ukbellco14

:laugh:

I do know this...... but I also know that I have seen SL in a straight man defense, either full court or 1/2 court press, on more then one occasion. I could have swore this season that I saw Zach Marcum, as well as Proffitt, chasing one player around for the opposing team on a few occasions, just like whathisname (the great defender, gaa his name is on the tip of my tongue and I am ashamed for not knowing this) from last season would do. I am not saying they do it alot. But they have done it, and they are fairly successful at it when they do it. SL's tenacity and intensity on defense is exactly why they are successful in the 2-3 matchup zone, and that is the same reason they are successful in straight man. SL "gets after it" and that is why both defenses suit their style. SL should have forced the issue early and went to straight man early in order to jump out to a lead. Of course that is just my opinion, and considering I have NO basketball coaching experience I will stick with Wright's choice of defense, even if it was ineffective. In either case, SL should not have been playiing a 1-3-1 IMO. It was effective at times, but it also really hurt SL. All this really doesnt matter though....... great job Graves, get ready for next year SL.

My point exactly. Very nice job in explaining that in lamen terms. :thumb:

SL "never" plays straight man??? 2-3 matchup zone is SL's base defense.... yes, but they do play man to man and have done so on several occasions. Heck...... to say that a 2-3 matchup zone team doesnt ever play man to man is crazy. The 2-3 matchup zone is practically the zone version of man to man. SL doesnt exclusively play man, and they dont do it ALL the time, or even the majority of the time. But they do do it, and when they do they are very very successful.

I am not saying that they do so alot. I am just saying that the times they do do so they usually suffocated teams and ended up blowing them out. They have played a straight man-to-man defense on several occasions this season. They do not do so exclusively, but they do take advantage of this style from time to time.

Wrong.... every team in the state gets a chance to play for the state championship starting with district tourney play. If you can win all your district tourney games, regions games, and sweet 16 games then you are deserving of being called state champion. All those great teams that got left out had a chance to be there if they had won their region. They didnt, and therefore they arent there. Should Scott Co. had been in the sweet 16 just because they were ranked higher then Madison Central! NO, because Madison Central beat Scott Co in the regional championship where it was due or die. Is it fair that the majority of your best teams are located in Lexington and Louisvile, and therefore centralized in just a few regions. NO! But if those teams are truly and undoubtedly "the best" then the representative of those regions should win the championship every year...... but they dont! This is because winning a state championship in KY basketball isnt just about being the "best on paper" but its about playing your best ball at the toughest time. That is the true test of how good a team really is. I dont hear teams in the NCAA complaining because they got left out of the tourney, when a lesser ranked, lesser talented midmajor team got in over them. Does that make the NCAA tourney less then it is? NO!

I find this thread very intriguing. I am not taking anything away from all the research that has been done with the rankings to demonstrate the parity among regions. I totally agree there is alot of parity. I also agree that the winner of the Sweet 16 isnt neccessarily the "best" team, at least on paper, in the state. However I do think that the winner of the state tourney is the state champion and the "best" team on the court, if not on paper. The Sweet 16 isnt about who is the "Best" team on paper, or the most TALENT laden or ATHLETIC team, or the teams that are ranked the highest. If it was we would take the top 20 ranked teams and let them square off. But it isnt. It is about a team winning (in most cases) every district tournament game, every region tournament game, and every sweet 16 game. That is something like 9, 10, or 11 straight games with each game being do-or-die, and most all of them being played in a rocking environment. Can someone say pressure. That is no easy feat. Sure you have to have alot of lucky breaks and you have to have the ball bounce your way a few times. But does anyone else besides myself understand how INCREDIBLY HARD it is to win the basketball state championship with all that pressure on such a big stage. I dont hear anyone saying that the NCAA Boys Tournament is a joke because alot of smaller, mid-major schools are allowed in, while their are a ton of teams ranked ahead of them, or more talented then them playing in the NIT. Every team in this state has a shot to win the title, and that is all they can ask for. If they wanted to be in the Sweet 16 then they should have won their region. Dont water down the validity of the state championship because alot of good teams are left out. No good teams are left out, everyone gets a shot starting with the district tourney.

LOL :thumb: Just saying. Don't count the chickens before they hatch. Madison Central can beat PRP.

