Leaderboard

I got to tell ya this whole Muda and DT against the world in some sort of unholy alliance is making my skin crawl just a little bit.

So.... Did you take the baton back or what? No Head Coach is going to answer all of these questions on an internet board... Or answer them to someone who is outside his community. How do you assess the feeder/youth systems in January? Come on, Man!

Good for the Greenfield coaches, they don't need to reply to this topic.

Why do you keep downstroking me Muda? The market sorted it out, I thought you were a capitalist?

I think you are short changing Coach Ech's accomplishments. Admittedly, my POV is biased, but I learned a lot from Coach Ech and am greatful to the opportunities he gave me at Zionsville. Look at Coach Ech's seasons game by game. Each year we accomplished one more thing. We beat multiple teams for the first time under Ech's guidance. This year we finished 3rd in the conference behind Avon and Brownsburg. As Coach Nowlin said, consistent performance in our sectionals, but our admitted weakness was getting over the Regional hump. Also the strength gains were a huge accomplishment. No disrespect to any previous coaches before, but the strength differences to when Ech came in and where they are now are drastic. You watch us on film and we were getting pushed around, even our strongest kids. Even with undersized DL we were able to hold our own much better than before. This is a great hire for Pike, and a great opportunity for Ech. I think both the school and he won in this hire! I wish him the best of luck this season.

This is the shortest retirement in history. DT tells us he's leaving and "passing a baton" he only held in his own mind, and now is back trying to appoint himself the content curator of the GID.

This is the case for most. However, I JOINED the site the week after my school was eliminated............and promptly made a fool of myself.

Thanks for sharing this coach! Lots of players that I forgot about. It was a great trip down memory lane.

Looks like my girlfriend. Some angles freak me out.

She's going to have to play ball with the leadership at some point. She's a representative, that means she's going to have to get re-elected next year. If she continues on the path she's on, don't be surprised if she doesn't get primaried, I would predict if that happens, she'll be serving drinks again two years from now.

I take my hat of to her, she has a vision, she did the work to get where she is. I vehemently disagree with just about everything that comes out of her mouth, but she got off her ass and did it, so she does deserve some respect. Venezeula Ocasio-Cortez and those of her ilk, are pretty much the TEA Party of 2010. D's lost the election, and they've ran to the left, and think this is how to "change Washington", then when they get there, they realize they're all just rookie congressmen/women. You can watch it playing out now, while VOC is out there stumping to any camera that will look at her medicare for all, Nancy Pelosi is meeting secretly with the insurance companies padding her wallet, and making deals.

I'm just happy to have football to watch whether it is AAF or XFL in 2020. Used to have AFL but that's a shell of its former self. College hockey is only Friday and Saturday nights for the most part. College wrestling Sunday afternoon if it's a matchup I'm interested in. Only so much regular season college basketball, NBA, and NHL I can tolerate.

I think there needs to be a standardized mercy rule. When I was in Florida it kicked in with a 35 point lead and went back out to standard timing if the lead dropped below 35. Everyone knew how the clock was going to play out and there was no debate nor arguments about . I am in South Carolina now. We had a team ask for it last year when we were up 21. They got the ball after the half and scored on the first drive. Their head coach still wanted the running clock, the officials wanted the clock to go back to normal timing rules, our head coach just wanted to know what the heck was going on. When I was in Indiana, we played a team and won 74-6. It was an away game three hours away so we only dressed 30 players. The other team's coach refused the running clock and we ran dive every single play with our worst skill player and it still got out of hand. Without a rule you are asking a head coach to agree to what many feel like is giving up. A lot of guys won't do it because they don't want to quit on the kids or they don't want their community to feel like they gave up on the kids. I would be open to many different solutions, but I think there needs to be a standard that everyone understands and I think the solution takes has automatic indicators so it's not left to human judgement.

The measly numbers are to be expected. The site traffic goes down significantly in the off-season. I bet that a large amount of posters aren't even aware that the site even crashed and rebooted.

What about if a 6A or 5A plays a 4A or lower? How would the mercy rule work in this situation? The SIAC has teams in classes from 2A to 5A. The SAC is the same way. How would that work?

