Are they even talking about the same meeting?

 

One quote is saying he wants it to stay the same and the other is saying that that staying the same was never an option.

 

 

If this is the meeting that I recall--this is what I can tell you:

1. If given a choice--they wanted to keep things the same

2. If they had to change--5 was better than 6

 

And no offense to Ryan Ernst--but I don't think that Coach Markesberry's integrity should be put into question here. (And I am not saying that we should question Ryan's either. But according to his blog--he just got back from a 2 week vacation--so--how close was he to the situation when he wrote the story?)

Somebody answer me this, is the NKFCA vote binding and somehow a part of the process? How was the KFCA vote done, by district reps or individual schools. Thanks ahead of time for the clarification.

quickslick,

 

Thanks for confirming the source for everyone.

 

Also, with all the confusion, do you now see where I am coming from on Coach Stellman's comments?

Somebody answer me this, is the NKFCA vote binding and somehow a part of the process? How was the KFCA vote done, by district reps or individual schools. Thanks ahead of time for the clarification.

OK, I'll ask one question at a time.

 

Is the NKFCA vote, the one the NKY coaches made and was reported as 18-0, binding and somehow a part of the process?

quickslick,

 

Thanks for confirming the source for everyone.

 

Also, with all the confusion, do you now see where I am coming from on Coach Stellman's comments?

 

In all honesty--I didn't take Coach Markesberry's comments the way that you may have based on what happened at the meeting. (Because I am starting to get the feeling that this wasn't talked about after that meeting--which again-I think was in March or April). From there--I think that maybe "someone" (who people may or may not have a high amount of respect for) decided that they would speak (or not speak) for the rest of the NKY coaches. If anything--I think that the reporter either didn't dig deep enough to get the real story (or in fairness to him--the coaches wouldn't go into that much detail). It was a civilized meeting--that may have been presented to the coaches in a certain way--but the intentions of a chosen few could have been significantly different (I am not saying that they are--but my perception of what happened here--and Coach Markesberry's comments--tell me that someone is not giving his story the proper justice). I am not going to speculate---or cry "conspiracy" but something between the meeting and Ernst's article doesn't add up. I have an opinion as to what it is (which I will keep to myself)--but I don't know for sure.

 

As far as Tom's comments go--to be fair--I could see how someone would make the statements that you did (but honestly--I figured that you would have picked up to this right away--you may have!). But think of it like this (because this is what I came away with from the same meeting:

*There were 2 issues:

1. Public/private

2. Adding classes

 

After looking at my notes-(and I remember the conversation)--it was stated that the 5 or 6 classes was something that had been in conversation for a while. And there was also another member of the BOC there besides our area rep--his statement was along the lines of this (paraphrased): the change in class is not an answer for the public/private debate. However, there has been talk that other parts of the state thought that this was something that would slide through or "loosen the screws" (that is a quote) to get rid of the perceived unfair advantage that certain school may or may not have. (That is pretty close to the exact statement--but I may have missed a word or 2--so--I would rather be official). The impression that I got--after those comments--was that the class move was there to give the coaches as an alternative to the public/private debate. The only issue was--there were very few that wanted EITHER (public/private or class changes)--and when pressed--the very informal vote was clear--5 classes--IF ANYTHING. From there--as I previously stated--I doubt if it came up again. And if it did--there were more pressing issues (at least in this area)--like planning the all star game (which takes more time than I could have ever imagined).

 

My guess--as far as Tom's statement goes--is that Tom is not just "witty" with his comments. He is smart enough to know why people were pushing the class thing to begin with. The KHSAA or Coaches Association can say whatever they want--but this is about public vs private.

 

In all fairness-I know Tom--and I know what he was getting at. And--it had nothing to do with him needing to get to work--and worrying about his own program. If anything--he was more direct than any other person has been in a while about this situation. Some people automatically thought that Tom was pointing the finger at the private schools. When I read it--knowing him the way that I do--my first thought is that he would get a kick out of it if all of the private schools stuck it to all of the people who have tried to push this mess. (Don't get the impression that Tom wouldn't want to win a state championship here). This was Tom's way of saying--the best teams are the best--because they play GOOD football. It wasn't whining, crying, complaining, etc.

 

Like I said before--I am lucky to know a little about his past--and that he/his family worked hard to make sure that he could go to a solid catholic school. Not just because it was a private school--but so he could go without having to worry about being shot in the hallway.

 

And the one thing that I didn't add before about Tom--keep in mind--he spent a great deal of time at Moeller (when they were a consistent Ohio power) and LaSalle.

 

Like I said--I could see what you mean--and in all fairness--if a person doesn't know Tom--it could be assumed that he meant something different than what he did--but I don't agree with the direction that you went in for one reason--(ha, ha!) you have read some of the things that he has said in the media. We can agree to disagree . . . . . . no big deal there. But if anything--he was may have been taking certain people on in his own way.

I have no idea and that is not the issue or point in this thread so please debate it in another thread.

Wouldn't that be partly the point. IF they weren't there, how would they voice their opinion.

It seems to me, that the more you learn, the less likely it is that this story that caused so much controversy, is a real depiction of a specific timeline. The article, while true, skews timelines of events in such a way that it is not accurate to draw too many conclusions from other than. A. They did not vote at the statewide meeting. B. They did discuss it, and were against the idea. I also know for a fact that their stance has been such for quite sometime. They also do not feel the states issues are issues for us in our community. One only needs to go back to the public/private issue to see that. They stated it numerous times in the last year or so.

 

With that said, I would like to add this. It is inconcievable to me that somehow they didn't know the result of the statewide vote prior to the vote being taken. This is their job. I think that more than a few of them are very good at it. Any issue that would impact them would be disected way in advance. Whether someone was represent them or not is not an issue to me. They made a decision that their votes would not change things and thus skipped the vote. I have not heard any of them say that they would challenge the ruling, but just that they didn't like it. I agree with them, I don't like it either. And like them, am resolved to accept what the rest of the state has to say. I have asked repeatedly for someone to tell me the count of the vote, and no one has, thus I think it's pretty safe to say, it wouldn't have mattered.