RowdyRedRam

What's with you green boys always trying to move out successful public coaches??? I sometimes think that there is a contengency in the private communities that feels the need to defame public coaches who have success. I don't mean that personally to you TigerDude13, nor do I mean to imply you are making up the rumor, but it is a trend I find to common and distasteful, especially when those rumors seem to reach the ears of rec league parents so fast.

That was the one.

National games tend to be one and dones.

http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=19591&format=html I found one of the coaches comments very interesting.

And those nice new stadiums need to be used.

In all likelyhood the districts would look as so. (I don't know the geographic makeup of lexington schools so districts 7 and 8 could have some teams swapped) D1Graves County,Christian County,Greenwood,Marshall Co. D2Henderson Co,Daviess County,Apollo, Meade Co D3North Hardin,John Hardin,Central Hardin,Nelson Co. D4PRP,DuPont Manual,Male,Butler, St. Xavier D5Eastern,Seneca,Ballard,Fern Creek,Southern,Trinity D6Conner,Ryle,Campbell County,Boone Co,Simon Kenton D7Paul Dunbar,Henry Clay,Scott Co,Tates Creek,Shelby co. D8Bryan Station,Lafayette,George Rogers Clark,Madison Central

There would likely only be one team fewer in the both Louisville districts (Iroquois would drop Shelby would probably be moved). Not that much of an impact.

While X and T are coming ahead with the championships, it would be wrong to say 4A is uncompetitive or thier opponets are cupcakes.

While I know it isn't the largest, X and Trinity get those honors. In the last 7 or 8 years anytime Manual plays in the east end they've had standing room only road crowds.

I think think you bring up the best arguement against it and I agree that schools have runs of good classes from time to time. However from my experiance you will rarely see a school make the jump from 2-8 to 15-0 due to a strong class. I think 90% of strong classes have a 2 year run. Lets say a school had a outstanding set of athletes that won a championship and then all graduated the following year. Odds are they won't be very successful in either class so what is the difference in losing in one class compared to losing in the other class. And if they are completely unsuccessful in the higher class they will move down the following year. However on the otherside if they are building thier program it is a great stepping stone.

It proves that the talent on the field is more important then the population it was picked from, and that population base doesn't create parity. I'm still disturbed by the notion that playing up is a punishment. The trophy they play for today proves they are the best among the 50 so odd smallest schools, in the other system they can prove where they stand among all the schools, and prove that they are better than 200 schools many of whom have more advantages. The trophy is just a peice of hardware that represents the accomplishment, if they accomplish more but receive less does that mean their season was less successful? I don't look at it that way.

When I last played against St X I was one of only 4 seniors who played, so we weren't exactly loaded with depth, and lost by a field goal. I only say that to describe that I know what it is like to be undermanned. But to go along with that, what if you did cut Manual's enrollement 2/3 and all the football players were still at the school. Would the fact that Manual now had 500 kids mean anything to the quality of football? No, it wouldn't. Numbers are only one of many variables that effect how good a team is. When Danville is far superior to thier current district foes in coaching, facilities, tradition, and talent, how does the single similarity in numbers justify them being in the same class? In another post people are going around in circles trying to make the numbers more fair, when that could only be fair if every team in every class had the exact same number of students. That can't happen and if numbers are the issue how does having two or three more students justify a going to a higher class? Also remember that in the system, Danville only has to compete against St X and Trinity if they achieve that level. And if they achieve that level of quality, what would be the point of them playing with lesser competition? If they couldn't compete in the Champions class then they would go down a class after a year. So in no way are they being punished. I seriously doubt that if I went into the lockerroom of any Class A champion and told them that they had a shot at the 4A champion that the players would turn it down.

With the talent at the skills postions that has been coming out of Kentucky recently it seems a shame that they come up with no one.

Break it down to what it truly is about. The class system tries to create parity, however it only uses a single variable to achieve that parity. Now think about what makes a team good. The size of the school IS a factor, but not the only factor. Coaching, football interest, facilities, quality of athletes and many other factors go in to what makes one team good and one team bad. My reason for creating this system is that it is rediculous to try to acheive parity though classes, because parity doesn't nor ever will exist. Forget fair, life ain't fair. So instead of fairness lets look at quality and divide teams up on that basis. We all know that it would be a bigger achievement for Danville to win the Champion Class than St X, no one would argue that. However to call it a punishment to get the oppritunity to "play the best" is completely uncompetitive, and down right sissy I might add. On other side of the token, don't you think the road to the championship becomes more difficult for St X and Trinity if they face the very best teams throughout the playoffs? What is a more difficult playoff route Simon Kenton, Fern Creek, Boone Co, Henry Clay, and St X or Lexington Cath, Highlands, Warren Central, and St X? I think one is significantly easier than the other. Is the system fair? No, and no system will be. But now ask yourself if it would be more interesting, exciting, fun, and competitive?

