bulldog77

I guess we'll just respectfully disagree on this point. What are your feelings on disenfranchising smaller, less populated schools even more so with this rule?

Not at all what I said. I believe high school students need to learn ALL aspects of the game not just get up and down the floor and shoot against passive partial defense. And yes, I've been to a few AAU games in my time. Shot clock basketball simply does not promote defense, passing, understanding floor positioning (other than to set up for your shot) and much more. Also, I think this promotes the HAVE's to yet another level above the have-nots. You may not like slow-down basketball or precision offense, but that is what helps level the playing field for less talented and/or less populated programs. So if a shot clock is going to ever be a go in the high school game, then I believe you MUST classify the sport or just assume the same 5% of schools in the state will be the sole contenders.

Yup. Exactly my point. BEYOND High School where the skill level and understanding of the game is much higher.

First of all, it's not a "product." To whom are we selling this? Secondly, the whole idea is to teach the kids the game. There really are two sides to it, offense and defense. At a higher level with higher level skills, go ahead, fire away. Shot clock games really have little to no "strategy" as you suggest at the high school level. the team with the bigger, better athletes who can shoot, win the games. And no, I'm not the "what we're doing now works so let's not change" crowd. Want to effect change? Classify the sport.

This is a horrendous idea in every way, shape and form. If this happens, classification better be adopted along with it.

So you're a regular at practices and team meetings then? Silliness.

Just noting that as reference to some of the conversations that took place between this coach and, what I assume is, his new AD. Strikes me as a bit out of place maybe. Just a passing thought.

The name of the school is Evangelical Christian right?

And your understanding is incorrect. Most Independent Districts are NOT open enrollment and follow pretty much the same rules as the county districts. I'm not saying all, and I'm not saying none. But most independents are much smaller and draw from a much smaller community base so I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that there is an advantage athletically.

I'm always fascinated by the fact that we track wins and not total games coached. I wonder who has coached the most GAMES in northern Kentucky. You put no less work in for the losses than you do for the wins, right? Just a thought.

Add Dixie and St. Henry to that mix.

I've done this awhile in several sports both in boys and girls and I could not possibly disagree with you more. Some sports, sure, most sports, not a chance. Not in a quality program of any sort anyway.

Evening? You have something against day drinking?

Coach stipends have implications on more than just other coach's salaries. There are Title IX issues involved, general budgeting and others. Some of you are correct in stating this isn't college. And the booster money some are suggesting might be even more closely monitored than the general fund money for just these kind of reasons. There's this thing in public schools called "Red Book" that governs all expenditures and it doesn't compromise.

You cannot make decisions in a vacuum, much to the dismay of Mr. Tackett and you apparently. Cash Cow or not, there are dozens of other factors that had to be considered and, thankfully, were.

So you think CovCath should be playing Heritage Academy in a regular season game?

This is fun. I think someone alluded to this earlier, but it went right over everyone's head, but how about Coach Eviston. If you can't beat 'em, call 'em? Again, just for fun, why or why not?

Just for fun. Why or why not Noel Rash?

Could not disagree more with you. Deuce is correct on this one. Football, nor any other single activity is the measure of putting STUDENTS first. I don't like the decision from a coach standpoint, but there are valid reasons for the decision.

I don't recall blaming anyone or citing any reasons. However, the fact of the matter is they haven't played a legit opponent. Intentions mean nothing. The question was "are they being overlooked." Clearly, to me, the answer is no. When they do play a quality opponent, I'll re-evaluate my opinion. Till then, eh.

Play somebody.

Actually it was encouraged but was ultimately left up to the discretion of each school district. You had to know that with the over=precaution that surrounds this whole ordeal that that was going to be the case. Again, I'm in disagreement with the process, but it cannot be a surprise to anyone. School districts are trying to protect their students AND themselves.

Just an observation here, but, I guess now it's so much for the "just let them play, we'll do whatever we need to do" mentality? This isn't a surprise. The whole two-week quarantine after a positive case was in the plan all along. I disagree with the entire plan and have from the start, but it IS what was laid out beforehand right? Nothing new here.

I'm thinking you'd have to go way back to the Villa Madonna (when it was all girls), OLP, LaSallette days to find that. Just a guess on my part.

Easily the biggest problem we have in making a decision is the inaccuracy of the reported numbers. Whether you believe they are under-reported or over-reported it is the fact that the numbers are wildly inaccurate makes decision-making for schools and businesses a non-science and thusly a WAG (Wild Guess). There is no right answer for Superintendents so they are, frankly, compelled to play "cover their butts" both legally and morally. I cannot see how there will be Fall sports or even Winter sports to be honest.