Scooterbob is entitled to his opinion. He has definitely earned the right to voice his opinion on matters that concern RH. He without a doubt wants nothing but the best for RH. His ideas of whats best for RH may be different from others, but that in no way makes them wrong.

Scooterbob is entitled to his opinion. He has definitely earned the right to voice his opinion on matters that concern RH. He without a doubt wants nothing but the best for RH. His ideas of whats best for RH may be different from others, but that in no way makes them wrong.

 

Exactly, GIAT.

 

 

Frances

I appreciate the comments of LRCW. He is a "rare breed" in that he supports both Ashland and Rose Hill. I commend him for that. Regardless of what may be stated by others, his final sentence is absolutely correct. He is also correct, as is Frances, when he states that the content of my posts is much more likely to displease Rose Hillers than partisans of the other three schools in the district.

 

I appreciate the candor of Frances and GIAT, both devoted and admirable Ashland fans. As for not being too loud, Frances, I don't think I could have been any louder if I appeared on Hannity and Colmes. However, I haven't posted anything that I haven't stated numerous times in the Rose Hill halls and gymnasium. Possibly I should appear to be more of a "team player". However, I don't think that should include being a lemming and jumping off the cliff.

 

The real victim in this is Fairview. Alliances are hard to build and easy to destroy. Obviously Ashlanders and Boyd Countians are understandably euphoric with the result. Fairview rightfully feels betrayed. Most at Rose Hill are "pleased" today but tomorrow may well be different. With few exceptions, like LRCW, I am the "Lone Ranger" on this issue. However, sometimes that is how it goes. As I said I am an advocate and not a peacemaker.

Rose Hill voting to seed this year doesnt seem like that big of a deal to me. I think it shows confidence in the current and upcoming talent at Rose Hill. With the young talent Rose Hill has they are very capable of winning the 64th this year in my opinion. If the 64th continues to seed, I would think that Rose Hill would be pleased with playing a 3 or 4 seed in districts through the next couple years. Im not close to the RH program so I dont know what type of talent they have coming up after Euton and Jackson are gone, so seeding may cause some problems in the future for the Royals. I would think that RH would want a blind draw for the long run but I believe they will compete and most likely win the 64th next year seeded or not.

As far as seeding goes, it may be beneficial to the Rh boys for the next few years. As for the girls, I don't see it the same way.

Scooterbob knows I love him and I consider him a very close personal friend. In this instance we just don't agree on what is best for Rose Hill. We can agree to disagree and that's ok.

 

My position is that Rose Hill has a window of opprotunity for at least the next three years. Seeding will help them at least for that period of time. I guess I think you should strike while the iron is hot.

 

I'm not sure why it is important where I graduated or anyone else graduated from high school. Look at Ashland's bench, how many of them are Ashland graduates? So why does it matter? My alligance will be with my children, period.

....I'm not sure why it is important where I graduated or anyone else graduated from high school. Look at Ashland's bench, how many of them are Ashland graduates? So why does it matter? My alligance will be with my children, period....

 

Why can't people have more than one allegiance? Some of us are just fans of good Kentucky basketball (both boys and girls). I think Rickyp puts high school sports into the correct perspective with his last sentiment!

I'll certainly admit that for the next three years and probably for at least the next seven years, Rose Hill's boys could benefit from seeding. I guess I am more concerned with the "long run" and, that is probably a ridiculous stance since I won't be around to observe it anyway.

 

I will continue to fuss and, when away from BGP, cuss some, too. However, the decision has been made and I'll do whatever little I can to help make it work for the benefit of Rose Hill.

I'll certainly admit that for the next three years and probably for at least the next seven years, Rose Hill's boys could benefit from seeding. I guess I am more concerned with the "long run" and, that is probably a ridiculous stance since I won't be around to observe it anyway.

 

I will continue to fuss and, when away from BGP, cuss some, too. However, the decision has been made and I'll do whatever little I can to help make it work for the benefit of Rose Hill.

 

I hope your around a long time scooter. It will workout, or at least we will go down fighting.

Your reference says nothing about seeding for a definite period. It is not specifically prohibited. Thus, it can be easily argued that, by a vote of three or more, the seeding could have been set for a definite period.

 

The schools in a district can vote whatever they choose since it only effects them. It is merely my position that Rose Hill should have limited the seed arrangement or voted to draw.

