2Short

Agreed....going back just a little further...it was Dale Mac and Hardy Trible (sp?) for years...good memories!

I know about the CCH internet radio...I'm wondering about old fashioned am/fm radio ? Anybody know if / where to find it?

:laugh:

Great kid! Will help the Tigers! Someone's radar gun needs repair.

You are always a thoughtful and respectful poster..thank you! I understand the logic of your explanation, however, in my mind it still opens a door for continued "leveling" or aligning of "like' schools ad nauseum. And again, the words themselves are subjective and therefore impossible to nail down. It's simply a matter of choosing which criteria one wants to use...the terms can apply to dozens and dozens of variables. Another thing, proponents proclaim that it is NOT about winning, it's about fairness and level. Okay, but how do you measure that if not by winning? If the privates did exactly what they do today but rarely, if ever won anything...would there even be a discussion? And if we admit, then, that it is measured by winning, what happens when the next group wins too much and who has the authority to decide how much winning is too much or just right? "Unfair" and "unlevel" will be applied to the next group or individual schools that are perceived as 'advantaged' and the need to "level" will rear it's head again, and again, and again...

I must pose this question again....what exactly is the intended result of separation? Specifically, what do we want to achieve and how do we know when we're there? Assume the privates are separated, is the playing field now equal? How do we deal with the same publics winning too much? Oh yea, it's not about winning...it's about "level" ... that clear's it up. What exactly is "level"? Who gets to define that very subjective term? Who gets to measure it and keep it there? By what criteriea do they accomplish that? Separation is the first of many subsequent steps toward a achieving goal that has yet to be determined....

I agree ... Henderson is by far tops in NK imo...

Then I respect your opinion

How many of you posting on this subject played for Coach Listerman and at what level (varsity, jv, frosh, 8th grade?)

Some interesting statistics relative to college scholarships Allowable # of scholarships for NCAA D I and D II sports: Sport- Men/ Women Basketball- 13/ 15 Football- 85/ 0 Baseball/Softball- 11.7/ 12 Track/Field- 12.6/ 18 Golf- 4.5/ 6 Gymnastics- 6.3/ 12 Field Hockey- 0/ 12 Ice Hockey- 18/ 18 Lacrosse- 12.6/ 12 Rowing- 0/ 20 Soccer- 9.9/ 12 Swim/Dive- 9.9/ 8.1 Tennis- 4.5/ 8 Volleyball- 4.5/ 12 Water Polo- 4.5/ 8 Wrestling- 9.9/ 0 Does this seem like Baseball took 100% of the brunt of the title IX changes?

Not entirely true...hopefully this is the biggest challenge this year....which speedy / rifle arm do I put in center and which do I put in left??? HMMMM?

The Colonels don't execute well even in victory imo...their press O and their half crt O is just ugly...a vast majority of their shots would fall under the "forced" category, however only the misses get that label. Their effort vs Holmes was greatly improved over HHS and Boone, however, it had more to do with a calmer rotation that included JD for a change and truly great Defense especially Grimes... I can't call this one with confidence, it should be CCH by alot; however, this team has no identity...rotations change from hour to hour, offense is alot of running around, the hot hands frequently get a 'rest' to cool them off or doesn't touch the ball for quarters at a time? Bondick's absense has played havoc with Mitch as he has to handle 100% of the ball pressure; Depends a lot on what the opposition does and what "mood" the Colonels bring on a given night...honestly, there is very little you can trust with them...on top of it, I haven't seen HC yet...SO with that said...CCH 52 HC 45

That might be the quote of the decade! :lol:

I would never say that CCH is a no brainer against anybody...they tend to coach/play down and keep teams they should man handle close imo...however, to say that Beechwood matches up well vs CC is..., well.... completely innaccurate.

Feels just like home...breaking up teenagers arguing! Anyway, this is the "...Coach Roesel" thread so Double D's correct...now you boys play nice! Congrats to Coach R and the Raiders! I don't know, but he has to be at the top of the list for achieving wins the quickest? DD, any stats on that? IMO, he has done an absolutely great job of not only winning games, but more importantly, establishing a program that expects to win and expects to do what it takes to win consistently. Good Luck...we'll be counting with you:ylsuper:

Reading BGP, I find many statements about so and so being a 'good' or 'great' coach...or 'they are well-coached', or 'so and so is a terrible coach'... or whatever. Knowing some of many of these coaches and their programs personally, I always wonder what the basis is for those statements? There are coaches that get "sainted" on here, and I know from direct personal experience that the writer absolutely COULD NOT have played under or had a kid play under said coach....and there are some that get blasted on here, and again I think the exact same thing. So...is it wins/losses, is it cause the guy is friendly to you, is it just what you heard? IMO accurate criticisms or compliments can ONLY come from the consensus of players or maybe from parents of players. The rest must be guessing? I say it has everything to do with things like: getting the absolute most out of your kids' potentials; noticeable improvement as a player and team; trust, fun, pride, respect, knowledge, fairness, communication, honesty, itegrity, growth... These things can and do occur with a 6 and 20 record, no title at all...AND...there are some who go 20 and 6 and win a lot year in and out, but if you polled the kids over several years....you'd hear nothing positive about the attributes listed above. Just curious....

