Why do so many people associate the size of the school with the talent level? I see so many times, " talent? they are a 5A school". I can see a difference in footbal because it means the difference between 20-25 players on the team and 80-100 players on the team, but in basketball most teams dress 12-13 players. In making this statement you would assume this week that the 4A-6A schools would dominate the 1A-3A schools because since they are larger they have more talent.

The law of averages dictates that the larger the population sample, the depth of talent should see a corresponding increase.

This years Sweet 16 is made up of:

 

1A - 0

2A - 4

3A - 2

4A - 2

5A - 2

6A - 6

This years Sweet 16 is made up of:

 

1A - 0

2A - 4

3A - 2

4A - 2

5A - 2

6A - 6

That's football enrollment. Shelby Valley and Newport both played in the All-A State Tournament.

 

A lot of it depends on the composition of the region.

Yea i was going to say isnt Shelby Valley and Newport 1A schools. They played in the tournament so in that case they are 1A so that makes 2 1A schools in the sweet 16.

It depends on what enrollment criteria you are using. If you use track and field classifications, there are more Class A size schools.

This years Sweet 16 is made up of:

 

1A - 0

2A - 4

3A - 2

4A - 2

5A - 2

6A - 6

 

I was not for sure of the basketball classes so if you know the correct classes, please correct my breakdown.

People saying that teams should "never" be bad or "always" be good because they are a 5A school or a 6A school is ludacris. Sure, they have more students to choose from but who says those students are good athletes or athletic at all?

 

I mentioned in another thread that Dunbar should be good in basketball. This is not only because they have 2200 students to choose from but it has been proven in years past in all sports that in amongst their 2200, there are some dang good athletes!!!

I'll assume that this whole thread is based on what I posted in the Dunbar thread and that's fair. As Jim stated, averages suggest that a bigger school should have more talent than a smaller school, just because there are more possible players. But it is up to the coaches at both school sizes to mold those players into winners.

 

For example, Billy Hicks is a fantastic basketball coach. But he has a whole lot of kids to pick from. Many of those players are very talented. Could he go to Burgin or Sayre or even a 3A school like Garrard County and win games? Probably, but not likely at such a high rate. The reason being he just wouldn't have enough talent to work with.

 

I'm not complaining and in no way am I suggesting basketball should be classed. But there should be more talent in the bigger schools and they should do better than smaller schools. What is impressive are the smaller schools that routinely do better than the larger schools around them.

To me it is not the size of the school, but the size of the program. A successful coach has a program, not just a team.

To me it is not the size of the school, but the size of the program. A successful coach has a program, not just a team.

 

I understand what you are saying. But how big can a program be at a really small school?

I was not for sure of the basketball classes so if you know the correct classes, please correct my breakdown.

 

Basketball does not have classes. I think the All A is an unsanctioned event and most teams that are classified in football 2A and lower qualify. Maybe even some 3A schools? Hopefully we will get an expert on here to clarify this for us?

Size of school is one key, but schools in Louisville are competing for those athletes too. The talented kids want to play for the bigger name schools. 22 or so schools draw from Louisville pool, but you can see the talent level is skewed toward a few programs.

 

Scott Count has a large pool to draw from and when you get the quality of transfer they have recent year it really negates the importance of just getting Georgetown's top talent.

I'll assume that this whole thread is based on what I posted in the Dunbar thread and that's fair. As Jim stated, averages suggest that a bigger school should have more talent than a smaller school, just because there are more possible players. But it is up to the coaches at both school sizes to mold those players into winners.

 

For example, Billy Hicks is a fantastic basketball coach. But he has a whole lot of kids to pick from. Many of those players are very talented. Could he go to Burgin or Sayre or even a 3A school like Garrard County and win games? Probably, but not likely at such a high rate. The reason being he just wouldn't have enough talent to work with.

 

I'm not complaining and in no way am I suggesting basketball should be classed. But there should be more talent in the bigger schools and they should do better than smaller schools. What is impressive are the smaller schools that routinely do better than the larger schools around them.

Hicks was very successful (not Scott Co. successful, but successful) at Harlan which is 1A and Corbin 2A so no "probably", involved high rate maybe.

I've always felt feeder programs dictate winning in HS basketball and football, especially basketball. Most of the good girls and boys teams in this state have excellent programs all the way up.