First and foremost the "All-A" Classic is not a state tournament, it is a statewide tournament. It is not run by the KHSAA although I have seen many teams that win it declare themselves state champions and even go so far as to get rings.

 

Second as I recall the "All-A" classic was the creation of private schools in Northern Kentucky. Are the public schools now going to try to take this over?

 

It wasn't a private or public creation. It was a small school creation by some NKY coaches which included public and private small schools.

I cannot disagree more.

 

#1 Having "one true champion" does absolutely NOTHING for the development of the game or the popularity of the championships. It is SOLELY a "feel good" situation for those who consistently have the best opportunities to play in the state tournament.

 

#2 There is NO proof that there would be less interest in the tournament. Quite frankly, more schools with more of an opportunity SHOULD lead to more attendance.

 

#3 Check again. Small schools (real small independent especially public ones)have a miniscule chance of winning the state tournament, or, in most cases, even getting to it.

 

#4 Doing something just because "that's the way it has always been" is without a doubt the WORST reason for continuing to do it that way.

 

#5 No, no member of the KHSAA (member schools) has made a proposal to change, and that is a shame.

 

There is a majority of people in Indiana that wouldn't agree with #1 and #2 since Indiana went to a class system.

 

There are positives and negatives to having one champ and to having classes but as pointed out numerous times above it is up to the schools to make the change.

It wasn't a private or public creation. It was a small school creation by some NKY coaches which included public and private small schools.

If my information is incorrect then I apologize but I understand that the driving force behind starting the "All-A" classic was private school administrator(s)/coach(es) from the Northern Kentucky area. I know that it has always involved both public and private schools. My comment was simply to point out what I see as a ironic situation where a tournament that traces it's roots to a private creator is now being pointed out as yet another perceived disadvantage that the public schools have.

If my information is incorrect then I apologize but I understand that the driving force behind starting the "All-A" classic was private school administrator(s)/coach(es) from the Northern Kentucky area. I know that it has always involved both public and private schools. My comment was simply to point out what I see as a ironic situation where a tournament that traces it's roots to a private creator is now being pointed out as yet another perceived disadvantage that the public schools have.

 

It wasn't a private creator. The first "A" tourney was eight teams all in NKY and was put together by the coaches at Dayton, Cov. Latin, and Holy Cross high schools as a way for small schools to have a nice tourney that they could win. The first one was played at Holy Cross, the second at Bellevue. Stan Steidel from Dayton was instrumental in inviting teams from outside NKY to participate and then expanding it to other areas of the state.

I watch football get a new football system this year to include 6 different classes! But in a basketball state I am amazed that we have created a class A tournament that has been allowed private schools to dominate. Was that what they wanted to happen. You would think providing a Class A tournament in basketball would be to help the small schools, it did, but only the private ones!!! I also watch the regular season and postseason, regional tournaments and only the top schools, which our 6A football schools are winning the 2nd region basketball tournaments, or runner up. Why does football expand to 6 classes, and yet you only have 2 classes of state tournaments and allow the private schools to dominate the Class A tournament. To 95% of KHSAA schools they have zero chance of getting to a state tournament, but every state that borders us allows for every size school a chance. Maybe the KHSAA should wake up, or stop being payed!!!

 

I am not sure that I agree with your theory as far as results, although your premise is sound. Certainly the more males in the school, the deeper the pool of talent. Theoretically. And yet, as LSURock pointed out, Trinity has never won state. Other behemoths have also fared poorly over the years. Henderson County has never won state. St. X has not won state since 1962. On the other hand, smaller schools such as Paintsville, E'town, Marion County and University Heights have won state in the past fifteen years.

Your implication that basketball is more interesting if a large number of schools have a possibility of winning is indisputable. To that end it will be interesting to watch basketball in the next few years if, as predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court abolishes busing in Louisville. Then I believe the tournament will revert to its status in the years immediately preceding busing, when Male, Shawnee and Central traded the trophy among themselves.

There is a majority of people in Indiana that wouldn't agree with #1 and #2 since Indiana went to a class system.

 

There are positives and negatives to having one champ and to having classes but as pointed out numerous times above it is up to the schools to make the change.

 

 

The majority of those Indiana folks that wouldn't agree with #1 and # 2 would be adult fans of basketball. But guess what: high school sports are not for adults and the KHSAA shouldn't give a hoot in hades about what adults think. I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that if you polled the kids on the teams that won the Indiana bball championships, a large majority of them would say they absolutely loved Indiana going to classes in bball. And high schools sports are for and about the kids, not "has been" or "never were" adults. If going to classes in bball hurts the Sweet 16, who cares as long as it is good for the players. There is simply no logical reason to have classes in football and track, and not have classes in bball. None.

 

And for all the supposed discontent of Hoosiers with the classes, one thing to ponder is: has going to classes in Indiana helped improve the quality of basketbal? I don't follow Indiana bball too closely, so perhaps some one more knowledgeable could fill us in, but were the Ky All Star teams more competitive with the Indiana All Stars before Indiana went to the class system? It seems like to me that we used to be competitive, but recently they've owned us. Is it possible that going to classes has helped improve the popularity and thus the quality of Indiana basketball while we have stagnated? Opinions anyone?