Fwiw, born and raise right here and I played four years of hs football in Ky (along with college)... So I'm very proud of our football tradition, and it appears to be moving in a positive direction in many aspects. With that said, I have a geniune question: It has been a few years, but I would think they have grown at a relative pace...so did we really make up that much ground? I have only seen one game in Texas and one in Louisiana so I'm not pretending to know what I'm talking about...but, we weren't even close to the games I saw in terms of overall talent, atmosphere, etc. These where like college games. I'm talking 10K people for a regular season ho hum game...and for every 1 kid we have at 6'3" 220 running a 4.7; there were 6. Kids played offensive OR defense..and there where lots of them..My uncle told me that the game in Texas was pretty much a normal high school game. Honestly, we have a handful of programs that could compete well in the big football states like Tex, Flor, Louisiana, etc..right? From what I saw and hear from relatives in both states, the typical senior hs in their area is 11th and 12th grade only with 2k to 3k students. I think it's a curious question, and I don't really know the answer. Just surprised by some of the answers and ranks mentioned above?

That is absolutely the best idea I've read on here!!! :laugh:

One of my coaches used a 'production' stat. Add up positives: example: 2 steals, plus 4 rebounds; plus 1 deflection; plus 1 charge taken; plus 3 assists; plus 10 points...subtract negatives: -3 turnovers; then divide the total number of minutes played by that number. This example would equal a production number of 1.11 if we assume 20 minutes on the court. The number is only useful in it's relevance to the others and/or the team benchmarks etc. It doesn't matter what stats you want to use, just be consistent. You want to emphasize something in your program, put it in there. If a kid doesn't score, they can still have a great production number by getting a ton of rebounds, assists, deflections, and not turning the ball over...and, it levels the measurement to a Per Minutes Played format, not just totals. It's an easy way to measure and compare easily what a player contributes. If you have a kid who does all the 'intangible' things, whatever you say those are (obviously, I'm assuming there's no attitude problem or whatever)...and no one is out performing them or is equal, then I guess it is the coach's call. But if I'm on the bench with a higher production number and my coach tells me that the other girl plays because she does all the "intangibles"...that makes no sense? If it doesn't produce a result, who cares what it is...(best hair, I went to school with her dad?) It can't be that subjective or kids lose trust and motivation to compete with one another. There's a score book, stat sheets, and a score board...measure what you want, but kids need to produce something to 'earn' time on the floor. BTW, read any of your most notable coaches' philosophies, none of them will substitute "intangible" for "production"!

[quote=(I still am not convinced that Miles is out of the picture though). I agree with that...something's not as it seems...

Reading BGP, I would think that someone with your baseball insight would be just a little more excited with this kid? I guess we'll all have to wait and see, but to say that "maybe by his junior year he can crack the starting line up" is nothing more than a backhanded compliment. This thread is an upbeat, congratulatory, pat on the back for one of our own NK standouts, how bout a little love?...(Btw, I am an outside observer only...no relation to Corey or BC...)

Obviously, I had heard much about Darius Miller; and was aware of him heading to UK; however, I had not seen him in person till last night. I expected to see a relatively impressive kid; but, for some reason, I expected the hype to be somewhat exaggerated. I must say that it was a pleasure to see a big time prep player in person and that the hype is well deserved! He is impressive in every way and I look forward to rooting for him at UK. As hard as my Colonels played, I couldn't help but feel that he was 'toying' with them at times; not in an arrogant, look at me way, just that I think he could literally do whatever he wanted. He is physically "all that". The best part, for me, however, was that he seemed to be a truly decent kid! I was most impressed with his demeanor, attitude, and genuine respect for the game, his teammates, and his opposition. Some of the on court bantering I heard about today was truly amazing to me...he was down to earth, humble, and grounded from my perspective...it wasn't a cocky sarcasm like you would expect from a player of his status. I have a profound respect for this young man. Congrats to him and his parents for a job well done. I wish him all the best and will be a genuine fan as I watch him move on to the 'big time'!

I remember taking the ball out of bounds back in the day...and the kids where so close they were pulling hairs off the back of my legs! Guess I could have shaved them? Anyway, don't know what the criteria is, and I have not see all the other schools; but CCH kids take pride in being loud and creative. They are watched by a couple of serious "hawks"...so they never get too far outside a very tight line before being reprimanded. Every night has a theme for dress. Some of their most memorable cheers where for things like the other teams tumblers, little kids on the floor, the guy dusting the floor, shoes falling off, group singing, group roller coaster rides, synchronized boxing match, etc ... With that said, they do challenge opponents (on the floor and in the stands) to keep up!

100% True...I don't think he'll be tempted with enough this June to skip UK, but he will ge a shot at the next level ... athletic, great speed, cannon, versatile, smart, superior work ethic, great kid, oh yeah...the kid can flat out hit a baseball !!!!

That would be incorrect...