I think that a bigger factor with MBA was that Trinity is just not as good early in the season, especially in those years when the quarterback and receivers have not worked together a lot. The Trinity offense is complicated and takes a lot of time to get smooth.

 

As an outsider, I must say that, while I would agree that a complicated offense may take time to come together, I think there is some validity to leatherneck's premise that "the lack of true and consistent competition" may be on target.

 

Look at the 20 years (1983-2002) prior to the Trinity's 0-4 start in 2003. Trinity went 78-6 (93% winning percentage) in its 84 games played before its yearly game with St. X, usually in Week 4 or 5, and they won 18 of 20 openers. In the four subsequent years (2003-2006) versus MBA, they lost 3 of 4 openers, and outside of the other three pre-St. X losses in 2003 (by a point each to Seneca and Male and by a TD to Cincy St. X), they won all of their pre-Louisville St. X games between 2003-2006.

 

As an MBA fan, I'd respectfully add that we haven't necessarily gone downhill (i.e., MBA became better later in the season as well) after the early part of the season (with the exception of 2006, when injuries decimated the team en route to its first losing season in 24 years).

As an outsider, I must say that, while I would agree that a complicated offense may take time to come together, I think there is some validity to leatherneck's premise that "the lack of true and consistent competition" may be on target.

 

Look at the 20 years (1983-2002) prior to the Trinity's 0-4 start in 2003. Trinity went 78-6 (93% winning percentage) in its 84 games played before its yearly game with St. X, usually in Week 4 or 5, and they won 18 of 20 openers. In the four subsequent years (2003-2006) versus MBA, they lost 3 of 4 openers, and outside of the other three pre-St. X losses in 2003 (by a point each to Seneca and Male and by a TD to Cincy St. X), they won all of their pre-Louisville St. X games between 2003-2006.

 

As an MBA fan, I'd respectfully add that we haven't necessarily gone downhill (i.e., MBA became better later in the season as well) after the early part of the season (with the exception of 2006, when injuries decimated the team en route to its first losing season in 24 years).

 

 

That was Manual in '03. :thumb:

That was Manual in '03. :thumb:

 

Yes, my bad.

Originally Posted by strongopenyon

A 47-31 game is not a close game in my opinion.

 

You weren't at the game were you?

 

You weren't at the game were you?

 

He never did/would answer that question - did he?

If it makes you feel any better, I was not at the game.

 

I have watched the game over and over on tape. Yes, Trinity played well early and were ahead until midway through the third quarter. At that point, St Xavier flexed their muscles and took over the game. My point was, a program like Trinity is not use to losing. For someone from Trinity to say, we lost to St. Xavier, but it was a close game is hogwash........you lost to St. Xavier by 16 points...........period.

 

Do you feel more informed since you were probably at the game, but have not watched it on tape ten times? I think not. Also, do you think Coach Beatty scheduled this game with the hope to keep it close for a moral victory. I think not.

If it makes you feel any better, I was not at the game.

 

I have watched the game over and over on tape. Yes, Trinity played well early and were ahead until midway through the third quarter. At that point, St Xavier flexed their muscles and took over the game. My point was, a program like Trinity is not use to losing. For someone from Trinity to say, we lost to St. Xavier, but it was a close game is hogwash........you lost to St. Xavier by 16 points...........period.

 

Do you feel more informed since you were probably at the game, but have not watched it on tape ten times? I think not. Also, do you think Coach Beatty scheduled this game with the hope to keep it close for a moral victory. I think not.

 

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

Let's see....I think you misunderstand the "Trinity" fan. The "Trinity" Fan is a fan of great football. The "Trinity" Fan is a person who is excited that Trinity does it's best to schedule the best. The "Trinity" fan recognizes that winning isn't always the best way to gauge the quality of your team/program. The "Trinity" fan is not afraid, or ashamed, to lose to a quality team (well...except X, but that's a whole 'nother animal ). The "Trinity" fan is proud of their team, even in defeat.

 

Nicely stated.

As an outsider, I must say that, while I would agree that a complicated offense may take time to come together, I think there is some validity to leatherneck's premise that "the lack of true and consistent competition" may be on target.

