SportsDummy

Wow if that is how a teacher/admin feels about kids, just as glad they don't make a commitment to the community

I understand Wilson has been looking since he took the MC job, never moved to Mt Sterling, which speaks for his committment, so this administration has nothing to do with him leaving

Sounds exciting for Montgomery County!

In light of the economy, has there every been any consideration to having the final of the district games and maybe even the first round of the regionals at the highest seeded school for each district game and at the district winner for each of the regional first round games. Last week to follow both girls and boys kids and school was out 4 nights, and could possibly be that way this week. Or maybe have a host school for the district final and have both girls and boys game on the same night. In a lot of cases the host school doesnt even have a team playing in the final I am sure I have overlooked some reasons this wouldn't work - but just wondering if there is ever any consideration given to tweaking the system to make it better for the school budgets and students/families trying to follow the teams. If makes a long, expensive two weeks. I am more familiar with the 10th Region format. Do other regions do it differently?

Dan Gooch has put together a great staff this year, and the results are there

I agree - is this something coaches should be told ahead of time or are they expected to know what to do ?

Not sure if the visitors would have been told. Of course the home school knows. Not sure if school personnel would have expected a losing, visiting team to take over the center of a field. I guess they will prepare for that in the future.

I don't believe that "visiting" teams should gather on the "center" of the field after a game. Ok - I can understand if it were an unexpected win - chances are the home team wouldn't be there anyway. Just left a game where the visiting team gathered on the center of the field after they lost. It delayed the bands post game performance and the winning home team had to celebrate off to the side. It seems rude and disrespectful. Any opinion?

Interesting how most rivals are geographic. I know playoffs are determined by class and district - but for a lot of teams the best games (fun, atmosphere, bragging rights, game attendance, etc) and the games that mean the most are between teams geographically close regardless of class, etc. So many teams won't get out of a district where a team is traditionally dominate so the rival games mean a lot.

According to the school website - there will be 25 high school games played on the new field in 2010 - 7 boys soccer, 9 girls soccer, 5 varsity football and 4 f/jv football games, plus band performances, possibly middle school football.

It might depend on how your booster club and school is structured. Or you might be able to restructure your booster club so that it is an organization that supports football not the school football team.

The two new coaches were replacing other coaches, Coach Crain will still need to be replaced.

Why are they playing basketball games in June?

It is easier to pull off a "little guy" beating a "big guy" in basketball because you only use about 10 players - even your smallest school could potential have 10 players - especially if that school doesn't offer a lot of other sports. My reason for changing up the Sweet Sixteen has more to do with the fact that some regions have several teams that are state tourn worthy and have a heck of run just getting out of the region, and some teams get to the Sweet Sixteen by virtue of the region they are in. Wish you could do something like the NCAA - some get invited based on season, some get to go based on conference/region. If you like basketball, can you imagine what kind of crowds that would draw and you would truely be crowning the state champion because the best of the state would be playing the best of the state. Go back a few years and compare who played at Rupp with those that didn't get to play. I also have no problem with leaving it like it is - I just don't think the Sweet Sixteen winner just be called the State Champion- they have only won a very cool tournament - period. And yes - six classes (six state champions) in football is too many - no reason not have about three - small, medium and large would be fine. I can't forsee a time (might happen, but would be unusual) when a small school would beat a large school.

I am not sure if you are thinking 24 games is good or bad - - - but at least football is a school team sport - with basketball, baseball, and soccer - it is all about the player and what other teams he/she plays on. At least football is a true school sport (I am not aware of any teams outside school) and hopefully won't go the route the other sports have. I like the kids that participate in as many school activites as they can - not only athletics. I feel the same about rushing kids to get college credits in high school - sounds great on the surface, but think of the experiences they are sacrificing. Think of the classes they could take in high school that might expose them to new opportunites.

