Leaderboard

Damn you. Ronnie is rubbing off on you.

No. All the respect in the world for the Duneland, but I think the SAC holds onto the third position. The SAC will hold it's own. Westfield didn't exactly embarrass Carroll this year. I can't think of the last time Snider didn't at least put up a fight against Indianapolis.

I think you’re dramatically overstating things. Carmel/CG are only guaranteed 4-5 home regular season games a year anyway. Could host Cathedral and Chatard every year and not only would it be an upgrade in competition, but they travel better than almost every current MIC team. Same with Roncalli. Carmel and Center Grove playing home and aways against schools like Louisville Trinity or Cincinnati St. Xavier is good for the state. Guarantee you either of those schools brings more fans the 100 or so miles to Indy than Pike or North Central does.

You are reading things into my comments that simply aren't there. But if you want to discuss recent history CG has won the south 5 of the last 7 years including 3 state titles. Only Carmel could take exception to a comment complimentary of Carmel. 🤣

Chaos is good. Disruption of the status quo is good. That is how growth occurs.

I’m not taking ANY PLEASURE as I was a Carmel dad up until this past year when my son graduated. Where are you getting envy? I simply stated that your comment about not being beaten isn’t fact, it’s only true about a 2-year run. Prior to that, Center Grove went 8-6 with a 1-4 start, 9-4 with a 2-3 start and 6-6. That is fact. I can’t state that it is fact that CG or Carmel won’t win in 2022, but both Warren and Ben Davis return a plethora of talent and in my opinion, it will be a major challenge for Center Grove and Carmel to defeat both WC and BD. That’s how it’s worked with the MIC’s top 4 for nearly 20 years. Don’t act as if CG and Carmel have ran the show, because that’s not true. The sad truth is, that currently, CG and Carmel are left without a conference and, in football, that is a killer. Both teams can play 2 HCC non conference games (dependent upon contracts), Cathedral, the Copper Kettle game, then only hope that 5 other teams will schedule them. IMO, there aren’t but maybe 2-3 other teams in all of Indiana that will be competitive with both teams regularly. This means you’re left with out of state opponents, and all I’m saying is a simple FACT. CG and Carmel will not benefit from the tens of fans that the other schools bring, nor will a game with an out of state team. I just asked my son who is now at Valparaiso, who he would rather play each year, Warren Central or East St. Louis and his answer, Warren. Carmel and CG’s best option now would be to lure teams from the HCC and maybe North Central to form a new conference. Its also important to note that this only affects football in my opinion, but in your largest revenue generating sport, these two schools dropped the ball. Nothing was gained. Kids were affected today, and there’s no envy. It infuriates me. I’m mad that there wasn’t a better plan. The two schools simply were like an employee who talked to other employees about quitting, then instead of being able to quit, they were fired without another job lined up. I have no affiliation now, so I’m not afraid to say, both schools hurt their students today. Funny was not the appropriate word. Ironic is more appropriate.

Should help East Noble more than it will Snider.

East Noble and Snider will begin a 4 year contract starting August 25, 2023.

I can’t see Carmel wanting to play teams they'll have a running clock on annually. No offense to Harrison, but we’re talking an annual elite program here. Carmel only aligns with so many programs before they simply blast the others.

Can't beat 'em...vote 'em out!!

I believe 6/8 (75 percent) was required.

That would be impossible unless the HCC changes their schedule. Currently, HCC only allows for week 1 and 2 as non conference. Carmel could technically allow for HSE and Westfield (just an example) in the first two weeks then Cathedral in week 3. That leaves six openings and I’m sorry to say but there aren’t but 2-3 other programs in Indiana that bring the type of competition Carmel needs to see to get them tournament ready. Personally, I haven’t been a fan of this since day one because of football scheduling.

DL Coach and recruiting coordinator Mike Elston is leaving ND to become the DL coach at Michigan. Big loss, one of my favorite assistant coaches.

He sounds like Ed from accounting.

