GCHS

I thought I heard that Mercer had received a grant for an artificial turf field... Either way, I am glad football will be moving back to AJ Stadium - it was always a great venue.

I was wondering who else would catch that. Lol. Nothing in the article itself indicates that it was intentional, though. Surely it didn't get written, edited, and printed without there being SOME intent.

... At least no one that matters. I guarantee the staffs at Boyle and Catholic know what they will be up against. Garrard's main advantages are style of play. They will be physical and run an offense that is tough to prepare for. Defensively, Coach Perry is one of the best in the game at putting his teams in a position to take away whatever it is you do best.

Whether or not it is overreaching is a different argument... You may have a point, there. How will it be enforced? Will this be yet another piece of paperwork coaches have to file? The questions go on and on. My main point is, why would coaches do more than half an hour of full contact drills, three days a week, during the season. What is to be gained? I never bought the idea that kids who beat each other to death are "tougher." It just seems like a recipe to increase the risk of fatigue, injury, and burnout.

By my reading of the rule, form tackling drills would not count as "contact," as there is a pre-determined winner. If you have live practice Monday thru Wednesday, that gives you 30 minutes of day of contact periods, outside of form tackling drills... I would submit that going more than that is silly, anyway.

This is overlooked... Chase was primed to have a breakout year, last year before being injured.

Good call - guess I was thinking of the old system, where only 3 got in from each district.

How about the fact that either, Garrard, Boyle, or LexCath will have an opening away playoff game - probably against Central... Ouch.

We absolutely MUST destroy this specialization = scholarship myth. It just isn't true. Athletes who specialize have roughly the same chance of getting a scholarship as those who don't. In fact, studies show that specialists may actually be LESS likely to get those scholarships. Specialization does harm athletes in several ways... 1) It increases injuries... Whereas multi-sport athletes will use several different muscle groups in the pursuit of different sports, one-sport athletes use the same muscles/mechanics - often, year round. The American Academy of Pediatrics has published studies showing that this results in the dramatic increase of overuse injuries. 2) It is driving an economic wedge between kids. With the proliferation of travel teams, club teams, and the like, your ability to pursue specialized sports is driven by the economic status of the athletes' parents. This is especially marked in baseball. If you pay ANY attention at all the MLB, you have seen the dramatic decrease over the last generation of black Americans playing baseball... This coincides with the rise of the "year-round" baseball teams over the last 15-20 years. 3) While I don't have any statistics to back this up, I BELIEVE that focus on specialization, and the chasing of unlikely scholarships, breeds a self-focus in the parent and athlete. Participation in sports becomes about big ME, little team, rather than big TEAM, little me. Sorry to go off-topic in my own thread. lol

1) The arguments about specialization and scholarships are bunk, in my opinion. First, the percentage of athletes who will receive a college scholarship in ANY sport is pretty small... And those who get them are often multi-sport athletes. 2) If your son is MS aged, I would argue that his coach has lost some perspective. This is exactly what I mean when I say "treating youth football like the BCS." 3) That girl's coach has definitely lost perspective.

I think my point is that whether a kid is great at 13 is not really always an accurate indicator of whether or not he will be good at 17. I have seen an awful lot of marginal MS players hit growth spurts, gain some maturity, and turn into really good HS football players. Conversely, I have seen a lot of really good MS players stop growing, see everyone around them catch-up, grow discouraged, and become marginal HS football players. I also don't think it is helpful for athletes when we treat youth football like the BCS. I am not talking about a "feel good," Kumbaya mentality - ensuring as much participation as possible has a practical benefit. Sure, you want to put a good product on the field, but I think the zero-sum idea that is creeping down into middle school is sometimes detrimental to individual athletes and their possible FUTURE growth. We have to remember that, just because it is a school team, doesn't change the reality of what it is - YOUTH football. What would things be like if we applied the same type of logic to other areas of life... If you weren't great at something for a few months when you were 12 years old - maybe you should move on to something else??? Seems short-sighted to me.

Too many coaches beat underclassmen to death on scout teams... I know numbers don't always dictate that you can completely split off Froshmores, but a lot of coaches do a poor job of using these kids intelligently. You don't have to kill each other every day to be a physical team.

Obviously, success is based upon WHAT you do with the system that exists... It just seems to me that, all other things being equal, MORE kids playing MORE football is better for all involved.

