There is one "restriction" on private (Catholic) school attendance in Jefferson County that is just a tad significant in my view. How about paying about $10,500 per year? If any public school parents want to fork over this amount, then they can free themselves of the public school "restrictions," whether real or perceived.

There is one "restriction" on private (Catholic) school attendance in Jefferson County that is just a tad significant in my view. How about paying about $10,500 per year? If any public school parents want to fork over this amount, then they can free themselves of the public school "restrictions," whether real or perceived.

 

For the purposes of athletics, that is totally irrelevant.

The issue on feeder schools is apples and oranges when discussing the public/private debate. For example, in Lexington, public school feeder middle schools are clearly defined and set. The private schools in Lexington who, under the archdiocese, is defined by what? 25 counties? I think even more than that. In Louisville, the private schools have no boundries, defined feeder schools, or limitations whatsoever. So, for example, if a young man wants to come say, across county lines or state lines, or from one end of Jefferson Co., all he and his family have to do is go. If that same young man wants to attend a public school, the family either has to buy and sell a home, pay fees, apply, etc. etc. It is a clear example of policy not being the same. Two sets of policies/rules/regulations. Yet the same schools competing for the same championships.

 

JD, I think you are hitting on one of the things that is key to this debate, and something that many people have a hard time coming to terms with: there are two sets of policies/rules/regulations. It has been set up very intentionally this way.

 

We are dealing with the public school system with its set of policies/rules/regulations, and we are also dealing with the private school systems, which have their own policies/rules/regulations. Both systems have well defined differences in curriculum, administration, organization and financial infrastructure.

 

Furthermore, the public school system is governed by the Kentucky Department of Education, and the private school systems are governed by whichever private entity, church, or diocese that owns them. The KHSAA is separate from all of these organizations, and does not govern how schools draw up their districts. It, instead, attempts to outline rules that will allow the schools from these various school systems to compete against each other in as fair a manner as possible in order to create a more genuine "state champion".

 

Without the KHSAA, we would be instead left having a "public school state champion", a "parochial school state champion", a "Christian school state champion", and a "Catholic school state champion". There may be some people who like that idea, but I for one, do not. I think we've all heard the arguments about class systems watering down the prestige of a state championship. Think what would happen if we had all of those various championship categories, each with 3, 4, or 5 different classes.

 

It's funny...but earlier today I read Leatherneck's post in a different forum in which he mentioned that he's "truly beginning to wonder if maybe the best thing for high school athletics is the elimination of all post season play". My first response was that he was being a bit draconian. However, even in the course of just writing this post, I can't help but see some real validity to his point.

I, too, brother, have lived in Louisville my whole life. The bottom line is that the boundaries that private schools have, which are none, are extremely larger, different, and in most cases, don't even exist. In public schools, that is not the case. The public schools in Kentucky and the private schools in Kentucky, are in fact, two different animals. For the purposes of athletics, not education or educational choice, or family autonomy, they are two seperate animals. Yet compete for the same trophy. 39 other states have recognized this and have complete or partial seperation for championship play (i.e. the playoffs). Why doesn't Kentucky?

 

My point is thus:

 

If parents are allowed the option of sending their child to any public school they wish,then what inequities are there between public and private? Eliminate the concept of school ownership of children and allow complete autonomy to parents.

 

They then would not, as you say, be different animals.

 

I still do not think they are entirely different animals as it is anyway.

For the purposes of athletics, that is totally irrelevant.

 

 

$10,500 is irrelevant for athletics?

 

Are you serious? That kind of setback isn't irrelevant for anyone.

Was born and raised in a tiny town next to futurecoach beloved Ludlow (Kenton County School District). Now he isn't old enough, but plenty of my friends who played Football with me were asked more than once to attend Ludlow. Now it was never the coaches or school staff but fans from Ludlow.

 

Now one of the Boys who I grew up with, did decide to attend Ludlow and play for them, so fururecoach don't ever try telling me that Ludlow never had a player who didn't live in Ludlow play for them. Just isn't true!

