Kingfish Stevens

I would suppose it would depend upon the nature of the "negative influences". Are we talking about drugs or fighting or criminal activity of some type? Or, on the other hand, are we talking about general negativity and/or the inability to get along with fellow students in a more passive way? The former behavior, I feel sure would not likely be tolerated at all in a private school while it is, to some degree, tolerated in the government schools. It's just the nature of the two types of schools. These students, regardless of how undesirable they may be, are legally entitled to an education. Government schools are required to provide it. Privates are not. The latter behavior is tolerated in both settings although the period of toleration will likely be much less in a private school. Since, as you said, we are speaking in hypotheticals, a government school would put up with the poor behavior of X much longer than would a private school. In other words, hypothetically speaking, the private school would not put up with it for 8 or 10 years or more. The government school often does so out of necessity. As for special treatment for superior athletes, I am a realist. Regardless of what may be claimed, in all schools the superior athlete would be given an extra inch or so. However, in regard to remaining a part of the student body, that inch would not extend to a yard in the private schools as, again by law, it likely will in a government school. Removal from athletic participation does not remove X from the school environment.

Well, I guess we will never get an explanation from those who scrutinize RH so closely as to why they do so. But, then, I believe I stated the obvious reason in a post above. There are many good, moral teachers in the government schools. No one should dispute that. However, because those schools are controlled by the various levels of government, the teachers employed there cannot teach morals. They, within narrow parameters, can teach ethics. Ethics are not morals. Ethics have no real religious connotation. Morals do. In reality, moral teaching, by law, is not allowed in government schools. Ethics, a humanistic concept, is allowed so long as it doesn't get "religious". You may think I am merely playing on words. If so, you are not familiar with modern education principles, practices, and edicts. If some of you recently taught morals you were in violation of the modern policies existing in the government school arena. The oft-used retort that the government schools must accept all comers while the privates can pick and choose is actually an endorsement of what I contend. One of the real draws of private schools is that such schools can "monitor" the student body and, thus, minimize the presence of negative influences. That's just how it works. And, Golden Gopher, I would think anyone would agree that it doesn't take an independent study to ascertain that a school in which there are few and only minor disruptions produces a better atmosphere for learning than does one in which there are, shall we say, a material number of various and sundry disruptions. I am not condemning the government schools. I am merely pointing out differences that will, by the nature of the two types of schools, always exist. But, all of this has nothing to do with ascertaining why so many government school partisans, particularly those within the Ashland city limits, are so interested in the reasons why parents send their children to RH. Obviously, there are many valid reasons- including athletics.

I assumed my bait would catch a fish. It did. Seriously, I know there are a goodly number of people who hawkeye everything that happens in regard to the RH athletic program. That doesn't normally happen in regard to other schools. I presented what I believe to be the reason for the scrutiny and I am inviting someone else to rebut my conclusions. I know the interest is not generated because of "concern" for the mission of the school. I believe it is actually quite the contrary. No patting of the back here. Merely observations that those who are usually quick to take both veiled and direct shots at RH, are for whatever reason, now dodging the discussion. I guess we can pass it off as the typical whining of government school vs. private school.

It has been over forty-eight hours since I posted. Since there have been no responses disputing my analysis and conclusion, I must assume that other posters agree that I am correct.

Since my loyalties rest with the private schools statewide, I have no ties to either school other than through the payment of an obscene amount of taxes for the support of all government schools. I'll take Ashland in an upset.

Can we all agree to be somewhat realistic in our praise this season? East Carter will by no stretch of the imagination be a "great team". There are no great teams in the 16th Region. As for dunking, although he made a somewhat cameo appearance in the region, no one compares with Bill Walker. He is the "Supreme Dunker" with Mayo second and Dawson third. I realize that all three of these guys played at RH but, in rating dunkers, we aren't required to have a quota system or to be inclusive- merely to be truthful.

No. Not really.

No. What I should have said is "in the opinion of many observers who are really familiar with the coaching abilities and demeanor of all three coaches ..."

Do I hear Dusty Springfield in the background singing her old hit. A parent of one of JC's better players told me that they haven't forgotten the field goal debacle. At least Coach Biggs should be pleased because he will get his basketball players a little sooner than usual. Coach Hart is, at best, a mixed bag. As I said once before, he is certainly no Herb Conley or Jake Hallum on or off the field.

Good observation. The 64th District appears to be balanced from top to bottom. Rose Hill has more potential than do the others but they are still very young. Fairview is in a similar, though probably a little lesser, situation. Boyd County will be dangerous as long as Selby is around and Zornes won't be outcoached. Ashland is on a bit of a downward spiral talentwise but may have enough to win the district this season if Thomas excels- particularly since the district will be played at Ashland.

Valid observation. Rose Hill will not win any championships with two players. Nor will anyone else for that matter. .

It is always a sign that the athletic program at Rose Hill is on the rise when others, usually with some association with the Ashland schools, start nitpicking about, among other issues, the school and its student body. I would venture a guess that parents send their children to Rose Hill for many reasons- athletics being among them. Other, I would think, more prelevant reasons would include the inclusion of Christian standards in the curriculum, smaller classes, and the general family atmosphere that accompanies a smaller school. Also, it should be mentioned that the desire to avoid the many discipline problems (including but not limited to drugs, etc,) and the inability of the government schools to handle these problems plays a major role in the decision. Academically there is really little difference. Government schools, due to funding, offer more fluff. In the end, that means little. Graduates of Rose Hill and graduates of other schools are on equal footing when it comes to admission to college. Where is the difference? Well, for one, Rose Hill, though not remotely as costly as X or T, is expensive. If it weren't for the tuition and other costs, I believe Rose Hill, and other private schools, would burst at the seams with increased enrollment. Why? The atmosphere for learning, for safety, and for moral teachings is far superior to that of its neighboring schools. To imply that students are less than genuine because they attend Rose Hill for other than a "Christian education" is really not a valid thesis and those who like to make the argument are well aware of the weakness of their statements. So, why do they bother? Fear, of course. Fear that, from all indications, the little private school will once again (and for an extended period) compete with and, heaven forbid, beat the local government schools including the school with the self annointed "tradition". Very transparent. What else could it be?

Where did they play?

I agree. She will be a major factor in the region.

No, I'm talking in specifics. Is Beechwood geographically in northern Kentucky or not? I assumed we were talking about who would make the finals. I said I would take LCA and Beechwood. You seem to like either Raceland or Pikeville from the east and Beechwood or Mayfield from the west. I do think we can agree that, as with most classes, the east is much weaker than is the west in Class 1A. It would be a better balance if Beechwood were in the east. Actually, geographically speaking, it is closer to the east. The system needs to be adjusted a bit if the KHSAA wants a chance at the best possible matchups in Louisville.

I never said Beechwood was in the east. I merely said that I would take Beechwood and LCA and give you guys Raceland and Pikeville. I do agree that it is a shame that the top teams in Class 1A are all in the west. Nonetheless, regardless of who is better, someone from the east must get there and I'll take LCA over the other two. Actually, it would be a far better balance of power if Beechwood were in the east. The chances of getting the two best in the finals would be better.

Beechwood is in northern Kentucky. It is not in western Kentucky. I believe you guys are hedging a little on your endorsements of Pikeville and Raceland. I don't recall mentioning Mayfield. As I said, I'll take LCA and Beechwood and give you boys Raceland and Pikeville. I appreciate LRCW posting the teams from the greater Cincinnati area. His list kind of says it all. Actually, Highlands and CovCath should be enough. But, as you can see, there are others. I do not intend to degrade the northeastern area schools. With a couple of exceptions, I wholeheartedly support all of them. However, I firmly believe that we must be realists. This is clearly a down year overall for teams in the northeastern area of the state. Even observers from Johnson Central and Russell will tell you that neither of these teams is close to the same level as they were last year. I see no problem with being honest in our appraisals. Not everyone can be an X, or a T, or a Highlands. That is the real world and we need to live in it.

