Good post overall, but this argument is a crutch for the privates. While in large urban areas, yes, open enrollment would help level the playing field, in rural areas it would mean diddly and squat.

 

Rural school systems could have closed or open enrollment and it wouldn't affect their abilities to compete against urban or private schools.

 

Look at the private schools having success. Where are they from. Urban areas. Put a private school in Robertson County and see if they are competing for regional and state titles. Not going to happen.

 

There are many facets to this argument.....

there is one that is the urban publics vs. the urban privates.

there is one of the rural publics vs. the urban privates

there is one of the rural publics vs. the urban publics.

 

Classing is the best answer with class separations based on a combination of size and open enrollment.

 

 

As I've stated, I somewhat agree with you that the issue is more urban vs rural than public vs private.

 

The classification based on open enrollment probably would not work the way you want it to in my opinion. If you went your way, and schools decided to close enrollment for classification purposes, all you would have is a lot of people moving to be in the school district they wanted their children to attend. Net result is worse. Not only would the sending school still lose the student, the sending community would lose the entire family. Heck younger siblings who might have attended the sending school if the family had continued to live there, are most likely now definitely not going to attend the sending school as the whole family has moved from the community. Personally I think your idea could backfire and backfire big.

 

As for rural schools not benefitting from open enrollment, why do you think that rural schools cannot benefit from open enrollment? Is it because of the distance parents would have to drive to take advantage of open enrollment at a rural school? If so, explain why parents are willing to drive their kids back and forth every day from Frankfort to attend Lex Cath. Or is it because a lot of the rural schools are just not attractive academically or athletically to parents/kids? I mean there has to be a reason why a kid living in Boone County would go back and forth to Highlands every day, but not want to attend Grant County High school (just as an example, Grant County supporters, please don't get your boxers in a bunch) which is just as close, maybe closer. You know the reasons and so do I. If you are a parent trying to decide what high school is best for your child, wouldn't you try to steer him/her that has 90% of the graduates going to college? That does not have drug problems (particularly meth)? That is consistently ranked very high academically in the state? That has a proven record of being really commited to athletics? I mean we have to be realistic about this issue. Closing the doors to open enrollment is not going to make the problem go away. I personally think it will make the problem even worse for communities.

 

I fully realize the hardships the rural schools have. I fully understand the problems the rural and inner city public schools have in having to take all students and "deal" with them. But I still believe that the disparity between successful schools is attributable to the amount and history of commitment to sports. It will take decades of intense commitment from the rural schools to be able to compete with urban schools like Highlands, Beechwood, NCC, Trinity and X in football. The rural schools (or at least most of them) are behind. But that's not the fault of Highlands, etc. Those rural schools that are not far behind (like Boyle, Belfry, Bell and others) is because they have a long commitment to football. Girls basketball is only now starting to get some commitment in the rural public schools. Unfortunately if you look at the KHSAA Title IX audits, you will find a lot of them still are resisting it. In the urban areas, girls basketball has been supported aggressively for years, particularly at the private schools who used female athletics as a way to increase enrollment. Its no surprise that urban Catholic schools do so well in girls basketball and volleyball. They are decades ahead of the rural public schools. Decades. Furthermore if open enrollment in urban areas was the key to success, why can't Dixie, with open enrollment in the county and obviously an urban school, be more competitive with Highlands? Yet how did Johnson Central give CovCath such a great game (and some feel would have won if their fullback had not gotten hurt) in the football playoffs this year?

Gee LN, that sounds like an awful lot of work. Wouldn't be easier to just kick them out.

LN, you are helping making my point on open enrollment not being the cure all that some are trying to make it out to be. We have ZERO control of the drug problem in our community, yet as you accurately would point out, it would have a negative aspect in that decision.

 

Honestly, why is 90% of it's graduations going to college? Parental support has WAY more to do with it than the school.

 

As far as your comments on girls sports, alot of it holds water. But I contend the urbans will ALWAYS have an advantage. How many competitive girls' basketball leagues are there within a 20-minute drive of NKY. A lot. They can make that commitment and have it be a 2 hour commitment. They get more opportunities.

 

Rurals don't have that commitment. Even if they had their own leagues the competition is not there.

 

I make that 1 hour drive each way to give my daughter the opportunity. Some of my former players parents don't have the funds to make that commitment nor the time to make such a huge time commitment in traveling to NKY to play in a girls league.

 

In Cincy, they have an INDOOR baseball league that the NKY baseball players can be involved in ALL winter and have a 30 minute drive. It would close to 90 minutes or 2 hours ONE WAY for us to be involved in the same things.

 

Not trying to whine about it but stating facts of the situations. Urbans have advantages. Both private and public urban schools.

Gee LN, that sounds like an awful lot of work. Wouldn't be easier to just kick them out.

Be sarcastic if you wish. That doesn't change the fact that urbans and rurals have two vastly different worlds to have to prepare in. It is much easier with the resources available in urban areas to prepare a team at the lower feeder levels than it is in the rural areas.

