RCC9

Scott Co of 2012 is not a team I would consider a powerhouse. After that, yes. And I think Lafayette was good last year. At the end of the day, I would stand by my statement that they are consistently still not the best of the rest. They have a great regular season, get ranked really high, they blow teams out, they score all kinds of points and then fizzle as soon as they meet a challenging team in the playoffs every year. So if it's not the scheduling, what is the reason they can never win the first challenging game they come to in the playoffs? Because you would think they would eventually get past their first challenging game at some point if they are prepared and the schedule had nothing to do with it. I hear a lot of times people say "the speed" of the other team got them. Well that comes with playing teams that have that type of team speed. If you don't see it before the playoffs, that's really hard to overcome. I really don't care who SK or anyone plays. I'm talking about what I think brings success. And I'm saying playing a tough schedule will always contribute to success. And playing a "banquet schedule" will always get you just that...a great banquet. Joe threw for this many yards. John ran for this many yards. Our defense held teams to this many points. We set scoring records on offense. These are all great banquet topics, but if you don't produce when you have to, it's really just talk.

So you highlighted my statement, but I don't see where that applies to who you listed. In 2012, Scott Co hadn't really arrived as a football powerhouse in my opinion. And the rest are not the big schools from Louisville. Other than Lafayette last year, all the others were considered a little above average. Everyone jumped on Dixie that year and they had a great run, but if I'm not mistaken, that was one of the cakewalk years to the finals for that side of the bracket. AGAIN, insert any team you want here that consistently has a great regular season record and falls short at playoff time. That's why I believe in scheduling strong.

Which of those teams do we consider a very good team?

How long does a team get to use "building a program" as a reason?

You can call Meade and Highlands just bad luck. No real way to know if they could predict that or not. But show me any competitive 6A team that even thinks about putting a 1 or 2A team on their schedule...regardless how good they are. SK is one of the biggest schools in the state. If they want to be considered a contender, then they need to play a schedule that prepares them to be a true contender. I would say that to anyone on any level. If you aren't completely game tested by equal or greater talent by the time the playoffs come around, then you get mediocre playoff runs. Again, I would say that to any coach of any sport. You have to challenge your kids every opportunity you get. Cupcake games show you nothing! Because things you can do against average teams are not going to work against good teams. Again, false confidence. And then those false confidences don't work, you have nothing else to go to. You have to take what you are good at and be able to adapt it to who you are playing. If you play teams and you "go to" strategy always work, you never learn how to react when they don't work. That's why you practice in practice and learn to execute in games (and adapt).

So 40% of the time they lost to a team that lost their next game. And in some of the cases where the teams went on to the finals was because of the draw. Not that they were necessarily the second best team in the state. That side of the bracket has had some absolute cakewalks to the finals. I'm not here to bash them. Insert any team name you want there that consistently has a good regular season record with blowout wins and then consistently doesn't meet expectations in the playoffs. If they were getting knocked out by the big Louisville teams or Scott Co every year, then it's a different story. But they are showing that they aren't even the best of the rest. High expectations that fall short every year and the question is...would how would you schedule. I'm saying I would schedule differently and I used SK as a reason why I would take that approach. As good as people want to think they are in the regular season, it's apparent they aren't playoff ready when the time comes. Blame it on whatever you want. But to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result...well we all know what that is.

I'm not trying to bash SK. But you are correct, they have won two games in the playoffs. But if you dissect that, it really wasn't that challenging to do. They don't have a strong district, so they are good enough to win the district and play a seed that probably doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway! (another discussion). So that's one win. Then they have typically played a fairly local team...who they have already beaten or would be considered not a very tough game. Then they get to the third round that is not a cupcake or a familiar team and they lose. So yes, they have won two playoff games each year, but I would challenge how challenging those games actually were. In many cases, the team they lost to often loses their next game. So are they even losing to really good teams? Again, I'm not trying to bash them. It's just my opinion that I would rather be completely tested so the game slows down against good team instead of speeding up. I don't think theirs and many other's schedule prepares them for that. It's not just them. There are teams like that in every high school sport.

I would never schedule a "gimme" game. All teams would be equal or above. You work on things in practice and execute them in games. If you can't execute against good teams, then playing a weaker team and executing it doesn't mean a thing! Playing good teams...f you don't execute it one week, you work on it practice and try it next week! And you make modification and fix what didn't work or creat options that makes a variation work if they stop the initial option. Gaining confidence by playing and executing against weaker teams is no indication how it will go when you face an equal or better. So it's almost like a false confidence that can landslide downward very quickly. If you are very confident in option A, B and C and you play a team that can take those away and you haven't experienced that during your season, all of a sudden you aren't so confident and you spiral out of control. That can happen very quickly in a game and if you aren't tested adequately, then you lose earlier than you wanted or expected to. False confidence is way worse than confidence that was built and tested. I say make it a journey and build it over the course of a season. Don't run a bunch of sprints (easy games) and then finish poorly at the end. SK is a prime example. And no, I'm not trying to beat them up at all. But they are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They have a ton of wins over the last couple years but no real run in the playoffs to get excited about. Everyone thinks they are good, but as soon as one real test comes, they fail. A friend of mine termed those type of teams as "banquet teams". Meaning their banquets are great as they celebrate another 11-1 season, but the big goal never comes close to being achieved because they didn't prepare for it. So in other words, he's saying they prepared for a great banquet. Again, I'm not trying to bash SK at all. They just come to mind in that situation.

