I will play devil's advocate and disagree. I think what we are seeing is an improvement in high quality football in Kentucky. Unfortunately, it is only a few programs leading they way to the level of football being played in other states. It is up to the rest of the programs in the state to step it up. Ten years ago, Kentucky's top programs very rarely could compete with the top programs in Ohio. I don't think that is true today. The Highlands teams of the past 5 years are the best teams in Highlands history. Trinity has a great run going. Other programs in their respective classes around the state are better than they ever have been. The competition at the top is very good. But the vast majority of prgorams in the state are still playing 80's and 90's football and running their programs no differently than they were 30 years ago. I think we have seen some of the best team's in Kentucky history in the past 5 years and those teams will keep it up and even go to an even higher level. The rest of the state needs to get it together and try to catch up.

Do the Highlands football "experts" on BGP agree with the assessment bolded above? HHS has never won four straight titles prior to this run, and from 2007 until the present the program has only lost two games, one being a two-score loss at Colerain in early 2008 and the other being a two-point loss at Ryle last year. Also, HHS won the Class 5A title game 50-0 last year, which is the biggest-ever margin of victory for HHS in a state title game. So, on paper it appears that HHS has been having an amazing run these past few years.

 

But, how do the HHS squads from the past four years compare to previous successful HHS teams from years past? Does a recent decrease in the quality of competition exaggerate what HHS has recently been accomplishing?

Good programs attrach good players. I don't think I am nieve in my opinion that parents will steer thier young players to a better program if they think that it will improve their child. In No.Ky. teams like Beechwood, Highlands, CovCath, and NCC all provide an excellent academic programs for the players (no knock on any other school's academics) but also insures that your child will be playing with other players that are able, and willing to put the extra effort into improving. Better competion in practice makes for better players on Friday night. Attracting a few good players can elevate a team from good to great. Pull a few players from any of the teams above , and you might just have a good team. NCC played last night with at least 4 starters out, and despite the final score, looked very beatable.

I think some of the smaller programs struggle to keep the programs afloat financially as well as getting enough kids playing to even field a team and it wouldn't surprise me to see a few of these drop football in the near future. There are other programs in transition such as in Mccracken Co where they're going to be merging schools together. I suspect in the next 5 years there will be closer to 200-210 programs vs the 221 playing now.

I think some of the smaller programs struggle to keep the programs afloat financially as well as getting enough kids playing to even field a team and it wouldn't surprise me to see a few of these drop football in the near future. There are other programs in transition such as in Mccracken Co where they're going to be merging schools together. I suspect in the next 5 years there will be closer to 200-210 programs vs the 221 playing now.

 

If there were 11-21 schools in Kentucky that were going to close/consolidate in the next five years, we'd have heard about it already. McCracken Co. is the only one I know of, and with Nelson Co. splitting after this year, that only leaves a -1 situation. There's been talk of an East Oldham and an West Laurel for some time now, so if anything, unless some small independent schools fold into their county neighbors (Campbellsville into Taylor Co. has been a persistent one for several years, but nothing ever comes of it), there are only going to be more schools playing in the future.

 

Or are you saying there will be that many current schools that just outright drop football?

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that there has been a change in football in Kentucky in the recent past. It appears that more and more games are not competitive (including some of the mid- to late-round playoff games). Also, it appears to me that there is a relatively small number of very good programs and a large number of mediocre/bad football programs, with the gap becoming more pronounced. Am I just imagining this, or is the overall health of prep football in Kentucky deteriorating?

 

I think it comes down to this, and that is sports is huge in society. So huge that all parents think their kids are the next best great sport stars, so they end up moving or even paying money for their kid to go to a school that has a top notch program. So it basically just comes down to the rich getting richer, because we see the most talented kids usually end up going to those schools. Yes they work very hard while there, but it is nice to be getting talented players at those schools to begin with.

It's been my opinion for quite a while now that a large number of KY schools have either consciously or unconsciously made the decision not to bother trying to catch up to the top programs. IMO there are a variety of different reasons they've made this decision, but the end result is the same: they've accepted being average.

 

My guesses at the top two reasons for the decision are: 1) they believe structural issues within their communities will never allow that level of success, and 2) they don't believe the payback from that level of success justifies the effort & sacrifice required.

 

Great post!

I believe it's a change in the culture, more than anything. Football, especially to play at the top level, requires a commitment. Not just during the season, but in the off-season as well. It requires weightlifting, conditioning, camps, studying, practicing.

 

Today, compared to 20, or even 10 years ago, high school kids face a hugely increased number of distractions. The Internet, video games, drugs and alcohol, the growth of competing sports (especially soccer), the breakdown of the family unit. It is harder to get kids into and keep them into a time and effort-intensive sport like football than it used to be. So the talent pool is slowly declining. Not so much at the top levels; the great athletes wlll usually find their way onto a field somewhere, with lots of encouragement from outside to do so. But the kids who fill your benches and practice squads are slowly disappearing. At schools where football is traditionally emphasized, they are better at fighting this attrition, and manage to keep more kids in the programs. The schools that aren't traditionally successful feel this drain more; their numbers slip, their talent slips, support slips. You're already seeing it in Class A. Programs that used to be strong and competitive statewide are crumbling (i.e. Paintsville). There are a few A teams that I think will stay solid (Beechwood, et al), but I think you will see more and more Class A schools drop football as interest slowly disappears. And I think you'll see that slowly work its way up into bigger and bigger schools. I expect someday in the not too distant future to see interscholastic athletics fold up altogether and probably be replaced by elective community/club sports, as is done in other countries across the globe.