Graves outside shooting is good........ but it isnt the best, and would not have been great against SL's man. Also...... I would rather take my chances of Graves beating me with a low percentage shot, then get beat with the back doot cut that they scored most of their points on. If Graves outside shooting started to hurt SL they could have always backed off. Again I have to agree with JayRay on this point. But I do think he is being a bit harsh on Wright.

Dont count your chickens before they hatch. Did you see Graves beat SL!!! Upsets happen. Sure Jeffersontown will probably beat Graves, but who knows. Graves is riding high right now. Also, Madison Central is a very good team and if they get past PRP tonight they will be in the championship game IMO.

I agree....... but that will ALWAYS be an issue.

No I am not missing the point. Funny you say that EKY teams cant compete, considering 4A South Laurel, a EKY team, seems to be doing just fine. I get your point though, and I agree, but there are alot of other reasons that most EKY teams cant compete, and it isnt because of numbers. There is a difference between TALENT POOL and PLAYER POOL. It is not the KHSAA's job to manage TALENT POOLS, it is there job to manage PLAYER POOLS. They have to make sure every schools has a fairly equal number of players to draw from in relation to the number of players it takes to field a competitive team, they do not have to ensure the quality or level of talent of these schools. For this reason, in basketball one class works but in football you can justify the need for more then 1 class. If you want to debate TALENT POOLS then this could very easily become a Rural/Urban debate. I dont hear anyone crying for the rural schools to have their own championship while the urban schools have a seperate championship.

If thats what happens then thats what happens. I would think that a 3A team would win it sometimes, and that a 2A team could occasionally pull the upset.

WOW. I was looking for an SL-Shelby Co semifinal game. Instead we get a Jeffersontown-Graves matchup.

Maybe..... but he couldnt have had a much bigger game then he had with SL not playing man. I'd rather see SL lose playing their strong card then lose not playing it. SL can really suffocate and blow out teams when they play that style, but when they dont those same teams can play SL tough.

Like JayRay I didnt understand why Wright didnt go to a man defense. And although I dont think Wright should be slammed, I do think JayRay makes a valid point. I really thought that SL could have handled Graves like PRP handled Boyle if they would have gotten into their man defense and pressured Graves. Seems like SL's man defense is their strong point. They can really pressure teams, and not just control the tempo of a game, but force the tempo when they go to that style. I dont know why SL didnt play that card. However, like 4chs said, Wright knows WAY more about basketball then I do and I am sure he had his reasons.