 

Look at the 20 years (1983-2002) prior to the Trinity's 0-4 start in 2003. Trinity went 78-6 (93% winning percentage) in its 84 games played before its yearly game with St. X, usually in Week 4 or 5, and they won 18 of 20 openers. In the four subsequent years (2003-2006) versus MBA, they lost 3 of 4 openers, and outside of the other three pre-St. X losses in 2003 (by a point each to Seneca and Male and by a TD to Cincy St. X), they won all of their pre-Louisville St. X games between 2003-2006.

 

As an MBA fan, I'd respectfully add that we haven't necessarily gone downhill (i.e., MBA became better later in the season as well) after the early part of the season (with the exception of 2006, when injuries decimated the team en route to its first losing season in 24 years).

 

I do not know who either stated or inferred your program had "gone downhill." I feel safe in saying the vast majority of Rock Faithful believe you have a tremendous program. Classy and outstanding. BTW, good job on the research.:thumb:

If it makes you feel any better, I was not at the game.

 

I have watched the game over and over on tape. Yes, Trinity played well early and were ahead until midway through the third quarter. At that point, St Xavier flexed their muscles and took over the game. My point was, a program like Trinity is not use to losing. For someone from Trinity to say, we lost to St. Xavier, but it was a close game is hogwash........you lost to St. Xavier by 16 points...........period.

 

Do you feel more informed since you were probably at the game, but have not watched it on tape ten times? I think not. Also, do you think Coach Beatty scheduled this game with the hope to keep it close for a moral victory. I think not.

 

(1) I did not have any feelings either way - whether you attended the game or not. If you did not and missed out on the entire atomsphere and ambiance - let alone a terrific football game - I regret it for you. I simply pointed out you failed to answer the other poster's question to you - I think twice.

 

(2) Your absolutely correct - Coach Beatty does not believe in moral victories either - I suspect.

 

(3) I apologize to even question your knowledge or football acumen. My total respect goes out to anyone who would watch the game film 10x. INcredible.

I did not say nor do I feel "any more informed" by being there. And I will know better in the future to even question you.

Just to add something here...and this may not be a very valid point...but one thing that needs to be considered in addressing the "why dont more KY schools play out of state teams?" question may have something to do with funding or lack thereof. As one coach told me "its not a question of whether or not we want to play outside competition from out of state, its a question of can we afford it...a lot of ADs and Principals are not willing to front the money to pay for travel cost to travel out of state." He also continued with "The bad thing about being in our situation is that we are not a 'recognized powerhouse' in which out of state teams would be willing to travel here and play us."

So this then begs the question....if you are a school that is typically running at an average of 4 to 5 wins per season...how do you get better by playing outside competition if A) you cant afford to go there, B) no one will come to you and play because you "suck" or arent worth the trip and/or C) you are left with having to play the other "underachieving, lower performing" schools year in and year out because you need 10 games and the better competition wont play you unless they are in your district???

Any even if you manage to go 10-0...it then goes back to previously mentioned arguments...you're 10-0 against teams that predominantly 4-6, 5-5 or worse. Which means you probably havent really improved all that much to compete with the Ts, Xs and Males....you're just the best "average" team out there.

My comment is the lack of games against the GCL and Tennessee schools hurts in getting prepared for the GCL and the Tennessee schools. My other point is as long as T views the out of state games as "preparation" games, then the other Ky schools needs to step up and beat the teams to uphold and further Ky football. If UK can beat the national champions with a kid from Manual at WR, and a QB from North Hardin, along with a host of other players from Bluegrass Nation, then why can't we beat ( not compete!) the best regional teams in high school?

 

Is it facilities?

Is it coaching?Is it the pre-high school development programs?

Is it talent? (Couch, Redman, Lorenzen, Brohm, Woodson, Bush at QB in the last few years,etc)

Is it the use of two way players versus 22 starters?

Or maybe we just don't believe we can beat them.

 

Having coached in Kentucky and now coaching in Texas, I would say these three are the reasons for a lack of victories by Kentucky schools over some teams from other states.

 

Texas high school football coaching is on another level. A lot of guys have college experience both as a player and coach and that makes a difference.

 

Any school that uses two way players will struggle against a team in the GCL that two platoons all of their guys. Fatigue makes cowards of us all and combined with the talent at these schools, the combination can make great teams look bad on a given night.

 

When Kentucky schools start having more success, then their will be that expectation of winning, which will lead to a different mindset during preparation and a better attitude going into a game. This can make the difference between winning and losing.

