It is without a doubt the primary factor. Any program that could start with 100 freshman basically every year would compete in 6A in the state of Kentucky. Without the enrollment numbers X and T have they wouldn't have these types of numbers coming out for football.

 

That said it is not the numbers alone. Schools like Henderson and Dunbar are examples of that. Both HC and Dunbar have close to the same number of boys as X & T but can't compete.

 

They don't get the "cream of the crop" however like the Catholic schools are able to bring in.

Do they have the same commitment to basketball as football?

 

I know that the Trinity b-ball coach (and staff) are very committed to the program.

Beechwood is mentioned and they are a small school. The numbers you have to choose from in a school helps, but more so how many come out for football. A long time ago when I played at Frankfort High which is a small school we almost always had over 40 out for football. Now with soccer taking some kids we're lucky to get over 30. Numbers is for sure not the only reason, but try practicing with 23 kids sometime.

If it is all about numbers, then why are so many insistent that Ft. Thomas Highlands is better than both Trinity and X? What is Highlands' boy enrollment? What reasons do Highlands supporters cite as contributing to their superior position?

 

Who made that statement? I think HHS would no doubt compete very closely with T & X but clearly are not better year in and year out. Several people have posted that T & X would "destroy" Highlands which is highly presumptious IMO.

 

The numbers are they numbers, kids gravitate to the best programs especially top notch players that may be looking to get a full ride on the next level. You get to play an extra 4-5 games a year and win state championships and play at the top level in KY in front of recruiters. It just snowballs on itself. The only possible solutions to this problem(if you see it as a problem) is for the publics to take thier lumps in the finals and hope to catch lightening in a bottle once out of every 15-20 years or to go to a 3 +1 or 4 +1 format.

To suggest that the numbers don't help or that T & X "make" better players is high comedy from individuals who just may need to take thier blinders off.:walk: I will say that numbers aren't the only factor and they probably do spend more time on films and weights than most publics do. In other words numbers help tremendously but aren't the only factor.

I'll list the factors that I see help us be the baddest around:

 

1 - Support, this comes from our alumni, current students, faculty, and staff.....

2 - Commitment, I mean while at Trinity, and even before......these kids have bought in since birth...

3 - FEEDER program.....I don't know why this isn't looked at more....this is a huge, HUGE factor in the seperation from us and those behind us

4 - Coaching...not only do we have skilled coaches (as do other programs), we have a bunch of them, which really helps to fine tune the teaching

5 - Numbers, sure they help, but mainly when we get banged up and such...they do help, but we were once very small and won....then we got bigger and won...

I think these are the next 2 reasons behind the numbers that T and X dominate. I think feeder programs are very important to get kids interested in football and also making sure they know fundamentals when they get to the middle school and high school level. I know that is one of Henderson biggest weak spots. My nephew played youth league this year so I attended a game for the first time. It was an absolute joke.

I agree with the posters that say the enrollment is one of the reasons, but not "the" reason. Committment, coaching, support and the rest of the other reasons posted by others play a large part of X's and T's success and any attempt to say that "the" reason for their success is their enrollment is wrong in my opinion. Also in my opinion, the reason that the other similar sized public schools can't beat X and T is that they don't have the other "reasons" present and X and T do. There are some football programs that do have the same level of excellence in committment, coaching, support, etc (Highlands, Belfry, Johnson Central, Beechwood, NewCath and the rest of the perennial powers come to mind quickly and I'm sure there are some others) and when those schools match up with a X or T, that is when the enrollment issue reallly becomes a factor.

Very true, act sleepy or not; twice the kids, twice the money, 15 times the boundary. They have great coaches, and kids, but quite an advantage as well.

If enrollment was THE reason then Dunbar would dominate Highlands, Beechwood, etc., and even Dunbar supporters would agree that is not happening. An acquaintance of mine said that when his son transferred from X to a public school (another Jeff Co. 6A), the amount of time he was expected in the weight room, at film sessions, etc. was a LOT less than when he had been at X. Maybe X and T expect too much from kids (that may be a topic for another thread), but to keep up with them takes lots of man hours.

Maybe X and T expect too much from kids (that may be a topic for another thread), but to keep up with them takes lots of man hours.

 

At the T-giving service, Glaser made the comment that the staff's goal (and the school's) is to give more to the players (students) than the staff (school) receives from the players.

 

I think a lot of the success can be attributed to that philosophy.

 

Numbers certainly help, but as others have pointed out (Beechwood, Highlands, Dunbar, Henderson, etc.) it's not the end all, be all. If it were, the largest schools in each class should win every sport every year.

Trinity and St. X were winning titles long ago when their enrollments were not anywhere near where they are today. In addition, the programs have the same number of boys participate now as they did 30+ years ago. More boys in the school does not mean more football players. Both schools always have and always will have a lot of boys come out for football. These other schools singing the blues about numbers obviously have plenty of boys to choose from the school population to match Trinity and St. X's numbers on the field, but for whatever reason the boys choose not to participate. That's not T and X's problem.

