Leaderboard

OUM: I want you to sell all the baseball coaches, players, families, schools, the idea that they cannot play their sport in the spring because football is being played instead. If you tell me kid has to pick one or the other, wrong answer.

While Boone Grove resumes activities today It's not my team. Hope that was ok to post that.

The other thing that bothers me about the proponents of not returning to school is their belief that kids will isolate and social distance without school. Simply not true. Unless you are a hermit, just walk around your neighborhood, drive by a playground, go by a baseball field, bike by a basketball court, go to a beach, etc. Here is the reality - kids are together now and without masks. I witness it multiple times every day. I see parents with kids of all ages hanging out in driveways while kids play, grill out, sit at ball fields and some of these are the same parents and even some that are teachers that don't want to open schools. What????? Complete hypocrites!

I fear you’re fighting an uphill battle, my friend. Unfortunately, this is no longer primarily a public health issue. All sides have “weaponized” the pandemic for use in political warfare. So, decisions are often driven by concerns other than public health.

Did you expect the virus to be gone?? Foolish on your part. A lot has changed since March 18, mainly we have learned a lot and have more data18 : March 18 2,000,000 projected deaths in US July 18 140,000 - Learning = not as deadly as originally feared March 18 - infection percent 40-50% of population July 18 10% of population March18 - masks don't matter July 18 - masks do matter March 18 - everyone is at risk July 18 - children under 17 low risk of getting it and transmitting it March 18 - shut everything down including schools because we don't know and no data July 18 - countries around the globe have opened up including in person school and no breakouts It's all about risk tolerance. Everyday you get in your car you have risk. If your answer is wait until their is a vaccine, we might be waiting for a very long time and still no 100% guarantee/risk free. OUM and WRCSage - answer is shut everything down I guess until vaccine is here. I disagree. Move forwarded and learn to live with COVID-19 in our environment.

From CDC numbers 152 deaths from people under 24 and ALL had serious underlying conditions.. if its the safety of the student athletes we are worried about. We could save more lives preaching to not text and drive rather than Covid. Schools have afforded kids parents the opportunity to not have to send there kids to school. So if grandma and grandpa are raising a kid.. they don't have to go to school or play. That argument is gone. Kids are out running around with zero restrictions right now in public. The only thing holding them accountable is sports. That is the only time most kids are getting screened and forced to distance. Why cut out the one thing that holds them accountable?.

"The best is yet to come"

There are several documents trickling down through association football chairs. One of them addresses administrative issues for officials, and contains the following: “Host school will provide adequate dressing facilities for officials to include lockers, showers, and adequate space to observe social distancing.”

Westfield gonna be loaded. Incoming JR class VERY GOOD. Hauser at RB. Very talented kid.

It truly doesn't matter what other states do Only matters what state surround us do in my opinion Texas California Florida have no connections to Indiana in anyway.

That’s the problem with the cancel culture...There is no end game! Only about 1% of the population has been exposed to the virus. It will take about 55% to 65% exposure before we could get herd immunity. And no telling when a vaccine will be available or how it will fare. So do you want businesses shut down...no high school sports and live in fear for the next 2 years? 5 years? What’s the end game? If you don’t want to attend games or allow your kids to play, then don’t. It’s a free country...but don’t take these years away from the kids because you are scared. We have to get back to some sort of normalcy. Is it August 21st yet?

Well, if you’re going to do some kind of cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the restrictions are “worth it,” shouldn’t you include all of the “costs“ in the analysis? Death is not the only “cost” associated with COVID-19.

Westfield high 2022 defensive end Popeye Williams offered by Alabama (7/20)

Dann, that was intended as a comment on @Coach Nowlin’s observation that he “should have known better,” but went ahead anyway. That’s all. That persecution complex is going to get you in trouble on the field if you’re not careful.

While we are sitting here, don't forget our yearly drive is up and running Please consider being a booster today for $30 (removes ads) @DK_Barons appreciates all our booster friends https://gridirondigest.net/clients/donations/

Also keep in mind multiple programs across the state have dealt with "cases" just fine already. And somehow those stayed out of the news.

I am loathe to make important decisions on the basis of studies like these. They call it a “novel” coronavirus because it’s new. Most of the studies being done now are, of necessity, short term and very limited in scope. For example, we still don’t know to what degree an infection provides future immunity, if any. This inability to generate reliable information early in the process is absolutely normal in the scientific world, but doesn’t sell well in the era of the 15 second sound bite, or the 280 character tweet. So, a lot of people who have only a passing acquaintance at best with the scientific method just throw up their hands in frustration. There are more than a few of them on the GID.

This is likely the most inaccurate statement regarding one side of the discussion on the entire thread. From the first line, no one who wants to wait until there are more safety considerations in place thinks kids will stay apart. No one has ever mentioned that there is an unrealistic expectation that kids will isolate. The comparisons you are trying to make here are apples and oranges. What kids do outside for a few hours a day with a handful of friends, is NOTHING like being in a classroom 7 hours a day for 5 days a week, with central air with 30 or so other kids, in a building with a few hundred other kids.

