Just wondering, how many D-1 players come from public vs. private schools in KY?

Be careful what you ask for, because I GURANTEE that there are far more D1 athletes at public schools than are at our Private schools. FAR MORE.

Last year, Scout's website has 24 signed D-1A prospects from publics, 4 from privates.

'05 had 22 from publics, 4 from privates

'04 had 22 from publics, 2 from privates

 

 

jwah, your argument isn't holding much weight.

Check out state champs in other states and I believe you'll notice a trend that the majority come from the more highly populated areas. Cincinnati and Cleveland, Columbus...fairly successful in racking up state titles. Indianapolis schools won 4 of 5 state football titles last year. Pittsburgh or Philly in PA, Chicago area for Illinois, St. Louis and KC in Missouri.......we happen to live in a small state with double the number of counties than most states, thus more county schools. The fact that many counties have decided 1000 kids are too many in one place and prefer to have smaller enrollments while the private schools strive to grow as much as possible......whose fault is that?

Be careful what you ask for, because I GURANTEE that there are far more D1 athletes at public schools than are at our Private schools. FAR MORE.

 

There are far more public schools in KY, bad argument.:sleep:

Iv'e been following Trinity for 7 years now. In that time they have won 4 titles, been runner up once and they have had exactly 3 DI players.

 

Public schools really don't want to use that argument.

There are far more public schools in KY, bad argument.:sleep:

 

 

People think X and T are loaded with D1 players and its just not true. They think X and T recruit these All-Star teams from around the city which is flat out wrong. There are SO many teams that have more skilled players than X and T.

By the way this isnt just about football. What about other sports, like girls basketball, or volleyball, or even cheerleading. If I had a child that showed potential in a certain sport to be a D1 player or pro athlete, I would send them to the best program if I had the chance. Should that be legal in high school sports? And remember just because someone makes a comment doesnt mean their picking a fight. I have been very enlightened in this thread, thanks for the input. I really dont understand why the public schoolers are so upset. This is mainly a rural/urban situation.

By the way this isnt just about football. What about other sports, like girls basketball, or volleyball, or even cheerleading. If I had a child that showed potential in a certain sport to be a D1 player or pro athlete, I would send them to the best program if I had the chance. Should that be legal in high school sports? And remember just because someone makes a comment doesnt mean their picking a fight. I have been very enlightened in this thread, thanks for the input. I really dont understand why the public schoolers are so upset. This is mainly a rural/urban situation.

 

 

girls sports are even easier to explain. The catholic grade schools have VERY good sports programs for girls and they sadly put more emphasis on girls sports than their public counterparts.

girls sports are even easier to explain. The catholic grade schools have VERY good sports programs for girls and they sadly put more emphasis on girls sports than their public counterparts.

 

girls SPORTS or GIRLS sports?

girls sports are even easier to explain. The catholic grade schools have VERY good sports programs for girls and they sadly put more emphasis on girls sports than their public counterparts.

As I mentioned in another thread, does that explain the high caliber girls basketball players who played varsity basketball as a middle schooler or freshmen at a public school and then went to a private school? Lex Cath, I believe had 2 starters last year that fit this description while Holy Cross also had 2 players, one which has moved on since Holy Cross has taken a step back this season.

People think X and T are loaded with D1 players and its just not true. They think X and T recruit these All-Star teams from around the city which is flat out wrong. There are SO many teams that have more skilled players than X and T.

 

 

This cracks me up every time I see it. Those 2 schools are so hated that you rarely see the entire school name on a post.

This cracks me up every time I see it. Those 2 schools are so hated that you rarely see the entire school name on a post.

No, it's just easier, and everyone knows what it means.

Actually, polarbear1994, X and T are not referred to in this way because they are "hated". Do you suppose that it is possible that X ad T are so well known and have accomplished so much that, like Elvis, they need no further introduction? I believe that is the case. On the other hand, you couldn't call Mason County "MC" or Male "M" or Scott County "SC" or whatever, now could you?

I've listened to the debates for awhile now and the one thing that bothers me is the denial by some of the private schoolers that is there is an advantage in private schools, IMO educationally and athletically.

