ukbellco14

Walt Allen of South Laurel

I totally understand what you are saying, and dont neccessarily disagree. I was just giving credit where credit was due. Proffitt and Smith played huge. If Allen or Hammonds could have stepped up it probably would have been a different game. Graves kept those players in check though, and did "outplay" SL and are deserving of the win. I agree with JayRay in that SL should have switched it up, and I do think that if they would have the ball game may have turned out differently. However, Coach Wright knows a lot more then I do, and he had his reasons. Did he get outcoached..... maybe, maybe not. Only he and his staff knows that. I think the gameplan Coach Wright had would have worked just fine had Allen and Hammonds stepped up. You cant blame Wright for SL shooting terribly from the line, or for wide open missed lay ups, or for not hitting the final shot to win it in regulation. You also cant blame Wright for SL getting outrebouded. Rebounding is about hustle and desire. Graves wanted it more and it showed IMO.

WOW! You must not have followed SL very much last season if the only time you heard of or remembered Allen playing was during the State Tourney. What he did in the state tourney last year he did all season last year. Any person who follows SL basketball could tell you that. The only reason it took a State Tourney run and Championship for Allen to get the press and "hype" he so deserved was because SL is not centralized in Lexington or Louisville, and therefore he didnt get the state wide press that alot of other players get and that Allen deserved all season. The reason Allen will win Mr. Basketball may be because of the "hype," but ya know what, he EARNED that "hype" and therefore if he wins Mr. Basketball it means he EARNED that title as well, and that means he is DESERVING. Allen followed up an unbelievable junior year with an impressive senior year, and to ignore that because Allen played 1 bad game in the state tourney is a joke. Fields was not the key to last years team, the duo of Fields and Allen was the key. Take Allen away and Fields was stoppable, take Fields away and Allen was stoppable. No one player was the key to SL's success last year. That was and is the beautiful thing about SL, they were the epitomy of the word TEAM. That is the reason SL is such a great TEAM. As great as Allen was and is, there are other players on his team that can play just as great if called upon. Sure Proffitt and Hammonds and Smith, and Fields last season, were all great players and Allen may not have been the best player out of them all, but he did PLAY the best of all of them. You dont neccessarily have to be the best player on a team to play the best, and Allen played the best when it mattered, and that is what counts. Basketball is a team sport and anyone can easily blow off Allen's accomplishments as attributable to the great supporting cast that he has, but that is a copout. You could do that with any Mr. Basketball candidate. Allen may not be D1, he may not have mind blowing stats, he may not look the part, he may not be the most athletic, he may not be the most talented, he may not be the "best" on paper, he may not be the best shooter or ball handler, he may be the product of a great TEAM............. but ya know what.............. something Mr. Allen will most be is Mr. Basketball, so deal with it. Sure there are alot of deserving players, but to say that there are players MORE deserving then Walt Allen is laughable. Something Allen has done that all those other "more deserving" Mr. Basketball candidates didnt do....... lead his team to the state championship and win the big one. I always thought the game of basketball, just like any sport, was about WINNING. If being a winner, on and off the court, is the criterion for winning Mr. Basketball, then there is no other player in the state more deserving then Walt Allen.

For the record Proffitt wasnt the only player for SL to step up. Trey Smith also played a heck of a ball game.

I dont see how the New Jersey example fixes the problem of unfairness. The problem is fairness.... correct? This is because the small schools cant compete with the big schools, apparently because their enrollment is to small and therefore their talent pool is too small. How does having each class champ battle it out for a composite state champ seem fair to those small school champs? They will never compete with the big school champs, and this will once again be attributed to the small school champs having less students enrolled and therefore a lesser talent pool. How does that fix anything? If you are going to have class state champs in basketball in order to make it fair for everyone then it would make no sense to have a composite state champ. Think about it. That composite state championship would be "unfair" to the smaller schools using the logic that was used to split basketball into classes in the first place. The class state championship will not be as prestigious as the composite state championship, and therefore the small school class state champs will feel slighted just like they do now.

No it isnt...... it is a matter of scholarship limitations, funds, and recruiting. It has nothing to to do with enrollment. Besides that, I was talking about Division 1 basketball, and division 2 or 3 has nothing to do with my analogy. KWC, has it was pointed out by another poster, has around 800 students, yet they compete and win against schools that have 20,000. My point was that if the KHSAA has it wrong and the B-Ball district and region playoffs, as well as the Sweet 16, is unfair to smaller schools, then the NCAA also has it wrong because the NCAA tourney is unfair to smaller schools. I dont hear W-KY or Murray St or any of the small Division 1 schools complainng that the NCAA tourney is unfair and that there should be two seperate NCAA division 1 tourneys!

Dont quit now..... its just gettin good. Maybe you should wait a little longer to respond to my posts after I am completely through editing. You dont have to respond the very second I make a post. You can wait a few minutes. When I edit I usually do so within the first few minutes I have made a post.

I have enjoyed our exchange as well. As far as the situation you are talking about at Raceland..... I find it hard to believe there were no athletes. I find it more probable that the few possible athletes there may have been were not interested in Raceland athletics for a reasons that could be offensive. Sounds to me like interest in Raceland athletics needs to be rejuvenated within the younger students. Regardless, it sounds like you still easily fielded a team of 10-15 players, although they may not have been the best players or the most experienced. Also.... yes PRP will find more athletes. But it isnt all because of numbers, and it still doesnt change the fact that both teams still had the 15 players they needed to compete..

I am the king of edit, thank you! Get over it! I am not saying that numbers have NOTHING to do with it. I am just saying that the 1 reason numbers have SOMETHING to do with (bigger numbers = better talent) it is irrelevant IMO. Other reasons small schools dont compete? #1 Small schools do compete. Small schools compete (play close games) with big schools on a regular basis. They also beat big schools. They just havent done so in March. 1A Barbourville came within 1 point of beating 4A defending state champ South Laurel in the region final. Boyle Co beat that same South Laurel team. You also have lots of 4A and 3A schools that can't beat a 1A or 2A school. If numbers matter then explain those anomalies. If every big school was totally demolishing every little school then you could say that numbers matter, but that isnt the case. #2 Alot of your bigger schools come from urban areas where there is more talent and also more interest with regards to basketball. This isnt because of numbers. #3 Alot of your smaller schools are awe struck by the bigger schools, and therefore dont compete at their highest level against the bigger schools because the biggers schools usually have more tradition, nicer gear, or are more athletically imposing #4 Alot of your smaller schools dont have the money to put, nor put the money if they have it, into a big basketball program. The larger schools have more money to work with and therefore can dedicate more to the b-ball program. #5 Alot of your smaller schools dont have adequate feeder programs and there middle school and elementary school participation is largely ignored. etc etc etc must I go on. There are a number of reasons the smaller schools dont compete against the bigger schools and it has nothing to do with numbers and how numbers = better talent. NCAA basketball Division 2 and 3 doest have to do with size..... it has to do with scholarship limitations. Division 3 schools cant offer scholarships, and Division 2 schools are limited in some form or fashion that puts them on an uneven playing field with Division 1 schools.

Apollo may never have to have 6 8th graders to fill out a roster. I do know of at least a few 4A and 3A teams that have had to do that though (fill out a roster with some 8th graders). That shows me that Apollo's numbers have nothing to do with why they wont ever have to have 6 8th graders to fill out a roster, and that the reason Apollo will probably never have to do this is some other reason apart from numbers. I am saying that based on the numbers..... you probably wont make a run this year. But if it is handled correctly, then you should be able to make a run next year, or 2 years after that, as long as the feeder program is handled correctly. This is all "in theory" though. In all honesty, the talent level may not be there. But like I said...... thats not what this issue is about. I am tired of trying to give every team that cant play worth a hoot a chance to win a championship for the sake of being fair. Life isnt fair. You have to face "bigger & better" everyday in the real world, and you cant go crying to some legislative body to classify the problem for you so that you dont have to face "bigger & better." Its completely stupid. There is a reason the small schools dont compete with the large schools, and it isnt numbers. In football it is numbers. The reason a Belfry cant compete with a Trinity isnt neccessarily because of actual football ability, its because they have 7 kids who play at least two ways and a few that play 3 ways, and only have a roster of 40 for a sport that requires at least 22 different positions not including special teams, whereas Trinity has a roster of 100+. In basketball its not that they dont have enough players to field and adequate team, its that the talent isnt there, and although that isnt fair, that is life.

Also....... on the Allen comment by westsider. Sure, Allen may have been, according to your talent gauge, the 3rd best player on SL's team last year. That doesnt take away from what he did. Basketball is a team game, and you will always be able to attribute one players success to the rest of his teammates. The fact still remains that Allen did what he did and you cant erase that. Get over it!

Heck no they wont make a run....... but it isnt because the system isnt fair. Its because the team is young. Plenty of schools run into that problem, and it has nothing to do with numbers. I know large 4A schools that have that problem. Look at Whitley Co and North Laurel from the 13th region. I am tired of trying to give every team that cant play worth a hoot a chance to win a championship for the sake of being fair. Life isnt fair. You have to face "bigger & better" everyday in the real world, and you cant go crying to some legislative body to classify the problem for you so that you dont have to face "bigger & better." Its completely stupid. There is a reason the small schools dont compete with the large schools, and it isnt numbers. In football it is numbers. The reason a Belfry cant compete with a Trinity isnt neccessarily because of actual football ability, its because they have 5 kids who play 3 ways and only have a roster of 40 whereas Trinity has a roster of 100+. In basketball its not that they dont have enough players to field and adequate team, its that the talent isnt there, and although that isnt fair, that is life.

