I just don't really see Russellville's and St. X's situations last season as being that similar. I realize both programs only had losses to quality teams, but then look a the strength of schedule for both teams. How many opponents with winning records did Russellville face, and how many opponents with winning records did St. X face?

 

Yeah, I doubt that Russellville faced anyone that would come close to beating Cincy X, T, or BG.

 

You guys are talking apples and oranges.

 

Russellville is a 1A public school with limited resources AND limited in the opponents that they can get on their schedule.

St Xavier is a 6A Private school with more than reasonable resources AND can schedule a plethora of opponents at their leisure.

 

I have no problem with your grades, but the Russellville - St X comparison isn't eye to eye.

You guys are talking apples and oranges.

 

Russellville is a 1A public school with limited resources AND limited in the opponents that they can get on their schedule.

St Xavier is a 6A Private school with more than reasonable resources AND can schedule a plethora of opponents at their leisure.

 

I have no problem with your grades, but the Russellville - St X comparison isn't eye to eye.

 

Good luck, this crowd has their 6A parochial goggles on.

You guys are talking apples and oranges.

 

Russellville is a 1A public school with limited resources AND limited in the opponents that they can get on their schedule.

St Xavier is a 6A Private school with more than reasonable resources AND can schedule a plethora of opponents at their leisure.

 

I have no problem with your grades, but the Russellville - St X comparison isn't eye to eye.

 

That's really exactly what my point has been when everyone has been questioning the way the two programs were scored.

That's really exactly what my point has been when everyone has been questioning the way the two programs were scored.

 

Totally understand CWB! :thumb:

 

I suppose Plantside is miffed that since you "up-graded" X because they lost to teams most everyone would lose to on the one hand and then "down-graded" Russellville because they lost to a team 3 classes above them and the 1A State Champ who cleaned house against everyone in Russellville's classification.

 

It's tough being the archery target with everyone shooting their arrow at you. :lol2:

I personally think your X grade is spot on and your Russellville grade is just a bit low "considering" Russellville's full program specifics in a smaller town in 1A. But great job on keeping us entertained until at least the dead period passes here in a month or so.

If I give Trinity and Bowling Green both an A+, no way X gets an A. I say "B". Moral victories don't count for much.

I'd go with a B+

 

Record indicates a B at best but considering how much the program momentum was shifting, Wolford did an outstanding job beating who they were supposed to even handling Male TWICE. The D1 sr qb did his thing and they had an all around good team. The JV and frosh were undefeated so maybe there's some continuity ready for next season. Watching a number of their games, they still didn't have a true identify. They passed when they had to or the when defense dared them. With Ridder gone moving forward, do they have another player to run the option so fluidly?

I'll take the B+. It's time for the Wolford experiment to end.

I'll take the B+. It's time for the Wolford experiment to end.

 

Honestly I thought this was the year in which it looked like it was actually starting to work. Of course that could have had more to do with the QB.

I am admittedly a Mike Glaser fan. My problem is that we don't name head coaches to learn the trade at our expense. He should have won the first year but changed the talent to play a style different than what they were prepared for. I still see issues on the field with timing of timeouts, use of clock, etc. All experience issues.

I am admittedly a Mike Glaser fan. My problem is that we don't name head coaches to learn the trade at our expense. He should have won the first year but changed the talent to play a style different than what they were prepared for. I still see issues on the field with timing of timeouts, use of clock, etc. All experience issues.

 

 

That's fair, and I agree had Glaser been given 1 more year that would have been a title. The 2013 team was a perfect Glaser-Ball team.

Despite what some of the T people think, Mike was the coach for the right reasons. No on or off field problems, large turnouts, and generally playing time for everyone when he could.

He was a victim, I think, of not altering that offense to become more wide open, and as a result we began losing some skilled athletes (QB, WR). No one wanted 30-35 passes a game. 15 to 20, with some on first down, and not just one or two receivers, would have satisfied the masses.

Having said that, he knew how to win, wear other teams down, give his players confidence to know they would win, even if behind. He kept 100 players happier with a 10 game schedule than Beragmini did with 15 players and a 28 game schedule.

Despite what some of the T people think, Mike was the coach for the right reasons. No on or off field problems, large turnouts, and generally playing time for everyone when he could.

He was a victim, I think, of not altering that offense to become more wide open, and as a result we began losing some skilled athletes (QB, WR). No one wanted 30-35 passes a game. 15 to 20, with some on first down, and not just one or two receivers, would have satisfied the masses.

Having said that, he knew how to win, wear other teams down, give his players confidence to know they would win, even if behind. He kept 100 players happier with a 10 game schedule than Beragmini did with 15 players and a 28 game schedule.

 

Tigercat,

 

I think he was more a victim of clashing with the administration than anything football-specific. The offense evolved significantly over the last 5 or so years of his tenure.

Edited May 31, 20179 yr by Colonels_Wear_Blue
Repaired Broken Quote

Tigercat,

 

I think he was more a victim of clashing with the administration than anything football-specific. The offense evolved significantly over the last 5 or so years of his tenure.

 

There are some who believe if Bob Beatty had never come to Trinity, Mike Glaser would still be X's head coach because most likely the series would be closer and Trinity would not be winning state championships like they have the past decade and a half so X would have grabbed a few of those and X crowd would be satisfied with Mike. Not sure if that is true but, that was one X alumnus's view.

 

Also, someone mentioned the Will Wolford experiment to end. I think Will leaves when he wants to. I am told Will and many of his fellow X friends are top donors and X does not want to lose them. Again, what I was told, if any Xavierans on here disagree, no big deal to me.

There are some who believe if Bob Beatty had never come to Trinity, Mike Glaser would still be X's head coach because most likely the series would be closer and Trinity would not be winning state championships like they have the past decade and a half so X would have grabbed a few of those and X crowd would be satisfied with Mike. Not sure if that is true but, that was one X alumnus's view.

 

Also, someone mentioned the Will Wolford experiment to end. I think Will leaves when he wants to. I am told Will and many of his fellow X friends are top donors and X does not want to lose them. Again, what I was told, if any Xavierans on here disagree, no big deal to me.

 

Bert,

 

That may very well be the case. Who knows. If so, that is one sorry reason to either hire a coach originally or keep one too long. Coaching ability and acumen should be the deciding factor, not $$ donated. Simply put, I believe in paying one's dues; this is my main issue with the Wolford hire to begin with. He simply did not pay his dues in the coaching ranks by working his way up the ladder. He simply skipped too many rungs and was thrust into a position he did not deserve or earn.

There are some who believe if Bob Beatty had never come to Trinity, Mike Glaser would still be X's head coach because most likely the series would be closer and Trinity would not be winning state championships like they have the past decade and a half so X would have grabbed a few of those and X crowd would be satisfied with Mike. Not sure if that is true but, that was one X alumnus's view.

 

Also, someone mentioned the Will Wolford experiment to end. I think Will leaves when he wants to. I am told Will and many of his fellow X friends are top donors and X does not want to lose them. Again, what I was told, if any Xavierans on here disagree, no big deal to me.

 

I don't totally disagree, but remember that Joe Bergamini was let go, and his Father was one of the largest donors, and also served on Board of Directors.