C-J Readers' Corner Letter today (8/30)

[H]

Fine pick ALL of NKY 4A. Boone Co has a history of good football. They got smacked around by a smaller school. Dixie knocked off Trinity a few years ago they got smoked by a 3A AND a 1A school.

 

NKY 4A has always been inconsistent in quality. Boone's history of "good football" is about on par with Ballard's. With few exceptions (Boone in the early '90s, Dixie in '03), none of the NKY 4A schools have had very consistently strong programs. This year, NKY 4A appears to be uniformly awful.

 

Let me pose a question to you: How do you think those 1A and 3A NKY schools would fare against relatively strong 4A programs? Say, X, T, Male, Henry Clay, Warren Central?

[sports fan]

Let me pose a question to you: How do you think those 1A and 3A NKY schools would fare against relatively strong 4A programs? Say, X, T, Male, Henry Clay, Warren Central?

I honestly think they would fare better than Ballard, Eastern, PRP, Oldham County and (insert Louisville area 4A team here). I cannot put a finger on WHY they would fare better, I just know that it's NOT because of the number of male students in the school. That being said I think everyone would have to agree that the more students you have the better chance you have of finding good players. And I agree with an earlier post that comparing football & basketball is not a valid arguement. But while numbers HELP, it is not the overwhelming end-all be-all that underachieving schools make it out to be IMO.

[westsider]

Again, no one is arguing that numbers are the only thing that accounts for the domination of Trinity and St. Xavier, only that the enrollment disparity constitutes an advantage, perhaps even a significant advantage.

[sports fan]

Again, no one is arguing that numbers are the only thing that accounts for the domination of Trinity and St. Xavier, only that the enrollment disparity constitutes an advantage, perhaps even a significant advantage.

If that were changed to "though not as great as some might think" then I would agree 100%. Somehow I just feel that coaching, discipline, pride, etc. plays a bigger part. I think the 1A & 3A schools in Northern KY would probably agree.

[westsider]

If that were changed to "though not as great as some might think" then I would agree 100%.

You could be right. Then again, I could be, too.

Somehow I just feel that coaching, discipline, pride, etc. plays a bigger part. I think the 1A & 3A schools in Northern KY would probably agree.

No one denies those things play a role. Yet some persist in insisting that others are attributing all of Trinity's and St. Xavier's success to the numbers advantage, when we clearly are not.

[allusedup]

:thumb:

 

I hate hearing how the private schools work harder, etc. It's rather pety to dismiss the efforts given by athletes at the public schools. Numbers do matter, it helps a lot if a team is able to go 2 deep at each postion, when some schools have guys playing both ways.

 

 

I agree strike-3...I've worked in both private and public settings. The successful public school coaches work their butts off for chump change just like the most successful private schools. The things I have seen that are advantagous for the private school is the parental and alumni support. The few "well to do" parents at the public schools do all they can and rarely do you see a strong alumni group...at the private school "MOST"...not all...the parents are "well to do" and do all they can to support the program.

 

The public coach tends to do the things that the more numerous private parents do (fund raise, field work, team meals).

 

I agree that the enrollment numbers have nothing to do with the competitive level of a team...it is the # of kids that are willing to play the game. Success is the #1 recruiter...private or public

[leatherneck]

If Apollo,Owensboro, & Owensboro Catholic were to combine football teams they would be substantially better, would they not? They would be able to pick from about 1500 boys similar to T and X if not just a few more. However, if this hypothetical consolidation took place some would just decide that they boys now work harder, want it more, etc.

 

 

Don't you think its possible that the kids would work harder after the hypothetical consolidation? I think so. My reasoning for that opinion is that with the combined number of students, competition to start at any position would be more intense since instead of one kid trying to be qb, you'd have 3 (one kid from each of the three schools whom consolidated who would have tried to be qb at his school if they had not consolidated). I assume you agree with that logic. If so, then each of those 3 kids, being pushed by the other two for the starting position, would/should work much harder during off season and in practice to win the starting spot. Thus through the consolidation, the kids do work harder.

 

I know this, after my son got beat by LexCath last year, the whole returning team worked out the next day. When he came home after the work out, I asked him if he wanted to take a week off before hitting the weights and running. His response to me was to the effect of: "Dad, just because I started this year does not in any way mean I'll start next year and I have to start working out immediately to make sure I start next year". The competition amongst teammates to start does in fact motivate some/most kids to work harder. Consolidating the athletes from three teams most likely would result in the kids working harder if they have any desire to start. Such competition would result in a much stronger program.

 

As to the comment from another poster about Dixie, Conner and the other 4A teams not being regular powerhouses (and thus rationalizing why the smaller schools beat them and trying to explain away the argument that size is not the huge advantage that some people claim it to be), why aren't they regular powerhouses if size is always a regular advantage?

 

Its not like some years Beechwood is a bigger school than Dixie. They never are. If size is the advantage that the poster and others claim it to be, the bigger schools should always beat the much smaller schools and they should be regular powerhouses. I'm not applying that to Dixie vs CovCath or Highlands because the size differential there is not that great. But it is certainly applicable to Dixie vs Beechwood, particularly this year when Dixie returned a boat load of starters and Beechwood did not (at least no where near as many as Dixie). Its certainly applicable to the other 4A vs 1A N. Ky matchups. Yet way too many times the 1A school wins, thus undermining the size advantage theory in my mind. Don't get me wrong, if the kids on a 1A team work their tails off and the kids on a 4A team likewise work their tails off, the 4A team should win 9 out of 10 games because of the size advantage. But I would expect a smaller 4A team with extremely dedicated kids to be able to beat the largest 4A team with kids likewise dedicated, at least 2,3 or even 4 games out of 10.