*Per Source North may be picking up their Mishawaka contract... Cavemen currently need a week 2 game for 2022 but that may be a place holder for a long term with North The legends (at the time Redskins) played the cavemen from 2011-2014

Ha...good point! So, it's time for the patriarchs of the NFL to sell? I did hear recently that one of the Billionaires that contributed to Mel Tucker's extension has made it known he would like to buy the Lions from the Ford family and they obviously won't sell. I guess it could be worse than being a Bears fan.

It's finally happening......

Blitz is already hearing from sources about the potential for the following matchups... Warren Central-Snider Carroll-Valparaiso South Side-New Haven Northrop-Goshen Bishop Luers-East Noble Been told that some area teams are looking to get out of contracts so they can schedule the SAC sooner.

Trolls don't "pay attention." They make wild predictions and ridiculous assertions in the name of "creating content."

And I wish her the best of luck. I doubt if an Indiana school was ever a consideration. I’ve had the pleasure of watching her play since she was a 6th grader. Phenomenal player

One of the great voices of the 60's......There is a video of a live performance of Be My Baby. She sounds great in it. The Ronettes also sing my favorite version of Sleigh Ride, which is also one of my favorite Christmas songs. RIP Ronnie https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ronettes-ronnie-spector-dead-1283586/

Port Congestion Is Not a Market Failure https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/port-congestion-is-not-a-market-failure/ Most of the things he says in this excerpt are spot-on. Many people likely did believe supply chains were more centrally coordinated than they actually are. Many people also likely believe that the president can fix the problem because, as Kevin Williamson has written countless times, the president is viewed by many as an emperor who can effect change in the economy at will. Neither of those things is true, and supply chains are indeed a market-based system. As NR’s editors have noted, and as I have noted multiple times before, there is not much the Biden administration can do to improve the situation. It’s also true, though, that markets are not perfect, and sometimes government intervention is justified. But Petersen jumps from saying that sometimes governments should intervene, as a general statement, to saying that the government should intervene in West Coast ports, as a specific call to action. Just because markets are not delivering a perfect result does not mean that it’s a market failure that justifies a government intervention. We don’t have much reason to believe that more government involvement would improve the situation in San Pedro Bay. Petersen proves that he understands the bad incentives politicians face when they make decisions. He says, “For example, I live in San Francisco and our main port is the Port of Oakland, which is owned by the City of Oakland. The mayor of Oakland has a lot of local issues to focus on and probably won’t prioritize multi-billion-dollar investments in their port as the city simply can’t afford it.” He’s exactly right about the incentives the mayor of Oakland faces, and he’s exactly right that given those incentives, the port will be ignored. What he describes, though, is a textbook case of government failure. The political structure created the bad incentives that caused underinvestment. Petersen says that instead, ports need to be “managed as a strategic national asset” and talks about how the national government in the Netherlands owns the port of Rotterdam, which is much more efficient than any American port. But the U.S. federal government faces many of the same bad incentives that local governments do. The president also has a lot of other issues to focus on — more than the mayor of Oakland does — and Petersen never says why the president would be more likely to prioritize port investment than the mayor. He says, “The Dutch government has pushed for infrastructure innovation for decades and has a great working relationship with unions and employers through a polder model, which is based on consensus.” But American labor-relations law is not based on consensus. As Oren Cass points out in his book The Once and Future Worker, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 still applies today, and it’s based on the outdated idea that employers and employees are enemies. He writes, “The NLRA’s model of hyperadversarialism offers [workers and labor organizers] much less upside than it once did and lots more downside, guaranteeing a conflict-ridden relationship with their employers and producing only short-term ‘gains’ that over time reduce workers’ value and opportunities.” We’ve seen that play out with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union on the West Coast. ILWU members get the short-term gains that Cass described (six-figure salaries and generous benefits), but ILWU membership continues to dwindle, and our ports have become some of the least efficient in the world. The ILWU doesn’t look for consensus; negotiations are an ordeal every six years, and its president told his members late last year that “there may be battle in 2022,” so “be prepared.” Repeal or reform the NLRA then, you might say — but then you’re implicitly saying that this is a government failure because the government’s rules are standing in the way of a better outcome. When the federal government does give ports attention, as it did in the bipartisan infrastructure law, it didn’t see ports as “strategic national assets.” As Eric Boehm wrote for Reason in