So the fact that I no longer live in Indiana, and that my kids have all graduated and are no longer playing, initially made it difficult for me to look favorably on this being a pay site - unless the forum was in danger of going away. Since I've been around I really enjoy keeping up with a sport I love and how the schools I have interest in are doing. No one is forcing me to visit this site. If that were the case I'd be 100% against paying, be it forced or voluntary. Rather, I'm here on my own will and choosing. If I'm benefiting from information or services provided, which is the case, it only seems right to me to help out. I believe if enough people were inclined to do this, there wouldn't be the need to even consider making it a pay site. I'm on a couple football forums down here, and donate already. Not sure why I never thought about it until now with this website.

I assume that the "GID brass" did it for the same reason I volunteer to coach youth football, serve on youth organization boards and to work varsity games on Friday nights; they love this game and believe in its value.

Lots of people in Gibson County read this site in-season...lots. Probably mostly lurkers and even more that never even bother with a user name. Making this a pay site will IMO kill that. I continually hear from folks in the stands on Friday night that I am certain don't have a user name, "Hey, saw how you put those SIAC guys in their place on GID, that was awesome". Multiple comments that indicate this web forum creates a dialogue around the state beyond what is actually typed into threads here. That outside dialog is invaluable in terms of promoting our sport and my guess is exactly what Tim intended.

One thing I did when I taught PE is have kids rotate responsibilities that included being an official for a given game we were playing.

Haarms at the 4 sparking a huge run when Boilers were dead to rights. That was nice move by Coach Painter

I would say that Michigan City has beaten Lake Central 3 times in a row under Mason and has outscored the Blue Indians 115-20 in their last two games.

How active are the posters on your pay site?

