Ashland

Do you guys read what I write? I clearly get that ALL schools in KY can accept out of district students. You guys aren't "debunking" anything. I think independents do this more. I think ALL schools should have to compete with players that live in their districts and only kids that live in their district.

You guys always go with the whining angle. Nobody is whining. Just pointing out the obvious truth that some independent schools operate very differently than most public schools in this state. I believe students should go to and play sports at the school that services their geographic area. Full stop. I wish the KHSAA rules were that any student attending school outside of their district boundaries was ineligible for competition. This rule would nip recruiting in the bud.

In theory that is true. In practice independents, at the highest level of KY football, operate as defacto private schools, allowing out of district students in at low tuition (compared to private schools). Jumper_Dad will say that public schools "could" do this too, and he's right in theory. In practice public schools don't do this for a variety of reasons, so it really makes no difference that they "could".

The answer to #3 is no.

First of all the dropout rate for all students is very high at all colleges. Second, many of these football players are going to private, academically challenging schools. If these students are not prepared, they are further predisposed to dropping out early. Third, many of these schools over promise kids or obscure the truth about how much they can help a kid with total costs or what their college experience will be like. At some point, that first bill comes due and it can be very jarring. Fourth, many of these small schools have very limited options in terms of majors. As kids get older (smarter), they often realize the amount of money they are paying for their degree isn't compatible with their career plans which could likely be achieved for 1/4 of the cost at a public school or 1/10 of the cost at a community college. Finally, many of these schools subsidize the costs of their "actual players" by recruiting guys they know will never play in order to pad their financials. Eventually, the kids that go to these schools realize their lot in life (being a backup or more likely, tackling dummy) and decide maybe paying 20k per year for that isn't such a great idea.

Very well stated.

The biggest thing Urban is pointing out is the change in our football culture from a we sport to a me sport. Football is fast tracking towards the basketball model. What he is saying is that kids should focus on being the best player they can within a team, as opposed to the basketball model in which team play is largely irrelevant and all that matters is how your perform individually when playing only for your own glory. At the same time, if college coaches want that to be what kids focus on, they need to put a premium on high school film and high school coach input. Some do some don't.

I think this is a good point. This is why it's so important, unless a kid is a obviously D1, to go to a school with a good football program. C

Note that Urban said "if I trust the HS coach". Obviously if a coach is not respectable, Urban isn't going to be real interested in his opinions or, unfortunately, his players.

Also, the reason the colleges have these camps is not to find new recruits. They do it to get face time with guys they have already identified. 95% of the campers are there to subsidize the cost of the camp and give it a sheen of legitimacy as if they are performing a community service. If you don't believe this, go and watch who the college coaches speak to. They only talk to recruits that they have already identified. There isn't anything wrong with this (it doesn't hurt anyone), but thinking these camps are a way to "get discovered" or "earn a scholarship" is misguided.

You are either good enough to go to college on a full athletic scholarship or you aren't. If you are, it will show up on film. If you aren't, you can go to a school where you will be on the team and pay to attend. Going to camps doesn't really matter.

Very surprising that UK didn't offer this kid. They are unlikely to get Wills with the types of offers he's getting.

If it wasn't so late in the summer, McCracken would probably fire him.

Those people do not teach.

This situation and a few others around the state got me thinking. What if a multi school district designated that only one of its high schools would have a football team and allowed students wishing to play football to go that school or play on the district team regardless of their district home school? I'm thinking of districts with 2-4 high schools: not those with 5+. It seems likely that with the issues facing football in our state (lack of in school coaches, lack of facilities, less participation, etc), this could produce a better experience for kids that wish to play. Is this allowed under KHSAA rules?

The idea of the game might be spicy, but the actually game will be a running clock. This hire is really bad.

You quoted my answer. You disagree, but that's my answer. To me what public schools could do doesn't matter. They choose not to. Any school that chooses to allow out of district students can go play with the privates / independents.

That seems fine. 3 public classes. 3 private / independent / choose to play in that group classes. You can choose to play up in any class or you can choose to play in the private / independent class. I like it.

Again, reality - the numbers clearly show privates and independents winning at a hugely disproportionate rate compared to normal public schools. They should compete with people who are like them. I'm not really sure there is much else to say.

I get what you're saying, but they don't allow that for a variety of pretty good reasons, and they're not likely to start. So why not accept reality and let people compete against schools that are the most like them? Who loses?

Veiled attack? Seriously - this is just fun. Nobody at KHSAA cares what we think. I'm just playing around. It's not magical. They can and do let out of district students in at low tuition. All you have to do is look at who dominates and it's clear that privates and independents have advantages over publics. You seem to think I have something against privates / independents, but I don't. There is nothing wrong with what they do. It's just different. Because it's different, they should compete for championships with each other.

I don't want to hijack this thread (see the thread 3 class system), but I believe independents have advantages that normal public schools do not, and in some cases, actually have it better than private schools due to their ability to allow out of district students without charging very high tuition.

No. I believe that there should be 3, size based classes of privates / independents. And 3 classes of public schools.

I'd like to see the elimination of the zero week and the first round of the playoffs. That would end the season the 3rd week of November. I'd also be fine with pushing the season's start back two weeks (in addition to killing the zero week and the first round of the playoffs) to the first week of September and keeping its end date the same as it is now.

The question to me is would Ludlow be harmed by my suggested 3 class system for independents and privates. I think the answer is no.