As long as the have nots (in terms of championships) continue to worry about the numbers or lack thereof, and ignore the preparation, coaching and talent it takes to win, they will continue to watch the championship game from the stands. If the have nots continue to do the same thing every year and expect a different result, they are fooling themselves.

Post one claims the domination of Xand T are due to enrollment being larger than the other 6A schools. Numbers and numbers alone.

You just made that up. "Numbers alone" was never a part of my argument. You and Birdsfan keep adding it to my argument for some reason, when it was never stated.

Let me throw in they would have trounced all of the poor 6A team listed and may have beaten X or T this year.

Don't claim victories you didn't earn.

 

And no you wouldn't have trounced Manual this year.

You just made that up. "Numbers alone" was never a part of my argument. You and Birdsfan keep adding it to my argument for some reason, when it was never stated.

 

...to shine a brighter light on the issue of numerical dominance that is shared by Trinity and X. More and more I see this as the paramount reason why they have the stranglehold on the 6A title. More than assumed recruiting, coaching, or just plain trying harder. These schools do have a significant calculable advantage over the rest of the class.

 

 

As you clearly state in your initial post (above), it was and is the entire basis of your argument.

I haven't read the entire post but whoever thinks a Kentucky school would have trounced Trinity or St. X this past season is crazy.

As you clearly state in your initial post (above), it was and is the entire basis of your argument.

Numbers provide a calculable advantage, that is the truth. The numbers are there. Those who argue the numbers don't make that big of a difference, I disagree but respect the opinion. I don't however appreciate how both of you are twisting my argument to say what it does not, I never say that is the ONLY reason they win, you two are making that up. And I also vehemently reject the arguments that the rest of 6A isn't trying or providing good football.

 

The last paragraph of the initial post states that the two would probably still be two of the best programs, they just wouldn't "own" it in quite the fashion they do today.

 

Would St X and Trinity be great football schools in the midst of Balastern and Malenual? Actually, they probably would be. But they wouldn't dominate the way they have.

According to the Ram people, numbers drive the whole wagon. You can't beat someone that has a higher enrollment.

We've gone out of our way (notice the phrase ceteris paribus in my last post) to point out that there are other factors involved, but that enrollment is a big advantage in 6A. One reason it's a big advantage in 6A is because it IS close to an all other things being equal situation in that it's a division dominated by Louisville schools, and there are a lot more similarities between the football programs of X and Male and Manual and Trinity than there is between MC and HHS.

 

That's why bringing up Highlands makes no sense.

Interesting, but Cincinnati Moeller has an enrollment of 930 students in grades 9-12.

If it's all about commitment and community support and things like that, then why is it T and X doesn't dominate in basketball, too? Do they not support that, as well? It sounds like the commitment, support, facilities and such are limited to football only at those 2 schools.

I don't however appreciate how both of you are twisting my argument to say what it does not, I never say that is the ONLY reason they win, you two are making that up.

I think we can let your words (as quoted) speak for themselves.

Don't have a dog in this fight, but it's obvious just from reading the posts that RRR's point was all about numbers. :eek:

In order to eliminate the private schools dominance of the 6A system we need to consider the following action Consolidation.

The difference between St X and T in numbers of boy is marginal 1397 to 1420. I used the average of the two numbering at 1408 and calculated their advantage in numbers over local 6A schools.

Eastern 30% (meaning Trinity and St X have 30% more boys than Eastern)

PRP 35%

Seneca 39%

Manual 41%

Ballard 43%

Southern 44%

Male 47%

Butler 48%

By making the following schools through merger we would create an opposite advantage to the one currently held by the private schools.

Balastern 1792 =21% (meaning Balastern has 21% more boys than STX or T)

BRP 1699 = 17%

Southerneca 1636 = 14%

Malenual 1567 = 10%

A quick look at the numbers will illustrate that consolidating these schools wouldn’t even match the current advantage that the private schools hold over the publics.