A Study in Self-Pity https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-study-in-self-pity/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=third Asked to reflect on his term so far as he seeks re-election, the president’s answer is that he was treated unfairly. Even when he is literally invited by his interviewer to say good things about himself, all he can reach for is resentment. There is more to this than there might seem to be at first. The sense that he was being treated unfairly had a huge amount to do with why Donald Trump ran for president in the first place, and the sense that they were being treated unfairly had a lot to do with why his earliest supporters and voters found him appealing. Channeling resentment is near the source of his political prowess. And of course, he’s not wrong. The sense of resentment he has channeled has been rooted in some important realities, and even his own sense that he has been treated unfairly by his opponents as president is not mistaken. Sure he has. But that this sense of resentment is chiefly what drives him, that he can’t see past it or point beyond it, has been a crucial factor in many of his biggest failures as an executive. He has treated the world’s most powerful job as a stage from which to vent his frustrations with the world’s mistreatment of him, and this has often kept him from advancing durable aims, from capitalizing on opportunities, from learning from mistakes, and from leading. In reasonably good times, it meant that he turned our national politics into a reality-television performance—focused, as those often are, on the drama of bruised egos. But in a time of crisis, it has left him incapable of rising to the challenge of his job, and the consequences have been dire. In other words, his answer seems right: Whether it’s in 2021 or 2025, the blinding power of self-pity and resentment may well end up being what stands out most when we regard Donald Trump’s years as President of the United States.

Temptation, unfortunately I think you are correct. The media and politicians have hijacked this pandemic vs the science. They have created this constant fear mongering and we wonder why many school administrators are afraid to make a call.

You’re fortunate the meetings aren’t held in Merrillville this year. Town Council voted for mandatory masking in public spaces starting at 11 a.m. today. I know you wouldn’t consider defying the law. 😷

Team of Rivals was a good book.

Spring football skips over a lot of problems. The big one being that we may have a vaccine by February or March..... We also will have experience in the in-school Covid way of life. 12 schools up our way are suspended....as you are reading this. You would like spring football

Private Schools Are Adapting to Lockdown Better Than the Public School Monopoly https://reason.com/2020/07/17/private-schools-are-adapting-to-lockdown-better-than-the-public-school-monopoly/?itm_source=parsely-api

Play until you can't. Suspend, restart, play until you can't. Moving to spring is not the answer.

how are you going to convince the baseball playing kids, families and schools to miss 2 straight years of their season? Not going to happen, just my opinion

Sheridan

Source Center for Disease Control

You have to be of a certain age ...

Back in the old days, we used to call it “India-no-place.”

Yes, of course. And if we aren't going with the logical method of just using letter and/or numbers to rename city then I submit Indianapolis be renamed to once it's common nickname, Naptown.

Thx. Bill was, I believe, on a Marian State Championship team. He later played fullback at Butler and a few years later was in my wedding. Good man.

I remember those days, mine were in the late 70’s. A bologna sandwich didn’t taste very good coming back up for a “second chew” after lunch and the second practice in the heat.

I’m so sick and tired of reading (and writing) about non-football topics, I felt the need to at least attempt to get some substantive high school football conversation going. The referee on the game you’re watching is the guy in the offensive backfield With the white hat. He’s the quarterback of the crew. If you have a crew member who might be a little weak, possibly due to inexperience, there are ways to try and “hide” him, although it’s impossible to do that indefinitely on a 5 person crew. But the R position is not a place you can hide. Like the QB of the teams, the R often gets too much credit when the team succeeds, and too much blame when they don’t. So, how do you, sitting in the stands (or prowling the sideline), know when the R is a good one, or may struggle if challenged? Here are some nuances you probably wouldn’t pick up ordinarily. But if the R is consistently getting these little things right, he’s very likely to be getting the big things right — and seeing that the rest of the crew does, too. Watch the R’s head when the QB releases the ball. Does it stay locked on the QB? Or can you see the head turn to follow the flight of the ball? Everyone else in the place will watch the ball. But R’s focus has to remain on the QB. I guarantee you that if the QB’s coach looks back and sees his kid on the ground, you’re going to have to have an explanation for how he got there. Does R Mark the spot of a fumble in the backfield with his beanbag? Contrary to popular belief, this is bad mechanics. The purpose of bagging the spot of a fumble (or backward pass) is to have a spot from which to enforce the penalty for certain fouls that may occur before or during a loose ball. But if possession is lost behind the neutral zone, under NF rules that spot can never be an enforcement spot. So, if you see R’s beanbag come out on a fumble behind the LOS, he’s telling you he does things without knowing the underlying reasons. Always a bad sign. Does R let the passer cross his face on a rollout or scramble? R always assumes an initial position on the passer’s throwing side. There’s a reason for that: it is the best position from which to judge whether a loose ball is a forward pass vs. a fumble, arguably the toughest judgment call R has to make. It’s important to maintain that position as long as possible when the QB moves toward you. Good R’s will fight to maintain that relationship as long as possible. Does R go into the sideline on wide plays? The R is not normally involved in activity right around the dead ball spot unless the play ends in the offensive backfield. But a good R will help on plays that go into the sideline at the LOS or a short distance downfield. The wing official must maintain the out of bounds spot, and R should go past him, into the sideline, to make sure any players of the opposing team who went into the sideline come out without incident. It’s more than just hustle. It’s good dead ball officiating. And it’s a critical skill. Does R signal his “count” early and clearly. One of R’s primary responsibilities is to count the offensive players on every play, and signal his count to his wing officials. If R signals that there are 11 on offense, the wing officials then count the players in the backfield in order to determine legality of formation. In this day of specialty substitutions, no-huddle and up tempo offenses, it has become more important than ever that R get this done as early as possible, and let those wing officials know so they can go about the rest of their business. Does R signal crisply and properly? Believe it or not, good R’s practice signaling in front of a mirror. Do the arms go straight up when signaling a score, or do the elbows bend ? Does he wait to stop moving before starting to signal? Is he giving a preliminary signal to the press box when appropriate? Does he always use the dead ball signal for fouls prior to the snap, and after the play is over? Does R get the timing rules right? Last year in the playoffs — a sectional final and a regional — I saw 2 different R’s start the game clock after an accepted penalty for delay of game. An absolute no-no, and a dead giveaway that R has not done a deep dive into the rulebook recently. Now, since you know these “tricks of the trade” for the R position, when the loudmouth next to you starts dogging the R, you don’t have to take his word for it. An informed fan is a better fan.