November, “The subsidies doled out as part of President Joe Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure deal are expressly forbidden from being used to automate operations at American ports. Instead, taxpayers will spend billions to upgrade existing cranes with lower-emissions alternatives that won’t actually work any faster or cheaper.” More efficiency means fewer union jobs, and politicians prized pleasing the unions above increasing efficiency. That’s what federal government intervention looks like in practice. Another way the federal government prioritizes special interests over nationwide efficiency is on the issue of chassis, the trailers used to carry containers. Petersen correctly says that “we have a real shortage of chassis and without them, you can’t clear the bottleneck.” But he fails to mention the approximately 250 percent tariff on importing them. Countless industry groups told the federal government that this tariff was preventing them from acquiring more chassis when the Department of Transportation put out a notice of request for information in September. But the federal government has left it in place as part of the domestic manufacturing push that began under President Trump and has continued under President Biden. U.S. manufacturers haven’t been able to pick up the slack, and now we have a chassis shortage. Government failure, yet again. Petersen’s strongest case for a market failure is this: Here, he is pointing to decisions that businesses made that have contributed to our present problems, so it’s a possible market failure. It is true that businesses run leaner than they used to, and just-in-time isn’t very well designed to respond to “hundred-year storms.” But remember, just pointing to a situation where the market isn’t perfect doesn’t on its own justify government intervention. What is government supposed to do instead on this issue? Should it mandate which suppliers companies can use? Should it require different supply-chain practices? What reason do we have to believe that government would manage supply chains better? Crediting the shift to just-in-time to greedy shareholders isn’t quite right, either. American business-management conventional wisdom in the ’80s saw Japan as the future, and Japanese business practices, such as just-in-time, were emulated all over the country. And as Petersen says elsewhere in the interview, “The globalized supply chain and shipping containers have brought down the cost of shipping goods and manufacturing by close to 90% over the last 50 years.” Bad as our current situation is, it doesn’t wipe out 50 years of progress. To Petersen’s credit, he doesn’t propose domestic-content requirements or a general retreat from globalization as some have done in response to the crisis. His idea of government intervention is to “put a team in charge.” He says, “Right now, there isn’t a dedicated team within the federal government to coordinate all public and private sector activities to help resolve the supply chain crisis. It’s spread across multiple regulatory agencies, jurisdictions and levels of government.” He wants that team to be “calling in favors and asking people to do their part on behalf of their country.” But there has been a White House Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force since June 2021. It has a ports envoy, John Porcari, who has been leading conference calls with industry stakeholders for months now. And the line of ships waiting for berths at Los Angeles/Long Beach is at an all-time high. Of course, the task force is spread across multiple regulatory agencies, as Petersen says, but such is the nature of the federal government. The commerce, agriculture, and transportation secretaries all have legitimate interests in the functioning of our supply chains. So do many other agencies, offices, and commissions. If you’re looking for streamlined leadership, the federal government is not the place to go. Back in October, Petersen toured the Port of Long Beach, and based on that experience, he recommended waiving Long Beach’s container-stacking regulations. That was the right call, and it demonstrated the right attitude when approaching this crisis: Take in the evidence and propose measures to address each problem, one at a time. Simple and obvious as that may sound, government will never approach a problem in that way. It has too many interest groups to satiate, too many bureaucrats to placate, and too many politicians who want to get credit for coming up with the grand plan that ended the crisis. How are we going to get out of this crisis? People and companies such as Petersen and Flexport are an excellent start. It won’t happen all at once, and it won’t be centrally coordinated. But it’s already happening, with record levels of private investment flowing into the supply-chain sector and more attention on inefficient processes than ever before. The government failures that Petersen identifies in his interview should give him pause before calling for government intervention. Beyond the ones he mentions, there are also the environmental regulations that prevented BNSF from expanding rail capacity at Long Beach, the regulatory process for fuel-efficiency standards that left truck-trailer manufacturers in limbo for five years, and the Jones Act and Foreign Dredge Act that combine to make new port construction cost prohibitive. And government hasn’t learned its lesson, either: Federal regulators are looking at introducing new inefficiencies to supply chains right now. Port congestion isn’t a market failure that justifies a government response. What we need is more markets, more innovation, more technology — and less government. Here! Here!