Your further clarification of your post is appreciated. And you say I am the spinner? You can have Raceland and Pikeville. I'll take Beechwood and LCA. We'll see.

Boy, these attempts at rebutting my post are great reading. There is a lot of heart in them although little else. Ram: I know you aren't serious when you say that Pikeville can "compete with anyone". That is ridiculous (Lex Cath 38 Pikeville 6: Belfrey 49 Pikeville ). Raceland has a "one in four" chance of going to the finals? How did Raceland do against LCA earlier in the season? Forget it. I never said that BC and GC were the worst 4A schools in the state. I said they were two of the worst. I doubt that my analysis makes the kids who play at those two schools feel any worse than they already do. The Red Rambler: Whatever Russell accomplished the last two years has no relevance to this season. happy 'ol dad: When you look at the 5-A schools around the state, this district cannot be rated higher overall than average at best. Which northern Kentucky schools did I have in mind? Most of them. I don't wish to upset you guys but, every now and then, we need a dose of realism. The kids are more perceptive than you think. They know too well just how they stack up against other teams. To continually patronize them actually insults them- or, at least, in the real world, it should. By the way, I will be rooting for Russell and its fine coach, Ivan McGlone.

I thought there was a consensus of opinion to change it to the "So So Seven". That would solve all the disagreement, wouldn't it? As for Ashland's "tough schedule", I suppose it depends on what other school schedules are used as a comparison. Ashland's schedule is made up of its own district teams (most of whom are average at best), two Class A schools (neither a remote threat to go to Papa John Stadium), two of the worst 4A treams in the state, Russell (a borderline Top 10 Class 3A school), and Ironton (a real "tradition" having a off year with a group of youngsters). Now, that may be a good schedule for the northeast corner of the state where football is not superior by any stretch of the imagination but it pales in comparison with other similar schools with thye Ashland "tradition". The truth is Ashland is not a good team at all. But, for the So So Seven, it is probably placed correctly. Still, it is a good thing for Ashland that they don't play any of those northern Kentucky schools. It would be brutal- even at Putnam Stadium. Repeatedly using the excuse of the "tough schedule" doesn't make it true.

Stay out of it, Uncle Jed. Ms. Liberty and wildcatfan are just starting the old Dusty Springfield song, "Wishing and Hoping". The same song is annually sung around Louisville (X and T), Covington (CovCath), Lexington (LexCath), and in a few more venues in Kentucky. The Euton-UK connection has caused great pain among fans in the local taxpayer funded institutions. The more they dig, the more you can be sure they worry. So, ignore it but enjoy it.

I am going to assume that "champioship" means "championship" and congratulate Rowan County and Verity. Also, I congratulate Rose Hill for their clean sweep of both tournaments.

It is always a good sign when posters from the other schools start the transfer rumors. I would suggest that it is a combination of wishful thinking and concern about what that nasty private school may do in the coming years to all the local government schools. From the way Rose Hill's middle school teams have performed the last few years, it would appear that the school's best years may well start when Euton and Jackson move on to their respective D-1 schools.

I didn't say the coach was dodging Bath County. I said the leadership. At Greenup County, coaches are rarely part of the leadership. I understand that it came from the administration. I can't imagine Hicks dodging GC. But I can sure see GC's administration wanting to avoid Hicks. I'm not finding fault with the decision. I'm merely mentioning it.:thumb:

There was an interesting article in the Ashland newspaper about a Gill girl at Russell. I assume she is related to the Gill boy who was a good athlete for Russell. The article said that she is six feet tall. The article indicated that she plays voleyball all year. Is there any chance that she will play basketball this year? I hope Coach Kidwell can get her to play because she would sure help Russell.