And the most athletic!

South Bend School Board a delayed start the first couple weeks. I have not seen if this includes extracurriculars.

https://mises.org/wire/demolishing-lincoln-myth-yet-again Extension of slavery in the territories was for Lincoln an entirely different matter, and on this issue he refused all compromise. Here we confront a paradox. If Lincoln thought it more important to preserve the Union than to oppose slavery, why was he unwilling to compromise over slavery in the territories? If he thought slavery's extension was too high a price to pay to preserve the Union, why was he willing permanently to entrench slavery wherever it already existed? It is hard to detect a moral difference between slavery in the states and the territories. DiLorenzo readily resolves the paradox. Lincoln opposed extension of slavery, because this would interfere with the prospects of white workers. Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed "internal improvements" were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers that he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. Blacks, in his opinion, would be better off outside the United States, and throughout his life Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln's concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, had human rights but not political rights.) In order to finance his economic program, high tariffs were essential. DiLorenzo is appropriately scathing about Lincoln’s remarks. DiLorenzo is fully prepared for the objection that even if the Southern states had ample reason to oppose Lincoln’s economic plans, they had no legal right to secede. In this view, Lincoln had a constitutional duty to preserve the Union by any means necessary. The historian Allan Guelzo claims that Southern secessionists were guilty of treason by their efforts to leave the Union. In what to my mind is the highlight of the book, DiLorenzo turns the tables on those who charge the Southern states with treason. The United States was a compact of sovereign states, and a state that no longer wished to remain part of the Union was free to leave. This view of the matter was not dreamed up by Southern firebrands in 1860; it had behind it the weighty authority of Thomas Jefferson. If one accepts Jefferson’s approach, Lincoln’s nationalist understanding of the United States was, as Murray Rothbard would say, “monstrous.” As DiLorenzo writes, With a brilliant stroke, DiLorenzo reverses the verdict that leaving the Union was treason. Lincoln was the real traitor: Once Lincoln invaded the South, he and his henchmen carried on the war with great brutality. Murray Rothbard says that the Union conduct of the war DiLorenzo confronts an important objection to his main argument. Even if Lincoln didn’t start the war to free the slaves but rather to create a powerful central state, wasn’t war still necessary to end slavery? This seems unlikely. In an appearance on Bill Maher’s television program, Ron Paul "responded [to Maher] by pointing out that all other countries in the world that ended slavery in the nineteenth century did so peacefully, without a civil war, specifically citing how the British used tax dollars to buy the freedom of the slaves and then ended slavery legally throughout the British Empire" (p. 71). DiLorenzo’s forthright analysis of Lincoln stands in marked contrast to a leading member of what our author, following the usage of Lerone Bennett Jr., calls the Logos school, "which treats Lincoln’s words as gospel truth. An example of this would be a statement by Lincoln scholar Harry Jaffa when I [DiLorenzo] debated him at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, in 2003. During the question-and-answer session, an audience member—apparently a Jaffa protégé—asked Jaffa if he thought Lincoln’s speeches were the words of God. Jaffa responded that yes, he thought they were." (pp. 139–40) Readers of The Problem with Lincoln will be forever immune to this idolatrous nonsense. I have read Mr. DiLorenzo’s previous two books regarding the late Mr. Lincoln and his essential deification by other historians, and the federal government. I will be sure to read this one as well. I heartily encourage others to do the same.