rjs4470

Both teams are heavy into analytics, but do chase a more contact driven approach with rather than chasing the 3 true outcome approach. And the Brewers won the NLCS by outslugging the Dodgers. The Brewers and Rays are both very modern in their pitching approach, The Brewers lean heavily on a dominant, high-leverage bullpen loaded with power pitching while the Rays utilize trend toward focusing on pitching matchups and heavy changeup usage. Both teams are fun to watch, and it's nice to see these two teams with low payrolls beat up all the high payroll teams to make the WS. MLB will have a 1st time series winner no matter who wins.

Well, there's a pretty big difference between the Ivy schools and D3 so the situations aren't exactly the same and aren't competing for the same players. But at the D3 level, it certainly could, especially since there is already a pretty wide talent gap. But there are several issues that will probably prevent it from being a big problem. Many D3 schools operate in smaller communities with less available donors so there's less money available and will be difficult for long term donation commitments. Also since there is very little media coverage of D3 football, there is very little exposure and thus there's little incentive for donors to get involved period. So while it could serve as an equalizer to offset typically much higher tuition costs, because the fundamental motivation for playing D3 remains rooted in academics and culture rather than professional sports avenues, NIL remains a tool for supplemental income rather than a way to completely overhaul the D3 system.

I think it's been slowly happening for quite awhile now. Not much has changed at the top but the depth has been diminishing year over year. I see it in other sports as well, not just football.

Getting rid of teams isn't something that should even be discussed.

Nothing. But what's so good about it? Because you could also say, what's wrong with going for it, because it doesn't matter how far it's kicked. Beechwood is just as likely to block the kick, or score on the first or second play after the punt. The point is, whether they punt or not is going to have zero impact on the game or the final score. Beechwood is going to score whether they get the ball on the 20 after turning it over on downs, or on the 50 after a 30 yard punt. There's really no difference.

100%. And instead of narrowing the gap, it widens the gap. I get that there are some smaller schools that can compete with the biggest of schools (and larger schools that will struggle to compete with smaller schools). But that situation is often more the exception than the rule. Shrinking to 5 or even 4 classes creates larger districts and adds puts already overmatched schools into more situations where they are forced to play bigger schools. Yes you could alleviate some of that by getting rid of districts, but still teams are going to mostly play schedules based more on geography...especially the schools with smaller budgets, who are also the ones who typically struggle the most. I honestly think adding a class would be more beneficial than subtracting. Something along the lines of 24 teams in the largest and smallest classes, and then the rest divided up into 5 classes, which would result in 2A-5A having around 35 teams. Top 16 teams in each class make the playoffs (so 4 weeks of playoffs).

Again, I understand. But I get the choice to not punt. Special teams is one area where huge gaps in talent and overall depth really show up. And it's an aspect of the game where serious injuries can occur with guys running down the field and having collisions at full speed. As far as playing the game the "right way", when one team is so much better than the other, there is no right way to play, for either side. In a game like this, for both teams, it's about putting your kids in the best possible situation and keeping everyone safe. If I'm Gallatin County's coach, I'm doing what I can to put my guys in a situation where they can have some sort of success, keep them safe, and move on to the next game as quickly as possible. I've been on both sides of games like this, and I have no issue with Gallatin going for it instead of punting.

I understand what you're saying. But when there's this much of a talent gap between programs, punting isn't going to do much to slow Beechwood down. Beechwood is just as likely to get a big punt return and either score or have a short field anyway.

I know it's a small state with only 47 football playing schools, but Delaware has 3 classes with the largest class only having 12 schools, and the other classes having 17 and 18 schools.

I've always been a fan of Wilson footballs. The pebbled laces make the ball easier to grip and throw. They do take a little bit of effort to break in. The Spaulding Alpha is good, but I think it falls short in the area of durability. A few years ago I got hold of a bunch of Baden Footballs, which were surprisingly good. I think their current model is the Apex. I've never seen them in use anywhere though, but I'd be happy to use them again.

I disagree that fewer classes would automatically improve the overall quality of football in Kentucky. Reducing six classes to four doesn't eliminate talent gaps; it just puts more schools into each class, potentially forcing smaller programs with limited rosters to compete against schools with significantly more depth and resources. Fewer champions and tougher paths to a title don't necessarily mean more competitive games during the regular season. And because geography is the biggest factor in who you play, you could actually increase mismatches for the smaller programs while the same powerhouse schools continue to dominate. I do agree that the incentive structure deserves scrutiny. If teams are discouraged from challenging themselves because of how RPI and district results affect playoff positioning, that’s a legitimate issue to address. But you can fix scheduling and playoff incentives without eliminating classes. The goal should be to create more competitive games and give more programs a realistic chance to succeed, not simply make winning a championship harder. The real question is whether fewer classes would improve competitive balance across the state or just concentrate championships among fewer schools. Those are two very different outcomes.

