A comment made in another thread prompted my question. Without naming names of players or allowing this thread to denigrate into why this person should not have made an all state team or why this person should have made an all state team, I'd like people's thoughts as to when considering if a player should be selected to an all state or even the all BGP team, should the selecters based their choices on the players high school performances or what their potential is for playing in college.

 

I personally believe it should be based strictly on high school performance, and when considering same, that the level of competition played should factor heavily into the equation and becomes the tie breaker if two kids are equal or close to equal in the minds of the selecters.

 

 

Your thoughts? And again, lets keep the names of players out of the thread

The problem with, say the AP team, is that all communities don't have voters, therefore some get left out. I believe potential is kind of like faith....unseen as yet (Hebrews 11). Votes should, in my humble opinion, be based off what has been seen and actual performance, rather than this kid is going to be something on the college level.

Performance, measured against the nebulous standard of reasonably good competition.

Performance, measured against the nebulous standard of reasonably good competition.

It is about being a great HIGH SCHOOL football player. I also agree that to be all state, you should have to be getting it done against good competion.

I know nothing about the selection process. But I agree that colege potential should not factor into the mix. There is no way every player that is deserving be recognized for All-State, so hopefully the all district teams identify these players.

I also think it should be based on HS performance. But I also feel that the kids from the smaller or not so good programs get short changed in these selections. The small school kids play within their respective competition. I noticed 1 school that had not one player even make honorable mention on the NKY. team. I just don't think kids should be penalized because of where they play football.

I also think it should be based on HS performance. But I also feel that the kids from the smaller or not so good programs get short changed in these selections. The small school kids play within their respective competition. I noticed 1 school that had not one player even make honorable mention on the NKY. team. I just don't think kids should be penalized because of where they play football.

1 million per cent agreement here!!! :thumb:

I also think it should be based on HS performance. But I also feel that the kids from the smaller or not so good programs get short changed in these selections. The small school kids play within their respective competition. I noticed 1 school that had not one player even make honorable mention on the NKY. team. I just don't think kids should be penalized because of where they play football.

 

 

As a follow up question that your post prompted: should a high school coach, when he puts his schedule together, try to get his kids exposure throughout the state? While I realize the average A program should not be playing the X's and Trinity's type programs, the coach should be able to find decent competition throughout the state to showcase his kids. Perhaps play a couple of teams up a class or even two (now that we've gone to 6 classes). By playing good programs in other parts of the state, the kids then have the ability to impress the coaches and sportswriters in other areas, which should help a lot with the all state votes. Just playing the schools in your back yard probably isn't enough, particularly if your team doesn't make it deep into the playoffs. Any thoughts as to whether a coach should factor getting state wide exposure to help his kids get recognized, when putting together the schedule? And if a coach doesn't do that, can you blame the selecters who never have the opportunity to see a kid play when they don't select him?

As a follow up question that your post prompted: should a high school coach, when he puts his schedule together, try to get his kids exposure throughout the state? While I realize the average A program should not be playing the X's and Trinity's type programs, the coach should be able to find decent competition throughout the state to showcase his kids. Perhaps play a couple of teams up a class or even two (now that we've gone to 6 classes). By playing good programs in other parts of the state, the kids then have the ability to impress the coaches and sportswriters in other areas, which should help a lot with the all state votes. Just playing the schools in your back yard probably isn't enough, particularly if your team doesn't make it deep into the playoffs. Any thoughts as to whether a coach should factor getting state wide exposure to help his kids get recognized, when putting together the schedule? And if a coach doesn't do that, can you blame the selecters who never have the opportunity to see a kid play when they don't select him?

LN, I agree with what you're saying. However, at the program I support we try to schedule as best we can and play good competition outside our district. By good competition, I mean teams that we can compete with and not just play them for the sake of playing them. As for the teams down state, it is harder to get those games now due to the cost of travel and everything else that is involved. The voters can't be blamed if they haven't had the opportunity to see a kid play. I know this is on all-state selections, but the NKY. coaches did have the opportunity to see the local kids play and still 1 school that I know of had not one player even mentioned. I know for fact that that 1 young man was as good as anyone at his position on defense. It's almost like a good ole boy network, and the kids from the average A schools consistently are overlooked. Don't mean to ruffle any feathers, thats my take on the situation.

I would suggest the selectors have a big responsibility to inform and educate themselves. No coach, program or athlete should have to "sell" a performance to get support. Further, when it comes to these selectors, it would be very healthy to rotate all participants out. I can think of one selector in particular who will never vote for a player coming from a particular school. If the selector is not responsible enough to be effective, replace the individual. I have yet to see any local coverage by a person (reporter) that would spell the demise of sports with their absence.

I would suggest the selectors have a big responsibility to inform and educate themselves. No coach, program or athlete should have to "sell" a performance to get support. Further, when it comes to these selectors, it would be very healthy to rotate all participants out. I can think of one selector in particular who will never vote for a player coming from a particular school. If the selector is not responsible enough to be effective, replace the individual. I have yet to see any local coverage by a person (reporter) that would spell the demise of sports with their absence.

 

 

As to your point that you know a sportswriter who will never vote for kids from one particular program, that's unfortunate and simply wrong. I'm sorry to hear that. Care to share any details in a pm? But there are probably coaches that won't vote for a certain school's kids because they don't like the coach or for other reasons.