 

Hmmm please show me where I have ever said that even once, that Ludlow never had players who didn't live in Ludlow play for them. I went to Ludlow my whole life, but for about four years there, I was not living in Ludlow and actually was living where I should have been attending Dixie. So I know not all people who go to Ludlow live in Ludlow. That is not my problem at all. My problem is when kids attend one school most of their lives, and then when they get to be a 7th or 8th grader they get all kinds of different people talking to them about going to another school. Now I don't think it ever really is a coach who is doing this. As I said before to believe that the coaches never know of guys talking to players for them to go to school there is just nieve to think. Having a friend who is not an actual coach talk to a player is recruiting IMO. Does it technically break a rule then, no it does not. However its just quite sad, THAT AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL, that people would actually do this. High School is about giving kids an education, not playing football. Here is a crazy idea, how about just coaching whatever kids come to your school and not worrying about who does attend your school. If a student attends your school on his own, then great. However to many people have influences on these things. As I said before about the player I coach, I believed my friend did report that. And I said its kind of funny that after he reported it, he stopped hearing from those guys at all. Its kind of weird how they would just stop on their own, because unless they were involved with the school somehow or had someone tell them about it, then they would not have known that it got reported. Could it have been coincidence that they just happened to stop, after it was reported. Sure it could have been, but highly doubtful IMO. As I said before its not just with your school, and I didn't mean to single it out. I have a brother who was going to Ludlow, but had guys talk to him about going to Holy Cross for High School and then he did. It happens everywhere. So to act like it is not going on, is just wrong. It is definitely happening, and KHSAA either needs to monitor it better and take more action, or just allow it then. Let it be free game for any school to just talk to who they want then.

 

By the way this happened two years ago with the player I was coaching. I will talk to my friend who is the uncle of him, and see if he remembers the guys names who talked to him. If he does, I will send you a private message just letting you know it whom it was.:thumb:

For the purposes of athletics, that is totally irrelevant.

 

This is not irrelevant. These people have paid their dues into the public school system and are deciding to pay further for the right to send their kids to whichever private school they wish - to the tune of $10K. Private schools have athletic programs, and those athletic programs compete against public school athletic programs. How is that irrelevant?

Here is a question to people who don't think any recruiting is going on at private or public schools. If this was true, then why is there always such a big deal made out of it? Most people who do think it is going on, must have a reason for thinking that usually. As something that is usually said on here a lot. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Yeah maybe it might not be as bad as some make it out to be, but it definitely is going on.

My point is thus:

 

If parents are allowed the option of sending their child to any public school they wish,then what inequities are there between public and private? Eliminate the concept of school ownership of children and allow complete autonomy to parents.

 

They then would not, as you say, be different animals.

 

I still do not think they are entirely different animals as it is anyway.

 

I read about the rules in Jefferson County. I don't know how it is in other areas of the state. However, in N. Ky. students can attend any school they want, public or private, as long as that school admits them. The public school has to have the openings to accept an out of district student because they are required to accept the in district students first. But if they are below capacity, then they will accept out of district tuition paying students. The public schools usually charge tuition to the out of district students just like private schools, however the tuition at a public school is usually less than the private schools. So as far as I know, unless a school district specifically restricts it, parents are allowed to send their children to whatever school they want public or private.

Here is a question to people who don't think any recruiting is going on at private or public schools. If this was true, then why is there always such a big deal made out of it? Most people who do think it is going on, must have a reason for thinking that usually. As something that is usually said on here a lot. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Yeah maybe it might not be as bad as some make it out to be, but it definitely is going on.

IMHO these allegations are a bunch of " Sour Grapes "

Obvously the bolded part is not the conventional wisdom. If all coaches were as good as each other, then why would any high school, any college or any pro program ever fire an unsuccessful coach?

 

I didn't say all coaches are as good as each other. However there are plenty of good coaches who might not have as successful programs, who would be just as good of a coach as someone who has the players. Three examples just off the top of my head from the NKY area would be Coach Eckstein of Bellevue, Coach Hornsby of Ludlow, and Coach Borchers of Cooper. If you take Coach Eckstein and say put him at Beechwood, he would be just as successful as any other Beechwood coach has been because he is a very good coach. If you put say Rash at Bellevue, he would probably only have the same small success that Eckstein has there. The samething could be said about Coach Hornsby, I am sure the CovCath faithful on here will even say that he is a really good coach. However at Ludlow the fact is, he won't get as many good players to have really great teams. That doesn't mean he is not a good coach though.

 

I think the best example to what you said will be Coach Borchers. He is someone who I believe is a very good coach. Even though he is a very good coach, he still had a lot of people in Ludlow who was wanting him gone when he was the coach (Even though I did not agree with them). People only look at success at determing if your a good coach or not, however as I said you could be the best coach in the world but if you don't have the players then it won't translate to great success. I think we will see in a year or two how good of a coach Borchers really is. He has a lot of talent coming up, especially in the freshman class he had last year. So once he has the talent, then I think everyone will see that he is a really good coach. Yet while he was at Ludlow, people wouldn't have thought that, and that was just because he didn't have the players.

 

My point is, I just hate when people say people go to other schools because of better football programs. Some of these other programs, have coaches who would be just as good, they just need the players though. Instead of having one or two or more players come into their schools who could be the missing pieces, these guys usually lose those guys and could stop them from achieving more. This is why we always see the same programs every year be at top. Its much easier to stay on top, when you do get some help.

