey can still hang out with his "old friends" thanks to Twitter and Facetime.. but now he is on the fast track to a college scholarship. It's also why when a Coach like Jim Matney turns Johnson Central from traditional doormat to State Power... that suddenly people in Martin County relocate.

 

Why is Highlands, Beechwood, CovCath, and NewCath always good while Dayton, Ludlow, Bellevue, and Neport always bad? The talent pool always flows their way.

 

Why has DeSales became a small school power and Trinity a National Power while St. X has seemingly began spinning their tires and maybe even regressed? The talent pool has moved in their direction.

 

How does a new coach at Bourbon County suddenly take a team who spent 15 years as a doormat become a Semi-Finalist over night and have 6 of their best players who transfer from 6 different local schools? Talent pool.

 

Talent pool flow and subsequently how programs develop the talent they are given is... as I pointed out...very important. With that said, it still comes back to winning games and coaching and the condition of a program. As easy as it is for talent pool to flow to a school... there are always factors that could cause it to flow away. Ask Somerset how it feels as their two County Rivals enjoyed their best season's in School History....

 

At the end of the day it is still up to the coach to get the best players on the field, coach them up, and put in a system that makes parts interchangeable from an early age up.

Come on, Ram. Be careful painting everyone who disagrees with you with that wide a brush.

 

When you say "people from Kentucky" believe this or that, I don't know who you are speaking for exactly. I think most of us are capable of forming our own opinions instead of you stating them for us.

 

There are MANY factors that play into the success of a football program. Talent pool is one of them, but certainly not the only one. I didn't see anyone say that it was.

Come on Watusi, this has been a topic in the football forum for years. Heck, it has come in several threads this month. People have argued that Mayfield shouldn't be ranked so high by ATLCat because of their size. In my opinion, the size of the school is one the lessor factors in determining success. If not, when a larger school played a smaller school, the larger school would always win.

 

It kind of surprises me that you would be one to argue the contrary given the Belfry success over the years. They have made a living of playing, competing and beating larger schools.

 

But, as you said, you can form your own opinion.

My thought on platooning is this: look at the schools in Kentucky that platoon. Are the majority of the schools successful and somewhat successful, or are they all just terrible?

 

It's is definitely more difficult to platoon at a smaller school, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it isn't the factor that can make an average program become an elite program.

 

There are many factors that play into how a program becomes elite, but looking at what makes the elite programs elite, what would you say that makes them elite? Money? Kids? Talent pool? Platooning?

 

Male enrollment has nothing to do with the eliteness of an athletic program.

Come on Watusi, this has been a topic in the football forum for years. Heck, it has come in several threads this month. People have argued that Mayfield shouldn't be ranked so high by ATLCat because of their size. In my opinion, the size of the school is one the lessor factors in determining success. If not, when a larger school played a smaller school, the larger school would always win.

 

It kind of surprises me that you would be one to argue the contrary given the Belfry success over the years. They have made a living of playing, competing and beating larger schools.

 

But, as you said, you can form your own opinion.

My argument is not that the size of male enrollment is the most important factor. But it is a factor, and I just can't dismiss it as meaningless. All those other things that you mentioned above play a major role. But just because two teams both platoon, and have all the other support in place, does not mean that it is a level playing field.

 

IMO there is only so much talent to go around and only a certain percentage of athletes are considered elite. I don't know what that average would be in Kentucky, but for argument sake, let's assume that 1 out of every 20 high school athletes are considered elite.

 

Using that average, if your school has 1400 boys, then that would be potentially about 70 elite athletes walking the halls. Not all of them are going to play football, but if you have 100 players, then the coaches are going to know who those 70 are and are going to get a significant number of them to come out to play. If you got half of them to play football, that would be 35 really good football players.

 

On the flip side, if your school has 400 boys, then you would expect only about 20 elite athletes to be a part of that population. And maybe in a small school, the coaches would get a higher % of those elite players to play the sport. Out of 60 players, if you are lucky enough to get 15 to come out for football then you are probably way ahead of the curve.

 

In my way of thinking, that is a significant advantage, just having the potential of having more great athletes to choose from.

My thought on platooning is this: look at the schools in Kentucky that platoon. Are the majority of the schools successful and somewhat successful, or are they all just terrible?

 

It's is definitely more difficult to platoon at a smaller school, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it isn't the factor that can make an average program become an elite program.

 

There are many factors that play into how a program becomes elite, but looking at what makes the elite programs elite, what would you say that makes them elite? Money? Kids? Talent pool? Platooning?

 

Male enrollment has nothing to do with the eliteness of an athletic program.

Platooning is a huge factor, I agree. It is a combination of all of those things that make a program elite. Money, talent pool, support, community, etc.

 

Male enrollment is a factor though.

Typically, people fall into a trap when dealing with extremes in arguments. There are people who think male enrollment is the only factor in being elite, while there are those who think it is no factor at all. Definitely in the middle as Watusi points out. It is A factor, but it's not THE factor. Dismissing its validity altogether is just as much a fallacy as making it everything. I think the percentage argument Watusi makes is the perfect one. I always use that type of analogy when talking about crazy UK fans. I believe every fanbase has a percentage of crazies. But if there are two fanbases that each have the same percentage of crazies but one fanbase as a whole is 10 times as large, which do you suppose you'll hear more often? Same thing regarding athletes. You can only coach 'em up so much - you have to have some talent there to polish.

Platooning is a huge factor, I agree. It is a combination of all of those things that make a program elite. Money, talent pool, support, community, etc.

 

Male enrollment is a factor though.

 

I would agree. It definitely is *a* factor, though I would argue it is not as important as some people make it out to be.

Using that average, if your school has 1400 boys, then that would be potentially about 70 elite athletes walking the halls. Not all of them are going to play football, but if you have 100 players, then the coaches are going to know who those 70 are and are going to get a significant number of them to come out to play. If you got half of them to play football, that would be 35 really good football players.

My big argument against enrollment being much of a factor is, just because you have 1400 boys does not guarantee you one single "elite athlete". The total number of students in the school does not necessarily equate to a larger number of quality players. Conversely, a school that has 200 players could have 25 "elite" athletes. There is no promise that if you have more boys you will have better football players.

 

Now, if there was a rule that you had to have one "elite" football player in your school for every 100 male students, I would be on the "bigger" is better bandwagon.

 

I still content, the more players you have that are able to "play" give you a much better chance of winning football games then does the number of students a school has.