scooterbob

Spoken like a true peacemaker. Are you preparing to run for office?

Since you are now well fed, you can honor us with your learned viewpoint.:thumb:

My posts are far too long and, for that, I apologize. However, I feel I should add that nothing I post is meant to be taken as negative toward the winner. I have not posted anything negative in that area although I think some are taking it that way. That is not the case. I feel positive that the winner has read everything I have posted on the subject and I know that he, as well as all his cohorts at Russell, know my identity and have known it for a long time. On occasion, I see some of them at various athletic events and I always look forward to that. My posts are, as Vito Corleone would say, strictly business. Nothing personal and nothing derrogatory is intended. I believe the winning coach knows this and I hope others can discern between debate and undue character attacks. I would also hope those posting from a different viewpoint would follow the same practice. The winning coach is most deserving of accolades. I applaud him. I just don't believe, from the facts, that the COY for this year should be included in the accolades.

As always, Nets, your analysis is excellent. However, it seems that you are saying that all coaches are prisoners to the luck of the bounce, the deflection, etc. and, once the game starts, are reduced to becoming pretty much spectators watching an uncontrollable human drama. You are probably correct for the most part. Coaches cannot shoot, rebound, and play defense. Therefore, I believe your post adds credibility to the argument that result should be a determining factor in choosing COY. At least that criteria is verifiable whereas all the other nuances are strictly subjective. When the money was on the table and the lights were focused (ie: the truly meaningful championship games in district and region), the ball didn't "bounce" in favor of Russell. It "bounced" in favor of others. Now, if the award were like some of those Hollywood awards like "lifetime achievement", then I believe your analysis could apply. However, the award was for COY and that is Coach of the Year meaning this year. I always respect your opinions over most of the others expressed on BGP. However, I must disagree with this one. I believe that the objective evidence is on my side and that a "jury of our peers" would clearly agree. Of course, I would assume that the area girls's coaches would not be a part of the jury. Surely, they would be successfully challenged for cause. Best wishes to you and everyone in your part of the region.

Oh no, NEERFAN, that Escalade is mandatory. Coach Rupp always drove a big Cadillac Fleetwood, usually black, and it was an important part of both the legend and the mystique. No Kentucky basketball coach should ever drive an economy vehicle. And, in reality, I doubt that he is paying for the gasoline. It is good to see him going around the Commonwealth to see the "local" boys. It sends a positive message that is important to those who see him as an "outsider". If he keeps it up, he will get his Kentucky Colonel certificate soon.

It is interesting to see the differences in the two groups. I am disappointed that Jonathan VanHoose is not included on the first team. However, I am pleased to see Rose Hill's two freshman, Dakotah Euton and Chad Jackson, on the second and third teams respectively. They are the only two below the junior class to make any of the three teams. What is the criteria for making honorable mention? The list looks awfully inclusive although I would have expected Ferguson from Elliott County to be listed. I always heard that if you got one vote from your coach or from your coach "trading" a vote with another coach, you made the list. Is that true? Hopefully not.

Actually, Intentional Foul, since the weather has been so bad the last couple of days, I thought if I drug all of this out it might keep some of you from getting sick from being out in the cold rain. I was performing a public service. Have a good week.

Thank you for the information, Claude. There are some fine players on that list.

When there is a discussion with a BGPer who is not known to me, I often check that person's past posts. For some reason, I placed you in Boone County. I may have narrowed that too much but you are clearly a Northern Kentuckian. From my viewpoint, that area is marvelous for followers of high school athletics- both public and private. You have a fine group of schools of all sizes. Best wishes to you and I hope next time we are in full agreement.

And that, 3ptshooter, is the real story of the 16th Region.

