Leaderboard

Adams Central advanced 3 football players to State - Gavin Cook (126 - 4th place finish in FTW SS), Alex Currie (152 - 2nd place finish in FTW SS) and Blake Heyerly (220 - 1st place finish in FTW SS). Looking forward to seeing these guys compete in Indianapolis for a 2nd sport this season after getting to LOS in November!

I thought you were leaving...?

Wrestling right now is being treated as a joke by the IHSAA. Right now on Indianamat, we are discussing how differently coaches are treated come state time. Our wrestling team come sectional time only allowed three coaches, and myself as a volunteer assistant had to pay my way in. Surely this doesn’t happen for football or basketball, and all the coaches get in? And now they are only allowing two coaches per three kids in the finals.

Good 30 for 30 on Tuck Rule. One of the things discussed was if that had been ruled a fumble the Patriots lose and Drew Bledsoe returns as the starter the following year. Does Brady gets his chance with the Patriots or go somewhere else? Is he as successful early in his career in a different system?

Kyle Richards - Defensive Coordinator @ Wes-Del High School Coach Richards is a little older than 35 but still a promising young assistant coach who deserves to be mentioned. Coach Richards has a strong desire to become a head coach in the near future and will do a great job!

Rochester has 3 football players going to state in wrestling. Alex Deming at 195, Brady Beck at 220, and Marshall Fishback at 285 will compete. They were on New Haven Semi-state championship team and Fishback was the 285 Champ.

FAST ZOOM CLINICS-ONE HOUR, ONCE A WEEK REGISTER FOR FREE AT www.60SecondClinic.com/BandB I hope everyone has been having a great offseason and enjoying clinic season. Building off of the success and positive reviews of our Special Teams and Offensive Line Clinic we are launching our Zoom Clinic Series! This Thursday at 9 PM we will have Coach Josh Yoder from Brownsburg talking Outside Zone Fundamentals and Coach Zane Burtron from Westfield talking about their Grading System. To register for this FREE Zoom Clinic visit www.60secondclinic.com/bandb

Notice she stuck with him just long enough to get that Valentine’s Day present.

Love this; although I think it was kind of a dig at Weddle lol

Damn Gonzos I’d hate to pay your grocery bills, I swear to God I would!

Aaron Rodgers and Shailene Woodley Break Up, Call Off Engagement “I'll have,” she added, “why do I want to be with someone who has won as many Super Bowls as Joe Flacco, for $400.”

The IHSAA should give out 3 coaches passes if you have less than 4 wrestlers. 1 coach per kid is good enough. If you have 4 or more you should get 5 passes, 1 in each corner and another to be in the warm up area to get the others ready. I don't like the idea of wristbands, need to let the coaches be able to exchange for different weight classes.

I won't get started but suffice to say I agree.

I would say you should have enough coaches to cover all 3 or 4 mats in case you have a wrestler on every single one of them. Like you don’t need 15 like Brownsburg does, but SA we have 6 for 14 varsity guys and we’re all always running around at tournaments.

I'm a big fan of linemen wrestling. Lots of lessons to be taught starting with leverage and hands. They get better conditioning in wrestling, and as long as they don't go crazy losing too much weight the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

The heavier weight classes can do it much easier than lighter kids. Mine plays football, his football weight was 310. His wrestling weight hovers around 277. And he doesn't need to work that hard to get it under 285 after football.