 

Some may hate that I believe that kids at some schools work harder than kids at other schools. But common sense and experience tells me that some workers at a company work harder than other workers and that the workers at some companies work harder than the workers at other companies. Likewise experience has shown me that some companies have better management that get more production out of their workers than management at other companies. If that was not the case, almost all companies would be as successful as one another. And we all know that is definitely not the case. And if its true that all workers don't work as hard as other workers, why can't it be true in high school football programs?

 

To argue that all kids work just as hard as kids at other schools is to deny human nature and the effect that better motivating coaches and communities can have on players.

 

To the posters that, nonetheless, think the kids at all public schools work as hard as kids at the other schools, post your off season conditioning and summer practice schedules (the dates and hours of each session) and the percentage of players that attended each practice. I posted what Highlands does in another thread. My guess is schools like CovCath, X, T, Beechwood, Rock, Bell and Boyle do something similar to Highlands, but my other guess is that there aren't many other teams that do so. Which is the no. 1 reason to me why those teams, more than size advantages, win more state championships or are in serious contention to do so.

[Hasbeen]

I'll pose a question from another thread that was never really answered and relates to this.

 

If numbers are so important then why do the NKY 4A schools seem to struggle with their smaller counterparts in that area and how does a school like Beechwood have the success it has against much bigger foes?

 

I think were the problem lies is people are focusing on enrollment numbers instead of county/area population. If a school has an open enrollment policy and is located in a densely populated area, it's possible the better athletes will migrate to a program that is on an uptick in search of a better shot at a title and yet not have a serious affect on total school enrollment figures. Thus a single A school located in a heavily populated area could in some cases field a better team than a much larger school. A small scale example of this could be the Barbourville basketball team of the past two years. BHS picked up three players that actually lived out in the county served by Knox Central. Three students would have virtually no effect on enrollment, yet makes up 60% of the starters on a basketball team. The result? Barbourville, seldom known as regional contender, lost in the regional finals to South Laurel by one point. South had only been moved to the 13th this season and had that not happened BHS would have made their first ever trip to the state tournament. Applying this to a county with a large population such as Jefferson or one of the NKy area, I think we can see how adding perhaps ten really good athletes could affect football without a noticable change in enrollment figures. What do y'all think of this?

[rockmom]

I think were the problem lies is people are focusing on enrollment numbers instead of county/area population. If a school has an open enrollment policy and is located in a densely populated area, it's possible the better athletes will migrate to a program that is on an uptick in search of a better shot at a title and yet not have a serious affect on total school enrollment figures. Thus a single A school located in a heavily populated area could in some cases field a better team than a much larger school. A small scale example of this could be the Barbourville basketball team of the past two years. BHS picked up three players that actually lived out in the county served by Knox Central. Three students would have virtually no effect on enrollment, yet makes up 60% of the starters on a basketball team. The result? Barbourville, seldom known as regional contender, lost in the regional finals to South Laurel by one point. South had only been moved to the 13th this season and had that not happened BHS would have made their first ever trip to the state tournament. Applying this to a county with a large population such as Jefferson or one of the NKy area, I think we can see how adding perhaps ten really good athletes could affect football without a noticable change in enrollment figures. What do y'all think of this?

 

Perfectly plausible.

 

But, that really doesn't make it a public/private issue, inasmuch as it's an urban/rural issue.

[RockPride]

It's an advantage we earned.

[Hasbeen]

Perfectly plausible.

 

But, that really doesn't make it a public/private issue, inasmuch as it's an urban/rural issue.

 

 

Agreed, although the private schools are the more visible examples. My argument has never been with private schools per se, but more with the "we work harder" attitude that so many of them seem to have.

[Hasbeen]

It's an advantage we earned.

 

Really? I don't mean this is a smart way at all, but in what way? By living in a larger area population wise and having open enrollment?

[rockmom]

Agreed, although the private schools are the more visible examples. My argument has never been with private schools per se, but more with the "we work harder" attitude that so many of them seem to have.

 

:thumb:

 

For the record, I don't have any problems with public schools in general. I have issues with select programs/districts, etc. I do try hard to realize that not all public school supporters are "anti" private schools, and I hope that although some posters may rub you the wrong way, in the end we all want what's best for the kids. We just may disagree on what that is, and how we get it.

[Trinity alum]

Really? I don't mean this is a smart way at all, but in what way? By living in a larger area population wise and having open enrollment?

No, every student and their family makes a very large financial commitment when they decide on Trinity. Open enrollment means that schools are a free market. Over 1400 young men and their familys have made the decision that in a free market, Trinity is worth that financial commitment. That says to me that the school has "earned" every one of those students. With regard to the central point of the discussion, of course a larger student body is an advantage. It just isn't an unfair advantage.

[westsider]

I don't know that the advantage is "earned" as much as it is exploited. That isn't meant to infer that the advantage is unfair, just simply an advantage.