I think there's a legitimate conversation to be had about whether football's summer restrictions should be updated, but I'm not convinced basketball is the problem. Basketball allows more games because skill development comes from repetitions in live competition. Football is a collision sport, so the KHSAA has to balance player development with safety concerns. Those aren't identical situations. As for recruiting, very few Kentucky athletes in any sport are being recruited by UK or Louisville. Most college opportunities come from smaller Division I programs, Division II, NAIA, and Division III schools. Summer camps and travel ball can help those athletes get exposure they might not otherwise receive. If Kentucky football is falling behind neighboring states, it's worth studying what they're doing differently. But simply saying "let football do what basketball does" ignores the fundamental differences between the sports. The goal should be finding the right balance between development, safety, and giving kids the best opportunity to improve.

From what I can see, it appears that Board Drills are mostly banned at the NCAA level, aside from the two exceptions below: One-on-one pass rush or pass protection drills are still allowed, provided they do not occur within these confined areas. Coaches are permitted to conduct the Board Drill with or without pads if it is done at a walking or jogging pace.

That was my senior year, and my coaches had the exact same gear. It was all BIKE and Champion...from coaches gear to uni's where I was from.

It's still really, really hard no matter how talented you are. Because you're playing with and against guys who are just as talented, and in many cases maybe even more. And those guys are continuing to develop their talent in the offseason. Especially in football, where lifting, and studying/learning the system in the offseason is critical. And college baseball is such a daily grind for the 4 month season, not being able to work on football will be a huge disadvantage. And going right into that grind after a D1 football season is going to be hard on the body physically. It's been done, but the number of guys who do it, keeps getting smaller, and smaller. It would be great to see it happen.

I don't think this would hurt financially. Based on what I've read, this isn't replacing the current state tourneys in Florida. The top 8 tourney would be in addition to the existing tournaments. You'd still have a State champ in each class, you'd just have an open (or whatever you want to call it) tournament. In Kentucky, for football, this would probably mean going back to 4 or 5 classes, which is certainly doable. For the other sports that aren't classed, I really don't see how it would work, or even be necessary. Which is why I think you'll never see it. Financially, it would probably help.

I think it could work in baseball, basketball, and soccer on the boys side and maybe the same corresponding sports on the girls side. Those sports are more competitive from top to bottom, and tend to have different state champs every year. But since those sports aren't classed, and we've already got the district and regional tourney's that lead up to a 16 team state tourney, it would really be kind of pointless. Sure, some teams suffer from being in a deep region, but for the most part those state tournaments as they are currently formatted are pretty competitive, and likely wouldn't be all that much better or even different in a tournament made of the top 8 based on rankings. Football and volleyball though just don't have enough depth for this to work.

At what point does good business become "greed". If someone is willing to pay a lot of money for something, does that really make the person (or company) that owns that something greedy for selling as much of it as they can? It's 8 more teams, or 4 more games. I can't say I noticed all that much of a difference when they expanded to 68, and I doubt expanding to 76 will really make a noticeable difference one way or the other. You just get 6 games on Tuesday night instead of 2.

I wonder how many football coaches are open to kids participating in spring/winter sport workouts during football season?

Yes. There are many states that do computer based rankings (which I know aren't perfect), or a combination of conference/regional champs, and the next highest rated teams. Relying strictly on regions/district winners without considering competitive balance of those districts/regions is always going to leave good teams out.

If you do that survey in KY, the answer will likely be KY. If you ask that in other states, you'll likely get different answers.

No plan is perfect. And I'm not necessarily worried about getting the best 24 (or however many you choose). I do want to make sure we get at least the best 10 or 12 teams in, especially when the strongest few regions in the state have multiple teams that could contend.

If you're married to the district-regional method of qualifying, the easiest way would be to keep the existing format with the 16 regional winners, but adding 8 at large teams for a 24 team tourney. Seed the top 8 (using region strength), random draw for the remaining 16. Obviously, you'd have to have a method to select the at large teams and the region strength, whether RPI or some other computer based formula (and I know how much everyone hates that). This keeps most of the existing format, while not punishing good teams from strong regions, and will pretty much ensure you've got the best teams playing for the prize, while still giving the "little guys" a chance and keeping Cindarella alive.

Yes. But it's especially true here in Kentucky where all it takes is winning a few games in a weak region tournament. Kentucky doesn't even try to get the best 16 teams in.

Can't be the best, when all the best teams don't get in.