You went from Male to Apollo??? Ok you edited it. Gotcha. Either way..... You bet it is fair IMO..... if it is handled the way it should be, then it looks like Raceland has the makings of a heck of a team next season..... and then 2years after that if the feeder program does its job. Not to mention that several other large 4A schools could have the same problem Raceland has..... but we dont attribute that to numbers. So what..... Raceland is a young team compared to Male. I dont see how that has anything to do with numbers, except that the feeder programs arent doing an adequate job of getting kids interested in basketball and getting them to stay out.

WOW! Allen plays 1 bad game in the state tourney...... now he isnt "Mr. Basketball" material and never was to begin with. This is about as ridiculous as someone saying that Jerry McNamara is overrated because of his performance in this years NCAA tourney. Every kid has a bad game or 2. I am just amazed at how 1 bad game can erase a hundred great games and cause ppl to forget just how good a player someone is. Jeez....... give me a freakin break. Allen isnt the best athlete, he isnt D1 material, and he may not look the part..... he will be "Mr. Basketball" though. Get over it! Allen did what most are not able to do. He followed up an unbelievably good junior year, with an equally impressive senior one. It's really gonna burn you when he is wearin #1 for the KY all stars isnt it!

I dont think Bryant Gumble coaches, plays, or is affiliated in any way, shape, or form with those small schools is he???

If you are referring to me about believing you can find 5 equally talented players in a group of 200 as easily as you can in 2000, then you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying you can do that. I am simply saying that it isnt the KHSAA's job to deal with that. They dont deal with it in football, and they shouldnt deal with it in basketball. The reason you have classes in football isn't because its harder to find a number of quality players in 200 moreso then in 2000. The reason you have classes in football is because a team with 30 kids is at an obvious disadvantage to a team with 100+ kids, regardless of the quality of those teams. As far as track goes..... I agree. Declassify it. However, classification is neccessary in these one-on-one sports in order to manage those sports. Although, I do think the best of each class should compete against one another, just like I do in football.

Although I dont neccessarily agree that winning a region title in basketball is the equivalent to winning a state title in football....... I do think that in this state, winning your region and making it to the Sweet 16 in basketball is viewed as the equivalent of winning a state championship in football. With that being said..... the HS basketball playoffs and the Sweet 16 are fair. Every team gets a chance, what they do with that chance is up to them. Doesnt get much more fair then that. Sure...... the small schools have to face the goliaths..... but that is why its so special. Also...... something to think about!!!! The reason the KHSAA doesnt classify basketball like they do football, IMO is the same reason the NCAA doesnt classify basketball like they do football. The size of enrollment isnt a crucial part of fielding a complete, competitive roster. If the KHSAA has it wrong, then does the NCAA. I mean a small school hasnt won the NCAA tourney in forever, yet I dont hear any of them saying the NCAA tourney is unfair and NCAA basketball should be classified.

On the bolded..... I am not acting like it isnt any easier. I understand the difficulty of finding 12 quality players in a school of 200 compared to finding 12 quality players in a school of 2000. I am simply saying that this is a battle the KHSAA shouldnt deal with. They dont deal with it in football, they shouldnt deal with it in basketball. And before someone says "but they do deal with it in football because football has a class system," let me remind everyone that football doesnt have a class system to address the above issue. Football has a class system to address the issue of having enough players to field a complete, competitive roster. A team with 30 players vs a team with 100+ is unfair, regardless of talent level. I dont see the point in a composite state champ though if I am looking at it from the point of view that you all are coming from (pro big/small split), because those respective state titles really wont mean much in comparison to the composite state title. Doesnt having the composite state title take away from the class state titles, which basically defeats the purpose of splitting the state up in to classes in the first place. The pro big/small split hate the 1 champion deal right now because it eliminates the small man, and wouldnt having a composite state title do the same thing. I would have no problem with it, just like I would have no problem with it in football. I just dont see how if you dislike the Sweet 16, you would like an "All Out" State Champion.