Neil Young's short-lived temper tantrum is over (quietly)...... I do find it interesting that the "misinformation" he was accused of spreading was actually from one of the doctors that holds 9 patents on MRNA vaccine technology. So hardly "misinformation" IMHO....... https://www.analyzingamerica.org/2022/02/650991/?fbclid=IwAR3_Q5nnxHMHjbJT9XFMDhjF_ma3XOXxi2sjWkJha69nvW2_KJEnFTpP2n8 It wasn’t long ago that Canadian-native, anti-Trump rockstar Neil Young demanded that Spotify remove all of his music after the platform has refused to blacklist podcaster Joe Rogan. “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,” Young said. “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” Young continued. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” Despite this ultimatum, Spotify called Neil Young’s bluff and refused to silence Rogan. Spotify took a bold stand for freedom of speech amid major backlash from liberals, including the Obamas, who demanded censorship on the platform. Singer Joni Mitchell joined Young and also claimed she was removing her music from Spotify. However, it turns out that neither Young nor Mitchell has the power to pull much of their music from the platform. The musicians’ catalogs are on labels that remain streamable on Spotify, reports have confirmed. Young and Mitchell never had the power to follow through on their threats themselves, the report adds. Just over a year ago, Young sold a 50% stake in his catalog to U.K. music investor Hipgnosis for a cool $150 million. Rogan, who is known for hosting a podcast where he gets high and talks about aliens, has dared to ask questions and hold discussions about coronavirus. Liberals accuse Rogan of spreading “misinformation” because he invited highly credentialed physicians on his podcast, which includes cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone who owns nine patents on the creation of mRNA vaccine technology. This has resulted in a collective meltdown for the Left. Numerous high-profile figures have expressed outrage and announced boycotts against Spotify, which hosts Rogan’s popular podcast. Rogan’s podcast is currently the most popular podcast in the country. He averages 11 million listeners per episode and reaches far more people than networks like CNN and MSNBC combined. CNN only recorded over a million viewers in its primetime slots in 2021 while MSNBC averaged 1.53 million. Rogan recently explained the controversy began because liberals are upset about “dangerous misinformation” that came from two episodes. He explained that one episode was “with Dr. Peter McCullough and one with Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Peter McCullough is a cardiologist, and he is the most published physician in his field in history. Dr. Robert Malone owns nine patents on the creation of mRNA vaccine technology and is at least partially responsible for the creation of the technology that led to mRNA vaccines. Both these people are very highly credentialed, very intelligent, very accomplished people and they have an opinion, that’s different from the mainstream narrative. I wanted to hear what their opinion is.” “I had them on and because of that, those episodes in particular, those episodes were labeled as being dangerous, they had dangerous misinformation in them,” Rogan continued. “The problem I have with the term misinformation, especially today is that many of the things that we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact, like, for instance, eight months ago, if you said, ‘if you get vaccinated, you can still catch COVID and you can still spread COVID,’ you’d be removed from social media, they would they would ban you from certain platform,” he said. “Now, that’s accepted as fact. If you said, I don’t think cloth masks work, you would be banned from social media. Now that’s openly and repeatedly stated on CNN. If you said I think it’s possible that COVID-19 came from a lab, you’d be banned from many social media platforms – now that’s on the cover of Newsweek. All of those theories that at one point in time were banned, were openly discussed by those two men that I had on my podcast that had been accused of dangerous misinformation.”

How cool is that? Best of luck to those three! Such an awesome accomplishment.

And Stafford is not yet Eli Manning.

Mrs IO just finished her second go around with COVID. She is vax’d per her doctors orders, and had her first case late October. She got to go back to work from the second round 1/31. She has had a persistent cough since her first case. It has finally gotten better in the last week or so, but she’s still hitting the cough syrup occasionally. Sue was pretty fortunate in that she was never really sick with it. Her second bout she did say she had a headache for several days. Mrs IO had the antibody infusion the first time but it wa not offered the second time. I read in the mean time the “government” has suspended shipments of the antibody meds during a changeover to an updated version. It was reported that the new meds were in fairly short supply initially and they were saving for the most at risk people. During Mrs IO’s latest case, both little IO’s along with one girlfriend all had it. None related as we hadn’t been around each other. Best of luck to your wife, you might look into “long haul COVID”.

Posted solely with the intent of getting @Bobreffired up…

Evan Tilton at 182 from Hamilton Heights is not a football player. He's the only HH wrestler to qualify for State this year. 5 of the 7 Semi State qualifiers from Hamilton Heights did play football also.

So on January 26, a fully vaccinated co-worker entered Mrs. SF's office coughing and hacking claiming she didn't have Covid since she was vaccinated. (Never mind her grand kids were positive, and she had them staying at her place, she then later tested positive) So started the SF run with Covid-19. By the Weekend (3 days) the onset of symptoms began and both the SF's got tested and were positive. SF's lifetime of travels all over the country and Canada had my immune system on point. I was ill (about like the flu with more aches than usual) for about a day and a half. Mrs. SF had the same but developed a persistent cough that lasted through the following week. Our doctor prescribed a z-pack for her and recommended the Monoclonal Antibodies treatment. Both the Elkhart and the Goshen hospitals receive a limited supply, so she was on the list, but not chosen. Come Sunday morning, her oxygen level dipped below 90%, so on the doctor's orders, I took her to the ER. Pneumonia was the diagnosis, and I was pissed. She had waited over a week for the MA transfusion, but was not "bad enough" so now she is admitted to the hospital where she spent the next 5 days, was treated with Remdesivir and various other meds & steroids (which thankfully she responded well to) just released on Friday. We are not "anti-vax", but she has had a chronic lung condition (sarcoidosis) for over 3 years and based on our doctor's recommendation she did not get vaccinated. (neither did I, even though I have every intention to before I get back on the road to tend to my Canada business). We plan to after the recommended 3-6 month span after having Covid. I was surprised at the array of precautions or non-precautions and PPE each different nurse and doctor exercised, from total gowns and masks to nothing but a mask considering it was Covid based care. It seemed like and the attending doctor confirmed we know it's a virus - and that's it. "We are still learning as we go - kinda like the flu, only worse in some cases".

If we’re going solely on last year I’d go: Merrillville Valpo City Chesterton CP Franklin LC LaPorte Call me a region homer, but the DAC is just a step above the mid state imo. Sagarin ratings for the past year support this as well.

Mitchell hired Kevin Kling last night.

