It's primarily the "old" 9th Region, before the region was broken up and split off.

 

The Northern Kentucky Athletic Association, NKAC Conference, was restructured back in the early 80's to include all Northern Kentucky schools. It was then that some of the larger schools were designated Division 1, mid-sized schools Division II, and the smallest schools Division III.

 

It was split up primarily so that all of the teams in each division could play home and away, or at least once each season to determine an NKAC Conference champion in each division.

 

Basically, it was one big conference split into three distinct competitive factions.

 

All of the original participants have remained loyal to the NKAC, which continues to exist in that framework today, despite several of its members being re-aligned with different regions. The breakup of the 9th Region did not occur until 1996-97, long after the NKAC, with its three divisions in place, had been functioning as we know it today for nearly fifteen years.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

What's the purpose of continuing to recognize the 3 divisions?

What's the purpose of continuing to recognize the 3 divisions?

Why not?

 

There is much good competition within those divisions, and it gives the schools no longer aligned with the 9th Region a slate of games against other Northern Kentucky teams.

 

Ask Silver Grove of Beechwood if their NKAC Division III Championships mean anything to them.

It's primarily the "old" 9th Region, before the region was broken up and split off.

 

The Northern Kentucky Athletic Association, NKAC Conference, was restructured back in the early 80's to include all Northern Kentucky schools. It was then that some of the larger schools were designated Division 1, mid-sized schools Division II, and the smallest schools Division III.

 

It was split up primarily so that all of the teams in each division could play home and away, or at least once each season to determine an NKAC Conference champion in each division.

 

Basically, it was one big conference split into three distinct competitive factions.

 

All of the original participants have remained loyal to the NKAC, which continues to exist in that framework today, despite several of its members being re-aligned with different regions. The breakup of the 9th Region did not occur until 1996-97, long after the NKAC, with its three divisions in place, had been functioning as we know it today for nearly fifteen years.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

I remember when the conference championship was a big deal - for a long time back in the 60's/70's/early 80's weren't most or all of the parochial schools excluded?

 

Back then, however, there were no divisions, and I am still fuzzy about when the 3 divisions started. Also, what are the qualifications? They do not appear to go strictly on enrollment, since Holmes and CovCath find themselves in Division 3 while Highlands is in Division 2 - I think there are other examples of schools with lower enrollments than their counterparts in the same division. Is it a situation where some schools have opted to "play up" like Highlands does in football?

 

I am quite certain the championships by Silver Grove and Beechwood have meaning to them, to address your point. I am just philosophically opposed to classification, and hope that the Sweet Sixteen is never abandoned as determining the one true state champion. The move from 4 to 6 classes in football this year helps my argument because crowning six state champions obviously dilutes the meaning of being a "state champion", but the silliness is most evident because of the number of 0-10 teams that made the playoffs.

Don't forget that some of the smaller schools made up the NKIAC. St. Henry, Holy Cross and some others were apart from the NKAC at least until I graduated in '83.

There was no tie I can assure you but Romes was neck and neck with Vories in the voting. Those two played a lot of AAU ball together and had a lot of respect for each other. Romes is having a very nice college career over at the Mount and Vories is logging a lot of minutes down at Lindsey Wilson for the Blue Raiders as a sophomore.

 

Don't mean to keep harping on this, but is there a difference between 9th region POY and NKAC POY? Because I know that Romes and Vories tied on the NKAC POY award.

Don't mean to keep harping on this, but is there a difference between 9th region POY and NKAC POY? Because I know that Romes and Vories tied on the NKAC POY award.

 

I think this has been covered, but yes, there's a difference. There is only one regional POY award given covering the entire Ninth Region, and there are (3) POY awards given within the conference, one for each division. So I think that rather than stating that Romes and Vories "tied", it is more appropriate to say that each won the award in their respective divisions. There is, of course, the possibility that Romes and Vories did receive exactly the same number of votes (Romes in Div 1 and Vories in Div 2), but that would really be just a coincidence and not really a "tie" because it isn't like they were competing against one another.

There was no tie I can assure you but Romes was neck and neck with Vories in the voting. Those two played a lot of AAU ball together and had a lot of respect for each other. Romes is having a very nice college career over at the Mount and Vories is logging a lot of minutes down at Lindsey Wilson for the Blue Raiders as a sophomore.

 

Romes and Vories were both awarded 9th region co-player of the year. I am 100% sure.

I think this has been covered, but yes, there's a difference. There is only one regional POY award given covering the entire Ninth Region, and there are (3) POY awards given within the conference, one for each division. So I think that rather than stating that Romes and Vories "tied", it is more appropriate to say that each won the award in their respective divisions. There is, of course, the possibility that Romes and Vories did receive exactly the same number of votes (Romes in Div 1 and Vories in Div 2), but that would really be just a coincidence and not really a "tie" because it isn't like they were competing against one another.

 

Romes would have won Division III POY...not I. Hill won DI player of the year.

Romes would have won Division III POY...not I. Hill won DI player of the year.

 

My bad. BGP fatigue caused that, I think.

Romes and Vories were both awarded 9th region co-player of the year. I am 100% sure.

 

Thank you! I knew I wasn't going crazy.

Romes and Vories were both awarded 9th region co-player of the year. I am 100% sure.

 

Then why was Vories walking out on the floor at Rupp during the Sweet 16 to accept the 9th Region POY award? Where was Romes?

Check this out. The Thread from when they both won.

Then why was Vories walking out on the floor at Rupp during the Sweet 16 to accept the 9th Region POY award? Where was Romes?

 

Okay I got no dog in this hunt, but the player selected by the NKAC is NOT the one that is announced at the state tournament, is it? The player announced at the state tournament is the Ninth Region player of the year, which is not the same as the NKAC player of the year. I think you need Mustang in here to tell you the difference between the NKAC (the "old" Ninth Region) and the Ninth Region. I would still like to hear from someone about who votes on the regional player of the year award, though.