 

Nothing has been offered to indicate that such a limited seed

was not a choice.

The issue can be voted on each year, but it will take a majority vote to change anything.

It is in Black and White, I could care less if this district seeds or not. I know from years past how the seeding took place and I know that it takes a majority vote to change the seed to a draw. I can't see Ashland or Boyd ever voting for a draw. So unless there is a realignment the 64th district will probably be a seeded district.

Doing this in the "fairest way" will be unique for this district. I believe it is safe to say that only Rose Hill pretends to operate that way. The others protect their own best interests. Rose Hill may have had one friend in the district but those bridges were certainly destroyed yesterday.

I question in reality if RH had any!!!

The issue can be voted on each year, but it will take a majority vote to change anything.

It is in Black and White, I could care less if this district seeds or not. I know from years past how the seeding took place and I know that it takes a majority vote to change the seed to a draw. I can't see Ashland or Boyd ever voting for a draw. So unless there is a realignment the 64th district will probably be a seeded district.

 

Let's try one more time:

 

1. At least three teams vote to seed for, let's say, four years after which it is clearly understood that the issue will come up for reconsideration.

 

2. As part of the item being voted on above, it is clearly understood that, if the issue fails to get at least three votes at the meeting four years later, the format goes back to a draw.

 

3. Let's use an easy example. You sign a lease for a four year period. After four years, you decide again whether to continue the lease or move out. Continue the lease means continue seeding. Moving out represents going back to a draw.

 

4. The KHSAA rule that you cited does not address seeding for a definite period of time one way or the other. Certainly, it is not prohibited by that rule. Therefore, if three of the teams wanted to do this, it could be done.

 

5. Ashland and Boyd County will always vote to seed. However, to make any change from the status quo (draw), it took three votes. Therefore, it was my position that Rose Hill should have proposed a seed for a definite time (as explained above) rather than forever.

 

6. Whether or not Ashland (Boyd County from my experience at these meetings merely echoes Ashland) would have "bought into" the seeding for a definite period of time is something I obviously cannot answer.

 

7. However, if Ashland wanted its seed situation, it would be forced to accept Rose Hill's proposal. Otherwise, Rose Hill would have joined Fairview in producing a 2-2 vote meaning we stick to the draw.

 

Is that a little clearer?

Let's try one more time:

 

1. At least three teams vote to seed for, let's say, four years after which it is clearly understood that the issue will come up for reconsideration.

 

2. As part of the item being voted on above, it is clearly understood that, if the issue fails to get at least three votes at the meeting four years later, the format goes back to a draw.

 

3. Let's use an easy example. You sign a lease for a four year period. After four years, you decide again whether to continue the lease or move out. Continue the lease means continue seeding. Moving out represents going back to a draw.

 

4. The KHSAA rule that you cited does not address seeding for a definite period of time one way or the other. Certainly, it is not prohibited by that rule. Therefore, if three of the teams wanted to do this, it could be done.

 

5. Ashland and Boyd County will always vote to seed. However, to make any change from the status quo (draw), it took three votes. Therefore, it was my position that Rose Hill should have proposed a seed for a definite time (as explained above) rather than forever.

 

6. Whether or not Ashland (Boyd County from my experience at these meetings merely echoes Ashland) would have "bought into" the seeding for a definite period of time is something I obviously cannot answer.

 

7. However, if Ashland wanted its seed situation, it would be forced to accept Rose Hill's proposal. Otherwise, Rose Hill would have joined Fairview in producing a 2-2 vote meaning we stick to the draw.

 

Is that a little clearer?

SB why were you not at the meeting?

I thought you usually attended district draw meetings.

Anyone know how often this has changed between seeding and draw in the 64th district ? Lets say in the last 10 - 15 years ?No reason at all, Im just curious.

I don't see how Fairview has been "betrayed" by anyone, They will not be butchered by all three teams year in and year out any worse than BC. Have you seen BC play and some of their younger teams? Everybody will have to play each other and that leaves room for everyone to play their way out of the "last place" slot which means BC (IMO) can play their way out of the last place. EVERY team has their own destiny in their own hands.

 

Plain and simple, if you want to advance to the Regions. You have to win at least one game (opening round of districts), so why is it so difficult to win 1, maybe 2, game during the regular season to be seeded 3rd instead of 4th? If you can't win a game or two in the regular season, then you're not going to win in that district first round, No matter what size of school or talent you have now or in the future.