I'm not sure why you are shouting at me (use of ! with every sentence).

 

All I did was point out some of my take. I'm not saying you have to agree.

 

You say "during that period of time most of the recent AA winners were in AAA." If your understanding of "recent" is the last 3 years then you are correct. If it's the last 10 or 15 (as the thread began with) then I'm not sure.

 

AA Champs

2005 Russell

2004 Belfry

2003 Belfry

2002 Breathitt

2001 Bardstown

2000 Boyle

1999 Boyle

1998 Caldwell

1997 Bourbon

1996 Breathitt

1995 Breathitt

1994 Danville

1993 Mayfield

1992 Danville

1991 Danville

1990 Fort Knox

 

Now I could be wrong but I only see two teams on this list (3 if you count Danville) that were once AAA. Bardstown was A at one time. Since Russell joined AA at least in '95 and Belfry in '99 it's interesting that neither played in a state title game in AA or won at title until Boyle, Lex Cath, Danville, and Mayfield were gone.

 

Just an observation.

Breathitt Co used to be AAA.

Allow me to elaborate, o-line. OSA was referring to a game played at Belfry during the 86 playoffs where the field was very sloppy and muddy and it is widely believed that it was not a result of Mother Nature.

 

Watusi, you have been very close to Belfry for many years! Was the field watered down for sure? I was at school the day of the game and saw nothing!

Allow me to elaborate, o-line. OSA was referring to a game played at Belfry during the 86 playoffs where the field was very sloppy and muddy and it is widely believed that it was not a result of Mother Nature.

Some Danville people accused Russell of the same thing in the 85 playoffs. (Danville won in the AAA state semifinals 13-9 just for the record.) You would think that a school called the Admirals would not be so afraid of a little water.

Allow me to elaborate, o-line. OSA was referring to a game played at Belfry during the 86 playoffs where the field was very sloppy and muddy and it is widely believed that it was not a result of Mother Nature.

 

 

So the movement towards changing it to a non-contact sport began long before I thought! And if, as "widely believed", the conditions were man-made, were those conditions not equal for both teams just as if mother nature had dumped rain or snow on the field? :creepy: I'm not saying I condone creating artificial conditions, but what is the most common term for Astroturf? Artificial turf(which is what the Pirates play on now)? I've seen much worse things happen that I sure didn't think was worth mentioning some 20 years later, much less blaming a loss on them.... And I've been a part of playing more than one game on that field when conditions were not ideal and it didn't matter where any of the plays went. It was pretty much the same everywhere. And it was the same for both of us! :sleep: Geez..... Ideal world? I think not. :sssh: But there is definitely a groundswell of support for ideal conditions and, if allowed to happen, it will be the end of the game of football many of us know and love. :mad:

Watusi, you have been very close to Belfry for many years! Was the field watered down for sure? I was at school the day of the game and saw nothing!

 

It depends on who you ask, BJ. I couldn't say first hand whether it was or not.

So you mean that real football is only played on an artificial surface, inside a dome that's climate controlled? :lol: Let's hope that Arena football retains it niche, and the sport we love is still played outdoors in all weather conditions for many years to come! :thumb: It will be a sad day when it becomes a touch game played only in good weather conditions or indoors. :cry: I only hope our children can prevent that from happening, although I realize there is a lot of support from parents who believe their children will suffer injuries if the game, as played today, isn't changed to a non-contact sport! :irked:

 

No, that is not what I meant. I played in a dome 3 times in college, and I absoltely hated it. I am not referring to climate control or artificial turf. I'm talking about CHEATING. There is a difference. Playing on a field that is purposely altered is just as bad as playing in a dome. In that instance, you are actually controlling the elements yourself. That's the same thing as playing in a dome. I'm talking about a good surface that doesn't alter the natural athletic/football abilities of either team. If it rains naturally, you just have to deal with that. It's football. We can all understand that. That is not what happened that night.

Some Danville people accused Russell of the same thing in the 85 playoffs. (Danville won in the AAA state semifinals 13-9 just for the record.) You would think that a school called the Admirals would not be so afraid of a little water.

 

 

I believe that was in 1984. And, for the record, there is very little that the Admirals are afraid to face. Then and now.

