Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | School Notes | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Farrell coach has point

March 17, 2007 - Neil Rudel

I see where Farrell coach Ed Turosky had a few choice words for the PIAA, complaining his team, the District 10 champion, had to travel further than Claysburg-Kimmel for a Class A girls' second-round game.

Farrell's trip to Ebensburg was two-and-a-half hours compared with less than an hour for Claysburg, which was District 6's third-place team.

I couldn't help remember how Farrell basketball competed in the top classification and would never be a playoff opponent for a rural school like Claysburg. Somewhere, Eddie McCluskey is looking down, shaking his head.

But times changes, and they surely have at Farrell.

Claysburg won the game by double-figures, advancing to Saturday's third round.

Sites are a convenient target, always have been, always will be. Usually, the best teams overcome the challenges and don't use officials and venues as an excuse.

In this case, though, Turosky's position is understandable: The third seed from District 6 has traditionally been sent off the plank to Edinboro to play an Erie team.

Sometimes sites are limited, but it's not like Central Cambria High School is a venue far superior to a high school that would have been a more neutral site. And it's not like District 10's top seed didn't merit that consideration. 

The same thing happens in the NCAA Tournament. Should Texas A&M, a No. 3 seed, have to play sixth-seeded Louisville in Lexington? Kansas, the No. 1 seed, may have to play second-seeded UCLA in San Jose for a berth in the Final Four.

You'd like all these considerations to be factored in, and maybe they are.

Which is Ed Turosky's point.

I am looking for: