Then by that reasoning Beechwood should be able to beat any of the top 10 teams in 5A and 6A each season right? After all they are a quality program. Yet somehow I don't think they would fare too well against those opponents. Your argument only holds water when you take a high quality smaller school program and match it up with a very average or poor quality bigger school program. If you compare the small schools with the bigger schools of the same level of quality then the smaller school is almost always at a disadvantage. Especially if they don't have open enrollment to help them.

No, that doesn't make sense, because if they're a top quality program in 5A or 6A, like I said, they would be getting that larger percentage of players, and therefore have a larger pool to choose from. So, no, Beechwood should not be beating the better local programs in 5A or 6A. The whole idea that both Ram and I were trying to get across was that quality is the most important factor. Yes, if you're comparing too lousy programs, whatever the size, the larger one might fare better, but that isn't the point here.

Success breeds success!

 

A small school like Beechwood can have a big-time football program which will attract a higher percentage of football athletes than a small school with little or no football tradition. The perception of your school within the community is largely based upon your athletic successes, and serves to attract the best players to the best programs.

 

Good youth programs in the community also help, and can only benefit the schoools who become the beneficiaries of the talented players who graduate from those programs.

 

In this day and age of optimizing your opportunities to play in a championship program, the rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer.

 

The Highlands and Beechwoods of the worlds sustain themselves not only on their traditions, but also on contined success as a result of hard-work, hours and hours in the weight room, premiere coaching, and an army of support. In other words, by doing right things right from the bottom up.

 

All of the students in the world won't produce championships by sheer numbers, if none of the above is in place.

 

Basically, Bwood and FTH are magnet football schools............

No, that doesn't make sense, because if they're a top quality program in 5A or 6A, like I said, they would be getting that larger percentage of players, and therefore have a larger pool to choose from. So, no, Beechwood should not be beating the better local programs in 5A or 6A. The whole idea that both Ram and I were trying to get across was that quality is the most important factor. Yes, if you're comparing too lousy programs, whatever the size, the larger one might fare better, but that isn't the point here.

 

Your first line in response to Ram is very confusing: "I agree with you Ram that size is a bogus argument." Either size matters or it doesn't. You just admitted yourself that if the quality of the program is the same then size would be the determining factor. To me that would make size the most important factor because teams can work harder and control the quality of their program but generally have no control over their school size correct?

Your first line in response to Ram is very confusing: "I agree with you Ram that size is a bogus argument." Either size matters or it doesn't. You just admitted yourself that if the quality of the program is the same then size would be the determining factor. To me that would make size the most important factor because teams can work harder and control the quality of their program but generally have no control over their school size correct?

Read again. I in no way said that size wins out over all, as you are suggesting. Working to make your program the best it can be is the be all and end all. Nothing else matters. As I said, if your progeam stinks, it doesn't matter how big you are. What I was trying to say was that if you are comparing two poor programs, the only meager advantage one team might have is their size. Again, size doesn't matter if you make your team good enough.

Read again. I in no way said that size wins out over all, as you are suggesting. Working to make your program the best it can be is the be all and end all. Nothing else matters. As I said, if your progeam stinks, it doesn't matter how big you are. What I was trying to say was that if you are comparing two poor programs, the only meager advantage one team might have is their size. Again, size doesn't matter if you make your team good enough.

 

And again I'll respond with quality can be controlled, size cannot. That would make size the determining factor. After all I think you would have to say that Beechwood is as high a quality program as there is in the state. Yet they cannot compare to Trinity. By your reasoning that nothing else matters then they just need to work harder and make their program better and they can compete with Trinity on an even level.

 

Its as simple as this: a large team and a small team can have the same level of support and put the same amount of effort into their program in regards to conditioning, preparation, game strategy and getting the same percentage of kids out for football. Yet at the end of the day the smaller school would have signifigantly less talented athletes if everything else were equal since they can't increase the size of their school and thus their talent pool. Everything else in regards to the program can be controlled and thus improved--size can't.

The size thing is a factor when its 11 on 11 and the bigger school can have new fresh 11 start on offense and on defense per quarter like so of the Ohio schools but this is Kentucky and Highlands, Beechwood, NCC, and many other small schools with big time tradition and programs have been doing it for years. Why? Because of coaching, and the schools adminstration's being behind that coach and that program. Sure Trinity and St X have alot of numbers but if they didn't work hard, and they wasn't coached well it wouldn't matter who they had to pick from.

Basically, Bwood and FTH are magnet football schools............

 

True

And again I'll respond with quality can be controlled, size cannot. That would make size the determining factor. After all I think you would have to say that Beechwood is as high a quality program as there is in the state. Yet they cannot compare to Trinity. By your reasoning that nothing else matters then they just need to work harder and make their program better and they can compete with Trinity on an even level.

