quickslick

The quickness part can be improved (you are correct with that point). That can be improved through drills, weights, etc. I also agree that the quickness advantage that Highlands has had in the past should be attributed to their offseason program. Speed on the other hand--is genetic. Whether you think it is or it isn't--there is no getting around it. You can improve your mechanics, running technique, etc to see an improvement in your overall output (not to mention proper training to maximize speed)--but it CAN NOT be improved or changed (the best way to put it--so it is explained with separation--is that the "speed that a person is born with" can be maximized. Thanks to the usatf for that level 3 certification!). There is plenty of scientific data surrounding that. To answer your question--yes--Highlands has a large number of players who were "born" with speed. I have no clue how that has happened (and quite frankly--I don't care). Whether you agree or disagree this isn't the most common thing in the world. But it also happens in other areas, locations, etc. To your point--they do a lot of things that may improve their quickness. (Leatherneck--the part below isn't about responding to the rest of your post--it is for anyone who wants to read it:) As far as the rest goes--Highlands does a great job. But they are not the only program in the state that does things the right way. And I think that it would be hard to quantify one versus the other. As far as Dale goes (and the way that he handles his players)--it sounds like he is just like every other coach I have ever heard of. He makes decisions that others may/may not agree with. I think that is probably why he is paid to be the coach. You would think that people would quit questioning his thought process after the amount of success that Highlands has had.

To piggy back on to this--I think that anothe way to put it is that Highlands certainly isn't hurting for athletes. Therefore--it is hard to say that Dale gets more out of his players. If they were a bunch of no talent hacks--then I would agree. But Highlands has the one thing that CAN NOT be coached--SPEED. That gives Dale a lot more options than most schools. In his day--I would say that Mike Yeagle got a LOT more out of the Beechwood kids than Dale has at Highlands. And there are a lot of coaches who do a great job coaching up their kids.

Are you being serious about ". . . state runner-up rings . . . "? That is one I haven't heard before. (And hope that I never hear again).

It is at Beechwood this year. And--it is a year by year decision.

Just what, exactly, has he done with his previous teams? How many playoff appearances? How many state championship appearances? How many state championships? He may have won some games--but he has a while to go before he is considered a mastermind.

Beechwood and Newport are the coaching staffs. The teams have already been picked--but I am not sure who they are.

I hope the NCC and everyone else believes that . . . . . . . . it will really make things pretty EASY! I am sure that Rash will do just fine. . . . . . . . . . . . . and I have a feeling that NCC knows that as well.

Great job, Cougars!

Congratulations to Brossart. Any school that adds football is okay in my book. Hopefully--we will see them down the road somewhere . . . . . . .

I stand corrected . . . . . . . . I think that the KHSAA needs to get over the Sunday thing. Church is a great thing--but--it shouldn't get in the way of high school football! (ha, ha, ha!--that was a joke). I do know that the KHSAA is looking at this as a long term issue (at least one of the Board of Control reps said so last week) because of the Big East Conference schedule (it will be an issue every 2 years). Either way--Thursday finals stink.

Also--don't be too sure that this is going to happen. Starting next year--schools are not supposed to let kids out early to participate in athletic events. I don't think that the BOE is going to go for this unless it is a one time thing--and it is my understanding that it isn't going to be.

Commonwealth won't happen because there isn't an all weather surface (UK's contention is that the field will not hold up--which could be true after 4 games). Cardinal Stadium is open--but it is a dump--and it is not a safe playing surface (I know that you are just inquiring . . . . .). Part of the old bleachers were condemmed a few years ago. Not to mention--everytime I was there--there was a different dead animal in the lockerroom! I think it would be cool to spread out some of the games (even though that would kill attendance also). Have 2 at Georgetown, have 2 at EKU or Murray . . . . . Something different would be cool. I just hate the fact that a team will be shorted a day by playing on Thursday. There is already way too much packed into that week to begin with between media requests, KHSAA info that has to be turned in, etc. But--at least they are trying to make things work. The worst thing is--the talk around the KHSAA is that this is going to be a long term issue (think Big East--National TV, etc). Louisville may not be the best option in the future. (But that doesn't leave a lot of other options either).

This is a very bad move--they need to go with the Friday/Sunday format that was being spoke of by the area reps. The preparation time is already too short considering all of the media/extra things that have to be done during the week. I feel really bad for any team that has to get ready to play on that Thursday. Friday isn't so bad--but Thursday stinks.