:thumb::thumb:

Here is a question to people who don't think any recruiting is going on at private or public schools. If this was true, then why is there always such a big deal made out of it? Most people who do think it is going on, must have a reason for thinking that usually. As something that is usually said on here a lot. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Yeah maybe it might not be as bad as some make it out to be, but it definitely is going on.

I didn't say all coaches are as good as each other. However there are plenty of good coaches who might not have as successful programs, who would be just as good of a coach as someone who has the players. Three examples just off the top of my head from the NKY area would be Coach Eckstein of Bellevue, Coach Hornsby of Ludlow, and Coach Borchers of Cooper. If you take Coach Eckstein and say put him at Beechwood, he would be just as successful as any other Beechwood coach has been because he is a very good coach. If you put say Rash at Bellevue, he would probably only have the same small success that Eckstein has there. The samething could be said about Coach Hornsby, I am sure the CovCath faithful on here will even say that he is a really good coach. However at Ludlow the fact is, he won't get as many good players to have really great teams. That doesn't mean he is not a good coach though.

 

I think the best example to what you said will be Coach Borchers. He is someone who I believe is a very good coach. Even though he is a very good coach, he still had a lot of people in Ludlow who was wanting him gone when he was the coach (Even though I did not agree with them). People only look at success at determing if your a good coach or not, however as I said you could be the best coach in the world but if you don't have the players then it won't translate to great success. I think we will see in a year or two how good of a coach Borchers really is. He has a lot of talent coming up, especially in the freshman class he had last year. So once he has the talent, then I think everyone will see that he is a really good coach. Yet while he was at Ludlow, people wouldn't have thought that, and that was just because he didn't have the players.

 

My point is, I just hate when people say people go to other schools because of better football programs. Some of these other programs, have coaches who would be just as good, they just need the players though. Instead of having one or two or more players come into their schools who could be the missing pieces, these guys usually lose those guys and could stop them from achieving more. This is why we always see the same programs every year be at top. Its much easier to stay on top, when you do get some help.

They probably wanted him gone because he was an NCC alumuni

JD, I think you are hitting on one of the things that is key to this debate, and something that many people have a hard time coming to terms with: there are two sets of policies/rules/regulations. It has been set up very intentionally this way.

 

We are dealing with the public school system with its set of policies/rules/regulations, and we are also dealing with the private school systems, which have their own policies/rules/regulations. Both systems have well defined differences in curriculum, administration, organization and financial infrastructure.

 

Furthermore, the public school system is governed by the Kentucky Department of Education, and the private school systems are governed by whichever private entity, church, or diocese that owns them. The KHSAA is separate from all of these organizations, and does not govern how schools draw up their districts. It, instead, attempts to outline rules that will allow the schools from these various school systems to compete against each other in as fair a manner as possible in order to create a more genuine "state champion".

 

Without the KHSAA, we would be instead left having a "public school state champion", a "parochial school state champion", a "Christian school state champion", and a "Catholic school state champion". There may be some people who like that idea, but I for one, do not. I think we've all heard the arguments about class systems watering down the prestige of a state championship. Think what would happen if we had all of those various championship categories, each with 3, 4, or 5 different classes.

 

It's funny...but earlier today I read Leatherneck's post in a different forum in which he mentioned that he's "truly beginning to wonder if maybe the best thing for high school athletics is the elimination of all post season play". My first response was that he was being a bit draconian. However, even in the course of just writing this post, I can't help but see some real validity to his point.

 

I have always been for keeping the state system as one, but with your thoughts, I am re-thinking my position. Too many inherent advantages for the private schools. If you want to have separate rules, then maybe we should have separate champions. The "bailout excuse" is always the same, and that is that the private school students pay money to attend these schools. Then maybe the private schools should just play each other.

 

I have been in both public and private schools, and have great respect for both sides of the equation, but like Futurecoach, my issue is with the "holier than thou" attitude exhibited by some folks. Just because you pay money doesn't make you better, just richer. We have seen many examples in society where a supposed rich family is brought down by scandal as to how they acheived their status. The more I think of it, the bigger problem I have with the public/private combo that is allowed to go on, and I promise you, I have been a huge proponent of keeping the staus quo as it is.

I have always been for keeping the state system as one, but with your thoughts, I am re-thinking my position. Too many inherent advantages for the private schools. If you want to have separate rules, then maybe we should have separate champions. The "bailout excuse" is always the same, and that is that the private school students pay money to attend these schools. Then maybe the private schools should just play each other.

 

Just because you pay money doesn't make you better, just richer.

I know that after I had 3 kids go through NCC for 12 straight years and spending close $50,0000 I felt a whole lot richer:popcorn: