Why are St. Xavier and Trinity so dominant in Football

[Dlbdonn]

Duh , because they are good .

[Maroon Fan]

I thin that the involvement of their alumni programs are a big boost. It is head and shoulders better than any one public school's program. With backing like this, it is hard not to be successful.

[EasyPro]

Is this a serious thread? :laugh:

[Under the Lights]

I went to Southern.

 

They beat Trinity in 1980 I believe to advance to the state championship game.

 

In '79, '80 and '81 I believe they opened the season with wins over X.

 

While I was in school (74-78) Southern scrimmaged X every year and it was always very competative.

 

The bottom line in my mind is that the public schools have dropped the ball with regards to growing their football programs and now many want/expect the private schools to either "dumb down" to their level or to play in a separate league. There's no way that's right.

 

Just an observation, but I have read several posts that speak of the "lesser known" Louisville schools beating T and X in the past. Also, from my own experience, it seems like schools outside of Louisville had a decent measure of success as well in the past. Not necessarily winning, but certainly not getting blown out on a regular basis.

 

My question is, what changed? Are you telling me that the teams of the past at X and T "didn't work as hard" or "weren't as committed" or "didn't pay attention to detail" as well as the present day teams? Why are very few (if any) teams from Louisville or anywhere else competitive with T and X today? Sure you have your Bush led Male team, or Manual's great year, or Dixie, but by and large very few teams have been in a competitive ballgame with these two squads in the past 10 or so years. Even fewer have been competitive consistently. As referenced by alums of the two schools, this has not always been the case. Even Male, once regarded as one of the "Big 3", has been a lesser version of itself in recent years.

 

I have nay an axe to grind, but rather I marvel at what T and X have accomplished. I do believe that in the current system there is a distinct advantage to being a private school, but by no means is that the sole reason X and T have been successful. There is plenty of potential at either of these schools, but potential is just a ball on top of a hill.

[81rock]

Good question. I'm not sure, however, I agree with the premise. When I was at T ('77-'80), I remember a lot of forty and fifty point games, with 4 TD margins being expected. In fact, I think one of the biggest advantages Trinity had (and has) was the ability to get PT for younger players during the tail-end of games with large margins. I remember one game - Waggener, 1980 -- when the first team retired in the second quarter.

 

Back then, there was the occasional non-T, non-X team that had a run of good years. Butler comes to mind -- they won state in 1979. But we've had Male do the same pretty recently. All in all, it just doesn't seem all that different to me from when T and X really got rolling in the early 70s.

 

Incidentally, Bsihop David and DeSales, also private boys schools at the time, had very strong programs. But, they never achieved the way T and X did. I don't know why, but I've always thought it demonstrated that there is more to it than being an all-male private school "fed" by the Catholic grade school league.

 

 

Finally, one correction. Southern did not beat T in 1980 to go to the state final. (Maybe at some point; but not in 1980). Trinity lost one game that year -- to St. X -- and went on to win the state AAAA title over Paducah Tilghman, 31-8.

 

The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same . . .

[Under the Lights]

Good question. I'm not sure, however, I agree with the premise. When I was at T ('77-'80), I remember a lot of forty and fifty point games, with 4 TD margins being expected. In fact, I think one of the biggest advantages Trinity had (and has) was the ability to get PT for younger players during the tail-end of games with large margins. I remember one game - Waggener, 1980 -- when the first team retired in the second quarter.

 

Back then, there was the occasional non-T, non-X team that had a run of good years. Butler comes to mind -- they won state in 1979. But we've had Male do the same pretty recently. All in all, it just doesn't seem all that different to me from when T and X really got rolling in the early 70s.

 

Incidentally, Bsihop David and DeSales, also private boys schools at the time, had very strong programs. But, they never achieved the way T and X did. I don't know why, but I've always thought it demonstrated that there is more to it than being an all-male private school "fed" by the Catholic grade school league.

 

 

Finally, one correction. Southern did not beat T in 1980 to go to the state final. (Maybe at some point; but not in 1980). Trinity lost one game that year -- to St. X -- and went on to win the state AAAA title over Paducah Tilghman, 31-8.

 

The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same . . .

 

Did you have 40-50 point games in the playoffs? Or against most of the teams from KY that you played other than X?

 

Just from watching the last decade or so unfold it seems like the public schools, both in Louisville and outside of it, have been increasingly less competitive with T and X. Usually there will be one school in KY, other than the opposite rival, that will be competitive.

 

I guess my point was that, in the past, it wasn't entirely uncommon for a KY team to beat T or X. Teams even beat them in consecutive years. The one thing that sticks out to me is the disparity on the scoreborad in semifinal and finals games. I just don't remember it being like that in the 70's and early 80's (I am getting older though....).

[northfootball]

I predict Trinity wins 49 to 0

[Jaysie]

Some of you have been around my premise but no one has mentioned the public schools lack of community and "family". You may or may not go to the same school as the rest of your siblings, least of all your parents, uncles, etc. You don't go to neighborhood schools, just somewhere in the county. Transportation is a problem for you and there is no loyalty to go back when you graduate. No strong alumni, no support group.

 

Maybe, the court system is partly to blame.

 

X & T have "family". I'm sorry for the publics.

[Voice of Reason]

Some of you have been around my premise but no one has mentioned the public schools lack of community and "family". You may or may not go to the same school as the rest of your siblings, least of all your parents, uncles, etc. You don't go to neighborhood schools, just somewhere in the county. Transportation is a problem for you and there is no loyalty to go back when you graduate. No strong alumni, no support group.

 

Maybe, the court system is partly to blame.

 

X & T have "family". I'm sorry for the publics.

 

Interesting point. So the public schools in Louisville are still busing kids around versus having kids attend their community school? I know there are magnet schools in Louisville but beyond that how much actual busing is there?

[81rock]

Did you have 40-50 point games in the playoffs? Or against most of the teams from KY that you played other than X?

 

Just from watching the last decade or so unfold it seems like the public schools, both in Louisville and outside of it, have been increasingly less competitive with T and X. Usually there will be one school in KY, other than the opposite rival, that will be competitive.

 

I guess my point was that, in the past, it wasn't entirely uncommon for a KY team to beat T or X. Teams even beat them in consecutive years. The one thing that sticks out to me is the disparity on the scoreborad in semifinal and finals games. I just don't remember it being like that in the 70's and early 80's (I am getting older though....).

 

I think you may be right about the margins, when considering the playoffs. But I can think of a couple of factors that would tend to enhance modern margins, other than a change in the way Trinity and St. X do things. First, there are now more classes, more from each district in the platoffs, and more rounds of playoffs. I think -- just by intuition -- this would tend to create more blowouts in the playoffs, particularly in the early rounds.

Second, offense at the high school level is more refined than it was in the old days. Trinity was running a modified version of Nebraska's old veer offense. St. X was running ever more then than now. Aside from the absence of the explosive, quick-strike passing game we now see, the old way tended to chew clock and "shorten" games.

 

So, forty or fifty point margins in the playoffs? Maybe not as many. But the aforementioned state final was 31-0 in the 3rd, and could have been much worse, had the first team played the whole game. Perhaps the threshhold for taking the foot off the gas has evolved to a higher point margin than it was long ago as well.

[rockmom]

Interesting point. So the public schools in Louisville are still busing kids around versus having kids attend their community school? I know there are magnet schools in Louisville but beyond that how much actual busing is there?

 

 

There's not forced bussing anymore. There are "resides" schools, which you attnd in your neighborhood. And if you want to attend a manet program/school then you are free to do so if you are accepted. I see a lot of Public school kids on TARC busses, meaning they're providing their own transportation to school. I'm not sure how the school bus program works, to be honest.

 

Honestly, though, I can't say there's no sense of community among kids who attend schools outside of their "resides" area. Manual, for instance, as no resides area, and I doubt you'll find any school with more pride and support and buyin from their students. I actually think that kids having a choice of school helps that probability of a buy in. I also think that within schools themselves, whether there's a choice or not, it's the responsibility of the community there to foster a sense of pride and buy in.

[NUMBER 1 FAN]

Do T or X have many players that play other sports such as basketball or baseball?

[Oxnard]

Do T or X have many players that play other sports such as basketball or baseball?

 

At St. X., almost all the football players play other sports as well (basketball, baseball, track, wrestling, etc.). Our junior QB, Brian Beuhner, is also an outstanding tennis player for the Tigers. Some of the other players also participate on the swim team. If golf was not also a fall sport, many would also be trying out for the golf team. This is why we have such outstanding numbers competing on all of our athletic teams.

[sportsfan41]

Highlands is an Independent School (in other words a Public School) not a private school, just putting my 2 cents in there.

 

The same goes for Beechwood too...

 

Alot of people confuse this fact.

[sportsfan41]

There are a lot of young kids who dream about suiting up for X or T in football. I don't think you can say the same about our basketball or baseball teams. With the new arena, X is making a commitment to basketball. It will be interesting to see how things go with Klein, an alumnus, at the helm.

 

Don't think though that X just hangs its hat on football though. Through three fall championships thus far this year, X is 2 for 3 and has a runner up trophy as well.

 

I think they should just focus on basketball. :creepy: Please.:scared: