Leaderboard

If they are going to change it up I hope they agree to have non conference games the first two weeks.

Ok, so not from a GS source, but it looks like PAC AD's are already in the process of proposing to their PAC Principals a football only merger with the Big 8. The top 8 schools above would form the Big school division and the bottom 7 would form the Small school division. Principals would vote on this in the spring. All PAC schools are in agreement with this plan supposedly....yet I find this hard to believe. Looks like the Small schools would have an extra non-conference game to schedule teams from the big school division.

I ain't going to lie, every time I see a picture of him, my I get pissed off. He's such a putz.

Is that what happened in Venezuela? Old men quit politics and let the young folks decide their future?

I fully expect Indiana to do the same.

Too bad that Mitch couldn't find time to bring up a single vote toward ending the shutdown. Really a shame that a man with a supposed 38% approval and a 47% disapproval rating in his state has such a likelihood of being re-elected.

I totally understand the driving for you Dave. I was just joking with you. There isn't a bigger youth sports fan around than you are. I will disagree with you on the improved schedule tough. I am sure that you guys can schedule SR for one of your non conference games.

This just in.....Robert Mueller has officially wrapped up the "Russia Investigation" and has been selected as special counsel for the "PAC/Big 8 (6)" scandal. Grand jury notices have been sent out with Robert Falkens presiding. The truth will come out!

yes...the proposal is as outlined...they will return to the small school division.

I told ya I was asking for a friend....he is from HH.

By enrollment is a huge mistake in my opinion. Trade the #3 and #10 and you might have something....

Much like the wall and healthcare reform, BHO had two years and nothing happened. Two sides of the same coin.

I agree, my mom was in a great deal of pain in her final weeks. We were finally referred to a pain management doctor who was hesitant to prescribe anything besides the OxyCodone she was on. After some heated words from yours truly, we left with a script for Fentynal patches. Under his care, within a week he actually had to bump the dosage up. In less than a week she was in the hospital on morphine. The point being, we're clearly dealing with end of life stuff with a 78 year old woman. She's never been to a pain management doctor in her life, she's in a wheelchair, and it's not hard to tell she's suffering. Why are we forcing people like this to suffer when there are drugs to alleviate the pain. Why the hoop jumping? Why am I forced to get upset and be a jerk to the doctor to get her taken care of? Even if addiction was a potential problem, at her stage of the game, so what?

Every RPO I've seen at the HS and NCAA level has linemen coming out to try to engage a LB or at least drive the DL back to sell it as a pure run. Sometimes they drift too far before the ball is thrown (usually the fault of the passer and not the lineman). The problem usually comes in when a lineman may be 6-8 yards downfield when the pass is caught, but the rule applies when the pass is released. Often the lineman is fine at that point but coaches scream because they see the lineman way downfield when the ball is in the air. I was fooled by this many times when I was a newer official, but watching on film I realized the lineman was fine at the time of release. Now I'm much slower to flag it unless I"m absolutely certain the lineman was illegal when the ball was released.

He's as good as it gets. Congrats Coach Lowery and congrats to the LaPorte community on a great hire!

I do believe the Big 8 has a proposal and I do believe the PAC will at least listen this time. The percentage chance that the PAC will go for said proposal....I still say I will stick with power ball LOL.

Each NFL team is affiliated with one of the AAF teams (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25900439/everything-need-know-first-alliance-american-football-season). That article also explains how colleges are affiliated with each of the teams as well. This article confirms the Colts are affiliated with the Memphis team (https://saintswire.usatoday.com/2019/02/10/saints-aaf-memphis-express-davis-tull-damian-swann/). Cathedral and UIndy grad Reece Horn is playing for Memphis and caught 2 passes for 28 yards last weekend. If you look at the Memphis roster (https://aaf.com/memphis-express/roster) there are a couple names I believe have spent at least some time with the Colts.

No, it’s 0. Keep in mind this would apply to all sports, also keep in mind a vote was taken before to just sit down and talk to the Big 8. I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure one school was even interested in allowing discussions to take place. The larger schools will not vote to disrupt their happy place, the smaller schools have no desire to be the champion of the “small” division. What do you think has changed? Do you think the admin at North Posey have had a change of heart? As I have said on this thread many times, conference members are never, never, ever interested in helping other programs out. It is 100 percent about what can you do for me, how can you make my world better than it is today? Is there any chance that my confront and stability across all sports boys and girls that I have enjoyed for decades will be disrupted? I like the idea folks as it would provide a better SOS for GS in football....the sad truth is my time is better spent playing power ball.

Betting is now open: yl7dtrB.mp4

In reading comments made by officials from other states, I’m amazed how many states have literally no schools that utilize visible play clocks. We take that for granted in Indiana. Can’t remember the last time I was at a game with no field play clock ... once Bill Sharpe left Jimtown. 😎

The road or Katie? Lord, I apologize for that.

I'm good with any Mercy Rule that takes away the need for officials to ask coaches if they want a running clock. You might as well tell me to ask the losing coach if he wants me to punch him in the $@!#%.

I was in the ditch at: But facts is facts You totally lost me at: DT is right Why must every thread on this board turn into a contraction debate? If the local school board and community support having Football, why not? Are there schools out there that should probably call it a day, absolutely. Is it my place as a taxpayer and community member of Seymour tell Linton what they should be doing with their Football program? Bigger point, you mention yourself open enrollment, this is bigger than sports, school systems today need to have butts in desks to make it financially. How does cutting out sports programs further that cause? Furthermore, in rural communities if they opt to drop Football, because kids can just transfer to another competitive school, how long before rural schools lose enough where it puts their school in jeopardy? What about the local competitive school, how long before they're forced to expand, thus putting more pressure on the local tax base, no bother for the transfers, they have no skin in the game.

I asked this on another thread, but I've read about some of the affiliates for other teams, but who is the Colts' affiliate?

OFFENSE C Tyler Haney Monroe Central TE Clay Dalton Eastbrook OL Stewart Mossholder Oak Hill OL Adam Bowman Maconaquah OL Luke Herr Hamilton Heights OL Jackson Miller Southwood WR Heisman Skeens Mississinewa WR Steven Edwards Kokomo RB Kitchel Gifford Western RB Xaine Kirby Eastbrook RB Seth Wilson Monroe Central QB KJ Roudebush Tipton K Sabestian Connor Tipton OFF AT LARGE Delton Moore Manchester Michael Schlechty Jay County DEFENSE DL Aidan Ortego Southwood DL Javias Gray Kokomo DE Nate Southerland Delta DE Andreas Aguliar Marion ILB Brady Pease Delta ILB Terrence Wilson Blackford OLB / SS Mason Hale Eastbrook OLB / SS Logan Vander Veldon Wabash CB Landry Ozmun Oak Hill CB Tyler Gilland Delta FS Luke Stoker Tipton FS Brayden Burke Marion P Justin Summers Alexandria DEF AT LARGE Taft Manship Monroe Central Andrew Ault Western COACH: Randy Sehy Blackford ASST COACH: Stuart Goble Eastbrook

Club Moderation is nothing more than someone who wants to create a cool kids group. so because you started your "own" club you can moderate it I believe: However that moderation is restricted to the own created club......

*ahem* leadership team? :

It's pretty funny for those who know my daughter. DE has a hard on for me, and thinks he can get a rise out of me by attacking my daughter. I consider the source and move on. Just words from a keyboard warrior.

One idea we have had at our school is to try and recruit officials for all sports from within out halls. We have looked at creating a class in the PE department that will look at team sports, rules, and game play. This class will hopefully be on the schedule for next school year. One part of this class will be helping students with the skills and information needed to take and pass officiating tests to allow them to be licensed officials after they have graduated. We have a lot of students who love the sport but may not want to or be able to play at the next level. Giving them this skill and comfort level in knowing rules, situations, and how to handle situations with coaches and fans will hopefully draw a new and youthful group to officiating in all sports. The goal it to have them look at two or three sports they may be interested in to help add depth to the officiating pool.

OH no you will not stir up a pot that does not exist. They don't want in to the HCC and the feeling is mutual. For reasons just open up google maps.

Taxes Are Getting Weaponized for Partisan Purposes: http://reason.com/archives/2019/02/04/taxes-get-weaponized-for-partisan-purpos/

http://reason.com/archives/2019/01/28/are-billionaires-immoral-democrats-ask You are always going to have "winners" and "losers" in a free society. Not everybody can be equal, and not all will have the same opportunities. It is what it is, and socialism can't change that.

Should Paul McCartney and Other Billionaires Be 'Abolished'?: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/07/destroy-all-billionaires Reich links to a column by The New York Times' Farhad Manjoo with the eliminationist title "Abolish Billionaires: A radical idea is gaining adherents on the left. It's the perfect way to blunt tech-driven inequality." The column makes two large points that undergird the anti-billionaire movement. First is the idea that nobody deserves or needs a billion dollars. "Why should anyone have a billion dollars," asks Manjoo, "why should anyone be proud to brandish their billions, when there is so much suffering in the world?" Second is the notion that "inequality is the defining economic condition of the tech age." Did, say, Paul McCartney (net worth: $1.2 billion) make his pile through theft, as Robert Reich would contend? Would there be less suffering in the world if his money is expropriated and transferred to the wretched of the earth via higher taxes rather than through his own charitable donations and investments? Probably not, especially when you think about how much suffering, especially in the developing world, is the direct result of government action. More important, the creation of billionaires is a lower-order effect of a relatively free-market economy. Recall Joseph Schumpeter on this: Schumpeter's basic description helps to explain the ubiquity of all sorts of technology, from cell phones to pharmaceuticals, all around the world. Because of massive increases in global trade, more people have more stuff and are living longer than ever before. If one indirect consequence of this is that there are more billionaires than there used to be, so be it. It's become fashionable to assert that inequality is back at Gilded Age levels and that the concentration of power and wealth and everything good and decent is in smaller and smaller hands. This is simply not a good description of the world. For the first time in history, report researchers at the Brookings Institution: Income inequality among countries has been declining as well. The GINI coefficient, a measure of income inequality, of 146 countries that account for 95 percent of global production, declined from 67 percent in 1988 to 57 percent in 2015. Over the same time frame in the United States, it rose from 35 percent to 38 percent, an increase, to be sure, but a relatively modest one. China and India saw bigger increases, but the growth in inequality within those countries is more than overwhelmed by the absolute increases in wealth, especially among the poorest inhabitants. Click through image below for a fully functioning graph. Bruegel Within the United States, both the right and the left like to tell a story about wage stagnation, the end of upward mobility, and the death of the American Dream. Conservatives will tell you it's all liberals' fault and you need to roll with Trump or the Republicans if you want to make America great again. Liberals make the opposite case and push wealth taxes, Medicare for All, Free College for All, Guaranteed Jobs for All, and more. Both sides are describing a false version of reality. As Russ Roberts has shown, mobility is alive and well in the United States. The most stunning indicator comes from a study that looks at income changes for individuals between 1980 and 2014. If you simply measure statistical averages, writes Roberts, As libertarian economist Steve Horwitz writes, over the past 45 years, the consumption patterns of the poor and rich have become more similar. That's a point that gets lost if you're fixated on people in the top 0.001 percent: Neither Horwitz nor Roberts are panglossian; each details areas (particularly housing, education, and health care) in which outcomes could be vastly improved, typically by moving in a more free-market direction. As Schumpeter might put it, capitalism might make more billionaires, but it's achievement is creating many more things that virtually everyone can afford. "Abolish Billionaires" is a smart slogan, but that's all it is. Figuratively lopping the heads off of the richest of the rich will not make life easier for the poor and dispossessed, and it won't increase economic growth and living standards. It might sate the bloodlust of left-wing populists for a while, but certainly that outcome can be purchased for lower cost.

Yeah - because socialism worked so well for Venezuela....

https://deadspin.com/more-than-two-years-after-the-games-rios-olympic-debt-1832558040 Yep, I feel the Olympics as are have know them is destined to fail. Local cities and government can't take on the debt such a boondoggle entrails.

A Holcomb-appointed Indiana teacher pay panel lacks teachers, though one will advise it.: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/12/teacher-pay-heres-who-guide-indianas-effort-raise-salaries/2846729002/ Should educational professionals in Indiana be outraged by the makeup of this commission? What do guys from banks and car makers know about education? And I wonder if the framers of the Indiana State Constitution envisioned the state government becoming a de-facto education company, as the outrageous amount of spending toward government schools proves?

https://www.cato.org/blog/lawsuit-car-passenger-tased-11-times-criminally-charged-after-asking-officer-why Note: This video is disturbing. And more evidence of the police state we live in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/opinion/sunday/pain-opioids.html Spot-on commentary. Just goes to show the consequences of the government's War on Opioids. An abject failure.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/fdr-new-deal-experimental-no-coherent-plan/ I agree with that, but it’s worth reminding folks that there was never any single coherent thing called “the New Deal.” From the beginning, FDR was clear that he was winging it. At Oglethorpe University, he famously set the tone for what they were up to: “bold, persistent experimentation.” He added, “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” Roosevelt fans on the left — and of late on the right — have lionized FDR’s “pragmatism” ever since. But this is a terrible credo for a nation committed to the idea that we live under the rule of law, not of men. Some avenues are supposed to be closed off from “experimentation.” Let’s try getting rid of the Bill of Rights for a bit and see if we can’t get great things done! Let’s be — as Tom Friedman puts it — “China for a Day.” Implicit in the idea of experimentation from Washington is the idea that planners should not be constrained. Implicit in the idea of a constitutional republic is that they should be. As we put it in our editorial on the Green New Deal, “The Left really has only one idea: control” — and that is the idea implicit in New Deal–style “experimentation.” But there’s something else implicit in the idea of such experimentation: a total lack of policy coherence. The New Deal cargo-cultists have a vexing habit of pointing at the things they like or liked about the New Deal and saying, “That’s the New Deal.” So they like Social Security but are silent — usually from ignorance — about the policies that caused blacks to protest the NRA (National Recovery Administration) as the “Negro Run Around” and “Negroes Ruined Again.” They like all the government makework for artists and writers but don’t talk about the little things, like Jacob Maged or the scuttling of the London Economic Conference, that helped deepen the Depression. The simple fact, as I argued here, is there was no single New Deal (which is one reason why historians talk about the second New Deal, which produced most of the stuff people associate with the good New Deal). It was the steady pursuit of control and constantly updated wish lists. As FDR told Congress in 1936: In other words, so long as we have the power, whatever we want to do is “wholesome and proper.” But if our political opponents get power, look out! “I want to assure you,” FDR’s aide Harry Hopkins told an audience of New Deal activists in New York, “that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal.” The New Deal wasn’t a program, it was the by-product of ad hoc experimentation by people who thought their own power was self-justifying. And to look back on it as somehow more coherent than the would-be Green New Deal is to give it too much credit. “To look upon these programs as the result of a unified plan,” wrote Raymond Moley, FDR’s right-hand man during much of his rule, “was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter’s tools, geometry books, and chemistry sets in a boy’s bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator.” When Alvin Hansen, an influential economic adviser to the president, was asked — in 1940 — whether “the basic principle of the New Deal” was “economically sound,” he responded, “I really do not know what the basic principle of the New Deal is.” It was control. And wish lists. And it was ever thus. Yep. FDR's "New Deal" was just romanticized government control, and an unprecedented level. And now the new breed of progressives want the same.