The point I want to make is not that we really need to consider consolidation, nor am I for the expulsion of X and T (I rather like competing against them), but rather to shine a brighter light on the issue of numerical dominance that is shared by Trinity and X. More and more I see this as the paramount reason why they have the stranglehold on the 6A title. More than assumed recruiting, coaching, or just plain trying harder. These schools do have a significant calculable advantage over the rest of the class.

Would St X and Trinity be great football schools in the midst of Balastern and Malenual? Actually, they probably would be. But they wouldn't dominate the way they have.

 

 

Numbers used from

http://www.khsaa.org/football/realignment/schoolenrollmentandnotesuseforrealignment.pdf

 

All I read on here is numbers. We've more than proven that a numbers disadvantage has little to do with the success of a football program. We've spent too much time on a rather trivial subject. Like I said either you get it or you don't. I'm done with this one.

The subject isn't trivial. Trinity and St. Xavier do enjoy a numbers advantage on the rest of 6A. No one is saying it's the only reason for their success, but that it is an advantage.

Since this is a numbers thread lets focus on numbers.

 

Football is a numbers game - up to a point. Then it because the other factors.

 

According to the NFL it takes 45 players on an active roster to field a competative time. Not 100, 80, 60 or even 50. Also 45 sounds right when you assume you need full squads on both sides of the line (11 x 2) and backups at each position (x2 again). So that comes out to 44. For analysis purposes lets assume 50 as the number of solid good players you need. So even though some of the numerically bigger programs will dress 100 players for games half of these simply do not factor into the numbers issue of a varsity game. Since size and physical maturity are key lets assume to be competative you need the majority of the varsity squad to be senior and junior players. So you need around 25 seniors and 25 juniors to play to fill out your roster. So now we have established that if you have 25 good atheletes from each class you should field a competative football team.

 

Now lets look at the available population - we all know the number of X and T. The have around 350 boys in each class. But if you look PLD, Henderson Co. and Henry Clay all have over 1000 average number of boys. PLD has around 287 boys per class. The lowest enrollment in 6A is Bullet Central at 664 or around 165 boys per class. So assuming the majic number for competative football is 25 per class for solid roster the big schools need to get their top 7% atheletes to play. The smaller schools in 6A need to get their top 15% atheletes to play. This also comes out to around 1 out 13 for the bigger schools and 1 out of 7 for the smaller schools.

 

The facts are that the spread of enrollment for 6A is more than 2x (1400 - 664 for a spread of 736). The other 5 classes have considerably less differential between the largest and smallest schools. 5A ranges from 651 to 502 (149 spread). 4A ranges from 501 to 411 (90 spread) and 3A ranges from 409 to 332 (77 spread).

 

Are 1 out of 7 boys playing football for the smaller 6A schools? Are they the top atheletes in the school? Because that is what is needed to compete with the bigger schools.

 

I think the discussion of whether 6A is broken is a valid one when you look at the actual numbers and compare the key numbers to the other classes. RRR has a valid point and it is an issue that is mainly a 6A one. Of course I assume this issue was even worse with only 4 classes but I am not sure how the classes were determined when there were only 4.

 

I dont know if consolidation will work. KHSAA deals with entities known as schools so everything is at a school level. Another alternative would to be make 6A about 1/2 the size of the other classes and reshuffle the remaining classes with more schools in them. When you look at the cut off points there was not a big difference between the low of the upper class and the high of the lower class. In the case of 5A/4A it was 502 (5A) and 501 (4A).

 

After that what do you do? The fact is that 6A schools need to get 25 quality atheletes out of each class on average to compete. Out of a population of 200 to 300 boys that should not be that hard. But it is appears to not be happening. Or if it is happening the other factors that came into discussion here (feeder programs, etc.) are critical factors and need addressing every bit as much as the actual enrollment issue.

The subject isn't trivial. Trinity and St. Xavier do enjoy a numbers advantage on the rest of 6A. No one is saying it's the only reason for their success, but that it is an advantage.

 

X and T are bigger but the big Lexington schools and Henderson Co. are not far behind. See my post above.