:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

How come out of all the "allstar" teams that T and X have...we don't have many kids picked for the all state teams????....kinda blows your statement out of the water...doesn't it Knute?......

 

It's not recruiting...it's not allstar players.....it's not boundries.....or any other exuse you can think of....

 

We have a team of kids that

-rarely make the all state team...

-who must meet a higher level of academic achievement than required by the KHSAA to play sports for X and T

-who have to adbide by very strict behavior contracts. (detentions for being 1 minute late for class as an example)

-who must dress in dress slacks and a tie everyday

-who have to pay $8500 a year to attend

-who have to get there own ride to school because there is no bus service.

-must pay for lunch

 

These are hardly advantages...except that they do carry over to make one heck of a well disciplined football team.

 

Like I have said a million times it's not that they have such better players it's that they dress and play 100+ good players.Unlike public schools that may dress 60-70 but only about 15-18 are quality playersl.I have asked this question a few times but never get any replies but why not limit the amount of kids you can dress to 60-65 to level the playing field alot.Alot of the good public schools can hang with T and X until there first unit wears out and the public schools have to bring in "real" back-ups instead of another 11 as good as the 1st string.Thats the biggest and only disparity between these privates in question and other public schools.

This is true....Barry Bonds has never tested positive for roids so he must be clean.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Just throwing a little gas on the fire.But we really should give that dead horse a break though.:laugh: :laugh:

I'd be careful where you toss that gas my man. You're dissing the man himself.

We can't complain we are on an Island and no one cares - I could care less who we beat in the Finals - However beating X in the finals is a lot of fun - especially when they don't see it coming -

I have asked this question a few times but never get any replies but why not limit the amount of kids you can dress to 60-65 to level the playing field alot.

 

Doesn't that result in about 35 kids per school getting jipped out of playing for their high school? Football is one of the few sports where anyone can come out and play if they want, that is the beauty of the sport. Granted, after you get pasted the best 65 or so kids, the rest will see very little playing time but they are still part of the team and can take pride in that.

Doesn't that result in about 35 kids per school getting jipped out of playing for their high school? Football is one of the few sports where anyone can come out and play if they want, that is the beauty of the sport. Granted, after you get pasted the best 65 or so kids, the rest will see very little playing time but they are still part of the team and can take pride in that.

 

 

No not really because like I said at your average 4A schools there are 70 players on the team but only about 35 at the most get any playing at all.I know it's highschool but you need competition in any sport.You can let the other 35 lift,practice,and be a part of the team just don't dress them.By just putting a kid on a team because he showed up is setting a bad example anyway.I mean if your employer just payed you for showing up would you actually do any work?If they really want to play football they will put in the work it takes to make the team.That coming out just to be a part of a team stuff stops in little league.As far as those 35 kids at T and X,that just means 35 good players will be playing at other schools in Louisville and making it that much more competitive and that much more good football to watch.

I'd be careful where you toss that gas my man. You're dissing the man himself.

 

Barry's on here?:laugh: :laugh:

No not really because like I said at your average 4A schools there are 70 players on the team but only about 35 at the most get any playing at all.I know it's highschool but you need competition in any sport.You can let the other 35 lift,practice,and be a part of the team just don't dress them.By just putting a kid on a team because he showed up is setting a bad example anyway.I mean if your employer just payed you for showing up would you actually do any work?If they really want to play football they will put in the work it takes to make the team.That coming out just to be a part of a team stuff stops in little league.As far as those 35 kids at T and X,that just means 35 good players will be playing at other schools in Louisville and making it that much more competitive and that much more good football to watch.

 

99% of those kids would not go to another school.....or they would have already done it...to get more playing time.....kids and their parents pick X and T for other reasons than football...

 

X and T's football programs are about way more than football....it is about developing fine young men....like I guy that I work with said..."he would give up everything he has in life to be able to experience X football again"...He was not a starter and got very little time....

 

The lessons that my son has learned about life from Glaser and other X coaches are far more important than the Veer or playing time...

 

This is not work ...it is school and by showing up....my son is exposed to some great role models...and he is making great friendships.....

No not really because like I said at your average 4A schools there are 70 players on the team but only about 35 at the most get any playing at all.I know it's highschool but you need competition in any sport.You can let the other 35 lift,practice,and be a part of the team just don't dress them.By just putting a kid on a team because he showed up is setting a bad example anyway.I mean if your employer just payed you for showing up would you actually do any work?If they really want to play football they will put in the work it takes to make the team.That coming out just to be a part of a team stuff stops in little league.As far as those 35 kids at T and X,that just means 35 good players will be playing at other schools in Louisville and making it that much more competitive and that much more good football to watch.

