To me the quality of Kentucky football is on the rise. This year seemed to be a big jump in over all quality of football in the state. I mean across the board. What say you?

 

And before we start, we can not compare every team in the state to Trinity, St. Xavier, and Highlands. That is not what I mean, I mean across the entire state, the overall quality of football.

 

I deal with 1A more then any other class, but to use it as an example: at the top we had several teams that were very competitive with each other. Beechwood, Hazard, LCA, Raceland; and we also had Frankfort, Fairview and several others that were all competitive with each other.

 

I know 4A and 5A had several quality teams at the top.

 

So, how do you think the state as a whole stacked up?

Kentucky football is getting better as a whole. I'm not getting into the who is better than who thing but we still have a long way to go. I have seen players from other state and have watched plenty of highlight films their are some great teams in the South. Texas and Cali are different all tgether. I love KY football and will support it till the day I die but we need to continue to get better and keep producing Top 25 caliber teams.

Butler, St. Xavier, Trinity and Male have won every state 4A/6A football title except one since 1992 and have been 13 of the 15 finalists since 1997.

 

 

 

Not really sure where I wanted to put the above stat but I did want to put it somewhere so there it is. Plus this can bring Ram's thread back to life, lol.

Edited January 2, 200917 yr by ScarHeel

I thought the state was down overall last year ...

I thought the state was down overall last year ...

 

Nah...you're just bummed about Tilghman and Mayfield going through a rough patch. In Tilghman's case, a minefield...

 

:lol:

A lot of people I talked to in Louisville during the state games felt like as a whole the teams were down this year compared to years past, I felt the same as well. There were years when a lot of schools had dominant programs. Talent wise, I feel the state was down this year.

My question is, were the predominate teams down, or where there more good teams around the state?

I felt the state was down as well. It seems as though alot of the teams I watched had been better in the past. The record may not show, but thats just how it seemed.

Edited January 3, 200917 yr by Ram
Rule 13

Overall maybe KY is getting better, but the gap between Trinity/X and the rest is getting larger and larger in the big boy class.

I think that the creation of six classes made it difficult for the state to get better. Before you get upset listen to my rationality. More teams make the playoffs. We had teams this season in the state that were way under .500 and made the playoffs. IMO I dont think this makes kids better. If they dont have to work to get better for the reward of making the playoffs, why would they. I think overall the state could be getting better, but I think it could grow by light years if it were still 4 classes.

I think that the creation of six classes made it difficult for the state to get better. Before you get upset listen to my rationality. More teams make the playoffs. We had teams this season in the state that were way under .500 and made the playoffs. IMO I dont think this makes kids better. If they dont have to work to get better for the reward of making the playoffs, why would they. I think overall the state could be getting better, but I think it could grow by light years if it were still 4 classes.

 

Just to play contrarian, I will throw another spin on your rationale. If you look at this year alone, then sure, a lot of sub 500 teams may have made the playoffs. Some of those teams probably won't get better. However, if you look at it in the context of more than a single season, it is bound to help. I'll use one example to back up my argument. Whitley County, by no means a sub 500 team, made it to the State Semifinals in 5A in the East. This was further than they had ever advanced in the playoffs, and was a real community event. We listened to the local radio broadcast on the bus for a while heading back north, and from the interviews they were doing, I would be surprised if their juniors and sophomores aren't already back in the weight room working to get back there (and further) next year.

 

I think it is hard to judge the success of a 6 class system based on the first 2 years, versus the longer term. It is going to take time for some of the emerging programs to build up their tradition of winning, but it is going to happen.

You could be correct. But I still feel that the feeling obtained by working hard and making the playoffs is the only way to make the contagious feeling continue. In today's day and age the reward system seemsto be one of the only ways that kids respond. I have seen other states' programs and I had no idea what goes on at the high school football level in other states until I saw it. It's crazy. And as far along as KY high school is. In the words of Bachman Turner Overdrive "You ain't seen nothin yet!"

Ram, I have been saying for years that Kentucky has pretty good football across the board. Kentucky doesnt have as many schools, but the talent, coaching, atmosphere and facilities are on the rise across the state.

 

I am blessed to get the opportunity to see a lot of football across the country and I really believe Kentucky football is underrated at the high school level.

Ram, I have been saying for years that Kentucky has pretty good football across the board. Kentucky doesnt have as many schools, but the talent, coaching, atmosphere and facilities are on the rise across the state.

 

I am blessed to get the opportunity to see a lot of football across the country and I really believe Kentucky football is underrated at the high school level.

That's my point. It seems that if some of the peritoneal powers are challenged, or if the top 5 or 10 teams are really close to each other, everyone says that football in the state is down. Maybe I'm an optimist, but when the above happens, I tend to think that maybe the quality of football is up.

 

I tend to see that each class is divided into four groups, the upper level, the lower level, and two middle levels - the upper middle and the lower middle. Everyone always has, say 20% at the top, and say 20% at the bottom, leaving 60% in the middle. I think the lower middle used to be the largest group, the teams that were on the verge of being good, but just could not put a really good season together. And then say another 20% at the upper middle. But, in the last several years it has seemed that the upper middle has increased in number and are now more competitive.

I agree with what your saying but what are you basing the categories on?