Catlett out at Ballard...

[Trinity alum]

The 2001 Male - Trinity score is reversed. Trinity won that game.

[rocktopper]

I would kinda be surprised to see Red move from Male. He has had success there and they do get their fair share of athletes. Male's facilities are better than Ballards?? Im not sure but, I am not aware that one can recruit students at Ballard (unless they play basketball or soccer...). All kidding aside, What would be the advantage for Red to move to Ballard???? Somebody help me here....

 

Redman will be at Ballard next season! Why? Because Male is limited on the athletes they can get based on the feeder system they have in place, being a traditional school. On the other hand, if you ask anyone in the Louisville coaching community, they will tell you Ballard has a ton of talent to pull from. This is no disrespect to Coach C, he’s a great guy, but Coach Redman is the master motivator (right behind Beatty and Glaser) that could get the job done at Ballard. Only time will tell!

[Alabama Larry]

Coach RED, please don't go. My 10 year old is already calling plays from the scrimmage line. Hold on for a little longer.

[retired]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Redman leave Male and go to Ballard. His system requires athletes in large numbers to be successful (read: to consistently go toe to toe with X and T). In spite of some people claiming Male has major advantages over all the other public schools (due to facilities, Traditional status, history), it actually is at a significant disadvantage--a victim of its own success if you will. Due to its status as one of only two Traditional program schools (the other being Butler), and arguably much more desirable by the majority of parents/students within the Traditional program, there is much more demand for admission to Male than there is capacity to accept students. As a result, not all of the kids who want in (no doubt many of whom are athletically gifted) can get in. To be honest with you, I don't know how Manual has been able to improve its talent level, given similarly restrictive admissions. Ballard has open enrollment (although I don't think they provide county-wide transportation like Male or Manual offer), and I don't think it has nearly the barriers to entry that Male has. Therefore, I think Redman would be able to draw talent relatively unfettered.

 

Regarding Redman's history at Ballard, I believe he last served as Ballard's head coach in 1985, returning as an assistant in the early 90s after a stint as HC at Waggener. Hard to imagine that much of the old administration would still be there after 15-20+ years. He took Ballard to the state championship game in 1984, and went deep into the playoffs the following year. Given that success and the relative lack of success at Ballard since, I doubt there would be many who would regard his return as a negative. There are an awful lot of U of L fans who would take Petrino back in a heartbeat and I think this is a similar situation.

 

Relative lack of success??? 1992 - Final Four lost to Boone County...'93 - lost to Trinity Regional Final...'94 - lost Regional Final - St. X...'95 - Lost Regional final - Central..."96 - Lost Regional final - Trinity...and it continued until present ...so if losing in Regional finals is failure then there are a slew of programs that fail every year...what a way to measure success.

[H]

Relative lack of success??? 1992 - Final Four lost to Boone County...'93 - lost to Trinity Regional Final...'94 - lost Regional Final - St. X...'95 - Lost Regional final - Central..."96 - Lost Regional final - Trinity...and it continued until present ...so if losing in Regional finals is failure then there are a slew of programs that fail every year...what a way to measure success.

 

Compared to getting to the state title game in 1984 and getting to the Jefferson County semifinal in 1985, I would consider Ballard's record since a relative lack of success. Ask the Trinity guys who they would rather have running Ballard's program: Redman or any other Jeff County public school coach.

[H]

thsrocks,

 

Nice job putting together Coach Redman's resume against T and X. A couple of corrections: Male lost to Trinity 13-7 in the 1996 playoffs and the score of the 2005 X/H game is reversed (X won). :thumb:

[retired]

Compared to getting to the state title game in 1984 and getting to the Jefferson County semifinal in 1985, I would consider Ballard's record since a relative lack of success. Ask the Trinity guys who they would rather have running Ballard's program: Redman or any other Jeff County public school coach.

Comparable records of Redman and Catlett...

Redman 1976 - 85...83 -36

Catlett 1997 - 07 - 81 - 49

Catlett's guilty of not having success vs. the Private Schools...plain and simple...that's why the Ballard Administration has no answer as to why he was let go...simply..."looking to go in another direction..."

This is not the same commitment to excellence of the previous administration...expecially since Catlett was told he was not being judged on won /lost records...though not required someone from the administration needs to come clean...and that is the state that ALL coaches in Jefferson County come under...no response required from Administrators.

[thsrocks]

thsrocks,

 

Nice job putting together Coach Redman's resume against T and X. A couple of corrections: Male lost to Trinity 13-7 in the 1996 playoffs and the score of the 2005 X/H game is reversed (X won). :thumb:

it was WAY late in on a worknight when I did it, expected a couple errors. :lol:

[H]

Catlett's guilty of not having success vs. the Private Schools...plain and simple...that's why the Ballard Administration has no answer as to why he was let go...simply..."looking to go in another direction..."

 

 

You're probably right. Coaches have certainly been let go because they couldn't win the big ones, even if they have sparkling records otherwise. Just ask John Cooper (ex-Ohio State) and Lloyd Carr (ex-Michigan). I think it's fair to expect a coach to achieve according to the potential he has to work with. Maybe Ballard's administration felt this was not happening. The comments about Catlett doing things the right way do resonate with me, but let's face it: in life being rewarded often requires results and not merely displaying effort or good intentions.