No, that is not what I meant. I played in a dome 3 times in college, and I absoltely hated it. I am not referring to climate control or artificial turf. I'm talking about CHEATING. There is a difference. Playing on a field that is purposely altered is just as bad as playing in a dome. In that instance, you are actually controlling the elements yourself. That's the same thing as playing in a dome. I'm talking about a good surface that doesn't alter the natural athletic/football abilities of either team. If it rains naturally, you just have to deal with that. It's football. We can all understand that. That is not what happened that night.

 

It may be considered bad sportsmanship to water down your field, but it definitely is not cheating. That is going too far. It is the home team responsible for field conditions and they have a LOT of lee-way. Over watering, covering the field, drying it with a helicopter, dumping sand, mowing the grass or leaving it long, are all ways of manipulating the playing surface. All within the rules.

 

There are a lot of coaches out there who cheat in one way or another, but altering field conditions, even if going to the extreme, is not one of them.

 

Sorry I let myself go down this path because it is not on topic of this thread. We can discuss the field altering topic in another thread. Lets let this one get back on track. :thumb:

I believe that was in 1984. And, for the record, there is very little that the Admirals are afraid to face. Then and now.

You are correct. It was 84. Still, water must be a part of that "very little". At least then.

You are correct. It was 84. Still, water must be a part of that "very little". At least then.

 

 

I was at the '84 game and none of our entourage said anything about "watering down the field." The conditions were less than ideal but that was the time of year and the weather. As far as Danville being "afraid of water" I would stack their 10 state titles against anything Russell has in their history. The Ads have been afraid of nothing in their program.

 

(I can't believe I'm defending the Ads so much being a Boyle grad and all.)

I dont know about the 86 game but the 83 game when Russell beat Belfry at Belfry, you could not see the markers, lines or stripes. The only thing you could see was the 8 orange pylons on the field. I remember this because it was the first time I played at Belfry. I asked a coach - "Where is the field ? " He replied " See that olympic sized swimming pool son, Welcome to Belfry." It had not rained in a month, and the field was totally under water. We beat Belfry anyway and it was the sloppiest game I have ever seen...... Thats strange, 2 games where the field was questioned??????

Go Figure !!

I was there for the 83 game and the weeks leading up to it and you are wrong about the weather. Even moreso, why would Belfry water the field against Russell, a power football team? It would serve no purpose.

 

Back in those days, Belfry's field was terrible, just terrible. It was mostly crab grass and some fescue on bad soil. On top of everything, it was also the practice field. Plus there were 6 grade school teams that played on it twice a week and the Freshman and JV squads had their games and practices there. So overuse is an understatement. You just couldn't get any grass to grow on it, period.

 

All it took to turn the dirt into sludge was 1 good rainstorm. The field never did drain well and it just turned into a quagmire with some rain.

 

I'm not defending the field conditions in the 86 Danville game, because I wasn't there. But in 83, I can give a personal guarantee that the field was not watered down against Russell.

 

And btw, the sloppiest game I ever saw (not counting the 2002 Belfry/Breathitt game) was the 84 Belfry/Russell game at Russell. It was pure slop, but nobody accused Russell of watering the field that night.

It may be considered bad sportsmanship to water down your field, but it definitely is not cheating. That is going too far. It is the home team responsible for field conditions and they have a LOT of lee-way. Over watering, covering the field, drying it with a helicopter, dumping sand, mowing the grass or leaving it long, are all ways of manipulating the playing surface. All within the rules.

 

There are a lot of coaches out there who cheat in one way or another, but altering field conditions, even if going to the extreme, is not one of them.

 

Sorry I let myself go down this path because it is not on topic of this thread. We can discuss the field altering topic in another thread. Lets let this one get back on track. :thumb:

 

OK. I will drop it. You call it what you want to call it, and I'll call it what I want to call it.

I was at the '84 game and none of our entourage said anything about "watering down the field." The conditions were less than ideal but that was the time of year and the weather. As far as Danville being "afraid of water" I would stack their 10 state titles against anything Russell has in their history. The Ads have been afraid of nothing in their program.

 

(I can't believe I'm defending the Ads so much being a Boyle grad and all.)

The fear of water was intended as a joke. Just trying to lighten things up a little. I do know that some Danville folks were accussing Russell of watering down the field. Not all but some.

The fear of water was intended as a joke. Just trying to lighten things up a little. I do know that some Danville folks were accussing Russell of watering down the field. Not all but some.

 

 

I'm beginning to think they just like crying, or watering of the eyes/field in general.