Sorry for the confusion, 3ptshooter, and, although I usually try to check my spelling and grammar, I should probably use spell check. You must be the Boone Countian. I don't recall stating that everyone in the 16th Region is against RH. There are certain nuances that naturally go with being the only private school in the area and I know that there is no need to spell those out for you. Suffice it to say that you learn to deal with being the minority and all that goes with that. As I have stated several times, and no one has remotely disputed it, when RH played LexCath in the state championship game last year, only sixteen schools in the state rooted for LexCath. Those 16 were, of course, LexCath and the other 15 teams in the 16th Region. It is not just a catchy statement. It is also a true statement. Much of RH's "dispute" with its "neighbors" originates from what I call the "Ovinton Era". It was very difficult for others to adjust to the doormat becoming the nationally covered basketball team with the best player, though a middleschooler, to ever play for a region school. The resentment has not subsided and, to be honest, many RHers vocally enjoyed the riches. Our neighbors were often poor losers and we were often poor winners. Nothing has been forgotten by either side. Of course, there is a lot more and no one is "without sin" around here. However, I believe that is a fair analysis and you can fill in the blanks. By the way, Rose Hill's boys's team has two ninth graders, Euton and Jackson, who have been named second and third team all-state. Although Elliott County will rightfully be the regional favorite for the next two years, the RH boys should fair quite well in the 64th District and the 16th Region for the next few years. If so, look for a lot more combat and animousity from this area. There is not much neighborly love around here. The girls will be a different story. RH will be like a middle school team agewise so our neighbors will change their policies and be eager to schedule our girls again. I hope this somewhat answers your question.

While I disagree with the conclusions reached by you above, for the sake of the exercise, I will attempt to answer your query. It is my belief that Euton should have gotten the award which should surprise no one. I actually like the winner and have a lot of regard for him, his coaching staff, and his program. I don't believe that he deserved the award. A reasonable argument can be made for Bradley and, maybe, Trimble. For sake of space, I'll leave that to the Blazerites and the Racelanders. While it is pointed out that RH was ranked third statewide in preseason, I would submit that that was done based on last year and the fact that two outstanding players were returning. At the same time, the local voters placed RH third in the region. I would think it is reasonable to believe that locals were far more aware of the overall RH talent level than were those not in this area. By tournament time, RH was not remotely rated statewide, as was Russell, and was not expected to win the region, as was Russell. I would think that one would not need to be particularly astute to realize that the rankings at year end are far more important than are the preseason rankings. If that were not true, we may well have a President Howard Dean. It could be argued that RH benefitted from a lucky draw in the region. While that may be true as to the first round, that was not true in the semifinals. Russell got Ashland while RH got East Carter. Russell clearly had, and the results indicate, the easier game. Rose Hill defeated the favored Russell handily in the finals. I would point out that RH was never behind in the game. I believe the only tie was 0-0. RH won by 10 and were never really threatened. That is why I say they won handily. While it is true that RH lost in the first round of the state tournament, I would point out that the Lexington and Louisville newspapers rated RH 16th of the 16 teams in the tournament. Russell won neither the district nor the region. Earlier in the season, they won the EKC tournament. RH won a tournament around Christmas at Boyd County. In light of the teams participating, I would generously call that a wash. Russell won the EKC regular season championship. RH is not in the EKC. I would say that Queen and Terry are, overall, a little better than are Fortman and Okora. However, it is closer than you posters want to admit. I think that most anyone, if honest, would say that Russell had more talent, top to bottom, than did RH. Euton was overlooked last year because the pundits said she had the best talent and should have won. This year, she didn't have the best talent and still won. The winner, on the other hand, had the talent but won neither the district nor the region. I continually read about how the regular season is merely an exercise in preparing for March. Some of you who have used this theory are now backtracking and claiming that it is otherwise. That is not being honest. The goal is to get to Bowling Green. RH got there in spite of the fact that it did not have the best talent in the region. For whatever reason, RH overachieved and Russell underachieved. I wouldn't want to remotely insinuate that the winner caused the underachievement. However, I will state that Euton had a lot to do with the overachievement. Since most feel that March is what counts, I believe the proper choice was obvious. I also believe, for solid reasons, that the choice was much more subjective than objective. You can interpret that however you choose. I realize that this is quite verbal. However, you asked for it. I hope you will take time to read it.