Say what you want--9 out of the 10 who were suspended were starters. And--Beechwood was driving for the win when Wera threw an interception. You would think that NCC could have blown out Beechwood if they were missing 9 starters (and remember--they were important starters--most notibly--Peach). Shoulda, woulda, coulda whatever--Smith doesn't end up with 300 yards if those 9 starters would have played (see game 2--playoffs). And the last time I checked--Beechwood won the one that counts . . . . . . . NCC is the defending state champions. They deserve to be #1 until someone beats them (and not just because they are defending champions). They have a great team/program.

I made a mistake--I meant "juniors to be" (so currently sophomores) you are right about the current junior class. . . . . . So--I left a word out. It just goes to show that NCC always loves to beat a Beechwood guy at something . . . . .

Man, you guys must have gotten a better deal than we did. My gold ring cost 561.00 last year (for 2005).

And lets not forget--there was only 1 blow out in there to begin with. This years junior class at Beechwood beat NCC and the sophomores to be played them a lot closer than the score indicated. Besides--ask the 99 state championship team at Beechwood how much that 2-4 freshman record had to do with winning the state championship . . . NCC is a solid program--and they are #1 until proven otherwise. They reload--not rebuild. It should be a fun year.

Brossart is definitely championship quality. But honestly--football draws a lot of us to certain schools. I am sure that Sandman was just trying to get some more background.

The only other ones I can think of would be Mercer (99), Wulfeck (97?) and Joe Brady (02) who started in the 99 state championship game as a sophomore.

I am an impartial 3rd party with no affliation to either team. I was very close . . . . . with an "above" angle. My opinion (not that it means anything) is that he EASILY HAD THE first down. All of the people that I was with felt the same way. (Again--I know this means very little at this point).

There will not be a new school in Boone County for a while. AT LEAST 2 to 4 years from now. That leaves a pretty big gap.

My fault. I seem to be reading everything wrong tonight. . . . (seriously--my fault). I admit--I had a hard time seeing where you were coming from there. I do have my own opinion here--I think that things WILL get back to "normal". Naturally, people will/should be skeptical after the reign of Coach Y. But--I definitley would expect any "rebuilding" type comments. More along the lines of reloading . . . . . From there--we will do our talking on the field.

You will have to fill me in with why Coach Y was a bad choice. What happened? 176-24, 8 state championships, . . . . Don't worry--Coach Rash has plenty of experience. And--in more stressful situations than Beechwood (remember--Moeller--even as assistant--that is a miserable job for some--and that comes from my mentor--who is head coach at another NKY school). I would say that Coach Rash learned a lot from the experience. The cool thing is this--(and SERIOUSLY)--if any of you old school guys have questions/concerns--spend a couple minutes and talk to him. He is someone that you would like to play for. If I didn't believe that personally--I wouldn't be there.

I APOLOGIZE for reading too much into your post. That is my fault--for that--I am sorry. I think that you do bring up a very good point. And after thinking about it--I see where you are going with your bio post. The only thing that I will say about that is--you could have a point. I don't know if it is related or not--but right now--who ever wrote this will get the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. BUT--I see your point. In regard to the "sure fire can't miss candidate" comment--I will outline what I KNOW happened and I think that the timeline will speak for itself: 2nd week of NOV: Coach Yeagle resigns after LCA loss 2 weeks thereafter: Beechwood waits for Coach Y to submit resignation while trying to keep him 12/06/2005: Job posted with KHSAA (must be for a minimum of 30 days--a fair job practices requirement) 01/06/2006: Posting comes down/no more applications 01/06/2006 to 01/14/2006: Process to eliminate everyone but the "right people" for interviews 01/17/2006: First interview 01/25/2006: Last interview (I HEARD that there were a few out of area candidates--I would say that it took so long due to logistics, combined with the fact that I HEARD a 1 or 2 decided to decline their interview). 01/26/2006 to 01/27/2006: decision making process. No clue why an annoucement wasn't made earlier than today). 01/30/2006: Announcement. When you think about the decision on the inside--it had to be difficult (to say the least) between picking a coach with a proven history (who had already successfully led the team in 2002) and an assistant with great qualifications who has a vision for the future. Combined with the fact that there were a few GREAT outside candidates. You have to think--not to put myself in the committees position (because there isn't enough money in the world for me to ever want to be in their position) but when you look at the last time a coach had to be selected, they took a chance on an assistant in a similar situation. (Caveat--I have no real clue what the committee used for criteria--but I trust that they weighed everything out in the proper manner). But I am sure that they weighed out numerous scenarios--and that alone would take a LOT of time. I hope that sheds some light on things.

Classy post as always, Z5 . . . . . . 3rd choice? It is my understanding that only 3 people ended up interviewing to begin with. So, the committee picked the worst one of the bunch? Doubt it. But, good to see that nothing has changed with you!