 

Its as simple as this: a large team and a small team can have the same level of support and put the same amount of effort into their program in regards to conditioning, preparation, game strategy and getting the same percentage of kids out for football. Yet at the end of the day the smaller school would have signifigantly less talented athletes if everything else were equal since they can't increase the size of their school and thus their talent pool. Everything else in regards to the program can be controlled and thus improved--size can't.

Again, quailty and dedication matter. Size only matters when nothing else is left to matter. And even then, it's the better prepared and coached team that wins.

Again, quailty and dedication matter. Size only matters when nothing else is left to matter. And even then, it's the better prepared and coached team that wins.

 

 

So by that reasoning Trinity just works harder than Highlands each year? Because Trinity would beat Highlands almost every year. Does that mean Trinity is just better prepared and coached?

To put it most simply: Size wins out if everything else is equal.

Here's my arguement that size does matter. I went to a playoff game probably ten years ago or so. Now both teams were in the same class which actually makes the numbers closer than they would be with different classes playing each other. One teams starters were better than the others, but because of a lack of depth that teams starters had to play both ways while the other team platooned. Third quarter the team with better starters is ahead, by the middle of the 4th quarter the tale kicking is on. What had been a very competetive hard fought game became a butt kicking for the team that platooned simply because they had worn the other team down. Even going way back to when I played at Frankfort High in the 70's we were very good and usually had over 40 players. We always wanted to play bigger schools and our coach made the statement that he thought in a one game deal we could play with anyone, but to play larger teams every week their depth would eventually wear us down. That came from a man that's forgotten more football than I'll ever know.

Here's my arguement that size does matter. I went to a playoff game probably ten years ago or so. Now both teams were in the same class which actually makes the numbers closer than they would be with different classes playing each other. One teams starters were better than the others, but because of a lack of depth that teams starters had to play both ways while the other team platooned. Third quarter the team with better starters is ahead, by the middle of the 4th quarter the tale kicking is on. What had been a very competetive hard fought game became a butt kicking for the team that platooned simply because they had worn the other team down. Even going way back to when I played at Frankfort High in the 70's we were very good and usually had over 40 players. We always wanted to play bigger schools and our coach made the statement that he thought in a one game deal we could play with anyone, but to play larger teams every week their depth would eventually wear us down. That came from a man that's forgotten more football than I'll ever know.

 

 

:thumb: That's the difference in a nutshell and I don't think I can improve on your explanation. I watched the eventual AA State Champ (14-1) Danville Admirals play toe to toe with St. X in '87 until the 3rd Quarter. Trailing 21-7, Danville went for a 4th down at mid-field and didn't make it. St. X capitalized, went up 28-7 and then wore down the Ads for a 41-7 win. Depth is a factor and more so as a season progresses.

 

BTW, that coach you speak of from Frankfort, you are right; he has forgotten more about football than I'll ever know. One of the most colorful and better coaches I've ever seen or met. :thumb:

 

I remember visiting at his house once in the early 80's and as I looked at his video tape collection I asked, "Why don't you have any football games in here?"

 

He replied, "That's my job but I'm not THAT crazy about it to have to watch it all the time." :lol:

^ He probably has loaned them out and they somehow didn't make it back.

Just remember,when we talk about the size of the school,we are talking about total enrollment,boys and girls. Now look at all the bigger schools with all boys,it would seem that they would have a HUGE advantage over any other co-ed school,with more BOYS to choose from.

 

Actually the classifications for football are based on male enrollment. That is one of the reasons why Central isn't in a larger class their student body is sizable, but it is mostly female.

Here's my argument that size does matter. I went to a playoff game probably ten years ago or so. Now both teams were in the same class which actually makes the numbers closer than they would be with different classes playing each other. One teams starters were better than the others, but because of a lack of depth that teams starters had to play both ways while the other team platooned. Third quarter the team with better starters is ahead, by the middle of the 4th quarter the tale kicking is on. What had been a very competitive hard fought game became a butt kicking for the team that platooned simply because they had worn the other team down. Even going way back to when I played at Frankfort High in the 70's we were very good and usually had over 40 players. We always wanted to play bigger schools and our coach made the statement that he thought in a one game deal we could play with anyone, but to play larger teams every week their depth would eventually wear us down. That came from a man that's forgotten more football than I'll ever know.

 

Your explanation is 100% correct. A team that platoons, has an excellent chance of beating a team that does not. But, that goes to team size, not enrollment. A smaller school could have a large number of participation in football and have 80 players, if the program is thriving. And a larger school program could be struggling and and have little participation.

 

Player numbers do not necessarily equate to the student body size.