Independence has come along way since 2004.

Her freshman year she also started the season in a horrible slump! One of those she just could not shake. Don't quote me, but I think she was hitting around 200 about mid season. She bumped it up to the 373 by the end of the season once she finally came out of her slump. Since that slump, she has been killing it. I know she hit right at 500 for her travel team (Cincy Doom) this summer. Doom is one of the top travel orgs in Ohio. She is seeing it very well and is a hard out. Her weakness is speed, so doubles and triples aren't as high as others, but she hits! She's a gap to gap kind of hitter that hits to all fields.

Well I'll have to look it up. I am her coach and I can tell you that avg is legit. I can also tell you she was nominated for all state and didn't get much. However I can also tell you 9th region doesn't get much respect at all when it comes to all-state recognition. So it never surprises me when kids don't get recognized. I will try to post her stats later. But I can also tell you that she has started at 2nd base for us since she was a 7th grader and that's on two teams that have made it to the state tournament.

Rachel Gabbard hit in the mid 500s as a sophomore for Highlands. I would think her name will be mentioned in the 9th.

I'm with ya. Just feel bad the poor kid is even fronted with the decision.

I agree with and liked all the comments above about not playing...but it's tough to tell a kid you can't play your senior year. I know the scholarship is huge, but you never get your senior year or high school career back. That's hard for a kid to take. Regardless what she's already done on the floor, this was the finale and not being able to end it the way she wanted to or expected to really sucks. I'm not saying play her, but it wouldn't surprise me to see her out there. Its a tough call either way and I have no idea what I'd do.

So lets start. First, HHS has almost always played up in class, except for a few years when they were forced to play in their own class by the KHSAA. In fact, they have played 5A before and have rings from doing it. So playing up for HHS is nothing new. It's actually the norm. And playing up does not provide the other teams "twice the boys" to choose from. There are only a few schools in the entire state that have "twice the boys" to choose from. HHS consistently fields 85-100 kids. They have plenty of heads. But you did hit on talent. Which is the root of all this. They have dropped off in talent. I don't mean they haven't had some really good players, but depth of talent. That's what has been their demise. The last couple classes that went through just didn't have 1)the studs at the top level they had on the past and 2)the depth of talent they have had when they didn't have the top level studs. When you aren't a big school and you have a couple years of thin classes back to back, you see what can happen. Next, Coach Mueller was awesome. He did a terrific job and had a great run of talent. But you do realize HHS had many state titles before he even stepped on the field right? So your analogy about Patriots is a stretch. They already had several rings before "Dale" stepped on the field. And you're right, things don't last forever. And anyone would be silly to think the ride they were on while Mueller was in charge would be sustainable forever. But the actual ride started way before Dale was coach. And a long history tells us the real ride is not over. Just a speed bump. Will they get back to winning 10 in a row...not likely at all. That was unreal. But they will be just fine. Patients grasshopper! Another factor some forget. It can go in cycles as well. If you're in the know at HHS, you know that many many HHS kids grow up, go to college, get married and bring their kids back to HHS. And if you do the math, wouldn't it be about time that some of the kids from some of the very successful teams are starting to cycle back around? So I know that some of the extremely successful players have kids on the way. Is that a prediction of greatness cause they'll repeat what their father did...Nope! But its a very good blood line to have and something to be very optimistic about other than having no idea what's coming. I'll take several offspring of very successful parents coming into the system in the very near future! It's just comical how many come out to knock on them after an HHS down year two years ago (a year that many in the state would love to have) and a second year of there worst record ever. Its two years. HHS has be successful for a long time. And they have seen spurts in that time where they were not great and sometimes what I would consider average. So before we put them out to pasture, don't you think we might want to let time determine that. Because again, history tells us they always bounce back at some point.

Wow! Filled with many holes here.

So which NKY team would have done better against St X Cincy tonight?

Well sure. It's tough to just get to that level, let alone sustain it

I'd say the jury is still out on that. You could be right, but plaulying St X isn't really an indication of what their season will be. Not too long ago, HHS won 10 states in a row and many of those years they were blown out by Trinity. Again, not saying they can do anything great, but this isn't really an indication. If you look at it that way, I guess Ryle and NCC's season is over too.

For now.

HHS not in their league this year.

Trinity is good. Period! Can't fault Ryle for giving it a shot!

We liked him too. Did a good job with his kids.

Got it! Makes sense.

The only thing I would ask is, do the kids you are putting together have a desire to play at the college level?