quickslick

Thats right, lets wait for another 1-2 months (before a coach is hired) when everyone else has already filled out their schedule . . . . . come on, Z. Would you rather that they wait and play little sisters of the poor? I doubt that you would like that. And I would guarantee that you would be on here the 2nd week of season talking about how Beechwood won't schedule any good teams since Coach Y left. This is out of necessity. Pick good games now that have a benefit to the program--REGARDLESS of who the new coach is. Or wait and not have any good options. You must not have read my previous post. It doesn't matter who the head coach is going to be--the AD is going to have a say in the schedule. And at a school like Beechwood with Title 9 issues--IT IS ALMOST A REQUIREMENT. Also--look around at some of the others schools before you drop kick your own school--there AD's do the scheduling. Your conspriacy theories are unfounded and based on your own speculation about a situation that you have no involvement in. Also--for any of you think think that Beechwood has already made up their mind--let me be the first to tell you: YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. Matter of fact, these types of statements are more misinformed than you could ever begin to imagine. I didn't want to comment on this in any way--but there are a couple people who are not making any attempt to keep this in the proper prospective (most are--which is refreshing). In the past, I have been accused of being defensive, I am sure that I will hear it again. But keep in mind, things are not always as they appear. And even if it is Burnett or Rash--they were the 2 guys that ran the team in 2002--and took a miserable situation and were close to pulling off a state championship win against one of the better 1a teams that I can remember seeing. Just be patient and keep an open mind. Nothing in this situation is definite.

Actually, the AD usually made the schedule the 3 years before that also--WITH INPUT from the head coach. And, not only was input taken from the head coach--but from the assistants as well. There is a good example from this past season that represents 99-01. The head coach wanted to play a power running team that would be similar to Danville or Mayfield. From there--the AD picked up Alter. The correlation that you are making makes sense--but it was never any more formalized than that (this year is the only example that I can remember in the past 8 years anyway). A lot of times--we had to take what we could get--a lot of teams didn't want to play a 1A school that could consistently beat them--even if it was Beechwood. Also--lets clear something else up--there is nothing in the past 3 years that would have prevented Coach Y from setting up the schedule if that was what he wanted to do. He had no "problem" which would have prevented him from doing such a thing. The only year that could honestly be said is 2002 when he took the year off. "Interesting" How? It kills me how people try to make little statements like that--that try to infer that there is something going on there. If you understood Coach Y--you would know that, with a very few exceptions, he could have cared less who we were playing. There was no foe too big or to small. Everyone was always taken seriously. But--you need to realize--it didn't really matter to him. Not even a little bit.

It depends on the school. I know many coaches who set their schedule completely--without any input from the AD.

Beechwood is still playing Alter (away) Also--for anyone who questions this decision-- The AD has made the schedule for the past 4 seasons. Take that however you want.

Fair enough. I made a call this afternoon to see what is up with SBDM. The word that I received is that is can be/or is different based on the school system. (Which makes sense in this case). I tend to trust my "source", but that doesn't mean that they are 100% correct--just their interpetation. Either way--we are in agreement. The process needs to be fair/consistent.

I could be wrong (but I am pretty sure that I am right--because I have recently seen this one in action at another school), but I am pretty sure that SBDM has zero say in regard to the hiring/firing of coaches. (This could also depend on the school/school system). In regard to the 2 that I am familiar with--they have no official say). SBDM has more of a voice in the academic direction of the school as opposed to athletic direction. (Again--this is just based on my past involvement with 2 different school districts). For instance, at a certain school (in the past few years), there was a search for a basketball coach. A "committee" was formed to interview the final applicants (with contained no members of the SBDM team). The committee consisted of the AD, an assistant football coach, the former boys basketball coach, the retiring coach, a local law enforcement person, an assistant coach from one of the other school teams and a "non-affected" parent. The committee narrowed the list to 2 different candidates. The principal consulted with the AD to decide between the 2 for the final decision. But ultimately (and the AD is very clear about this)--the principal made the final decision. The same position was recently opened. Instead of forming a committee, the principal interviewed all applicants and made the final decision completely on his own. Again--I am sure that there are numerous factors that could affect situations like this. I am sure that there are some SBDM's teams that have input into the process. But in this case, it doesn't. On a different note (but still the same)--I am glad that neither of these 2 schools let the SBDM team have a say in who becomes a coach at there schools. That would be entirely the wrong group of people to make that type of decision. That isn't meant as an insult--but there mission is supposed to be different (or at least--that is my understanding).

I don't want to be involved in this conversation--but I will help with some basic information: In a public or independent school system--the PRINCIPAL is ultimately responsible for the hiring/firing of school personnel. I understand where Z5 is coming from--but it isn't realistic for the principal to take his self out of the running (especially since there is not a conflict of interest). The superintendent can not even force the principal to step out of the process unless there is a direct relational reason. However, if the AD is going for the job (as most have said)--he is a person who would normally be involved in the hiring process (on an opinion level only) who should/would/could disqualify their selves from being part of the "committee" (I am sure that he has if he is really going for the job). But remember--the principal is the hiring party. Not the superintendent or anyone else. He doesn't even have to take the "committee's" opinion into account if he chooses not to (it probably wouldn't look so good if he didn't listen to their recommedation). But ultimately--he decides--and no one else.

Also, with Fort Knox dropping to 1A--does this give them a better shot to win a state championship?

They may be good--but they are not in the same class as teams like Daviess County, St. X, Tates Creek, Seneca, etc, etc . . . . . . . . . . Good to see you talking up your team!

Actually, the bylaw states that the period of ineligibility "can be" over turned with proof of a bonafide change of address. The key words here are "can be". It isn't a definite by any stretch of the imagination. Meaning--even if a kid has a bonafide change of address--the kid can still be ruled ineligible. This ensures that the commissioner has complete power/control in the decision making process when they suspect that a kid as transferred for athletic reasons (even if they do have a bonafide change of address).

I have avoided this like the plague, but there are a couple things that stand out to me in regard to the "wording" of Prop 20: *The use of the words "public" and "non-public". Think about that for a minute. I could be reading too much into that, but it did make me stop and think. Also, I think, in actuality--Prop 20 was written very well (as opposed to some who think that it is vague/not well written) because it is presented in a manner in which the "non public" schools will not need to change the way that they currently operate. After reading all of the proposals--I get the impression that these guys are actually really squared away with what they are doing (whether I agree or not). There is a very specific agenda here--which can not be spoken too unless the public/private situation is addressed. I think this all revolves around the transfer rules and CONTROL (or to the point of another post--this is the big gorilla sitting in the corner, or the ace in the hole, that will be used to "influence" the delegates into voting for some of the other propositions). I get the impression that a lot of these people think that the KHSAA is either: 1. Making up things as they go. 2. They are not consisent with their rulings. 3. They are tired of the "financial greed" of the KHSAA. For the record--I see both sides of this argument. But I wouldn't want to seperate the pulics/privates for championships. But there are issues. The less that they are spoken about--the more angry I get. But I still don't think that I would want to exclude the private schools. Also--everyone--please remember--this ISN'T just about FOOTBALL. I think that everyone really needs to look at the big picture to see the impact (good and bad) of the proposal.