As for this thread...I've read through most of it and skimmed the rest.

 

Just a few thoughts to post...

 

1. The Numbers - The numbers do benefit Trinity. With such a huge talent pool to choose from, your odds of fielding a good team go way up. There's no way around that conclusion.

 

One argument I frequently see regarding that goes like this, "If the numbers matter, why don't they dominate every sport?"

 

The answer is simple. Football is the ultimate team sport. One great player cannot take over and carry a football team the same way they can other sports (like basketball). Also, weak links on the football field are more difficult to hide, IMO. Other schools may have some elite talent at the top of their roster, but the numbers help T and X more as you get past the stars...its easier for them to find quality football players to put all over the field and to have quality depth in the even of injury. So, simply put, numbers has a bigger effect on football than any other sport.

 

Now, to be fair, anyone who thinks numbers is the only reason, or even the #1 reason they're the best is wrong. The programs deserve the credit...that covers the coaches, administration, support, kids, etc...they have worked hard and I think the success they've had has bred success. They've built that tradition with hard work. Now the people who play for those schools don't want to be the group that has a letdown...it also makes more kids want to be a part of that. It means talented kids are going to want to play there. (I understand this because I think that's what's happened at Breathitt County. They broke through with a great run from '95-'98 and the football program has been much better on a year-to-year basis than it was prior to that.)

 

Numbers are part of the equation...not the whole equation.

 

2. Ty Scroggins and Central - I find this argument absurd, to be honest. How many titles does Central win if they're in 6A? To compare what they've done in 3A to other public schools in Louisville who compete in 6A is silly, IMO. Central has done a great job and they deserve a ton of credit, but lets not get carried away based on one good run. And, let's not compare them winning titles in 3A to schools competing in 6A.

 

A side question: Could the emergence of Central hurt some of the other public schools? Is it possible some of the talented kids who don't go to T and X will choose to play for Central and the chance to compete for a title rather than going to a 6A school knowing they can't beat T and X? Just a thought.

 

 

This debate is never-ending. I know some people don't like it when we say the public schools need to get better, but that's the only solution. You can't keep making higher classes of football in response to their dominance (and I absolutely believe we have 6 classes right now primarily because of these two schools). And, you can't kick them out and not let them compete.

 

The way things are, I don't think public schools can realistically expect to sustain the level of play that T and X do. However, I think they can sustain a pretty high level that could result in the ability to compete with those schools on a given year more frequently than they have lately.

 

Just my two cents...

I assume because of the success of Trinity and Lou. St. X, many people think that their teams are composed of some type of exceptional athletes. With rare exceptions, this is not the case. For the most part, the transformation, as freshmen, from pantywaists, pencil necks and bookworms to, as seniors, accomplished and skillful football players, is done through hard work and good coaching. This transformation can be done by anyone, any team, that sets their mind to it.

I write this as not a T or X supporter... but I couldnt pass up the chance to put my 2 cents in...

 

Several issues here...yes T & X "dominate" almost every year but its not like they are pumping out 20 Div 1 athletes every year either. Yes, you get your Brohms, your Finchs, but by and large, you might have 2 or 3 going D1 every year. But then again, so does Central, so does Male, so does Fern Creek, Highlands, etc. I dont think its a questions of getting all the athletes, I think as I have said many times before, its a combination of things and far too many for me to ramble on about right now.

 

The question I have is "What would you like to do with these teams?" Punishing them for winning is nothing more than sour grapes speaking, IMO. Every once in a while, there are schools that have their big runs. At some point in time, it will come to an end. Maybe some things need to change for that to happen, but it will happen. Beatty and Glasier are good coaches (not to take away anything from anyone else) but the fact is, they are good coaches that have the good fortune of being at good schools where football is a way of life. Success breeds future success and both programs have experienced good success. I dont see Glasier griping about Trinity since he keeps getting beat in the playoffs every year by T. But the fact that X beat T in the regular season shows that T is NOT invincible. The fact remains that T is a good playoff team and they know how to win in the playoffs.

 

I dont know what the answer is but I dont think pushing them out just to make it "even" for everyone else is the answer. What happens then? What would be said if you did that and all of sudden Fern Creek were to win 4 or 5 titles in a span of 5 years?? Are people in 3A going to be complaining about Central because all of a sudden they are "dominating" the 3A playoffs?? What will people want then?

 

I just feel that pushing T & X out of the picture in 6A is like trying to fix a flat tire by changing the driver. I dont think the real problem is being addressed...and even I dont know what the REAL problem is.

Exactly! And despite what was suggested in another thread, we do it (and always have) with kids from right here in Ft. Thomas. :thumb:

 

:lol:

I assume because of the success of Trinity and Lou. St. X, many people think that their teams are composed of some type of exceptional athletes. With rare exceptions, this is not the case. For the most part, the transformation, as freshmen, from pantywaists, pencil necks and bookworms to, as seniors, accomplished and skillful football players, is done through hard work and good coaching. This transformation can be done by anyone, any team, that sets their mind to it.

 

I don't think they are loaded with exception athletes.

 

I think they have their share of good athletes. Their biggest advantage, IMO, is the number of solid football players they have. With their numbers, they don't have to have a guy in their starting lineup that is a liability. Other schools may be able to match them at the top with athletes, but they can't sustain the quality all the way down the roster.

 

As for the transformation of players, that's a tribute to the programs and their coaches. They've generated a lot of pride in wearing that uniform...I would assume the majority of kids who want to play there want to be a part of that great tradition and they know they're going to have to work hard to do that.

7 coaches in 8 years....just a guess...

 

But IF the number of boys in a school is such an important aspect in a teams success shouldn't they by sheer numbers be better then most other 6A schools.

:lol:

I assume you're agreeing. :thumb:

I assume you're agreeing. :thumb:

 

Sure. :lol:

I think you are right on with most of what you say, but Bob Beatty and Mike Glaser wouldn't win any rings at 90% of the public schools in this state. Don't ever think that the coaching at Trinity and X is that far ahead of the rest of the state. It is ahead, but not as far as you would like to believe.

 

Don't believe me? Look at Trinity's brilliant OC and how well he did once he stepped outside the hallowed walls of the Rocks. No slight against him, just pointing out the fact that T and X have factors and setups that make coaches look good. Again, T and X's coaches do a phenomonal job, but I think a lot of public coaches are right on par with them. It's a wee bit different out in the rest of the world.

 

I disagree with this. I bet they could win rings running 50/60% of pubic school programs.

I disagree with this. I bet they could win rings running 50/60% of pubic school programs.

Not in 6A ...

Not in 6A ...

 

I thought we were talking all in this state (class n/a)?????

I disagree with this. I bet they could win rings running 50/60% of pubic school programs.

 

There isn't a coach in the state that could do that.

There isn't a coach in the state that could do that.

I agree!!!

I agree!!!

 

There are a lot of places that simply don't have the resources to do that at any level...and others that don't have the resources to compete at the level required by the class they're in.

There are a lot of places that simply don't have the resources to do that at any level...and others that don't have the resources to compete at the level required by the class they're in.

I have watched some bad teams play from Kentucky in my 10 years or so following the game and I do not know of one coach who could turn some of those programs around. Some of those teams who were losing when I first started following ball in Kentucky was losing then and still are now.