I am far from defending the indefensible considering the majority of ppl on this thread have been in favor of the Sweet 16 tourney the way it is, and it doesnt look like the KHSAA is going to be changing it any time soon. Don't misunderstand me......I am not denying that if you have a bigger school you will have more players to choose from, and therefore you will most likely be able to find more quality players. I am just saying that it DOESNT MATTER. It isnt the reason football has a class system, and it isnt going to be reason basketball will go to one. Football doesnt have a class system because the bigger schools have more players to draw from and therefore more talent to draw from (which is why ppl are defending a class system in basketball). Football has a class system because the bigger schools have more players to draw from period; and football is a sport where having more players, regardless of talent, is crucial to fielding a competitive team. In basketball it isnt neccessary to have lots of numbers to field a competitive team. In basketball a team with 15 players doesnt neccessarily have the advantage over a team with 10 players, whereas in football a team with 100+ has an overwhelming advantage over a team with a little over 30. I love your awful example...... 2 mountain schools being compared to 2 Lexington and Louisville schools. There is another big problem I see with this whole debate. Its almost as if this large/small debate is really a urban/rural debate. I think to say that the reason small schools cant compete against big schools is because they are small is really minimalizing the issue. There are plenty of reasons, other then enrollment, why smaller schools dont usually compete with bigger schools, or why rural area schools dont usually compete with urban area schools. Also..... for the example you gave there are a hundred other counter examples. North Laurel and Whitley County have enrollment similar to J'Town and Male, yet they cant compete with those teams. Why is that? It isnt numbers obviously. Also...... 1A Barbourville took 4A South Laurel to the wire in the region tourney, and probably should have beat them. The best 1A and 2A teams can compete with and win against the best 3A and 4A teams, and they have done so in the past. Just because they havent done so in March doesnt mean the Sweet 16 should be scrapped.

They werent playiing Hazard either though.

No it isnt. It is the crucial disadvantage that the KHSAA shouldnt deal with because it is a disadvantage that will always exist unless we go to JD If U Please's proposed solution. It is also a disadvantage that is a crucial part of life, and one that will not go away in that arena of competition. Therefore it shouldnt go away in the sporting arena. In football it is a matter of the size of a player pool (number of possible players, regardless of talent) that a team has to draw from, relative to the number of players it takes to field a competitive team. The key here is that the size of a player pool isnt concerned with how much talent may be drawn out of that player pool due to its size, but is only "relative to the number of players it takes to field a competitive team." In basketball it is a matter of the talent of a player pool (number of possible quality players) that a team has to draw from, relative to the talent pool that other competing teams have to draw from. The key here is that there is no relevancy to the number of players it takes to field a competitive team, but only with how much possible talent may be drawn out of a bigger talent pool. In football the numbers matter not because it makes for more quality players or a bigger "talent" pool, but because its neccessary in order to ensure that every team and the teams it is competing against are able to field a competitive team based on the sheer number of players it has to draw from (player pool). This is why a class system is neccessary, and why the public/private split has some legitimacy. In basketball numbers dont matter because it is not neccessary, unless of course you just want a bigger talent pool and therefore better possible talent to draw from. This is why a class system, or a large/small split, in basketball has no legitimacy. To say that because small school's have not won basketball championships and then attribute that to the fact that those schools are small is a big assumption. There are alot of other possible reasons that small schools havent won basketball championships, and I have seen plenty of small schools that compete and win against big schools all the time, it just hasnt happened in March for whatever reason. If these small schools were getting blown out by the big schools all the time, and not fielding competitive teams, then I would say OK, here is a problem. The fact remains though that these small schools often do compete and win against the big schools. Also, the reverse it true in that alot of big schools with big player pools havent done so well with regards to state championships or just winning ball games. The quality of players that a school has to draw from is not the KHSAA's issue. They must only ensure that each team has a fair amount of possible players to draw from in order to field a competitive team based on the number of players it takes to field a complete team. This issue is not a matter of a "talent" pool with regards to having more numbers meaning you have more possible talent. It is a matter of a "player" pool with regards to every competing team being able to field a competitive team based on the number of players it takes to have a competitive team. This is regardless of how good or bad the talent is in that "player" pool. If you needed to fill 22 total individual offensive and defensive positions, have at least 1 backup for each of those, and preferably have a bunch of special teams players that arent neccessarily playing offense and defense...... all this in a sport where depth, and the number of kids who playing 2 or 3 ways, holds the key to how well you perform...... then I could see having a class system where the numbers matter. But in basketball you have to fill 5 total individual positions period, and you really only need 5-7 more players after that. It doesnt matter if you have 200 students or 2000 students, every school can fill a competitive roster, and if they cant it isnt because they are a small school with too little enrollment and therefore too little a "talent" pool to draw from.

:laugh: Great Post!

:thumb:

So is the era of sports message boards, sports video games, and non stop sports media attention! Everyone is a coach! I watched a thing on the NFL network that was interviewing several "joe blow" fans of the Tampa Bay Buc's and how they all thought they had the answers. Most had NO football experience WHATSOEVER! It was very humorous, and they had Gruden's (the coach at the time) comments on the interviews and that was even funnier. It was HILARIOUS to say the least.

For the record..... Wright is one of the best coaches in the state IMO.