IfsAndButsKY

I guess I don’t see it that deep. I mean the parents and players know who the coach is. I think I heard either on this thread or maybe a different that he is in the weight room. But I’m not really sure, but if that is true then there really is no downside. However, if the weight room isn’t open then I agree with you. HUGE, misstep by admin.

I get it. It definitely raises the why questions. When admin sees things in black and white and is not willing to bend a small, barely enforceable rule, it makes you wonder how much flexibility they will show when it comes to supporting athletics. In my experience, most programs do not follow every rule to a T because, let’s be honest, a lot of it is red tape and nonsense. However, in this scenario there is really zero downside for them. If following the rule costs nothing, creates no competitive disadvantage, and avoids any potential noise or scrutiny, then I can at least understand the logic. It may feel overly rigid, but from their seat it is the safest and cleanest option.

One thing I’ve learned is that no two schools operate the same. Some follow the rules to the letter, especially when doing so doesn’t cost them anything. In this case, I’m fairly convinced Trimnell is the guy. Bellevue is hiring new coaches, he’s been seen on campus, and he’s even showing up at Scott basketball games. Let’s be honest no one is going to Scott basketball games just for fun. You’re there because you’re an alum, you have a kid in the school or on the team, or you’re directly connected to the program in some way. I also get why Scott wants to follow the process exactly as written. There’s no real downside for them. It’s not like out of district families are sitting around waiting on an official announcement before deciding where to enroll. At this point, the hiring process feels more like a formality. It might not make sense from the outside, but for the people making the decision and putting their names on it, it probably makes perfect sense.

How so?

I don’t disagree with you at all. The motor and effort are obvious and that matters. Kids playing hard tells you the coach still has them, even when things aren’t going well. And yes the score is the ultimate measuring stick, but context matters too. Where you start from absolutely changes how you evaluate progress. That said, losing that much senior leadership without much production on one side of the ball is a real concern, and it points straight at the offense. Installing a brand new system buys you some grace, but only to a point. A Wing T lives and dies on discipline, and the penalties were killers. You cannot live in first and fifteen and expect to sustain drives. That’s not a talent issue, that’s an execution issue. Now zoom out and take away the defensive staff that held things together and it gets scary fast. If the offense doesn’t take a real step forward, effort alone won’t save you. You’re looking at short drives, tired defenders, and running clocks. This year tells the story. Either the offense cleans it up and complements the defense, or all that effort just turns into damage control.

I think the writing is pretty clearly on the wall that it’s Trimnell. It’s already been reported that he’s been on campus, so if that’s the case, an official statement almost feels like a formality at this point….pointless. And Trimnell is the perfect hire. Young, hungry and something to prove. No one expects anything of Scott and Trimnell. That’s why the pair together is perfect. He’s shown he can take a program that was in a really rough spot and make it respectable again just look at what he did at Bellevue. If he’s given time, resources, and real community support, I genuinely believe he can flip the program completely. I’d expect 3–4 wins in year one, 5+ the following season, and by years four or five, they should be competing with the likes of Cooper.

Agreed. I think a change of leadership at the highest level is needed (Superintendent, School Board changes, and Principal). Heck, my buddy’s kid played on team last year and he said that they were having parades 30 min - 1 hour before the game for homecoming. That doesn’t exactly send the right message about priorities. Can you imagine a Noel Rash lead team or a heck even modern day Volker going out and walking in a parade a hour before kickoff? They NEED someone who is going to take athletics serious. There is a direct correlation between athletics and quality of education if we look at surrounding schools such as Beechwood, Highlands, Cooper, etc.

That’s a great example, and it actually reinforces the point perfectly. You can even point to Eddie Bivens—a kid who was at Bellevue early on and then transferred out (I believe after his freshman or sophomore year). When families who do have athletic kids start looking around and decide another situation offers more stability, visibility, or long-term opportunity, that’s not about one player—it’s about perception. And perception matters. Once a few of those moves happen, it sends a message to other families who are on the fence: if even our best athletes are leaving, what does that say about the direction of the program or the school? That snowballs into enrollment issues, community buy-in problems, and ultimately makes it even harder to build anything sustainable. So it circles back to the same question—how does Bellevue convince families with kids, especially athletes, that staying is worth it long term? Because until that changes, the cycle is going to keep repeating.

From everything I’ve heard, Bellevue does not have plans to add a field house, and they’re largely content with what they currently have. I’m not saying an indoor facility is required to compete in Kentucky—plenty of programs win without one. But these small investments (or lack of them) absolutely affect enrollment and perception. Parents want to see visible commitment to their kids and their community. Facilities aren’t about luxury; they’re a signal that the school and city are invested. Dayton is a good contrast. A big part of their upgrade came because school leadership actively advocated for the program. They convinced the Kentucky School Building Authority to provide additional funding and approval, which ultimately led to an extra $3.9 million for the project. That advocacy mattered. But it also goes both ways—the community supported it. In Bellevue, the consistent issue I hear is that the city doesn’t really support the school system in the same way. Until that relationship changes, even future residential and business development won’t automatically translate into maximizing high school facilities. Advocacy has to come from the school, and backing has to come from the community.

I believe this is a step in the right direction for them. Given he is supported.

Practicing at Newport all summer while their field was supposed to be finished says a lot. It was not until Dayton committed to a new field that Bellevue finally followed through, and even then the original vision never fully happened. The arch and softball field that were supposed to be part of the plan got scratched entirely. However, the turf is nice. But when looking at it from the distance it is clearly seen that they are doing bare minimum. I think they were also supposed to to have 8 lane track but it got bumped down to 6 lanes… tell me how can you run invitationals, meets etc. with that. And all these issues start up top with superintendent, school board and AD. When you compare that to what is right next door, the contrast is hard to ignore. A legitimate stadium, an indoor practice facility, and a setup that clearly signals administrative buy in. Facilities do not win games by themselves, but they absolutely send a message to players, parents, and coaches about how much a school values the program. When one school is practicing elsewhere all summer (Newport, Vets, Parking lots) and another has everything in house, that gap becomes more than just cosmetic.

I agree that Bellevue are on solid ground compared to where they were 3 years ago. No doubt. What I struggle with is the glaring challenges that school presents. Last year did feel like an underachievement given how senior heavy the roster was, especially on offense. That is not entirely on the players or staff, but having just over 700 total yards returning after a season with that much experience is alarming. Everyone understands that installing a new offense takes time, but the level of struggle was more than anyone reasonably expected. I also think the bigger issue is buy in. Without consistent support from administration, players, and the community, there is a clear ceiling on what any coach can accomplish. Montgomery is doing everything he can, but even the best coaches and with a great staff are limited in a poor environment. Until enrollment improves and the younger pipeline stabilizes, Bellevue’s version of success may simply be fielding a team that competes week to week rather than consistently chasing wins. Hearing that only eight or nine middle school players are coming up really puts that reality into perspective.

Thank you!

If Pendleton had stayed, I truly believe they win eight games. They probably drop one to NewCath and slip in one other, but they win a playoff game and maybe even two as a two seed. That kind of success matters. It changes expectations, buy in, and the overall trajectory of a program. But at the end of the day, ifs and buts do not mean much. In my opinion, 1A football is overlooked, and that does a disservice to NKY football as a whole. The margin for error at this level is razor thin, and a single player, coach, or decision can swing an entire season. That leads to the bigger question: how do programs like Bellevue and Dayton truly compete long term? Both face different challenges, from enrollment numbers to administrative support, yet the answer probably is not chasing one magical season. It is surviving long enough to stack them. At this level, progress is not measured in championships. It is measured in retention, development, and whether the program is still standing five years from now.

Exactly. Pay is part of it, but the bigger issues are the lack of administrative support, dealing with parents, and the unrealistic expectation of instant success. Winning at the high school level takes time, and many schools just do not provide the backing coaches need to build a sustainable program. On top of that, the culture of players has shifted. Too often, today’s athletes ask what the program can do for them, instead of asking what they can do for the team or how they can get better. Building a true culture of accountability and improvement requires buy-in from players, yes, but also support from the community and administration. Without that foundation, even the best coaches are set up to fight an uphill battle.