Sandman

A few quick takes as we discuss the event: My guess is at least the host school (at HS stadiums) is making more than a regular season game (money up front is my guess). Otherwise, why would schools keep signing up? Event is obviously making money beyond that, or it would lack for a promoter. I have no problem with either. I do have a problem when what smells a lot like greed takes over an event as this has lately. If this is a marquee event then sell it as that, and play it over one weekend. Three weeks and dozens of sites is chasing the money. A Indy/Cincinnati HS rivalry, as I alluded to earlier, seems to be something organizers want to push moving forward. May be the best option to offer some (high profile) games. I'd rather see some early season in city matchups like.....

Remember these games well. I've posted on them in past threads about the current event. It was a big deal for the city as a whole and a lot of tickets were sold. It was kind of a first of its kind event at the time. It was also managed very well, although if the current heat guidelines were in place then, they'd have never finished the slate of games. Sidenote to your post, the Fairfield team that beat USA Today's No. 1 Berwick, went on to finish 5-5ish (maybe 6-4, maybe 6-5) but I think it was 5-5, and did not make the playoffs.

I could be wrong on this, but isn't the Conner game a scrimmage? Listed date makes it appear to be a scrimmage and I know the teams have scrimmaged in the past. Can we assume Beechwood is still looking for one more regular season opponent, or is the Conner game on 8/14 the actual season opener?

I get what you are saying, and get that you are looking closely at all the i's and t's. Your point is well taken, but I can't speak to it. I can say when it comes to logistics, the less classes in the state, the less travel for district games.

My guess is you know this answer. There was an initial realignment list sent to each school, which showed the possibilities (and plenty of discussion about it here). Maybe that could be a heads up? I don't know. Better question is, don't you think every coach near HHS and CCH's numbers were checking those numbers closely?

Dixie's enrollment placed them in 5A.

On venue and opponent, yes it matters. When Highlands hosted Moeller, X, and Elder their was certainly a buzz around the school and town that is seldom there (even for CCH lately).

Schedule says it all, the event is totally over-saturated at this point and has been for a few years. Without pinpointing match ups, some of these games won't even be a big deal to the home team despite the crosstown tag. I'd have zero problem with the watering down of the event if it somehow showcased more teams and players in a recognizable way, but it does not. It gouges fans of the schools for profit. Gamble stated that he'd like to see the Indy team's continue to be involved and develop some type of "rivalry" with the Cincy schools.

Seems to be an annual thread, and I give my two cents each time. Will do so along with with a couple post quotes to try to keep things easy to read and on subject.

Ru keeping folks posting in the off-season, nice job. I posted on this when the alignments were announced and expected a lot of feedback then, as I said the scramble to avoid HHS and CCH was on. Pretty sure I mentioned Scott moving down to 4A as part of the equation, but it was a while ago. Move has everything to do with avoiding being in a district with HHS and CCH, like avoiding the plague. Everything else is spin city and diverting. Several on here have nailed how much better it is to go lose to Trinity in the finals once every 10 years, than to play HHS and CCH in the playoffs ever year. 6A playoff format gives you that chance, and it built a lot of momentum for Simon, Ryle, and Dixie during their runs. And, they played it for all it was worth. Cooper fans in this thread are doing the same thing, beating their chests about going to a state final, and a final four in 5A. Not a thing wrong with that, except I'm trying to find which year they beat either CCH or HHS in the 5A playoffs. Were CCH and HHS in the same class as Cooper at the time? If not, I'm not sure how what they did in 5A matters regarding this thread. Nobody in NKY wants to be in the same district as CCH and HHS. To ever advance very far in the playoffs you not only have to be better than one of them, but both of them in the same year. Bravado aside, who really wants to roll the dice with that year in and year out? As for logistics, here's a simple answer, reduce the number of classes. That will take care of it quickly.

I get it and like it. Clever enough.

Highlands appears to be the clear cut favorite at this point. Pitching depth is a huge advantage. And the Birds can hit. Beechwood, CovCath, and Boone are in the mix. IMO it's going to take a great pitching effort to beat Highlands, as they are the best team on paper. Somebody's #1 is going to have to be dominant and win a 2-1 type game. Appears that CovCath is most capable of that.

You have everything right except the year. It was 90. Not positive on who Fairdale beat in the 91 finals, it was whoever beat Holy Cross in the semi's (maybe Tates Creek?) 90 Holmes team was one of NKY's best ever. Very good and incredibly deep. Dogs' seemed poised to go on a heck of a run in the Ninth Region with so many young kids part of the rotation. They didn't win another regional title the rest of the decade though. Hughes had a rough night in the finals, largely thanks to being guarded by a longer and more athletic player. Fatigue may have played a small role as well. If he shoots four less shots Holmes may win this game, and Fairdale was great. That's how good this Holmes team was. Hughes went on to Farleigh Dickerson. Fairdale goes down in history as one of the state's best teams ever (deservedly so) The 90 Holmes is largely forgotten. In a best of seven series, I'd take them over any team that has won the Ninth since though. A few of those series' would be quite interesting though.

I'll play along though, frankly, you're boring me. First bolded: So you admit you have a problem with other sports and multiple sport athletes doing what's in their best interest? You certainly seem to have a football at all costs mentality. How's that best for the actual player? Second bolded: The state gave football Spring practice, flex scheduling, varying playoff formats, and finally 6 classes. The state has been pumping new life into football for 15 years. Third bolded: I'd go easy on that statement. Soccer puts 11 kids on the field at a time, and also obviously has subs regularly. Baseball has nine, plus a possible AH to bring it to 10. With pinch hitters, pinch runners, alternate runners, and relief pitchers, a lot of kids can play in a game. Track has a ton of events, including relays. Guessing a lot of kids get to compete at a typical track meet. Last bolded: See second bolded.

Graphs one and two certainly tell me more about what AllTell and Builder spoke of as far as a rift between football and basketball coaches. What a shame. Do you agree? You sure seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason. On the last graph, football is unique in several ways. One of which is SIX classes which means a SIX times greater chance of being a state champion than most other sports (all other sports except track and cross country).

Excellent synopsis. And I totally get your point of view, and see where you are coming from as far as adults not getting along. On the latter, I think that's a shame. On the former, we're going to end up with a different perspective (though you may be as correct as I). On the bolded, from the get go. It's a basketball game in June, or a football arena game in June, neither mean anything other than player development. Just because another school is involved should not make this a bigger deal to the "adults" involved. It's off-season, not a "game." On the rest of the bolded, based on what I know and what info you and others have provided; it's my assumption that just stopping outside competition wasn't stopping the battle over players commitment.

Okay. But you bolded part of my post on the subject and never really gave an answer to how to solve it. State can't mandate it, state can't pay for it. What's the state to do? I'll read your reply, but at this point I think we're drifting away from the starting point of the thread. This wasn't a concussion thread, and I offered much more in the thread you quoted than just this pigeon hole.

I appreciate both of your posts. I think both have some flaws, but I do appreciate your passion. That said, let me make sure everyone understands, I have no problem with 7 on 7 in June. I posted simply to give my take on what was happening (via the state rules). Nothing more. That's what the thread was mostly about, from my perception. I am more than a little surprised by what seems like a rift between football and basketball, and the adults that coach each. I come to this conclusion based on the number of posts about basketball in this thread, and the posts that mention adults not being able to get along. If true, that's a real shame.

My interpretation of the "spirit of the rule" part kind of makes me still think the state wanted them to go away. That's why I figured they removed helmets from the equation in June. I think the state expected they took steps to alleviate the "adults" part of the equation earlier, and some of the "adults" were still requiring participation for 7 on 7 within the team. Thus, futher action was taken. I'm honestly a little puzzled about the "adults cannot get along" stuff in your posts (and I have read them). I don't doubt this has happened, but can you make this a bit more relate-able for me. Maybe explain it to me like I'm a third grader.

All competition against outside schools.

On the bolded, that's the best you can do? Figured you to be better than that. Next graph, what you call the injury de jour, I call very serious issues. I read your post and assume you are brushing them off as "much ado about nothing." We all know they are real, important, issues that need to be handled. I assume you agree, and just didn't say so in your post. Second bolded, I agree on all points. Nothing in the rule change would have prevented it (except common sense); It wouldn't have been smart to have 7 on 7 under this rule; there would have been coaches doing it anyway. I don't care in the least if there is 7 on 7, but the fact that we both know they would happen without helmets is concerning to me, and I assume you as well? Last graph is also concerning. My assumption is the state doesn't want to mandate it because it will A) force them to fund it in some manner, or B) cause many schools who just can't afford a trainer every day to drop football. If either assumption is correct, I think it is a poor excuse for not having a trainer on hand. But, I do agree a trainer should be there every day. My assumption was that if schools were serious about football, those in charge were smart enough to know this should go along with that commitment. Lastly, the guy who lives at the end of your street and his wife are having one hell of a screaming match one day. Things are heated, and neighbors can hear it. The guy leaves and walks up the street, where, as it happens, some of his other family live. Later that evening, you see the guy walking back toward his house, but now carrying a rifle. Are you going to pick up the phone, or is that an just an assumption on your part? Moral, we all make assumptions/deductions/guesses based on the information we have.

On the bolded, it's not me. Why is this personal? I clearly stated in the bolded you quoted (did you actually read it though) that in the "state's" eyes this was skirting the rule. Has zero to do with me. Just how I perceive the "state" looked at what was happening and led to their next action.

I'll answer graph by graph again. I'm not the state (KHSAA) you'd have to ask them if you think they are hamstringing football. I don't think they are, but that's another discussion. As far as I know ALL activity in any sport is only banned during the dead period. Why pick on basketball more than any other sport? Again, I'm not the state, so I can't answer for the KHSAA. But, I kind of assumed all schools with football did have trainers on site every day. My guess is if that's not the case, the KHSAA isn't going to mandate it because that would open them up to liability. On the last part of this graph, again I don't get the "feel good changes" you are talking about. On the last graph, I don't know. I'm not the state.

Again, I don't see why basketball is even brought up in the thread, but it seems to keep being mentioned. I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. You do get July, that's not ridiculous. It's a fact.

I'll address your points one at a time, since you did a good job breaking them down for me. 1. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Let me clearly state this again. The state banned competition against other schools in June (figuring that would end 7 on 7). Some schools (in the state's eye) skirted the rule by making 7 on 7 an inter squad thing when the state wanted it to go away. So they took away one of the toys you need to keep playing 7 on 7. 2. Of all the issues football is dealing with right now, that's your question? I'd prefer to keep the topic on football and the thread starting quote, but to answer your question: I think basketball is not allowed to scrimmage other schools after the dead period. I think this started the same year football had to quit 7 on 7 against other schools in June. But, you already knew that. 3. I'm not sure how to respond to this. I see the state taking helmets away in June as a lot of things, but a feel good thing is not one. Further, I'm not sure how the state removing protective gear from kids could be viewed as any kind of response at all to the NFL poor track record on concussions. Seems the complete 180 to me. Unless of course their goal was to make sure there was no getting around the 7 on 7 rule this time. (see my first post, and point one in this post).