 

Notice I am addressing rural/urban and NOT private/public as LN was doing.

Your first paragraph is full of innuendo. Name the schools and name the twelve counties and three states. Otherwise, I must dismiss your post as a typical public red herring.

 

Do you also condemn independent public school systems who habitually "lure" students from "extended" areas?

I don't know who he is talking about, but I do know that Trinity has students from nine couties and two states. At least they did at the end of last year. Therefore, I don't see those as inuendoes.

I hate it but why fight it. I am starting to think the Khsaa does not care about what we think. They are glad to crown all of the politicians kid's with championship rings and fill diddle arena with 1000 fans and lose a ton of money.

I don't know who he is talking about, but I do know that Trinity has students from nine couties and two states. At least they did at the end of last year. Therefore, I don't see those as inuendoes.

Lets limit our discussion on this sports board to sports. Name the nine counties and other state that Trinity has athletes from?

I hate it but why fight it. I am starting to think the Khsaa does not care about what we think. They are glad to crown all of the politicians kid's with championship rings and fill diddle arena with 1000 fans and lose a ton of money.

You may want to lump teachers in with the "politicians". The percentage of teachers in the JCPS system that send their kids to private schools is greater than that of the general population. I guess the folks that would know best know something more than the majority of the rest of us.

Just wondering how many private schools are in the boys sweet sixteen this year?

Be sarcastic if you wish. That doesn't change the fact that urbans and rurals have two vastly different worlds to have to prepare in. It is much easier with the resources available in urban areas to prepare a team at the lower feeder levels than it is in the rural areas.

 

Notice I am addressing rural/urban and NOT private/public as LN was doing.

 

Gosh, opportunities in rural areas are not the same as in urban areas? Who would have guessed. I'd bet that the hospitals aren't equal as well. I guess we should force doctors to move to the country. I bet the per capita income is greater in the city as well, I guess you want to limit that as well. Then again, My risk of being shot is probably much greater than yours. I guess we should bus y'all some criminals. Then again if you are so concerned that your kids won't get to hoist a trophy, you could always move.

 

FYI, the movie "Hoosiers" wouldn't have been nearly as great if they only had to beat some other little country school at some tiny backwoods gym.

Iroquois coach calls his team champs

 

I was waiting for this thread. It was only a matter of time.

 

Read the linked article and please tell me how Iroquois was able to rise above it's reputation. I spent several years at Iroquois in various capacities and for this to happen there is nothing short of miraculous. It has been implied in this thread that for Lexington Christian to achieve what they did in such a short time indicates the imfamous "unlevel playing field". As the article indicates in the 10 years prior to their present coach Iroquois won a TOTAL of 30 games and had 3 WINLESS seasons. Is the playing field "unlevel" in favor of Iroquois as well or do that just have a coach who has done an outstanding job of getting those kids to believe in themselves and in what they are doing there? If it can be done at Iroquois IMVHO it can be done anywhere.

 

And before anyone takes what I am saying out of context I am not implying at all that Iroquois has done anything wrong in fact because of my past affiliation with them I was pulling for them to win it all.

Gosh, opportunities in rural areas are not the same as in urban areas? Who would have guessed. I'd bet that the hospitals aren't equal as well. I guess we should force doctors to move to the country. I bet the per capita income is greater in the city as well, I guess you want to limit that as well. Then again, My risk of being shot is probably much greater than yours. I guess we should bus y'all some criminals. Then again if you are so concerned that your kids won't get to hoist a trophy, you could always move.

 

FYI, the movie "Hoosiers" wouldn't have been nearly as great if they only had to beat some other little country school at some tiny backwoods gym.

I love how the private schools supporters like yourself who doesn't want to have a discussion but respond with sarcastic, arrogant comments like to pull out a 50 year old example that has ZERO relevance to today. Hoosiers doesn't happen today because Bobby Chitwood would be having his tuition paid for and attending a private school.

 

I apologize to the private school supporters who like to have open and honest conversations on the topic and discuss it like adults for the above comment.

 

So, if you agree that you guys in urban areas have an advantage what is your beef? You have admitted to it in this post.

LN, you are helping making my point on open enrollment not being the cure all that some are trying to make it out to be. We have ZERO control of the drug problem in our community, yet as you accurately would point out, it would have a negative aspect in that decision.

 

Honestly, why is 90% of it's graduations going to college? Parental support has WAY more to do with it than the school.

 

As far as your comments on girls sports, alot of it holds water. But I contend the urbans will ALWAYS have an advantage. How many competitive girls' basketball leagues are there within a 20-minute drive of NKY. A lot. They can make that commitment and have it be a 2 hour commitment. They get more opportunities.

 

Rurals don't have that commitment. Even if they had their own leagues the competition is not there.