 

While I understand and somewhat agree with your point that AP writers need to do a more effective job in learning and informing themselves about players, don't you think its somewhat unrealistic? Take the AP all state team for example. There are 16 voters. How well can a sports writer from say Bowling Green really inform him/herself about a player from say Ludlow (as an example for my post)? Sure he can look at stats, but there are tons of kids with great stats, mind boggling stats. I guess the AP writer can then look at the level of competition played in generating those stats, but that too in the eyes of some is unfair (although I disagree with those people). The AP writer can ask around, and perhaps call some of his coaching contacts, but most of them are going to be in the vicinity near the sportswriter. Unless Ludlow played against teams coached by those coaches, its highly unlikely the coaches in the writer's vicinity are going to know much if anything about Ludlow's players. As a result, some well deserving players get over looked. Thus realizing the situation, I think the coaches should definitely take the responsibility to sell their players to the other coaches and AP writers, or whomever it is doing the selecting. Personally I think its part of a head coach's job description to try to get as much recognition for his players. And to do so, I think a coach should to the greatest extent possible always keep that in mind when he puts his schedule together.

LN, I agree with what you're saying. However, at the program I support we try to schedule as best we can and play good competition outside our district. By good competition, I mean teams that we can compete with and not just play them for the sake of playing them. As for the teams down state, it is harder to get those games now due to the cost of travel and everything else that is involved. The voters can't be blamed if they haven't had the opportunity to see a kid play. I know this is on all-state selections, but the NKY. coaches did have the opportunity to see the local kids play and still 1 school that I know of had not one player even mentioned. I know for fact that that 1 young man was as good as anyone at his position on defense. It's almost like a good ole boy network, and the kids from the average A schools consistently are overlooked. Don't mean to ruffle any feathers, thats my take on the situation.

 

 

I don't know the circumstances of the player of whom you speak, so I can't comment on the situation. If however, there is a good old boy network in N. Ky, then I'll ask the question: does the head coach owe it to his players to get involved into the good old boy network so that his players don't get short changed in these type of selections? How far should a head coach go to make sure his players get the proper recognition? Is it even part of a head coach's responsibility to his players to get them their deserved recognition? I'm not suggesting that a coach puts a kid's accomplishments in front of what's best for the team or that the coach call the kids number late in a run away game so the kid can set some state record, but is calling the coaches and AP writers and telling them about his players part of his job? Is, budget willing, playing teams throughout the state to maximize exposure something the coach should do? Is playing a couple of teams that are considered better to prove his players accomplishments were made against tough competition something a coach should do?

 

All of the teams selected have their flaws and I think we have to be realistic about that. The question is how far or what should a coach do to promote his players with those flaws in mind?

I think any player should be able to get all-state. If he is on A,AA,AAA,AAAA. However lets say he player runs for 1000 yards on weak competion and a guy runs for 950 yards in a tough competion then I think the guy with 950 yard should get it.

 

About the college recruits getting all-atate. I believe that no college will want a guy who is a great size but can't play great at the H.S level they will not offer him if he does not dominate the H.S level.

 

You would almost need seasonal staffs for H.S football to travel to the games and then after the season then they could make the all-state team. Of course that will be too expensive.

I don't know the circumstances of the player of whom you speak, so I can't comment on the situation. If however, there is a good old boy network in N. Ky, then I'll ask the question: does the head coach owe it to his players to get involved into the good old boy network so that his players don't get short changed in these type of selections? How far should a head coach go to make sure his players get the proper recognition? Is it even part of a head coach's responsibility to his players to get them their deserved recognition? I'm not suggesting that a coach puts a kid's accomplishments in front of what's best for the team or that the coach call the kids number late in a run away game so the kid can set some state record, but is calling the coaches and AP writers and telling them about his players part of his job? Is, budget willing, playing teams throughout the state to maximize exposure something the coach should do? Is playing a couple of teams that are considered better to prove his players accomplishments were made against tough competition something a coach should do?

 

All of the teams selected have their flaws and I think we have to be realistic about that. The question is how far or what should a coach do to promote his players with those flaws in mind?

On the subject of small schools I'll add this: It's very difficult for these schools to do the things that you are asking. In fact, it is impossible for some schools. The budgetary constraints placed on these schools make it a near impossibility for them to travel "down state" to play schools from WKY and EKY. So the responsibility cannot fall on the coach for something that he cannot control. If all it takes is a phone call, then by all means, if that is something the coach is willing and wants to do. But I don't think part of the job description is "getting players awards". Furthermore, the major flaw I see with the AP vote is that certain areas of the state are underepresented in the voting process. It is completely normal and natural for voters from say, the Louisville area, to want to vote for players from their area. These are the kids they've seen play the most and are most familiar with. If they always touted kids from other places, it probably wouldn't go over well within their respective community. But when half of the AP votes come from one place, that can be a problem.

On the subject of small schools I'll add this: It's very difficult for these schools to do the things that you are asking. In fact, it is impossible for some schools. The budgetary constraints placed on these schools make it a near impossibility for them to travel "down state" to play schools from WKY and EKY. So the responsibility cannot fall on the coach for something that he cannot control. If all it takes is a phone call, then by all means, if that is something the coach is willing and wants to do. But I don't think part of the job description is "getting players awards". Furthermore, the major flaw I see with the AP vote is that certain areas of the state are underepresented in the voting process. It is completely normal and natural for voters from say, the Louisville area, to want to vote for players from their area. These are the kids they've seen play the most and are most familiar with. If they always touted kids from other places, it probably wouldn't go over well within their respective community. But when half of the AP votes come from one place, that can be a problem.

 

I agree with a lot of what you stated, other than I do think its part of the coach"s job description to try and get players the awards, and to do so by phone calls, e mails, and if necessary sending game tapes to the voters, particularly with the AP team for the some of the very reasons you stated.