amb3110

Why do the winners always represent themselves as ALL A STATE CHAMPS. With any of the other examples of tournaments given, the winners are just the champions (i.e. LIT champions, Republic Bank champions). Maybe that is why everyone has an issue with it. If it is just the All A Tournament, as many have defended, then shouldn't the champs be the All A champions, not the All A State champions?

RCC9 so it is okay for a team to have 2 shots at a state title? HMMMM......had to ask:)

I made it very clear that they did a great job and are a great team. I have no issue with them playing up or winning AT ALL! My question was their intent....that's it. Many teams use the state tournament as their only opportunity at a bid for nationals. So if they can compete and nationals is here in Cincinnati, why not go?

I have no problem with them playing up either if they are intending to compete at nationals at that level as well. They are more than capable and have proven so. I just don't understand the logic of playing up and taking an opportunity away from another team that may have needed to place at the state tournament to get a bid to nationals. Maybe they will give up their bid and pass it on. I was just curious as to their intentions.

If there is no intention of competing at AAU nationals in that division, what is the purpose of being in that particular tournament? I understand wanting to compete at a higher level if you are more than capable. But why take away a bid for nationals from another Kentucky team? There are plenty of other tournaments and showcases in which they could have competed at the 10th grade level. Not sure I agree with entering a tournament that many teams enter to vie for a bid to nationals when the intention to continue was never there.

So does this mean they are going to compete at the 10th grade level for nationals as well?

So I ask the question again...why don't the All A schools that have a legitimate chance of winning the state tournament (NCC who was ranked #1 in the 9th all year) have to choose at the beginning of the season in which tournament they would like to participate? I agree with RCC, if you are a legitimate contender for the "big dance" (and you typically know that at the beginning of the season), how is it an opportunity for the small schools that will never see the excitement of a state tourney? I don't have anything against the tournament, but I still don't think that its intended purpose is being upheld.

I'm with RCC9 on this one. Great intentions behind the All A tournament, but I believe those intentions have gotten lost along the way. If your team is good enough to compete for the BIG State Tournament then why doesn't your team opt out for a year in the All A? All teams have a pretty good idea where they stand against their regional competition before the season starts and if this tournament is truly for the small teams to have the experience of winning a state tournament then why not bow out and give the opportunity to those that will NEVER see it. I believe that RCC9's stats have some merit to prove that many of the All A Regional winners in the past have made it to the Sweet 16. I thought the All A was for those small schools to experience a State Tournament atmosphere because they will very rarely get to the big dance?