 

Let me pose this question. If a student lives in Louisville could he not choose to attend X, T, or M? My point being the student has choices without changing his address, whereas families in rural areas only have one choice of school; the local public high. And unless the parents are extremely focused on athletics they are not going to move. That is an advantage! Simply put, places like Louisville and Lexington that have the population to carry both public and private schools, have a larger population of talented players. And when a public or private school has success, that program will draw the more talented players. It is not the private schools fault or primary intention, but very often that is the way it happens.

Let me make it clear that I do not think private schools should be criticized, but the private schools should admit that they do have advantages. This is why private schools were established. To provide better educational opportunities, and with that will eventually come athletic opportunities.

 

There is no other reason for the private schools extraordinary success than the reason I have stated above. Public schools have seen short runs but with the changing of players and/or coaches the program cannot maintain a record such as the private schools have.

 

Public schoolers should stop complaining about the opportunities of metro areas and let their kids play. Some of the most talked about games are not the championship games but of the best rivalries.

 

As for private schoolers, just admit that there are advantages like mentioned above. To deny that would be to deny you dignity.

 

 

I'm not sure I totally follow your logic. In some places it seems you are saying the private schools have advantages and at other places you are saying it is the urban schools that have advantages.

 

I'm not really sure what advantages private schools have other than the singular advantage that they don't have to take problem students and can boot students if they become a problem. Having a brother who teaches and a sister whom is a retired teacher, I understand that, but don't see how that directly affects the caliber of sports played. Only possible way is that it might affect some parents decision of where they send their kids (i.e., "I'm not sending my kids there because trouble makers run the halls and I don't want my son/daughter knifed") which to the extent that happens would be a compelling factor. But are our public schools in such disciplinary disarray for that to be more than an isolated occurrence? While I realize the public schools do have to take students, I have to believe they still have the ability to expel students that are a danger to other students. Am I wrong? I have heard public school administrators tell me that it takes so much work and effort to expel a problem student, as if they don't or won't make the effort. Sorry folks, but anything worth doing is worth the effort. Perhaps in years past they didn't have to do it because the kids were going to attend their school no matter how bad the disciplinary situation was.

That no longer flys these days because parents are fed up with discipline problems and if the situation gets bad enough, enough parents will form their own private school (and that is not only a possibility, its what is happening and the direct reason why private schools are proliferating in Ky. and that has the public school administrators scared to death). Again, I know its not easy, but the public schools MUST regain control over the students and if it takes 1000 hours of time to expel a problem student they must do it to show the parents of the good students that their children will not go to school in a cesspool. If they have to work until 10 at night every night filling out paperwork for expulsion, then that's what its going to take.

 

As to the urban vs rural issue, to some extent you are right. However, as I have pointed out in other threads, while there is no doubt a greater concentration of students/athletes in an urban area, there is likewise a greater number of schools in that urban area, thus diluting the "talent" amongst those schools. One or two schools are only able to get a disproportionate number of athletes when the other schools have failed to adequately commit to their sports programs. By their failure, they create an environment that breeds parents and kids wanting to leave their resident schools to seek the schools that do deliver athletically (and academically of course). And there is no doubt that occurs and there is no doubt that schools like Highlands have benefitted from that mentality. However, is that the fault of the schools that make the committment or those that fail to do so? To separate out those that do make the committment in effect penalizes them and artificially rewards those that do not in my opinion. Its almost like creating an intramural league for those that won't make the necessary committment because they can't compete with those that do. Is that a good thing for the kids and programs? I personally never saw anyone get better by making it easier for them to succeed.

 

To force out or separate those that make a committment or to require students to sit out a year if they did not attend the feeder school for the high school they now want to attend is just the imposition of more rules and regulations on society and parents. Perhaps a laissez faire approach is better here. Let the free market dictate what is best. Eventually when a school loses too many student athletes to another school, the supporters of the losing school will get so fed up with the sorry state of their school, they will demand and get changes made. I know that has happened at Highlands. Either that or they will accept that their school is actually doing the right thing and if parents of the transferring kids can't see that, well then good riddance to them. Either way, the free market decides, not the KHSAA.

Leathernecks comments about expulsion shows a little ignorance of the current law. Perhaps he failed to understand No Child Left Behind along with the inherent rights a student can claim to an education. Also, I find it a little hypocritical to suggest how to deal with discipline issues coming from a school district that was less than honest regarding the dismissal of over a dozen students some years ago. A little reminder of history may temper the view here.