[FanOfHoltz]

There are a couple of things that bother me about coaching in jefferson co at all public schools (im in no way trying to slight private schools here)...but:

 

I dont see how any administrator or AD can realistically judge a coach based on wins and losses when the parameters set before them are so tight.

 

Im no expert on how things work for private school coaches, but I know in jefferson co, a coach:

1. can not "legally" recruit athletes (again, im not implying that private schools can and i dont want to start a debate about it...im sure thats been done around here) So the coach is limited somewhat as to the available talent he has at his school

 

2. is not paid according to what the school believes he is worth, but rather given a stipend based on the Board of Education. Obviously the board believes a coach should coach for the fun of it, not for money.

 

3. Is restricted to the number of hours he can work with football. Most coaches are required to teach during the day meaning they have the choice of teaching or popping in a video for the students so that he can work on football related issues.

 

4. In regards to players, a coach is usually restricted to the boundaries set in place for where kids can come from. Its not that easy to just walk in and transfer to a school out of their district.

 

5. Does not have great luxuries to have just about anything they want at their expense....usually must involve fundraising....which can often take time.

 

Given these and other circumstances, I question whether its really fair to judge a coach on wins and losses and whether or not they can beat X or T. If every coach was subjected to this, then a lot of coaches would be fired yearly because of their inability to beat X or T. Right now, the parity just isnt there. Thankfully, most schools are realistic in understanding that if X or T stands in their district, they are most likely going to be the underdog in that game. As long as a coach is doing things by the book, winning games here and there and dont have a team full of thugs, criminals, rule breakers, etc., then the coach should be able to stay for as long he deems necessary. Im sorry, but I dont care how good of a coach you are, expecting a coach to beat X or T on a yearly basis is not a good thing to base performance evaluation on.

Lou Holtz said when he took over at Notre Dame, in his first team meeting he said "Men, expecting me to come in here and fix the problems with this program to win a national championship is like trying to fix a flat tire by changing the driver...a change is being made, but the problem is not fixed."

In some cases, this is true. A coaching change isnt always the answer to every problem with a football program whether its high school, college or pro. I think Ballard got this one wrong. They want to make a change, thats fine..they have that right. But their reasons dont appear to be right in this case.

[Alabama Larry]

Look at how many assistants X/Rocks have compared to the Pubs.

[retired]

There are a couple of things that bother me about coaching in jefferson co at all public schools (im in no way trying to slight private schools here)...but:

 

I dont see how any administrator or AD can realistically judge a coach based on wins and losses when the parameters set before them are so tight.

 

Im no expert on how things work for private school coaches, but I know in jefferson co, a coach:

1. can not "legally" recruit athletes (again, im not implying that private schools can and i dont want to start a debate about it...im sure thats been done around here) So the coach is limited somewhat as to the available talent he has at his school

 

2. is not paid according to what the school believes he is worth, but rather given a stipend based on the Board of Education. Obviously the board believes a coach should coach for the fun of it, not for money.

 

3. Is restricted to the number of hours he can work with football. Most coaches are required to teach during the day meaning they have the choice of teaching or popping in a video for the students so that he can work on football related issues.

 

4. In regards to players, a coach is usually restricted to the boundaries set in place for where kids can come from. Its not that easy to just walk in and transfer to a school out of their district.

 

5. Does not have great luxuries to have just about anything they want at their expense....usually must involve fundraising....which can often take time.

 

Given these and other circumstances, I question whether its really fair to judge a coach on wins and losses and whether or not they can beat X or T. If every coach was subjected to this, then a lot of coaches would be fired yearly because of their inability to beat X or T. Right now, the parity just isnt there. Thankfully, most schools are realistic in understanding that if X or T stands in their district, they are most likely going to be the underdog in that game. As long as a coach is doing things by the book, winning games here and there and dont have a team full of thugs, criminals, rule breakers, etc., then the coach should be able to stay for as long he deems necessary. Im sorry, but I dont care how good of a coach you are, expecting a coach to beat X or T on a yearly basis is not a good thing to base performance evaluation on.

Lou Holtz said when he took over at Notre Dame, in his first team meeting he said "Men, expecting me to come in here and fix the problems with this program to win a national championship is like trying to fix a flat tire by changing the driver...a change is being made, but the problem is not fixed."

In some cases, this is true. A coaching change isnt always the answer to every problem with a football program whether its high school, college or pro. I think Ballard got this one wrong. They want to make a change, thats fine..they have that right. But their reasons dont appear to be right in this case.

This is right on it...especially when a coach is told you'll never be replaced or judged on a won/lost record...so then it comes to " we want more emphasis placed on academics..." which is already one of the toughest standards in the state...and now it's the coaches responsibility...hahaha...this just smells bad...anyone who applies beware...and there will be many because it is a high profile position.

[sprocket]

Ballard is going to have a tough time finding a coach to replace Mark Catlett. IMO, one of the best in the state....and a great role model for student/athletes. He was replaced because he lost to Trinity too many times. I think his being a prominent voice in the Public/Private debates led some to think he didn't believe he could compete with Trinity. I'm not so sure Redmond would do any better at Ballard. I don't know Redmond, but I would be surprised someone at his stage of their career would want to make a change like this. But then again, the egos of football coaches often lead to surprising decisions:lol: