OldRaider22

Look, no offense, but many of our schools haven't exactly been 4A for a long time. Up until about 7 years ago, none of us really cared about "that" side of the football spectrum(except for Boone and Campbell). Most of us have been 3A for the majority of the programs lifespan. But if you told the folks from NKY that their district could be Boone, Conner, Ryle, SK, Dixie, Highlands, and CovCath........well I'm sure they'd be pretty happy to win a state title from that class. Probably a lot more than one over the Rocks or Tigers to be honest. We know you guys are good, we get it. If we ever stop building schools and have a school your size(we currently have HALF the number of boys you do) I'm sure we'd be glad to play in a class with you guys. Just as Boone Co. was glad to when it was one of two schools in Boone Co. But to say that winning a state title against our neighborhood rivals wouldn't be meaningful because we didn't beat the Rocks or the Tigers......well that's just silly.

I think the coaches might not want more high schools so that they might at least have a chance to compete with the two evil Louisville schools. I find it very interesting that before Ryle was built, Boone played T and X very tough in all matchups. Then Ryle opens, and boom, all of a sudden we can't stay within 30 points of them. Part of that was Brohm, Coverdale, & Co., but I'm sure you'd agree that building more schools certainly has a detrimental effect on the successes of those schools. On another note, I read the same article you guys did in the Post. What I gathered from it was that the coaches felt like nothing was really accomplished by going to 6 classes. It's like, one minute we were talking about a public/private split(the KFCA voted 195-78 FOR a split in Nov.), and your solution is creating 6 classes? Where did that come from? Address the problem, don't create a new one. After thinking, looking, and discussing 6 classes, I'm not sure it is the answer anymore. It will buy some appeasement for the KHSAA for the time being, but in the long run the same old problems will rear their ugly head(unless they are specifically addressed).

Add coach Dale Mueller as our speed and agility coordinator. This will be the fastest team we've had in years!

:irked: And I was already planning my "Super" district too. I loved the old 3A district, and would love to see it return to NKY. Guess I'll have to wait 4 years. Somehow, I think the "super" class alignment will pass with flying colors at that time.......:lol:

I agree(see my other post on the Super class thread). Personally, I loved the rivalries with CCH and Highlands. Looking back on it, its hard to believe that a school in only its 3rd or 4th year of existence was able to compete with and beat those kinds of schools. Can you imagine Pendelton Co. giving CCH or Highlands a game? I'd love to see the following district; for my own personal, selfish reasons of course: Dixie Ryle Boone Conner Campbell SK CCH Highlands

Guess I should look before I type?? I really like the Super class proposal, especially if we can convince CovCath and Highlands to play up.

What the heck would Conner do? Go back to the old way of being in the Lexington district? On a side note, I don't think that their classification in 6A would last long, due to the new school being opened in 2008 or '09.

I'd love to see that happen. Personally, I know we always enjoyed playing Highlands and CovCath. That district, in its heyday(mid-late 90's) was probably the toughest I've seen top to bottom. Heck, Holmes was pretty daggone good back then as well. Now throw in Boone Co. and Campbell Co., and it could be a lot of fun! CCHS, Highlands, Boone, Dixie, Ryle, Campbell, SK......and Scott and Grant Co. Maybe we can engineer a trade......Scott and Grant Co. for Holmes!:lol:

A couple of observations...... First, maybe SM can help me with this......So is this the proposed format? 6 evenly divided classes? Or will they go with the "Super" top 20 for 6A? Makes a big difference to me. Second, just looking at the 5A, and low and behold the BG Purples have snuck in the back door! BG, traditionally, has fielded some exceptional teams. Will they continue to have the same kind of sucess? Third, I wouldn't be suprised at all to see teams like Beechwood, Highlands, etc. move up a class if their rivals(NCC, CovCath) aren't in the same class. That being said, I don't think anyone will touch 6A as far as moving up. In fact, you might see a scramble to get out of that classification! :laugh: Finally, I know change is always difficult. I have mixed emotions about this move. On one hand, it does level the playing field, as far as enrollment goes. But it does take away some of the meaning of beating a T or X to win a state title. Ultimately though, I think it is the right move. It sure beats the pants off of a public/private split. :thumb:

Now I know in your neck of the universe, 0-10 teams don't get into the playoffs currently. But for the rest of the STATE, this already occurs. IMO, I don't really like "cheapening" the value of making the playoffs. But really, there isn't that much being changed. We already have really, really bad teams making the playoffs, so why not let some of the "better" teams from tough districts make it as well? And one final note: Surely this is better than a public/private split.....right?

Sure, there are plenty of other factors working against Scott when it comes to football. I wasn't implying that open enrollment had something to do with the Haught/Patterson situation. While the problem certainly is much deeper than open enrollment, I certainly think that open enrollment is the proverbial "elephant in the room". How do you get the top athletes(which Scott loses on a regular basis to Dixie, and sometimes SK) to come to your school? Win right? Well that's awful tough to do when the top 2 or 3 players each year that could be at your school choose somewhere else. Those top guys are the ones that win games on Friday nights. So for a coach that is trying to build a program(see Reigler), he needs to convince kids(and parents) that their son should come to Scott to play for a program that more than likely will win less than 10 games in their 4 year career. How many takers do we have? Not many. I'll agree with you that poor administration, focus on other sports, etc, etc, are all part of the reason that Scott has won less than 20% of their games over 25 years. But to say that open enrollment doesn't play a major role in keeping the program from progressing, I'm not buying that. Throw in a new field at Dixie, and heck, if I were a kid or parent, I wouldn't even consider Scott.

First let me say that if you need evidence as to why Scott has won less than 25% of their games over the last quarter century, look no further than this. If your a losing program, and your county has open enrollment(as Kenton Co. does), it makes it awful tough to build up your program. That being said, I'm very excited to see Mr. Haught this fall in the SK blue and white. I've always thought that he was a very good player on a bad team, and now I think he'll be able to open some eyes. Here is my preseason top 4: 1. Dixie 2. Boone Co. 3. SK 4. Ryle

Getting back on topic though, I think it will be very difficult for NewCath to repeat this year. One reason, as mentioned earlier, is their schedule. Losing Diehl and both WR's will be very tough to replace. But in general, I think that the district itself is better from top to bottom. Beechwood will still be Beechwood, even with a new head coach. Bellevue is an up and coming team with a great coach. Holy Cross, Ludlow, and Dayton are all getting better and may be able to muster up enough to give someone a scare. Not to mention the rest of the state......

Don't take my assessment as gospel, but I'll say this: If you have talent, D1 coaches will find you. I often hear of that so and so got overlooked and well, usually, its with good reason. This their job, and they usually have a pretty good idea of what they are looking for. As to the lack of size/speed/etc. I'll say this(and Coach Trosper knows this story well): I went to H.S. with a guy that was 5'7" about 160 soaking wet when we were seniors. Always had ability, but when he got to H.S., everyone passed him up in terms of size. Late growth spurt during his redshirt freshman college year left him at 6'1". He really got into lifting, and before you know it, he's one heck of a 6'1" 210 WR, earning all-conference honors and team MVP honors as a senior. He is a full 6-8 inches taller than both of his parents(although his brother is about the same height). If you'd have heard this sqeaky voiced kid's claim that he was going to play college football as a senior in H.S. you'd have laughed. Amazing what a year in a college weightroom can do. As far as Jefferson goes, I don't think he'll be a WR at the college level, though I wouldn't rule it out. I'd look for him to be a DB. No offense, but its not like the cupboard is loaded down in Lexington with guys who can flat out burn, I'm sure DJ will be able to keep up with most.

Isn't that what UK is? Mid to Lower level? :lol: Seriously though, you have to understand what coaches are looking for in H.S. players to understand why they are so interested in Jefferson. They look at a guy, who, as you pointed out, may be 20 pounds light, and they say, "In 2-3 years we can get him big enough to help us." Ask any college coach if they want talent, or a guy that is really polished coming out of high school, and you'll get a resounding answer. Pete is a great H.S. player, and I think he can play somewhere at the next level. But he simply doesn't have the "skill set" that Duran possesses. It's tough to really get a feel for how good this kid is, because he didn't have a lot around him. I know its not what everyone wants to hear all the time, but really, just because your a VERY good player in H.S. doesn't mean that your a D1 athlete. D1 coaches don't miss much, but it sure doesn't hurt Duran that David Trosper(former Morehead St. coach now Holmes head coach) is giving him good recommendations.

Have been thinking about this as well, and I'm not so sure that we had a catchers balk in that situation. I was not there, and did not see it, but I have a feeling that it might be exactly as you described "looking bad". Often, fans of the game see a play that "looks bad" and immediately think it is a rules violation. Or on the flip side, they see a play that they consider "good baseball" (i.e. the interference call at 2nd) and think that its a bad call by the umpire. My advice: Most of the "blues" see thousands upon thousands of plays a year. The ones that make it to Applebee's usually have many years of that experience, some even being former minor league umpires(I know of at least one). They usually know the rules, inside and out, and USUALLY get it right. I'm not saying they are perfect, but even the MLB guys blow a call every now and again. I can completely see how the average fan, or even an experienced baseball guy like Bob Myerhoff, might think that the catcher jumping out "before the pitch" is a balk. However, as we have shown, if the pitcher moved both arms or the non pitching leg(in the windup), the non pitching leg or separated from the glove(in the stretch), THAT is the TOP and the catcher can move out of the box if he so chooses. Just because it "looks bad" doesn't mean its illegal.

On the money exactly, pretty much the same thing I was saying. And for the record, I agree, if you hear nothing it is always a "ball".

There is no "random appeal" anymore. It used to be that if a kid accidentally stepped on a base that the runner had missed, it was up to the umpire to call him out. Now you must specify exactly what it is you are appealing, verbally. The situation you described isn't an appeal play, its a force out. There is no appeal on a runner who doesn't "attempt" to tag up. Its simply a DP. Not an appeal play IMO. I can see how you'd see it that way, but its not an appeal play, trust me on this one. :thumb:

Look, I know it is difficult, and I understand what you are saying. But we all know what happens. They change the rule, and someone always has to push the limits of the rule. Infielders would be bouncing all over the place. I understand what you are saying about protecting everyone, but its not like the runner doesn't have other options either. He can always "give himself up" and move out of the baseline and away from the throw. Or a headfirst slide(although that might be more dangerous). I don't particularly care for the rule either, but I understand its intent, and I know that relaxing the rule would result in far greater risk of injury. So its worth keeping, IMO.

First, lets talk a little baseball. Are these MLB rules or H.S. rules? In MLB, upon request from the catcher or manager, the UIC(plate) must check with a field umpire. There is no such rule in H.S. baseball. So, in theory, the plate man could be "sure' that he had it right, didn't feel the need to appeal, and can elect not to do so under H.S. rules. Second, are you sure that the 1st base umpire was signaling BOTH that the batter had gone around and that he was out? Perhaps he assumed that the batter had gone, and was simply making a call on the throw for the dropped 3rd strike? Third, the appeal that cshs is referring to is a "live ball" appeal, versus a dead ball appeal. There is no longer the need for throwing to a base to appeal a play. But this play doesn't even fall under that category, its not an appeal play. A live ball appeal is simply a verbal appeal while the ball is "live". In order to appeal something, you must state what your appealing, not just throw the ball to the base. I somehow doubt that the catcher got out "I'm appealing that he went around." Finally, what should have happened is this: Ball is thrown to base for possible dropped 3rd strike out. When the ball reaches the bag, base umpire does nothing. He then confers with the UIC, asking whether the batter went around, and whether he intended to check with him. If the UIC says, "I got it, he didn't go", we come out, bring the batter back to the plate, and go on. If he says, I was coming to you, the base umpire then makes the call on the check swing. If he determines the batter went around, he then makes a call on the dropped 3rd strike throw, verbalizing and explaining both if need be. Keep in mind that the UIC never appeals to a base on his own, he must be asked by the catcher to do so. So if the catcher never asked, there can't be an appeal, and therefore we've got nothing. Complicated, I know.

I agree with this. And I'll add a little bit of my own two cents. Guys, these guys aren't professional umpires, they do miss calls. The catcher's balk was, IMO, a very tough call, considering the situation. Nonetheless, it was a blown call, IMO. Most of these guys have regular 9-5's, and just do this on the side. You want every call right, all the time? Pay them what the Major League guys get, I guaruantee they'll be able to take some time off from their "day jobs" to work on getting it right. Heck, pay them more than $50 a game, and I'm sure we can get some more guys out that "know the rules". If I'm not mistaken, a call was booted in the World Series last year, no? It happens, its part of the game. If it wasn't, we'd just hook a computer up to the bases and the ball and it could record balls/strikes/outs. But who'd want that? On a side note, think about this call for a second: Bot 7th, 1 out 0-0 score, Texas 6A(or whatever the largest division is down there) State Championship game. Batter walks. Next batter attempts to bunt runner over into scoring position. Bunt travels down the 3rd base line. The catcher waits for it to roll foul, and it doesn't, it sits on the line. The catcher then scoops it up with his mask. By rule, that's 3 bases. Game over, state championship decided on that play. The umpire who made the call received death threats on his family, vandalism to his home, etc., etc. The umpire decided that all of this wasn't worth the $50 bucks he gets a game, and quit, despite being a very good umpire(and getting that call right). This is why you don't have the "good" umpires you clamor for, keep that in mind.

The rule is fine, and serves the purpose it was intended to, to protect the players. This is not professional baseball, and shouldn't be treated as such. The main problem with the rule is that its not called enough during the regular season, so when the "better" umpires come out in the postseason, teams are hit with it early and often. How hard is it to slide directly into the bag? In essence, that is what the rule states, because we don't want KIDS getting dumped on their heads trying to turn a DP. How can you modify it without that happening? Because you know darn well that if it was modified that the scene described above would be played out over and over. Just like you can't cut block downfield in football, this rule is about protecting the kids, as most FED rules are, and since less than 1% of them will be professional athletes, I'd say that's probably a good idea. :thumb:

This is a commonly misconstrued rule, especially at the H.S. level and below. There is no "fielders balk", its a myth, in the form you are describing it. First off, as expressed by Mr. Tackett himself this winter, a fielder can have one foot in fair territory and one foot in foul ground and be legal. Just as you are still considered in the field of play when you make a catch near a dugout and have one foot inside the dugout, and one foot out. If the fielder has two feet outside the lines, then we only have 7 in the field of play. Since no play can start without 8 in between the lines, we have a dead ball until that fielder gets back in fair ground. I suppose the only way you could have a fielders balk is to have a player move over the lines before the TOP, but after he originally sets up(which would be next to impossible). Reference rule 1-1-4, "At the TOP, all fielders shall be on fair ground except the catcher who shall be in the catcher's box. A fielder is in fair ground when at least one foot is touching fair ground. So actually, your both wrong, if I'm reading the posts correctly.

1. Seeing kids enjoying the game of football. 2. The pop of the pads and the cool autumn nights. 3. Seeing how the NKY 4A district will shape up by seasons end. I have a feeling it could be an interesting year.

For those who don't know, all of these guys play for Holmes. Just thought the good people might want to know what school these great receivers play for. IMO, you can't go wrong with the 2 kids out at CovCath as far as NKY goes. Look for one of the young Dixie receivers to step up and have a big one this year as well. I can't remember the young man's name, but he's tall(about 6'4) and pretty lanky, and looked pretty impressive last year. Tall and lanky, I'm sure that narrows it down for you Sandman :lol: (I think he wore 80 something if that helps).