How many of those tens of thousands are QUALITY posts? I'd guess maybe 19 or 20. I've been a free-loader the last 3 or 4 years. I'd be willing to contribute $10/year for seasonal coverage, July-Dec.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/jackboots_in_the_morning_no_one_is_spared_from_this_american_nightmare The American Police State does not discriminate. Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you. We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late. For too long now, the American people have allowed their personal prejudices and politics to cloud their judgment and render them incapable of seeing that the treatment being doled out by the government’s lethal enforcers has remained consistent, no matter the threat. All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—will eventually be meted out on the general populace. At that point, when you find yourself in the government’s crosshairs, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white; it will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen; it will not matter whether you’re rich or poor; it will not matter whether you’re Republican or Democrat; and it certainly won’t matter who you voted for in the last presidential election. At that point—at the point you find yourself subjected to dehumanizing, demoralizing, thuggish behavior by government bureaucrats who are hyped up on the power of their badges and empowered to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—remember you were warned. Take Roger Stone, one of President Trump’s longtime supporters, for example. This is a guy accused of witness tampering, obstruction of justice and lying to Congress. As far as we know, this guy is not the kingpin of a violent mob or drug-laundering scheme. He’s been charged with a political crime. So what does the FBI do? They send 29 heavily armed agents in 17 vehicles to carry out a SWAT-style raid on Stone’s Florida home just before dawn on Jan. 25, 2019. As the Boston Herald reports: “After his arraignment on witness tampering, obstruction and lying to Congress, a rattled Stone was quoted as saying 29 agents ‘pounded on the door,’ pointed automatic weapons at him and ‘terrorized’ his wife and dogs. Stone was taken away in handcuffs, the sixth associate of President Trump to be indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. All the charges have been related to either lying or tax evasion, with no evidence of so-called ‘collusion’ with Russia emerging to date.” Overkill? Sure. Yet another example of government overreach and brutality? Definitely. But here’s the thing: while Tucker Carlson and Chris Christie and other Trump apologists appear shocked that law enforcement personnel would stage a military assault against “an unarmed 66-year-old man who has been charged with a nonviolent crime,” this is nothing new. Indeed, this is blowback, one more vivid example of how the government’s short-sighted use of immoral, illegal and unconstitutional tactics become dangerous weapons turned against the American people. To be clear, this Stone raid is far from the first time a SWAT team has been employed in non-violent scenarios. Nationwide, SWAT teams routinely invade homes, break down doors, kill family pets (they always shoot the dogs first), damage furnishings, terrorize families, and wound or kill those unlucky enough to be present during a raid. .... SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely sensitive, dangerous situations. They were never meant to be used for routine police work such as serving a warrant. Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams—which first appeared on the scene in California in the 1960s—have now become intrinsic parts of federal and local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial federal assistance and the Pentagon’s 1033 military surplus recycling program, which allows the transfer of military equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp discounts. ... There are few communities without a SWAT team today. In 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the US. Incredibly, that number has since grown to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year. Where this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these militarized SWAT teams are assigned to carry out routine law enforcement tasks. No longer reserved exclusively for deadly situations, SWAT teams are now increasingly being deployed for relatively routine police matters such as serving a search warrant, with some SWAT teams being sent out as much as five times a day. ... What we are witnessing is an inversion of the police-civilian relationship. Rather than compelling police officers to remain within constitutional bounds as servants of the people, ordinary Americans are being placed at the mercy of militarized police units. This is what happens when paramilitary forces are used to conduct ordinary policing operations, such as executing warrants on nonviolent defendants. Unfortunately, general incompetence, collateral damage (fatalities, property damage, etc.) and botched raids tend to go hand in hand with an overuse of paramilitary forces. In some cases, officers misread the address on the warrant. In others, they simply barge into the wrong house or even the wrong building. In another subset of cases (such as the Department of Education raid on Anthony Wright’s home), police conduct a search of a building where the suspect no longer resides. If you’re wondering why the Education Department needs a SWAT team, you’re not alone. Among those federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions are the State Department, Department of Education, Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, to name just a few. In fact, it says something about our reliance on the military that federal agencies having nothing whatsoever to do with national defense now see the need for their own paramilitary units. SWAT teams have even on occasion conducted multiple, sequential raids on wrong addresses or executed search warrants despite the fact that the suspect is already in police custody. Police have also raided homes on the basis of mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly, these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes, kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed. As you can see, all too often, botched SWAT team raids have resulted in one tragedy after another for the residents with little consequences for law enforcement. Unfortunately, judges tend to afford extreme levels of deference to police officers who have mistakenly killed innocent civilians but do not afford similar leniency to civilians who have injured police officers in acts of self-defense. Even homeowners who mistake officers for robbers can be sentenced for assault or murder if they take defensive actions resulting in harm to police. And as journalist Radley Balko shows in his in-depth study of police militarization, the shock-and-awe tactics utilized by many SWAT teams only increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt. ... If ever there were a time to de-militarize and de-weaponize local police forces, it’s now. While we are now grappling with a power-hungry police state at the federal level, the militarization of domestic American law enforcement is largely the result of the militarization of local police forces, which are increasingly militaristic in their uniforms, weaponry, language, training, and tactics and have come to rely on SWAT teams in matters that once could have been satisfactorily performed by traditional civilian officers. Yet American police forces were never supposed to be a branch of the military, nor were they meant to be private security forces for the reigning political faction. Instead, they were intended to be an aggregation of countless local police units, composed of citizens like you and me that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community. As a result of the increasing militarization of the police in recent years, however, the police now not only look like the military—with their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of lethal weapons—but they function like them, as well. Thus, no more do we have a civilian force of peace officers entrusted with serving and protecting the American people. Instead, today’s militarized law enforcement officials have shifted their allegiance from the citizenry to the state, acting preemptively to ward off any possible challenges to the government’s power, unrestrained by the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. As journalist Herman Schwartz observed, “The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.” Heavily armed police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens. This phenomenon we are experiencing with the police is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement agencies. The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.” A study by a political scientist at Princeton University concludes that militarizing police and SWAT teams “provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction.” The study, the first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force, reveals that “police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed.” In other words, warrior cops aren’t making us or themselves any safer. Indeed, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it is increasingly evident that militarized police armed with weapons of war who are empowered to carry out pre-dawn raids on our homes, shoot our pets, and terrorize our families have not made America any safer or freer. The sticking point is not whether Americans must see eye-to-eye on the pressing issues of the day, but whether we can agree that no one should be treated in such a fashion by their own government. The march of the police state moves on. And this use of SWAT teams for mundane tasks like serving warrants for an alleged nonviolent crime is just a way for the state to justify their existence.

swordfish must protect the honor of ivanka

Literally ROFLOL!! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6676289/890-balaclava-knit-Gucci-sparks-outrage-social-media-users-say-likened-blackface.html So is a white kid gonna catch a bunch of flack for wearing a Black Panther mask this coming Halloween?