I am not sure that I agree with your theory as far as results, although your premise is sound. Certainly the more males in the school, the deeper the pool of talent. Theoretically. And yet, as LSURock pointed out, Trinity has never won state. Other behemoths have also fared poorly over the years. Henderson County has never won state. St. X has not won state since 1962. On the other hand, smaller schools such as Paintsville, E'town, Marion County and University Heights have won state in the past fifteen years.

Your implication that basketball is more interesting if a large number of schools have a possibility of winning is indisputable. To that end it will be interesting to watch basketball in the next few years if, as predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court abolishes busing in Louisville. Then I believe the tournament will revert to its status in the years immediately preceding busing, when Male, Shawnee and Central traded the trophy among themselves.

 

 

The problem with the "Trinity hasn't won it" theory is that it takes commitment to win championships. Size is not enough; not in bball or football or any other sport for that matter. Most of the small schools that you cited can rightfully claim that their programs have a long tradition of commitment to bball I believe. Can the Trinity fans honestly say that over the past couple of decades that the school, fans, administrators and students have placed anywhere near the commitment to bball that they have to football? From what I understand from reading on here, they have not, until recently, done so. My guess is that if the recent high level of commitment at Trinity to bball continues it won't be long before the "Trinity hasn't won it" theory will no longer be able to be expressed.

Even colleges have a class system to even the playing field, why not High School Basketball? Of course the difference in College Basketball (Private vs Public) is they both get to recruit and only the private have an advantage in High School.

 

NCAA vs. NAIA, Div 3 etc.

Since we are the only state in the counrty with one state title it makes kentuckys state tourny one of the best in the country... The state champion can really say that they are the best in the state... In football the state champion can not really say that because there are 6 state champs... Anything can happen in basketball and small schools can have there chance to win a state title... If Kentucky ever went to a class system for basketball it would be the worst decision by KHSAA ever

And I always thought HS athletics was about the best interest of the HS students around the state. Now I am educated to know it is just about one group of students and their parents being able to say they are the best in the state.:sssh:

Publci Schools have won 12 of the Girls All-A Classics to 5 privates. Hardly the domination implied by the start of the thread, and not a 'fact' to be disregarded.

Except that privates have won 5 of the last 6.

Even colleges have a class system to even the playing field, why not High School Basketball? Of course the difference in College Basketball (Private vs Public) is they both get to recruit and only the private have an advantage in High School.

 

NCAA vs. NAIA, Div 3 etc.

If you believe public high schools don't recruit, would you like to buy a bridgy I own or some nice swampland?

Except that privates have won 5 of the last 6.

 

So if it were reversed, and the public schools had won the last 5 out of 6, that would be OK?

As to #3, Paintsville has won a state title in basketball. Trinity hasn't.

 

 

And THAT is reason to say everything is nice and dandy? If we're going to make arbitrary comparisons, then lets do that, Bellevue has never won a state championship, Male has. Deming has never won one, Lafayette has.

 

Gimme a break.

 

 

The concept of the small mountain town team coming in and pulling off the giant upset is long, long past us all. Our history is rich with those stories but those kinds of situations just simply no longer exist. We have always prided ourselves on having good basketball in our state and that includes keeping up with the newest trends. Why can we not see the forest for the trees when it comes to this issue?

And THAT is reason to say everything is nice and dandy? If we're going to make arbitrary comparisons, then lets do that, Bellevue has never won a state championship, Male has. Deming has never won one, Lafayette has.

 

Gimme a break.

 

 

The concept of the small mountain town team coming in and pulling off the giant upset is long, long past us all. Our history is rich with those stories but those kinds of situations just simply no longer exist. We have always prided ourselves on having good basketball in our state and that includes keeping up with the newest trends. Why can we not see the forest for the trees when it comes to this issue?

 

I didn't say anything about "fine and dandy". I just pointed out a fact. BTW, I think Paintsville won it all in 96', hardly ancient history.

The problem with the "Trinity hasn't won it" theory is that it takes commitment to win championships. Size is not enough; not in bball or football or any other sport for that matter. Most of the small schools that you cited can rightfully claim that their programs have a long tradition of commitment to bball I believe. Can the Trinity fans honestly say that over the past couple of decades that the school, fans, administrators and students have placed anywhere near the commitment to bball that they have to football? From what I understand from reading on here, they have not, until recently, done so. My guess is that if the recent high level of commitment at Trinity to bball continues it won't be long before the "Trinity hasn't won it" theory will no longer be able to be expressed.

 

We are on the same page here. You are accurate, at least about Trinity. I would add St. X to the group "that over the past couple of decades that the school, fans, administrators and students have placed anywhere near the commitment to bball that they have to football". I also agree that, with Trinity's new commitment to basketball, the future is bright for them. Perhaps that is the answer to my cunundrum: Why small schools often win over large schools in basketball, but not in football?-commitment! My point was that in basketball, as in many matters...size matters!