CoachJ

I forwarded that on my Twitter feed. One of the best crystallizations of why we do what we do when people we went to college with and make much more money than us wonder why we'd 'settle' for HS football coaching. Almost makes it better that it's not actually from a coach. Glad you put this on here, Dave.

Another good one is when the QB is under pressure outside the pocket and launches the ball about 20 yards out of bounds nowhere near a receiver. The flag comes out for grounding and people in the crowd go nuts yelling, "BUT HE WAS OUTSIDE THE POCKET!" :ohbrother:

Personally, I think when this scenario comes up, a team with the tougher strength of schedule should get to host (determined same way as we break 3-way ties: add up wins by 4 teams you've beaten & team with highest number of those gets to host).

First goes by top seed (overall records don't factor in in Kentucky until you get to tiebreakers). Ryle is the top seed in their district, but so is Scott Co. In that case, the home team in an EVEN year is the team in the EVEN-numbered district. Since Ryle & Scott are both one seeds AND both from odd districts, the Khssa made it where in EVEN numbered years the HIGHER-numbered district gets to host (lowest number district hosts in odd-numbered years). Scott Co is in District 7, Ryle in Dist 5. Thus, Scott Co gets to host.

Sorry; I mis-read...I thought the question was about Round 3 -- not the semis.

I'm almost positive the higher seed gets to host Round 3. The 'even-region/odd-region' contingency I believe comes into play only when both teams are the same seed.

This is right. Home team also pays a per diem for food for opponents. Not a proponent of having 4 from each district go for a lot of the reasons the original poster mentioned, but it's not a good argument to be against it due to cost to traveling team.

Feel ya on that one. Thought it was funny above someone asked about whether it was turf or natural grass. That's actually a good question up in NKy. -- but they'll be a long way from the Cincinnati skyline tonight, Coach Hawk!

Ballard played on it last week. I heard their players this week talk about how muddy and slippery it was. Said there wasn't much grass left on it.

Back to the topic though... Of the kids I saw this year, I saw two Sophomores that were men among boys. Best "combine kid" (height, weight, times, etc.): Herron (Trinity) Best "football player" -- Milton Wright (CAL) (Not saying Herron isn't a good player, just that he's a D1 coach's dream b/c of their emphasis on "measurables"). I've also gotten to see the Ratliff kid from Oldham on film and he's a very good football player. Hard-nosed and has good instincts; knows how to defeat blocks out in space. I concur with idea he could be a threat on offensive side. I didn't get to see him much other than than the practice I watched before doing their TV game, but the JONES kid at OC seemed to be a good player for a Soph. And CAL is LOADED for a 2A school in their lower classes w/ what I feel could be D1 kids: OL - Michael Lagestee ("only" 6'2, so would need to grow to be D1, but does not play like a Soph in the interior) QB - Austin Carr (6'2, 200) VERY poised in the pocket, good feet. Throws pretty nice deep ball, and if mid/short accuracy improves (almost a given since he's starting as a Soph and will get many game reps in a diverse offense) could be a 'big-time' kid. LB - Nathan Green (6'2, 220). ...and they have a 6'5, 230 OL FRESHMAN named John Young who seems destined for a big-time program with his height/length if his footwork and strength come along.

This post was not lost on me. Kudos, sir. Into the night. Into the light.

I'm not going to say I'm a proponent or an opponent of 1-9 teams getting in the playoffs, but I will say I understand the logic behind it by those who believe in it... It's not that everybody gets a trophy, but rather everybody gets a chance at the trophy. (I know, I know, they had a chance in the regular season to do better...I get it; I'm just telling you the rationale. I do know that a 4-seed Bourbon County one year won the state title so there's some precedent.)

I second this. Team has struggled in win column this year so he doesn't get the accolades if he were somewhere else, but KO's are out of endzone. Is nationally ranked based on his summer performances and several Power 5 schools are highly interested in his services.

I'm becoming a believer in the JC defense. I know Ashland was no pushover this year.

Nevermind...story I was going to post is too frightful.