I can't view thier district competiton as peers when they averaged 56.6 to 6.4 against them. The ONLY thing those teams have in common are student base, which although quantifiable and significant is not proving to provide parity between them.

There is no question in my mind that the team Danville fielded in 2003 would have been a top 10 4A team. Why wouldn't they want to play with thier peers on the field? Is it more exciting to run through inferior competition? Maybe it is a fallacy but I simply can't understand that they wouldn't want to play the best.

I'm aware of that, however I don't think that is the "best" (notice I'm not using the word fair, because achievng fair is impossible) way of dividing the schools, therefore am providing what I think would be a more interesting and exciting set up for football. Regardless of that, would you find this setup more exciting?

Here is how I would like to see the classes set up in Kentucky. Let me warn you that this is a fairly radical idea that I don’t see ever coming to pass, but merely what I would like to see. There will be 4 classes. Champions- Top 32 teams with 4 districts of 8 teams apiece Top- The next best 64 teams with 8 districts of 8 teams apiece Middle-The next 64 teams with 8 districts of 8 teams apiece Build- The remaining teams (currently around 61) with 8 districts of 6 to 8 teams apiece All districts would be set up yearly and purely based on geography. Teams earn the ability to play up or play down a class. The eight teams that make the quarter finals of the tournament will move up to the next class the next season. The eight teams with the worst records will move down a class the next season. Worst records will be determined by a mathematical system that will only include games played against teams in you own district. The first three games of the schedule are open dates where schools can schedule any team they like, with NO impact on their district status. For example these games would be the opportunity to schedule rivalry games that may be obstructed by class changes, or out of state games, or others. You would be allowed to play games against divisional opponents that don’t count as well, that may mean you play a team twice, but that would be the schools choice. In each class team would finish out the remaining 7 games by playing your district opponents. The district games will determine what teams go to the playoffs. The top four teams in each district would advance to the playoffs. In the Champions class there are is one less playoff game due to the reduced number of districts. What I like about this set up is that it provides the most competitive games, the most exciting match ups, a real state champion, as well as rewarding teams improvement. It prevents St X from playing Iroquois or denying Danville and other small schools the ability to show how good they are. It allows developing programs to develop and rebuilding programs to rebuild. The biggest hurdle would be where you initially place the teams, although after about two seasons I feel like most every team will be where they belong. What do you think?

It isn't really a matter of the people involved feeling less proud as much as it is everyone else feeling it's less significant.

I don't think Beaumont really got the attention he deservered last season. I'm glad to see he is getting it now. He single handily took out Manual IMHO, everyone knew he was getting the ball, and how he was getting it but my Rams simply couldn't stop him.

Yes. They typically aren't the most atheletic teams in 4A. The difficulty in defeating them is that they are consistantly deep and well disciplined. If a talented team can meet them in the playoffs while healthy and plays a disciplined game they can beat them and go on to win the championship.

Than make those the two softest teams you can possibly find and play them both first.

If I wanted to be a head coach I would jump at the oppritunity. If I were the coach I would push on three angles. First in recruitment, no not illegal recruitment but recruiting as many boys to come out to play as possible. Sit in the cafeteria everyday and ask every boy you come across to come out, build the numbers. The second angle would be to focus on retainment. After losing seasons (and the first seasons will be losing seasons) many will want to quit, this would be the biggest down fall, keep the numbers high in the 60's to 70's if possible. The third thing is to schedual softly. Get the boys some wins and bring in some respectability, losing stinks and it stinks hard. It is much easier to play on a winning program than a losing program, each win makes things easier.

My first point is I think this is rediculous and doesn't make anything better. Schools don't have rights to students. My second point is a question. What about my alma mater, Manual who has no offical feeder school? Third point would be if this were inacted, they should make a provision that allows a student to declare that he/she will attend a school outside there feeder two years prior to recieve no penalty, if they declare one year early than they would have a one year penalty. That way if a student intends to attend a certian school from the get-go they can avoid punishment for thier geography living situation.

I'm tired of it because it has disgusted me. Mostly I find the lies, ignorance, and arrogance brought out by this debate, has led people to make assumptions about programs (on all sides of the arguement) and the people involved with them that shed them in dimmer light than they deserve.