I got the best idea. Why don't we make it like this. Let's have Div. 1 with all the teams that think they can compete with the St.X., Trinity, Male, Highlands. Div. 2 are all the whinners and teams that can't compete with these schools and then we can make it fair for everybody. It is like stages in a baby or a kid riding there bike for the first time. When they feel they can take off the diapers or the training wheels they can come up to Div.1. What a great idea.

 

:dancingpa :thumb: :ylsuper: :banana: :banana:

I got the best idea. Why don't we make it like this. Let's have Div. 1 with all the teams that think they can compete with the St.X., Trinity, Male, Highlands. Div. 2 are all the whinners and teams that can't compete with these schools and then we can make it fair for everybody. It is like stages in a baby or a kid riding there bike for the first time. When they feel they can take off the diapers or the training wheels they can come up to Div.1. What a great idea.

 

:dancingpa :thumb: :ylsuper: :banana: :banana:

I will try and say it with a little more class than the slams you made, but a setup like the NCAA has. You decide what level you wish to compete with certain guidelines at each level.

 

No financial aid that is tied to an individual student would be one guideline.

School size could be another.

Why not have privates play privates?

Or do the old way.... at large champ play the champ of Louisville in 4A?

Leave it alone, I can live with the present system. I grew up in the days before everyone measured their validity by the size of your participation trophy. It should not be easy to win accolades of any kind, including a state championship and that is what your basically trying to do, create a trophy for the "other teams". I like the idea of knowing win or loose, we are playing against the best. Hollow victories against lesser opponents are just that. They are meaningless.

 

Put my team with Rocks please.

I will try and say it with a little more class than the slams you made, but a setup like the NCAA has. You decide what level you wish to compete with certain guidelines at each level.

 

No financial aid that is tied to an individual student would be one guideline.

School size could be another.

No financial aid to individual students is a deal breaker. Forty percent of the students at Trinity receive financial aid. High school athletics are of educational benefit to students. If they aren't, they should be eliminated. How can we tell forty percent of our students that they can't participate in a major portion of the educational program? I have no problem with rules that say that financial aid must be offered without regard to athletic participation. The current rules say that. Anything that tells us to discriminate against forty percent of our kids (based on their economic status) is just plain wrong. Would anyone vote for a proposal that said that kids that receive free or reduced price lunches can't play?

Leave it alone, I can live with the present system. I grew up in the days before everyone measured their validity by the size of your participation trophy. It should not be easy to win accolades of any kind, including a state championship and that is what your basically trying to do, create a trophy for the "other teams". I like the idea of knowing win or loose, we are playing against the best. Hollow victories against lesser opponents are just that. They are meaningless.

 

Put my team with Rocks please.

 

 

I was being Sarcastic

There is no way to slice it that eliminates T and X as the best in KY. Eliminate them from the 4A Title Hunt, and they simply become a bigger monster outside of the KHSAA. I say it's time to just do it, and get it over with so we don't have to have the same debate every 3 months...

No financial aid to individual students is a deal breaker. Forty percent of the students at Trinity receive financial aid. High school athletics are of educational benefit to students. If they aren't, they should be eliminated. How can we tell forty percent of our students that they can't participate in a major portion of the educational program? I have no problem with rules that say that financial aid must be offered without regard to athletic participation. The current rules say that. Anything that tells us to discriminate against forty percent of our kids (based on their economic status) is just plain wrong. Would anyone vote for a proposal that said that kids that receive free or reduced price lunches can't play?

 

Missed my point. The top division would be open to all schools who provide fiancial aid for tuition to individual students or possibly a school of specific size, like over 2,000 students. What can be considered to be cream of the crop like it is in DI, NCAA. If you are a school of 200 and don't offer financial assistance, you can choose to compete at this level, if you wish.

 

A DII would be for

Leave it alone, I can live with the present system. I grew up in the days before everyone measured their validity by the size of your participation trophy. It should not be easy to win accolades of any kind, including a state championship and that is what your basically trying to do, create a trophy for the "other teams". I like the idea of knowing win or loose, we are playing against the best. Hollow victories against lesser opponents are just that. They are meaningless.

 

Put my team with Rocks please.

So Highlands, Beechwood, Danville, etc, etc, all have hollow, meaningless victories in their state titles because they won it against lesser opponents than St. X and T. Can't say I agree with your thinking.

So Highlands, Beechwood, Danville, etc, etc, all have hollow, meaningless victories in their state titles because they won it against lesser opponents than St. X and T. Can't say I agree with your thinking.

I don't believe that those words ever came to my lips, much less out of my mouth. We have this debate over and over and over. I am refering to the idea of creating a seperate class for T and X just so my team has a better chance to dominate an win a series of state championships. We are currently a small 4A school, but 4A nonetheless. I would also not advocate combining classes so that Ludlow would have to face BC for a title anymore than I would advocate NCC facing St.X.. I hope I have made myself clear this time and BTW I threw away my participation trophies but still have my ring .

Missed my point. The top division would be open to all schools who provide fiancial aid for tuition to individual students or possibly a school of specific size, like over 2,000 students. What can be considered to be cream of the crop like it is in DI, NCAA. If you are a school of 200 and don't offer financial assistance, you can choose to compete at this level, if you wish.

 

A DII would be for

 

 

I can't see where that would do much except put schools like Holy Cross, DeSales, Country Day, CAL, LCA etc. into the top class. The schools that win most of the titles are already among the largest schools in the state (Trinity and St X for the boys, Sacred Heart and Assumption for the girls). If you set the size cutoff at a point where the number of schools in the top class is a reasonable number, it would look a lot like today's 4A.

I don't believe that those words ever came to my lips, much less out of my mouth. We have this debate over and over and over. I am refering to the idea of creating a seperate class for T and X just so my team has a better chance to dominate an win a series of state championships. We are currently a small 4A school, but 4A nonetheless. I would also not advocate combining classes so that Ludlow would have to face BC for a title anymore than I would advocate NCC facing St.X.. I hope I have made myself clear this time and BTW I threw away my participation trophies but still have my ring .

Okay. I am just trying to be clear that when you say that separating out teams by some means makes the victories hollow and meaningless, you are not including the separation out by size.

 

So you are okay with separation by school size but not other measures. Is that correct?

I can't see where that would do much except put schools like Holy Cross, DeSales, Country Day, CAL, LCA etc. into the top class. The schools that win most of the titles are already among the largest schools in the state (Trinity and St X for the boys, Sacred Heart and Assumption for the girls). If you set the size cutoff at a point where the number of schools in the top class is a reasonable number, it would look a lot like today's 4A.

I have to remember that most in here are dealing from a strictly football standpoint and I am looking at the overall picture. Probably would not be much of a difference in football. HUGE, HUGE differences in almost all of the other sports besides, track and field, cross country.

Okay. I am just trying to be clear that when you say that separating out teams by some means makes the victories hollow and meaningless, you are not including the separation out by size.

 

So you are okay with separation by school size but not other measures. Is that correct?

 

How is desiring to put the teams that dominate every year in another class not watering down 4A? That would mean that teams like Boone Co., Henderson Co., Tates Creek, etc., would have an easier road to a state title. Sounds like a hollow victory to me, since they didn't get better, they just had the bar lowered for them.

No financial aid that is tied to an individual student would be one guideline.

I like this. Since EVERY public school student gets ~ $8,000 from the government for his/her education (maybe more), I like the idea of eliminating this financial aid.