Okay...I see your point. And I would say they belong in a group of the best 8 regardless of one loss IF they were certainly one of the best 8. My question is, losing to anyone, even as good a team as Trinity (who won by only 19 at PRP the following week) by so much at home--and also a shootout win against a not-very-impressive Bryan Station, are there really not 7 teams better in this state? There may not be, but I'd have to say these are definitely above them: * T * BG * Male * X * SK * Ryle ...after that, I can't really put Belfry there due to their one loss--granted to an out-of-state team I know nothing about, but the margin makes me wonder how they'd stack up against Ky's best 6A teams. Got to consider Johnson Central if for no other reason their Defense looks to be really good...almost all blowout wins where opponent scored once -- that usually means someone's varsity offense scored on their JV near the end. The knock on them though is that schedule (though I seem to remember Capital, WV is traditionally pretty good and they beat them pretty convincingly). Manual probably belongs--will know for sure if they either beat or play Male tough. PRP has nice talent, good coaching, etc, but what I saw in 2nd half against Male was troubling when it comes to considering them for a 'top 8 in the state.' ...and, by the way, I do think in the college playoff system if a very good team who has been ranked high all year gets blown out at home by Alabama, that would probably knock them out of the college playoff when comparing them with the other teams with only 1 non-blowout loss.

Lafayette is talented, but--and nothing personally against them--wouldn't losing by 38 at home to one of the teams on this list disqualify them from such a list?

I know Bert should speak for himself on this, but my guess is he's talking about the margin of victory making those in the 'bad loss' category.

Once I complained to an administrator in my building that with the growing number of players in our program from one year to the next we needed a few more assistant coaches. He said, "Coach, why would you say that? You have about 3 coaches to every one kid in your program." I responded, "I know you're not a math person, but how did you arrive at such a miscalculation." "Well," he said, "if you'd take those darned headsets off and just listen on Friday nights, you'd be able to hear the 200 or so unpaid assistant coaches sitting right behind you helping you call the perfect play." :lol2:

I'd like to say the same about PRP--definitely have a lot of GOOD about them...just something missing (unforced errors in key times of the game I think) that keeps me from thinking they can get over the hump. Got the athletes and the coaching -- just to beat one of the 'mainstays' it's as much about not beating yourself as having the horses and the gameplan. DEFINITELY have the athletes to compete if they can put together a clean game and they get some unforced errors from the opponent (and this year, I've seen all of the "big 3" make more of those than in my memory). When all is said and done then, I'd have to go with the one of those who is working closest toward not making as many unforced errors--that would be T.

Got to disagree somewhat... You are SPOT ON with X gaining the momentum by having Speed Option be their initial option (as opposed to how I felt they were using it as a "counter-punch" for the first half and most of the 3rd quarter). I think Male is (now) VERY good between the tackles (as you alluded to, especially since Wolfe moved certain kids to defense-mainly from offense-mainly), but if they have a weakness it's just off the edge and that's exactly what Speed Option exploits. So great job by X being willing to change tactics, even if subtly, to make the DL "stretch" horizontally using Speed Op, which then opened slightly larger gaps for Nelson on the more vertical run game they tried to start the game establishing. If you go back and watch the Ballard game, however, you'll see that Ballard did NOT expose a run-defense weakness -- they only had 40 yards rushing on 24 carries. They made the game a game by throwing to the flat and taking advantage of one receiver (Jordan Gunter) having a physical mismatch on one of their corners playing fairly loose coverage...allowed several balls to be caught in front of him for good gains and then there was a missed tackle on a flat route that turned into a long TD run after the catch. But you are 100% right that it was the personnel switches that made them better -- it's just that it was the TRINITY game that caused that switch.

You guys in Louisville are going to LOVE watching this game tonight on WBKI-32 at 8:00. It looks like a pretty convincing win for X, but this game had Male in control the first half. For almost all of the 3rd Quarter it didn't seem like anything was changing and you just kept waiting on Male to bust out a long play leading to a TD, then BAM...St. X just woke up on Defense. Something just...clicked and they played like the St. X defense of old. Then, the St. X offense found a rhythm by switching up what seemed like the original gameplan oh so slightly. Male doesn't have many weaknesses on D, but with this small change X found a small crack in the veneer and then exploited it. When that happened, it opened up the ORIGINAL gameplan more. Really a tale of two halves. Great game by two good teams. Oh...and there's a play at the end of the 1st half that's Sportscenter Top 10 worthy. Without that play, I think Male would've won by 10 to 14 points.

:sneaky: I knew you had....you never leave a stone unturned! Nice little intriguing stat.

Just curious...did you calculate for LEAP YEAR days in there?

Not sure if you're implying I am saying 'no talent.' My point would be RELATIVELY LESS talent than in their more dominant years.