I believe if you check my posts I was very complimentary of the recipient of Miss Basketball. After seeing her perform at Thomas More, though it is the only time I have seen her, I can certainly understand why she won the award. She is a pleasure to watch. I think your concern with my posts is based on my questioning you for your statements about Laura Terry. I still think that, knowing your allegience, it was not becoming. As you stated, you are an outsider and the lack of knowledge you express in your post clearly indicates that. I understand that Emily Queen is the POY for this area and that she is first team all-state as, deservedly so, is your favorite. Thus, your last statement is rather incorrect.

You have stated why, in your opinion, Euton should not have won. I asked you to document why the winner should have won. Is that really too hard to comprehend?

Let's say you offered two bits of evidence in support of the winner. That is better than nothing. However, your references to the departed Tubby are of no materiality but, instead, irrelevant. Please understand, that is not meant as criticism. Merely an observation. I again salute you for offering something positive for the winner. You are the first and you have saved me from the need to offer a justification of sorts myself. Actually, I can do so although it probably isn't as strong as can be made for a couple of others and it would have to include an assumption of subjectivity rather than objectivity on the part of the "voters".

You won't be criticized, LRCW. At least you, unlike others, made an attempt at justification. I salute you for the effort.

Debates require facts. You present none. However, if you could present some, possibly I can "learn" from you and "everyone wins". Of course, as Coach Rupp wisely stated, "If winning isn't important, why do we keep score?" His remark was in response to the statement of Grantland Rice that "It matters not who wins or loses but how we play the game." Coach Rupp thought Rice was full of fertilizer and I always agree with the philosophy of Coach Rupp.

If you can come up with anything, let us know. You will be the first.

No need for your expertise, 3ptshooter. I don't need it. I suppose reality often is as seen in the eyes of the beholder. Actually, there were some highly heralded girls that I would have expected more from in light of the headlines. However, I didn't feel moved to name them. We will just agree to disagree.

Congratulations to Jonathan VanHoose. The first team designation is well deserved and is the first for the 16th Region since O.J. Mayo in 2003.

Okay, Intentional Foul, you have finally made it clear that, neither in a post nor in a private message, can you make a positive case for the winner. You seem to claim to have facts but you never present any. Don't be dismayed. No one else of your persuasion has done so either. I'm sure it wasn't your intent but, in fact, you confirm my thesis.

Your last statement is absolutely true. For success, and for survival, the approach must be entirely different. Girls are not boys and boys are not girls. Liberal philosophers, historians, and politicians can never change that basic fact. Actually, aren't we all thankful that that is the case?

The real story is that numerous posters, particularly in another thread, are supporting the choice for the sole purpose of digging at those who feel the vote was less than legitimate. These posters have no interest in supporting their position but, instead, desire to criticize and belittle a particular coach and those who support that coach. We all know who won the award. Shoot, I was told, in writing over a year ago that one particular coach and two particular players would be excluded in these votes. Therefore, the votes, both last year and this year, are of no surprise to me. Nonetheless, rather than trying to stir up animousity (which, as we all know, is really the purpose of many of these posts), I, again, ask those "pleased" with the outcome to tell us why the winner deserved to win. I have asked that repeatedly on this and another thread and, to date, absolutely nothing has been offered. Now, that doesn't surprise me at all and it shouldn't surprise anyone else. If there is no legitimate argument for the choice made by the coaches, then the only answer is that the motives of a certain group of coaches were, shall we say, less than pure. I say that the evidence is conclusive that that was the case. Now, let someone offer something to rebut my conclusion.

The winner deserved the award for the following reasons........................ Can someone intelligently and with some factual documentation fill in the ............? By the way, I do congratulate the winner on receiving the most votes from his colleagues. I fully understand how it happened but I just don't comprehend how it can be justified.

If you saw all the girls "winding up" at 1,2,3,4, and 5, I must assume we attended different games. I don't recall Gray in particular ever at 4 or 5. She was always bringing the ball up the floor and running the offense from out front. But, then, who really cares one way or the other? My point was that it seems unfair for you partisans to hit on Terry. Her record speaks for itself.