"Move the championship games. The traffic and parking are ridiculous in Louisville. Many Danville and Mercer fans missed part of the games. And remember these were nowhere near capacity crowds.

 

Private champions.

 

In case you didn't notice, three private schools - Newport Central Catholic, Covington Catholic and Trinity - won state titles. Newport Catholic and Trinity also won in 2005 when Lexington Catholic took the Class AAA crown.

 

Can't imagine why public schools dare to think the private schools have an advantage."

 

http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=27455&format=html

 

This guy really hates the privates. Wonder why he didn't comment on a team blowing 17 point lead in the fourth quarter? NCC didn't have much advantage at that point in the game did they? He also fails to comment on Mercer's "numbers advantage". What communities does Mr. Vaught write for???

There's a reason why Vaught writes for a Danville paper rather then a paper in Louisville or Lexington.

"Move the championship games. The traffic and parking are ridiculous in Louisville. Many Danville and Mercer fans missed part of the games. And remember these were nowhere near capacity crowds.

 

Private champions.

 

In case you didn't notice, three private schools - Newport Central Catholic, Covington Catholic and Trinity - won state titles. Newport Catholic and Trinity also won in 2005 when Lexington Catholic took the Class AAA crown.

 

Can't imagine why public schools dare to think the private schools have an advantage."

 

http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=27455&format=html

 

This guy really hates the privates. Wonder why he didn't comment on a team blowing 17 point lead in the fourth quarter? NCC didn't have much advantage at that point in the game did they? He also fails to comment on Mercer's "numbers advantage". What communities does Mr. Vaught write for???

 

 

While I do not share Vaught's sentiments about the private/public school issue, if you read the article he specifically mentioned what is in bold above. I guess you missed this...

 

"Danville lost two fumbles and mentally crumbled after a questionable roughing-the-punter call. But one call cannot be blamed for losing a 17-point lead. The lesson here for all future Danville - and area - teams is not to quit playing until the game ends if you want to be state champion."

There's a reason why Vaught writes for a Danville paper rather then a paper in Louisville or Lexington.

 

 

I find Vaught to be a capable writer. I enjoy many of his articles. Reasonable minds can differ and Vaught is anti-Private in the sense his readership is rural and public. However, I don't remember him being too concerned though when Boyle and Danville were beating everybody silly a few years back.

 

 

And as far as not writing in Louisville or Lexington, couldn't we say those writers are hacks since they don't write in Chicago or New York.

You might not agree with what Vaught says or how he says it, but he's right just about everytime.

This guy really hates the privates. Wonder why he didn't comment on a team blowing 17 point lead in the fourth quarter? NCC didn't have much advantage at that point in the game did they? He also fails to comment on Mercer's "numbers advantage". What communities does Mr. Vaught write for???

 

 

Vaught has commented on Mercer's numbers advantage. The company line in/around Harrodsburg is that while it may have helped, that advantage was offset by the difficulty of getting players from two different teams to buy into the new team concept.

While I do not share Vaught's sentiments about the private/public school issue, if you read the article he specifically mentioned what is in bold above. I guess you missed this...

 

"Danville lost two fumbles and mentally crumbled after a questionable roughing-the-punter call. But one call cannot be blamed for losing a 17-point lead. The lesson here for all future Danville - and area - teams is not to quit playing until the game ends if you want to be state champion."

I saw that too, but then he claims NCC has an advantage in the last paragraph. Up 34-17 in the fourth, Danville sure seemed to have the "advantage" over NCC.

Vaught has commented on Mercer's numbers advantage. The company line in/around Harrodsburg is that while it may have helped, that advantage was offset by the difficulty of getting players from two different teams to buy into the new team concept.

Okaaaay. Now it makes sense.:lol:

I saw that too, but then he claims NCC has an advantage in the last paragraph. Up 34-17 in the fourth, Danville sure seemed to have the "advantage" over NCC.

The "perceived" advantage is not a one-game situation but a program and a continual year in and year out advantage that the privates/urban schools would have over the publics/rural schools.

The "perceived" advantage is not a one-game situation but a program and a continual year in and year out advantage that the privates/urban schools would have over the publics/rural schools.

Kind of like these stats over the past 7 years, 2000-2006:

 

2. Boyle Co. 88%, 88-12, 4 titles

3. Danville 85.1%, 86-15, 3 titles

 

That's year in and year out right?

Kind of like these stats over the past 7 years, 2000-2006:

 

2. Boyle Co. 88%, 88-12, 4 titles

3. Danville 85.1%, 86-15, 3 titles

 

That's year in and year out right?

The amazing thing is Boyle County is still number 2 regardless of losing 10 games (or 83% of their losses) over the past 3 seasons.

It seems that Boyle built their record up in the first 4 years and haven't been able to match that since.

It seems that Boyle built their record up in the first 4 years and haven't been able to match that since.

Not really.

 

2004: 13-2, 87%

2005: 11-2, 85%

2006: 6-6

 

Looks like the only bad year they've had in the 2000's was this year. I think that qualifies for "year in and year out".

 

Seems like you now agree on Danville.

And as far as not writing in Louisville or Lexington, couldn't we say those writers are hacks since they don't write in Chicago or New York.

You'll get no argument from me about this.

I find Vaught to be a capable writer. I enjoy many of his articles. Reasonable minds can differ and Vaught is anti-Private in the sense his readership is rural and public. However, I don't remember him being too concerned though when Boyle and Danville were beating everybody silly a few years back.

[/qUOTE]

Vaught's bias is obvious to me although maybe he is just writing what his readership wants to read. FWIW my problems with Vaught are more with his writings regarding UK and U ofL then they are with public/private. I find him to be a less then objective observer who just seems to want to create controversy. And alos FWIW that's is the same reason That I loathed Pat Forde while he was writing for the CJ. He now seems to have toned himself down a bit for the national audience.

Vaught's bias is obvious to me although maybe he is just writing what his readership wants to read. FWIW my problems with Vaught are more with his writings regarding UK and U ofL then they are with public/private. I find him to be a less then objective observer who just seems to want to create controversy. And alos FWIW that's is the same reason That I loathed Pat Forde while he was writing for the CJ. He now seems to have toned himself down a bit for the national audience.

 

That probably a pretty smart thing to do on his part, seeing how nowdays the news media seems to be more about making money and reporting what their readers, viewers want to see, hear, than actually telling the news from an unbiased perspective.