Before I make this post let me clarify something. When I say "numbers" I am not referring only to the size of a school or the number of students enrolled. When I say "numbers" I am referring to the size of the player pool a school can draw from relative to the number of players it takes to field a competitive team. Ok..... now for a lengthy post. The public/private debate in football, as well as the class system that now exists, is about leveling the playing field and making it fairer, and doing this through numbers. This is because numbers is crucial to fielding a competitive football team because it takes sooooo many players to field a competitve team. The large/small debate in basketball is also about leveling the playing field and making it fairer. I just dont know if the large/small debate adequatley deals with the numbers issue because numbers is not as crucial to fielding a competitive basketball team since it takes, at the most, 15 players to field a competitive team. Realistically, you could field a competitive basketball team with 10 players. The public/private debate within football deals with the size of the player pool that public schools have to draw from vs. the size of the player pool that private schools have to draw from. However, this is in relation to the amount of players it takes to field a competitive team. With the large/small debate in basketball the main problem for me is that although the small schools have a much smaller player pool to draw from then the larger schools, it really doesnt affect competitiveness because it doesnt take a large number of players to field a competive team. The large/small debate within basketball doesnt take into account the number of players it takes to field a competitive team, it only takes into account the fact that small schools are not winning championships; then automatically attributes the fact that small schools are not winning championships to the fact that those schools are small. In basketball, unlike in football, numbers don't make as big a difference because it doesnt take a large number of players to field a competitive team. I think this is the point DiggerBill was making by his previous posts, and the reason that the football public/private debate differs from the basketball large/small debate. In football the public/private debate and the class system is about the size of a schools player pool in relation to the number of players it takes to field a competitive team. In basketball the large/small debate is about the size of a schools player pool in relation to the quality/talent of players that can be drawn out of a larger player pool. Now ladiesbballcoach made a good point in response to DiggerBill's comments. The response was this....... A 4A school with 1500 students vs a 1A school with 200 students is going to have a bigger player pool to draw from, and although this may not be important with regards to numbers, the team with the bigger player pool is still going to have a much better chance of getting better talent from within their player pool then the team who just has 200 students. I would say....... of course that 4A school will also have MORE TALENT within their player pool to draw, but that is JUST THE WAY IT IS and JUST THE WAY IT ALWAYS WILL BE. The "nature of the beast" if you will have it. The bigger the school = the biigger the player pool = its more likely that out of that player pool you will be able to draw more quality numbers. Their is nothing you can do about this. Due to the fact that it takes soooo many players to field a competitive football team, there is justification in a class system, or a public/private split. However, within basketball there is no justification for this because it doesnt take alot of players to field a competitve team. Sure those smaller schools may not be getting the quality of players the bigger schools are getting, but it is not the KHSAA's job to ensure that the talent level or enrollment at every school is equal. All the KHSAA can do is make sure that the size of the player pool relative to the amount of players is takes to field a competitve team is as equal as possible. Within basketball the small schools player pool is much more equal to the large schools in terms of the number of possible players they can draw from when viewed in the context of the number of players it takes to field a competitive team. This is much different in football where a class system, or public/private split, is neccessary in order to ensure that the size of the player pool relative to the number of players it takes to field a competitve team is equal and therefore fair for all teams. If you can get 10-15 players out for a basketball team, then your player pool is plenty big enough to field a competive basketball team. Those 10-15 players may not be able to play worth a hoot...... but there is nothing anyone can do about that. In football there are alot of 1 and 2A teams that can barely get 30 kids out for the football team. Now all 30of those kids may be talented, quality players, but they shouldnt have to play a Trinity team that can get over 100 kids out. The football debate doesnt deal with the quality of players, just the number of possible players in relation to the number of players you need to field a competitive team. Big difference between the football debate and basketball debate.

I agree...... it is a valid question, and one that should be addressed.

I really thought that SL would win it, and thought they had a great shot. I dont think Graves is the favorite at all though. IMO that goes to the winner of the PRP and Madison Central game tonight.

OK..... I dont know who you have argued with about this...... but any sport, HS, college, pro, or otherwise, is about WINNING, PERIOD. If it wasnt they wouldnt keep score. Hard work, team work, sportsmanship, etc are all intangibles that sport should teach and follow, but they are not the bottom line. If these intangibles were the bottom line then you wouldnt have championship trophys for winning a championship game, you would have them for having more offseason workouts then the other team. Sure there are other things that are MORE IMPORTANT then winning in the "big picture", but winning is what counts. If it wasnt then you would have a huge parade when you lose the championship. NOOOOO, you only have that huge parade when you win the championship. Any sport is about winning! Its about beating the guy across from you so that you can say you are the better man (or women) on the field of competition. It's about beating the odds, overcoming obstacles, and winning the big game when no one gave you a chance. There should be 1 basketball STATE championship, and not 2 or 4 class championships.

Graves has 31 rebounds and SL has 17. Graves shoots 53% and SL shoots 37%. Those stats dont lie. Graves wanted it more and SL didnt show. Hats off to Graves. They had a great gameplan, controlled the tempo, shutdown Allen, and did what SL couldnt do....... hold for the final shot and hit it. SL had a chance to do so in regulation and missed.

WOW. What a game. Went into overtime. Graves controls the tempo, shoots very good, and dominates the boards. Cavette and King played huge, despite being in foul trouble. Smith and Proffitt played huge for SL, but Allen and Hammonds didnt show up today. SL's defense caused numerous turnovers, most by Smith and Marcum, but they couldnt turn them into points. SL was my pick to win it. Not happening now. They just couldnt ever take a stronghold on the game. Good job Cards. You have alot coming back and will be in the hunt next season. Regroup and get ready to make a run next year. Graves deserved this one though. Good luck.

Graves beats SL 46-45. WOW. What a game.

Proffitt with 18. WOW Proffitt is clutch and taking over in OT.

43-42 SL Proffitt with another 3