 

I make that 1 hour drive each way to give my daughter the opportunity. Some of my former players parents don't have the funds to make that commitment nor the time to make such a huge time commitment in traveling to NKY to play in a girls league.

 

In Cincy, they have an INDOOR baseball league that the NKY baseball players can be involved in ALL winter and have a 30 minute drive. It would close to 90 minutes or 2 hours ONE WAY for us to be involved in the same things.

 

Not trying to whine about it but stating facts of the situations. Urbans have advantages. Both private and public urban schools.

 

 

Again, I don't disagree about the urban/rural argument. There is no doubt that being in an urban area affords lots of advantages to high school athletes. So if we are going to change and limit the debate to, not public vs private, not open vs closed enrollment, but rather to urban vs rural, I can come closer to agreeing with your sentiments.

 

But I'm not totally on board with even that. I think that we have to acknowledge with all the high schools in the urban areas, there are a lot of choices available for student/athletes. If all the schools in the urban areas are doing what they should, i.e. making strong commitments to athletics, its much less likely for the talent pool to get concentrated in one school. I believe that a major reason for X and T's success in football is due to the fact that public high schools in Louisville (other than Male) have dropped the ball. I believe that Highlands has been successful in football because other schools in the county and region have dropped the ball likewise. By doing so, talent has been concentrated in some urban schools which increases the advantage that urban schools have over rural schools. If more urban schools would improve and continue the level of commitment, I believe the talent would be displaced over a greater number of schools, thus allowing the rural schools to be more competitive. In many ways, the ire of the rural schools should be directed not at the urban schools that place a great emphasis on athletics, but on the urban schools that show little commitment.

 

And I do think the rural schools are doing more to create competitve youth teams and leagues. I was recently told that the Montgomery County girls basketball team has been playing together since they were 5 and travelled quite a bit to face good competition ( I don't know if this is true, its just what I was told). Furthermore I also remember reading on the boys basketball forum of some rural school team whose players have been playing in a very competive AAU league for some time. So things seem to be getting better on that issue in the rural areas. I'm sure the opportunities are still not as good as they are in the urban areas, but they are getting better from what I know.

 

As to the graduation rate, I totally agree with you that parental support has a lot to do with that. Frankly, I think parental support has a lot to do with successful athletic teams also.

 

If we were going to have an urban/rural split, what criteria would you use to separate the two? Honestly curious as to how you would suggest this be done. Is it based on density? Is it based on per capita income (since money has a lot to do with it also)? Do you think that most of the rural schools, if given the chance, would elect to opt out and play in the urban classification (since presumably by going to the separate classes, we would be acknowledging that the urban schools have the better teams?) Interested to know your thoughts.

While he does have an abrasive edge LSU does have a point. There are numerous advantages to living in an urban setting vs. a rural one, most related to population size. There are more stores, hospitals, entertainment venues etc. in an urban area then in a rural area because there are more people to make them profitable.

 

Now the last time I checked people weren't being forced to live in rural areas, they choose to knowing that they will not have access to many of the amenities that urban dwellers have. If you feel it would be better for your kids to attend school in an urban environment then move. If you feel your kids are better off in a rural atmosphere that's fine as well BUT you can't make that decision and then complain about advantages that urban schools have.

Iroquois coach calls his team champs

 

I was waiting for this thread. It was only a matter of time.

 

Read the linked article and please tell me how Iroquois was able to rise above it's reputation. I spent several years at Iroquois in various capacities and for this to happen there is nothing short of miraculous. It has been implied in this thread that for Lexington Christian to achieve what they did in such a short time indicates the imfamous "unlevel playing field". As the article indicates in the 10 years prior to their present coach Iroquois won a TOTAL of 30 games and had 3 WINLESS seasons. Is the playing field "unlevel" in favor of Iroquois as well or do that just have a coach who has done an outstanding job of getting those kids to believe in themselves and in what they are doing there? If it can be done at Iroquois IMVHO it can be done anywhere.

 

And before anyone takes what I am saying out of context I am not implying at all that Iroquois has done anything wrong in fact because of my past affiliation with them I was pulling for them to win it all.

 

 

By the way, that is a great, no make that fantastic, article. EVERYONE should read it. Its more proof that having the right coach should never be underestimated or take the back seat in the old X's and O's or Johnies and Joes argument. Truth is with the right coach, you'll figure out the X's and O's and you'll create the Johnies and Joes. My guess is that if you were to ask the Iroquis supporters if the players worked hard before the current coach arrived, they have gotten on here and said that their kids worked as hard as any other program. Seems like this guy is demanding more and its paying off. The unfettered truth is, as hard as it is for some people to admit it, is that not all kids work as hard as other kids because not all coaches require them to. Iroquis, based on the referenced article, seems to support what I am saying. But I didn't need that proof. I've been around a lot of football coaches at various high schools in N. Ky and I know that some coaches are not as commited to winning as other coaches are and as a result, some kids are not as commited to winning as other kids are commited to winning. It is a fact.