Class 5A

1. Bowling Green vs #3 Christian County

2. Fern Creek at 6A #7 Manual

3. Christian County at #1 Bowling Green

4. Highlands at 6A Campbell County

5. Owensboro at 4A Madisonville- North Hopkins

6. Covington Catholic at Oak Hills (OH) (8/25)

7. Pulaski County vs 6A #6 Scott County

8. South Oldham at Doss

9. Southwestern at 2A #4 Danville

10. Greenwood at 4A Allen County- Scottsville

The big one this week and the Game of the Week in the West is Christian County vs BG. I expect the Colonels to be very focused in the early stages of the game and take some early chances to try and set the tone early. The battle between BGs DLiine and the Christian County OLine will dictate how this game turns out IMO. Should be a good one!

 

Fern Creek v Manual will let us know what Creek really has this year. Yes they blanked hapless Seneca, but I think I could pick up some guys on BGPs and do that.

Blowout ...BG too good on offense

Having watched Southwestern and Pulaski play this year, I would say Southwestern is way under ranked and Pulaski a little over ranked. At the very least their rankings on this list should be flipped.

Cov. Cath at #6? Come on....They lose to everyone with a pulse.

Cov. Cath at #6? Come on....They lose to everyone with a pulse.

 

Typically brilliant post

Having watched Southwestern and Pulaski play this year, I would say Southwestern is way under ranked and Pulaski a little over ranked. At the very least their rankings on this list should be flipped.

Judging by their scores in the Don Marshall Bowl, it appears that way but I don't know if that is enough to go on. I did expect more out of Pulaski against Harlan Co, but replacing Hall has to be one of the tougher things to do for any team in KY going into the season. I don't know how to judge Southwestern's dismantling of Jeffersontown, IN. How good of a team are they? I know the expectations for Southwestern were high going into the season, and it sounded like they performed well, I just have no idea about the strength of the competition.

 

We should get a much clearer picture of that this Friday as Pulaski takes on Scott Co and Southwestern plays Danville.

Judging by their scores in the Don Marshall Bowl, it appears that way but I don't know if that is enough to go on. I did expect more out of Pulaski against Harlan Co, but replacing Hall has to be one of the tougher things to do for any team in KY going into the season. I don't know how to judge Southwestern's dismantling of Jeffersontown, IN. How good of a team are they? I know the expectations for Southwestern were high going into the season, and it sounded like they performed well, I just have no idea about the strength of the competition.

 

We should get a much clearer picture of that this Friday as Pulaski takes on Scott Co and Southwestern plays Danville.

 

SW may be the better team right now, Pruitt and Edwards both played well but to judge off the DM bowl wouldn't be the best.. The Pulaski/Harlan Co game was played in some dense fog most of the game..

 

I do believe Pulaski QB went out with injury before the game was over so that will factor in too.

 

Jeffersonville had some athletes but as a whole their team was similar to last yr.. Did not seem to have much discipline.

Typically brilliant post

 

So, I said they lose to anyone with a pulse...and you disagreed...

 

Cov. Cath played 13 games in 2015

 

9 against teams with winning records....they wen 1-8 in those 9 games.

 

4 against teams with loosing records....they went 4-0 in those games.

 

I apologize for my clearly misguided statement....

So, I said they lose to anyone with a pulse...and you disagreed...

 

Cov. Cath played 13 games in 2015

 

 

9 against teams with winning records....they wen 1-8 in those 9 games.

 

4 against teams with loosing records....they went 4-0 in those games.

 

I apologize for my clearly misguided statement....

 

So you are basing this years ranking on last years results- awesome.

 

While talking about last year, I guess it's worth noting that the teams they lost to ended up @ 56-21 overall (though I confess that I couldn't find Sycamores final results.) many of which made deep playoff runs in their respective State tournaments.

 

I stand by my (sarcastic) assertion that you made a brilliant post based on the fact that clearly, the teams they lost to last year did indeed have a pulse.

 

This year is TBD- but I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by saying Ryle also has a pulse.

You're not quite getting what I'm saying...

 

I agree, Ryle, and the teams they lost to have a pulse...my contention is that they don't seem to beat any of these teams that have a pulse...

So, I said they lose to anyone with a pulse...and you disagreed...

 

Cov. Cath played 13 games in 2015

 

9 against teams with winning records....they wen 1-8 in those 9 games.

 

4 against teams with loosing records....they went 4-0 in those games.

 

I apologize for my clearly misguided statement....

 

Savage

So you are basing this years ranking on last years results- awesome.

 

While talking about last year, I guess it's worth noting that the teams they lost to ended up @ 56-21 overall (though I confess that I couldn't find Sycamores final results.) many of which made deep playoff runs in their respective State tournaments.

 

I stand by my (sarcastic) assertion that you made a brilliant post based on the fact that clearly, the teams they lost to last year did indeed have a pulse.

 

This year is TBD- but I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by saying Ryle also has a pulse.

 

CCH is second to none in challenging themselves, sometimes too much. I would love to see what would have happened last year if they had switched schedules with teams ranked a couple ahead or behind them. My guess is they would have had a pretty decent record.

You're not quite getting what I'm saying...

 

I agree, Ryle, and the teams they lost to have a pulse...my contention is that they don't seem to beat any of these teams that have a pulse...

 

Except you said "...they lose to everyone with a pulse." So yes, I get what you said- but apparently that's not what you meant to say.

Except you said "...they lose to everyone with a pulse." So yes, I get what you said- but apparently that's not what you meant to say.

 

Ok...by having a pulse, I mean, they have a winning record...so when I say they "lose to everyone with a pulse" I mean they "lose to everyone with a winning record".

 

So technically, no they didn't lose to EVERYONE with a pulse, just 8 of 9 times...