I think most programs lose kids in the following points: 1) After 6th grade - especially if they are playing MS... Not a lot of 6th graders are ready for MS football. Not ready for the contact, not ready for conditioning, etc. IMO, almost all 6th graders should play youth league. 2) B/W 8th & 9th - You lose those 8th graders who didn't play as much as they'd like. One school of thought is, "If they aren't playing they must not be that good." However, kids' bodies change a lot from 14-17 years of age. You never know what a kid will or won't develop into. 3) After Freshman/Sophmore Year. I put this one together, because it all depends upon the expectations. If a freshman realizes that a lot of playing time is unlikely, and accepts it & works, then they typically stick around another year. After the Sophmore year is critical because the kids actually kind of know what is going on, they realize they have improved, but may be frustrated with playing time... I think 1 & 2 would be alleviated somewhat by more teams, and thus more opportunities to play. The thing that middle schools did was eliminate the K-8 school - thus eliminating youth (12-14 yrs old) teams affiliated with multiple elementary schools in a district. #3 is all about what you do with those young guys... Do you beat them to death on the scout team? Do you have a full freshman/JV schedule? Do they have dedicated coaching or are they standing around? So on and so forth.

I don't know... I think it is the offense that best suits itself to a quick install. Mostly because you can rep the key parts of the offense quicker than just about any other scheme. You can do 2-ball drills for 20 minutes and get close to 100 reps for QB reads/FB path/HB pitch route. OL isn't much more complex. Obviously, July 15th isn't ideal, but it can be done - IF they have the right personnel.

I will also add a couple of points: - If a program has a MS, then the MS HC IS the 2nd most important person in the program. - Quality coaching is the X factor for ANY youth program, whether it is Little League OR MS. - Coordination b/w the HS program & the youth programs are important regardless. I have coached on the MS level - so I don't have anything against middle school... However, I agree exactly with gchs_uk9... It is just a numbers game.

That is exactly what I was saying.

I guess this is what my argument boils down to... The comments about quality coaching, involvement with the HS coach/program, etc., that you guys make about good MS programs could all apply to youth leagues as well. To me, it is just a numbers issue. Rather than having multiple teams of middle school-aged kids, there is only one.

Again... This is not a KYMSFA argument -- I am talking about the emergence of middle schools in the 90s and their impacts on football. I think if utilized properly, they can improve the quality of players programs get as freshmen, but I think the overall impact on numbers has been a problem, especially for rural schools.

I have seen several comments about MS FB, in general, but not a specific thread - so I thought starting a discussion might be good. FIRST OFF - THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A DISCUSSION FOR KYMSFA PLAYOFFS, but rather a general discussion about whether the development of middle school teams have been a positive or negative. My personal opinion is that, in rural areas at least, middle schools have been a negative. For instance - a rural town that had a good youth league probably had at least 4 teams of 7-8 graders, you figure 15-20 kids on each team, each getting a little bit of playing time, at least. That means a 3A program had 60-80 7th & 8th graders playing football in youth league. Enter middle schools: Now you have ONE 7th grade team and ONE 8th grade team (if you are lucky - most have to play an A team w/8th & some 7th graders, and a B team w/7th & some 6th graders). Usually, you can figure a roster size of 30-45 7th & 8th graders, as an optimistic figure for most 3A schools. It also contributes to the rampant specialization we see. Kids aren't stupid... They figure out which 5-10 kids are the best at each sport, then they look for another place to get time. As a result, I think schools lose a lot of players who are never going to be stars, but could be solid, productive, football players. What do y'all think?

Oh, well... You reap what you sow - Petrino should never expect honesty of anyone, after the way he has treated players, coaches, administrators, etc.

Just a difference in taste... I like the stealth gray - it wasn't a main color, just a pant color. As far as the logo, I don't think the school itself has ever settled on a logo. Some have the sword, some have the M like the Tennessee Titans logo. I have always loved Garrard's (at least apart from the vegas gold/maroon era). The current look - kind of like USC's uniforms - is really nice. The cardinal red & athletic gold are classic looks. Never have been a fan of the UCLA look, myself.

I think Danville should definitely be on the list... What about Beechwood, as well?

Danville is the best in this area, I think. Mercer's uniforms the last couple of years were pretty sweet. Garrard's have been good, as well. Hard to go against the Red, White, & Blue at Lincoln, but they are a distant 3rd in my opinion. I have never been a fan of all black or vegas gold, so that would put Boyle out of the discussion for me. the baby blue in Casey just kind of ruins their scheme IMO.

Probably hard to say, considering how many injuries they had last season.