Pelosi throws shade as Green New Deal unveiled: ‘Green dream or whatever they call it’: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-the-green-dream-or-whatever-they-call-it

It's obvious. All those individuals are unrepentant racists and Hollywood should blacklist them from further work in the industry.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/blackface-controversy-zero-tolerance-retroactive-repudiation/ One problem with Bouie’s uncompromising stance is this: A policy that condemns public figures who have had “any association” with blackface would thin out the supply of reputable public figures rather quickly. Comics and movie stars would be the first to get “canceled.” Jimmy Fallon did blackface to impersonate Chris Rock; Jimmy Kimmel did it to impersonate Karl Malone and Oprah Winfrey; SNL’s Fred Armisen did it to impersonate President Obama; Ashton Kutcher did brownface to depict a stereotypical Indian man in a Popchips commercial; Robert Downey Jr. wore blackface in Tropic Thunder; Rob McElhenney and Kaitlin Olson, who play “Mac” and “Dee” on the critically acclaimed sitcom It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, have both donned blackface in the show. And there’s no reason to stop at the living. As demonstrated in a recent New York Times op-ed, “‘Mary Poppins’ and a Nanny’s Shameful Flirting with Blackface,” the grave provides no protection from the professionally offended class. To that end, perhaps we should posthumously repudiate Judy Garland (of Wizard of Oz fame), Gene Wilder (of Willy Wonka fame), and Shirley Temple (of Shirley Temple’s Storybook fame), all of whom did blackface. In the sphere of music, we could start by “canceling” living artists such as Joni Mitchell, continue by denouncing deceased artists like Frank Zappa, and then finish by boycotting the Metropolitan Operafor portraying Othello in blackface until as recently as 2015. At the risk of giving the Twitter mob too many ideas, I’ll stop there. But suffice it to say that the listgoes on. Anyone uncomfortable with the liquidation of much of America’s artistic class should reject the idea of a retroactive zero-tolerance policy toward blackface. Instead, we should take a more measured approach, one that, without minimizing the ugly legacy of minstrelsy, allows a modicum of mercy for the accused and accounts for the intentions of the transgressor. We should also recognize the fact that “blackface” is an umbrella term. It covers everything from a white adult performing a nauseatingly racist caricature of a black person, to a pair of 12-year-old girls — who had probably never heard the word “minstrelsy,” much less studied the history of minstrelsy — having fun with makeup at a sleepover. That the same word is used in the media to describe both scenarios should not obscure the fact that, ethically speaking, they belong in separate universes. We should also consider the idea that blackface need not be considered radioactive for all time. Such was the position taken by Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King Jr.’s strategist and the chief organizer of the March on Washington. In 1951, referring to blackface, he wrote: Rustin recognized the deep hurt that minstrelsy caused in his day. But he did not see this as an eternal reality. He hoped that attitudes toward blackface would evolve over time in the same way that attitudes toward Irish jokes had evolved. He wrote: Having been arrested 23 times on account of his activism, Rustin probably understood racism more viscerally than any living activist you could name. Nevertheless, his goal, like King’s, was for everyone to play by the same social rules. For Rustin, this meant that if black people could do whiteface, then white people could do blackface. Some will object: America is not post-racial. We are not there yet, and until we get there, invoking the logic of color blindness is simply denying history. But the logic of color blindness doesn’t depend on the absence of racism. It depends only on our desire not to needlessly racialize the pursuit of justice. Moreover, those who say “we are not there yet” rarely specify what would count as evidence of our having gotten “there.” Indeed if nothing would or could count as evidence of our arrival, then saying “we are not there yet” is merely a surrender to eternal outrage. Such people are less concerned with making racial progress than they are addicted to the struggle for its own sake. In any event, the best way to never arrive “there” is to “cancel” anyone who questions how far we have to go. Let the professionally offended class continue their Noble Struggle. But don’t give them dominion over the public sphere. But isn't more fun to be perpetually offended?