 

And I'm also pretty certain that separating athletics from education would probably be for the best for both. Especially education.

I believe it's a change in the culture, more than anything. Football, especially to play at the top level, requires a commitment. Not just during the season, but in the off-season as well. It requires weightlifting, conditioning, camps, studying, practicing.

 

Today, compared to 20, or even 10 years ago, high school kids face a hugely increased number of distractions. The Internet, video games, drugs and alcohol, the growth of competing sports (especially soccer), the breakdown of the family unit. It is harder to get kids into and keep them into a time and effort-intensive sport like football than it used to be. So the talent pool is slowly declining. Not so much at the top levels; the great athletes wlll usually find their way onto a field somewhere, with lots of encouragement from outside to do so. But the kids who fill your benches and practice squads are slowly disappearing. At schools where football is traditionally emphasized, they are better at fighting this attrition, and manage to keep more kids in the programs. The schools that aren't traditionally successful feel this drain more; their numbers slip, their talent slips, support slips. You're already seeing it in Class A. Programs that used to be strong and competitive statewide are crumbling (i.e. Paintsville). There are a few A teams that I think will stay solid (Beechwood, et al), but I think you will see more and more Class A schools drop football as interest slowly disappears. And I think you'll see that slowly work its way up into bigger and bigger schools. I expect someday in the not too distant future to see interscholastic athletics fold up altogether and probably be replaced by elective community/club sports, as is done in other countries across the globe.

 

And I'm also pretty certain that separating athletics from education would probably be for the best for both. Especially education.

 

To start , I completely disagree with the highlighted statement .

 

You talk about the usually tradition rich schools that can keep kids interested. However, I look at schools like Louisville Central, Whitely, Lex . Cath. , Johnson Central, Rock Castle, Ryle. these are some new names. They seem to be getting kids out for football and growing. Old names to me are Belfry, Ashland, Male,Newport.

 

 

Also, what you are saying is parents need to get a clue. Get your act together for your kids because you are totally screwing them up.

To start , I completely disagree with the highlighted statement .

 

You talk about the usually tradition rich schools that can keep kids interested. However, I look at schools like Louisville Central, Whitely, Lex . Cath. , Johnson Central, Rock Castle, Ryle. these are some new names. They seem to be getting kids out for football and growing. Old names to me are Belfry, Ashland, Male,Newport.

 

Also, what you are saying is parents need to get a clue. Get your act together for your kids because you are totally screwing them up.

 

I do not suggest that athletics have no place in the development of children. Obviously, given our nation's obesity epidemic, physical activity is more important now than ever. However, school systems that are already budget-strapped are spending more money than can be justified on athletics, which are ostensibly for the players but really are for the benefit of those in the community, most of whom have no students in the school and may not even be connected. Otherwise, why would we sell tickets and make such a production? It is highly overemphasized, especially in the rural areas where education often lags already. Who can justify hundreds of thousands of dollars to put artificial turf and jumbotrons in high school football stadiums? How does that contribute to the mission of schools to prepare students for life beyond high school? I agree with sports in schools, but more as a physical education and much, much less as a community preoccupation. When superintendents and school board members are chosen and released on the basis of high school athletics, our priorities for our school have CLEARLY gone awry.

 

Successful schools keep kids interested. Nowhere more do you see that than in Ft. Thomas. Kids play for HHS, then graduate, then have sons who grow up dreaming of being like their fathers and one day playing for HHS themselves. Teams like that will survive for a long time. The schools where parents are involved will also have more child involvement - and that pretty much by definition includes private schools; obviously, if you care enough to pay for your child's education, you're invested in it. There will be programs that come and go with great coaches as they come and go; great coaches can make a difference. Obviously, winning will bring out kids. Losing will drive them away. I think though, if you average it out, the trend is going to be a net loss of kids. Not by sheer numbers, because the population is always growing, but kids playing football as a percentage of total kids attending schools.

 

And absolutely, parents are at fault. But that's not going to get better either. The family unit is broken. And decaying more every year. So you can't count on parents to motivate kids, because more and more have too many problems of their own to be proper parents these days.

I believe high stakes testing and the lack of administrative support is an issue at a lot of places.

 

That and the 6 classes spread the wealth way to thin. Just think if there were 4 classes, how much more competitive each class would be....I believe just as in our current society, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and you are seeing a decrease in the middle class.

 

oh come on!! LMAO is this the place to express your socialist ideas!? Winners win... winners work(hard and harder) this is true in life and football! too many NOT working or trying to work, but "taking" in this society! Don't try to TAKE anything away from the work done by communities supporting the good programs around the state.

oh come on!! LMAO is this the place to express your socialist ideas!? Winners win... winners work(hard and harder) this is true in life and football! too many NOT working or trying to work, but "taking" in this society! Don't try to TAKE anything away from the work done by communities supporting the good programs around the state.

 

Where did I take anything away from these communities and or teams...where did I say this is the way it needs to be? I just believe this is where we are going. And the fact you believe I am pushing a socialistic ideology is laughable.