 

All of this said, I know I hopld Kentucky football in higher regard than a lot of posters on this site (based on comments in some other threads I have started). I believe Kentucky has some great programs that can compete nationally with other top programs. The question is depth. Highlands, X and Trinity can compete with almost anyone, and some of the smaller programs like Beechwood, NCC, Danville and Belfry can hang with any other small program in the country. The problem lies in that in Texas, there are 12 or so state champs in smaller classes that can compete with the smaller programs like Beechwood, NCC, Danville and Belfry and that doesn't include the top teams in those divisions, so there are probably like 40 or so teams in Texas at that level. You can say the same thing about the larger schools. I don't think the problem is at the top, it is in the lack of depth of great high school football teams in the state, overall.

I do not know who either stated or inferred your program had "gone downhill." I feel safe in saying the vast majority of Rock Faithful believe you have a tremendous program. Classy and outstanding. BTW, good job on the research.:thumb:

 

No one stated or inferred the MBA program had gone downhill, but there was an inference earlier in this thread that Trinity was not largely successful against MBA because the game occurred early in the season, before the THS quarterback and receivers had mastered a complicated offense. I made the "downhill" reference to MBA not relative to the overall program but to the course of a season; in other words, MBA (which itself had a complicated offense directed by a former 12-year NFL veteran QB) was better as those previous seasons wore on as well, making Trinity-MBA matchups later in the season potentially similar matchups to the ones that occurred at the beginning of the season.

I think it is a combination of some of the above and also some other factors. Money is sure one for a public school and I just saw where they are going to lose 7% more money. Not making any excuses but for a public school the money has to go towards all sports. Our school has to have fund raisers to to get things for the players and around here most people would rather support the band or the cheerleaders rather a football team. It is still a little backwards I think.

 

Until the day comes where Athletics and Academics can share some importance state wide we will continue to be behind the 8-ball as opposed to other states. And what people do not realize is athletics is all about academics, because if you don't make the grades during the week you don't play on Friday's or weekends.

 

Athletics is also educational as it allows for a kid to set and achieve goals, communication with their peers and also in the public. Acquire leadership skills as well along with time management in finding a way to fit in athletics and still maintain good grades and complete academics.

 

One last thing that hurts is a lot of players that play multiple sports across the state and not just play football or commit to just one sport. When a player gets to college they play one sport 99.9% of the time and they do not have other coaches pulling a kid another direction because he is athletic. Most of our football players as soon as we lost to BG went on to the next sport. There are a few that are strictly one sport high school kids and they will rise to the top and we will all know who they are.

 

 

Hope this adds a little more input.

 

This is huge. And when the educators realize this and understand that the student athlete is pulling double duty, then maybe the educators will understand what exceptional people they have in the athletes in their school.

 

I have never felt that the time put into the athletic programs: weight

lifting, spring training ,athletic camps, or charity work has really ever been given the recognition it should. I understand that the drama team and the band and the business classes put in alot of extra time and I don't won't to take anything away from that. Trust me when they get to college that is what the colleges are looking at. But the student athlete is also learning very many life lessons that I feel need to be taken into account when colleges look at these students. They may not be the next star of your team but they have sacrificed alot and come away with many life lessons in leadership and team work to just be ignored at the next level.

 

OK, I feel like Earl Pitts,"Wake Up America"

Over the past 30 years I have lived in Ohio, California, Texas, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnisota, New Jersey, and several others. I'm really not sure what the problem is in Kentucky with football. I do know this. Trinity, Highlands, and X would just be another team in the mix each year. I do know one thing. When you expect mediocrity you are going to get mediocrity. KHSAA is just not at the same level as these other states. Some day the leadership will change at the top and you won't see things like 0-10 teams making the playoffs. How can we expect to compete with Ohio teams when our own expectations are so low. We need to raise the bar. Just my view.

Over the past 30 years I have lived in Ohio, California, Texas, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnisota, New Jersey, and several others. I'm really not sure what the problem is in Kentucky with football. I do know this. Trinity, Highlands, and X would just be another team in the mix each year. I do know one thing. When you expect mediocrity you are going to get mediocrity. KHSAA is just not at the same level as these other states. Some day the leadership will change at the top and you won't see things like 0-10 teams making the playoffs. How can we expect to compete with Ohio teams when our own expectations are so low. We need to raise the bar. Just my view.

The truth!