I didn't say football programs make money - I said they bring in more at the gate than basketball per game - (i.e. attendance is higher at a football game than at most regular season basketball games.) Yes there are fewer games per year, but that also means fewer costs associated with having a game - not fewer costs with having a team. But as I said, I think the attendance is higher because they are always on Friday and there aren't so many games each week. I didn't discuss the costs of playoffs at all. Again, I didn't say they make a profit (to answer your statement in the above quote) Gate receipts don't equate to profit. I would quess that your statement about "most schools not fooling with football" is false, if there are about 200 schools playing football (6 classes with 37 teams per class). I calculate about 250 basketball teams (16 regions with 4 districts per region and about 4 teams per distict. This is strictly my calulations, I don't have an actual count) Yes, it does costs more to equip a player and football teams have about triple the number of basketball players on a team. Yes it is a costly sport, but I hope you aren't suggesting we deprive the kids who want to play football the chance, because my post wasn't about eliminating any sport. If anything, football allows many more students an opportunity to participate than several other sports.

"when I was in school" the same was true, but this is now, not then. There are really two arguments here. 1. If it is only about letting kids play, then schedule the games, let them play and don't worry about who comes to watch. 2. But somehow it always gets back to "why is attendance so low at games". It is low because all the "fans" now have their own activities and when there are so many games scheduled, there is no sense of urgencey to see the games and the fans are not going to all show up at the same game - i.e. low attendance, high expenses

More games played throughout the year equates to more cost for travel, refs, utilities, etc and less attendance at games. There are so many basketball games, fans don't feel the urge to go to the games, attendance is low and most basketball programs do lose money. Football does usually take in more at the gate than basketball games on a nightly basis, and that probably does translate into football bringing in more money than basketball does. Even though football equipment is expensive, it is used more than one year. I wonder if basketball attendance would increase if there were only one game a week - expenses would certainly be less.

Nothing wrong with your point when you are discussing individuals, but personally I would rather see high school programs do what is best for the whole and not just for the individual. I think that is why school spirit and pride is low, which could be an entirely different thread. But in order for my idea to work - every school in Kentucky would have to follow the same guidelines, and I know that won't happen.

I believe each problem feeds off of another problem - if the better kids didn't play up, the middle school teams would be better; and high school kids wouldn't be denied spots. If we aren't careful this trend could lead to elementary kids playing on middle school teams. Our society seems to rush everything, and I think kids playing up sometimes burns them out for high school sports. I have heard kids beginning their freshman year say they are tired of playing. I believe the athlete that wants to play "at the next level" is not as common as parents tend to believe. I have seen the complications from middle schoolers being on high school teams - they are separated from their friends and don't always fit in with the upper classmen. There is just something logical and ethical about middle schools fielding a middle school team and high schools fielding teams made up of high school students. If an athlethe is so good that they don't want to play with their school, there seems to be an abundance of other opportunities for them. Would love to see the school teams competing against the students that go to the school - more about school pride than the pursuit of the individuals goals. I guess you can call that old school. I do understand the lack of quality coaching in middle schools - but that could be a result of the practices we have in place (letting the better kids play up) and by going back to kids playing age appropriate the problem might be fixed. Unfortunately I fear that many people are fearful of going into coaching at any level anymore and I have the greatest admiration and respect for those that do.

Very well said!

Any ideas on his replacement at Montgomery?

A track program will really help - it is a great sport itself and will certainly contribute to the other programs already offered. It is a shame the students had to wait so long for decent facilities to practice on - cudos to those who have participated anyway

IMO - lot's PR work, knowing the teams, etc The biggest obstacle is the fact that football teams can only play in one bowl game per season, basketball has a whole season of dates available and bb teams can play in multiple tourn Your local fans will turn out if the hometown team is playing, and even more so if it is a good rival, then it would be nice to have two other good games with teams that have a fan base. The committee has to pay the teams to come to these events, you have got to have the gate receipts to cover your expenses. So top ranked teams don't always bring the fans. Most top teams have a bowl game in their area (or their own) they would rather play in than travel. Clark County was a great game for MC, but they couldn't continue to play here and give up their own gate. MC has a fantastic facility to host a great event - even if it weren't the top teams, they could have teams with a history of rivalry, etc that could make for a great day of football.