Trinity and St. X were winning titles long ago when their enrollments were not anywhere near where they are today. In addition, the programs have the same number of boys participate now as they did 30+ years ago. More boys in the school does not mean more football players. Both schools always have and always will have a lot of boys come out for football. These other schools singing the blues about numbers obviously have plenty of boys to choose from the school population to match Trinity and St. X's numbers on the field, but for whatever reason the boys choose not to participate. That's not T and X's problem.

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

BINGO

More numbers mean more time learning a specific position. More bodies in practice more opportunities to practice with a particular squad. This increase in practice time will equate a better product on the field. And winning equates to more boys wanting to be a part. Look at how qucikly Lexington Catholic grew in a relatively short period of time in terms of schools. It only takes being successful a little bit to pique peoples interests. T and X provide that interest by being successful. Give them 2 seasons of 2-8 or 3-7 and see how there numbers would fall - butthat will not happen anytime soon ( the 2-8 thing).

Talking about expansion, I was amazed at my one and only visit to Trinity. It is a very impressive place. The first room a brought into was the trophy room -wow. It is easy to seewhy a young man who may thinking of attending would want to go there after seeing that. I was ready to enroll! What I am going is this, Triniity - and I am sure that X does too- has an amazing Alumni Program - and not just for former athletes. I am sure that this brings in a lot of money ( or has in the past). Those kinds for numbers are hard to compete with! $$$$$$$$$$$$

I'm in a minority, but as an X grad/parent I do acknowledge the advantages X, T and other privates have in numbers and boundryless districts to draw in student/athletes. I will say too that X and T have been very good in football, winning titles etc..long before they had bulging enrollments, state of the art stadiums(X rented from Manual until 2006) and weight facilities(X had a shed with some free weights until the mid 90's).

 

The question now as I see it should not be why X and T dominate in football(that can be debated til the cows come home) but whether X and T have surpassed the public schools in football excellence to such an extent that it is no longer fun or fair for X and T to compete against the larger publics for KHSAA sanctioned titles? I think they have. With the exception of Manual's one TD loss to X last year in the regular season X and T have not been challenged by any public school in 2 years. Male has historically been the one team that has proven they can beat and compete with the "Green" teams on a regular basis. Even if Male has a resurgence is that alone a rational basis to have X and T dominate the remaining 99% of 6A teams? I don't think it is. I actually believe football seperation would be a win/win situation for the Green teams and the public schools. As it is now the Green players work their tails off to essentially play two competitive games a year against each other. A regional power conference and national schedule would be an awesome brand of football to watch and support. The publics would have their elusive 6A titles to compete for year in and out. I really hope Simon Kenton proves me wrong and competes well, but I'm seeing a running clock. The question is can football only seperation be done? Obviously the rules would have to be revamped, and special legislation may need to be passed(I think the KHSAA could pass a rule that simply states no single sex school with enrollment of over 1,000 for grades 9-12 is eligible for post season playoffs).

What about the smaller privates that don't dominate? Do we leave them in as is, or cast them out to play each other?

Other than seperation, I've pondered other solutions to level the playing field but none seem to be very practical. If you draw up boundaries, kids will move to the area, say they've moved or obtain a guardian in the area. Do we really want to pay detectives to see where Johnny's going home to eat dinner every night?

 

The other alternative is for the publics to get better. Easier said than done. I could see a Mike Jackson led Ballard program getting there, but as a whole I just don't see the player/parent/school commitment needed in most large public schools to reach the level of X and T. That's not a knock on the publics. It's just a socio/economic reality. Would the playing field be level if districts with more than 1 school( I think most, but not all ,6A schools fall in this category) were allowed vote in single sex schools? In Jeffeson County you would go from 20 something football teams to 10 or 11. How good would an all boy Ballard school have been if they they had all the boys from Eastern as well? What if Central had all the boys from Manual? I think the teams would be much stronger and with a little time could build the tradition to compete with the Greens. Would an added benefit be better schools academically and socaially(some studies advocate single sex schooling)?

Edited December 10, 200817 yr by Park1221

Deuce Finch is the the fourth Mr. Football recipient from a private school in the 23 years it has been awarded.

To address the issue about public schools breaking up their enrollments there is the issue with state law/regulations. The state restricts the size a the school can be built. In other words you can not (or at least it is VERY difficult) build a school for 2000 for a student enrollment of 1500 expecting growth of 500 students over a period of time. It is also not as easy as move the trailers and build rooms there. Different codes, restrictions, time, laws, and a number of other things. Public schools want their schools to succeed at all things yet education is their true purpose. By law there are things they must do. Those things come before sports.

 

Enrollment is a factor. Yes T and X were winning championships when the enrollments were closer but it was not at the level it is now. I believe if you begin to look at when the dominance truly began you would see it goes hand and hand with a growth in enrollment and changes within the program (Trinity upgrading weights as an example).

 

Title IX: I do not see how one can over look that it has no affect on T and X.

 

As far as why T and X do not reach the same level in basketball (I thought X did well in baseball). I am sure publics could tell T and X the same thing they are told when it comes down to football. I would think T and X would take high offense to those statements and POVs.