 

First - you are very wrong in thinking T (don't know about X) has a second 11 that is as good as the first 11.

 

Second... Let's say you limit us to 70 kids able to dress. And let’s pretend that we have 2 full strings for O, D and ST. 22+22+22=66. Your proposal would not solve your perceived problem.

 

Third - The USSR failed. So would your plan.

No not really because like I said at your average 4A schools there are 70 players on the team but only about 35 at the most get any playing at all.I know it's highschool but you need competition in any sport.You can let the other 35 lift,practice,and be a part of the team just don't dress them.By just putting a kid on a team because he showed up is setting a bad example anyway.I mean if your employer just payed you for showing up would you actually do any work?If they really want to play football they will put in the work it takes to make the team.That coming out just to be a part of a team stuff stops in little league.As far as those 35 kids at T and X,that just means 35 good players will be playing at other schools in Louisville and making it that much more competitive and that much more good football to watch.

 

I believe it's a school's choice whether to put limits on a roster size in football, isn't it? I hear that most schools aren't even as large as Trinity and X in total number of students, let alone boys. True. But, who decides to limit the enrollment in schools? I hear the cry of smaller class sizes = better education, but even with their vastly larger number of STUDENTS over most other high schools, they still achieve a small teacher to student ratio.

 

There's nothing private schools can do to combat the efforts of the public schools to better educate their students. The unfortunate by-product of this is smaller numbers of students, and therefore boys, from which to field a football team. But, I think that issue has more to do with the approaches to education as a whole than to the issue of athletics. Afterall, athletics are EXTRAcurricular, and shouldn't be the reason a school decides it's philosophy of enrollment.

 

The fact that Trinity and X are all boys schools naturally leads to greater student participation. Boys love to play football. But proportionately, the number of boys participating isn't disproportionate to it's student population. It's just that their student populations is entirely boys.

 

As to whether our 5th stringers work as hard as the top 35-50, you bet your boots they do! If they don't, they won't last long on the team. It's not just about being one of the starting 22. It's about being a part of something bigger than yourself, and doing what you can as a part of the team to contribute to that success. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who speaks disparagingly of the kids who've only rarely stepped foot on the field in varsity play. Everyone, top to bottom, realizes and appreciates the contributions of every single player in the program, regardless of his playing time.

 

It's always interesting to me, (and not a little frustrating) to find that so many people are so willing to assume that being as successful has little to do with what is in out kids, than what the number of students or where they come from is. As much as I try to not use the phrase, it makes me realize the validity of "It's a Trinity (or X, or whatever school) thing, you wouldn't understand". I hate using that phrase, because I think that if people WANTED to understand, they could. But most people find it's easier to make assumptions than to try and look deeper.

 

For the record, anyone know Trinity's last D1 football signee?

For the record, anyone know Trinity's last D1 football signee?

 

Brian Brohm, 2004

Like I have said a million times it's not that they have such better players it's that they dress and play 100+ good players.Unlike public schools that may dress 60-70 but only about 15-18 are quality playersl.I have asked this question a few times but never get any replies but why not limit the amount of kids you can dress to 60-65 to level the playing field alot.Alot of the good public schools can hang with T and X until there first unit wears out and the public schools have to bring in "real" back-ups instead of another 11 as good as the 1st string.Thats the biggest and only disparity between these privates in question and other public schools.

Do you really think if X and T only dressed 65 players per game it would make a difference? They would dress the 65 players they need for that particular game (depending on the opponent). As it is now players 66-100 usually only play when the game is well in hand. Keeping stonger players in the whole game would likely run up their score even more.

No not really because like I said at your average 4A schools there are 70 players on the team but only about 35 at the most get any playing at all.I know it's highschool but you need competition in any sport.You can let the other 35 lift,practice,and be a part of the team just don't dress them.By just putting a kid on a team because he showed up is setting a bad example anyway.I mean if your employer just payed you for showing up would you actually do any work?If they really want to play football they will put in the work it takes to make the team.That coming out just to be a part of a team stuff stops in little league.As far as those 35 kids at T and X,that just means 35 good players will be playing at other schools in Louisville and making it that much more competitive and that much more good football to watch.

 

WE limit how many kids we let dress anyway, so I don't really get your point, beyond that, if we dropped our worst 40 kids in the program, there would still be 70+ great ones. Meaning that we would still win our fair share of games, at least I would think so.