One has to wonder if Leslie Stahl would like to apologize to the former President for her remarks where he actually told her the FACTS about this incident, and she she denied it and then never followed up on the "new" information. (That is now a fact) or maybe she should just retire......

Probably the MOST (a) accurate, (b) "on point" and (c) humorous post EVER on the GID. A TRIFECTA. Thank you Stax.

https://mises.org/wire/new-anti-economics So under a full MMT policy why would we need taxes, if the government can just print money out of thin air to to pay for whatever it wants?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/the-new-yorker-flawed-hit-job-on-amy-coney-barrett/ I can only imagine the outrage had this paragraph been written about another female Supreme Court trailblazer like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Surely it would have been decried forcefully. “Not fair!,” the critics would scream. “You can’t define this woman by merely her physical attributes! She is as hard-working, as qualified, as achieving as her male peers — and you would never speak of their attire or the frequency of their exercise.” In this instance, I find myself in fervent agreement with the critics. Yet Talbot’s efforts to discredit Justice Barrett reflect the deep-rooted so-called systemic misogyny of which conservatives are so often unfairly accused. Talbot refuses, time and time again, to give a woman of incredible intellectual caliber — who has received perhaps the highest honor of the legal profession — any credit of her own. Instead, she relentlessly attempts to tie Justice Barrett to — and define her by — her involvement with the Federalist Society, her formation under Justice Scalia, and her time at Notre Dame, which Talbot identifies as “the nation’s elite conservative law school” (emphasis in original). Setting aside the question of whether there is anything inherently wrong about Justice Barrett’s association with these mentors and institutions, I am struck by Talbot’s deeply antifeminist disregard for Justice Barrett’s ability to form her own ideas. Our culture claims to celebrate women’s rights and rightly objects to the exclusion of women from fields that men have historically dominated. Talbot, purportedly endorsing these same feminist values, fails to apply these standards, and instead attempts to discredit Amy Coney Barrett’s every achievement. The irony, evidently, is lost on her. President Biden’s nominee to the Supreme Court — who he has promised will be a black woman — will be a hero to the mainstream media, in no small part because she will, if confirmed, join a small band of women who can claim that achievement. She will be presented as a self-made woman, possessing a unique voice to offer the nation’s highest court. I presume that this portrayal will be, in many ways, true. But if that female judge dares to think the wrong thing? Will she receive scrutiny of the kind Talbot has published? I predict the media will say nothing at all if they have nothing nice to say. Yet Justice Barrett is maligned simply because that same media have decided that she is the wrong kind of woman. Women ought to make their voices heard in the public square, we are told, unless they have a conviction that is considered undesirable — say, on the sanctity of human life. “All are entitled to their own opinion and complete autonomy,” progressive elites tell us, “unless you’re pro-life, which no woman should be. If you are, you are necessarily a puppet of male interests and a traitor to your sex.” In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein shared her concern that “the dogma lives loudly” within Amy Coney Barrett. She also said to Justice Barrett, then a judicial nominee: “You are controversial because many of us that have lived lives as women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems, and Roe entered into that, obviously.” Behind Feinstein’s comment lurked the old-guard police of feminist orthodoxy. Feinstein’s “many of us” was to be perceived as “all of us.” Every woman who has really lived a woman’s life, Feinstein insinuated, should recognize the “value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems.” Yet as Erika Bachiochi of the Ethics and Public Policy Center remarked poignantly in the midst of Justice Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court: In some ways, Talbot cannot help but answer the question she dares not ask. She speaks of the incredible love and generosity that the Barretts have for their children, including two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs — a generosity motivated in no small part by their deep faith. Inadvertently, Talbot highlights the unique — and thoroughly “progressive” — balance that Justice Barrett and her husband Jesse have found in order to allow their family to thrive. Even in this piece, Justice Barrett is a living sign of contradiction over and against pro-abortion narratives about women’s flourishing. Talbot’s interviews are testimonies to Justice Barrett’s maternal heroism and constant friendship — not because she “does it all” but because, as her husband movingly says: “You can’t outwork Amy. I’ve also learned that you can’t outfriend Amy.” You cannot outwork Amy Coney Barrett. She is a once-in-a-generation legal mind whose scholarship, intellect, and kindness has blessed hundreds of law students for decades. She will certainly shape — and in my opinion, bless — the Court for decades to come. Why, then, does Talbot continue to insinuate that her humility must not be sincere? Why does she go to such lengths to construct a case for Justice Barrett somehow being both consumed by a secret ambition and merely a puppet of powerful conservative men? You cannot outfriend Amy Coney Barrett. Colleagues and neighbors testify to Justice Barrett’s generosity and contentment with her life in South Bend: “She carefully considered opportunities as they arose, but never angled for them. . . . Ambition played no role in her nomination or acceptance of it. She’s not a political actor,” Justice Barrett’s colleague of 20 years (and my mother) comments. Yet Talbot insists that she knows better: Again, ironies abound. Talbot assumes that a woman like Justice Barrett couldn’t possibly have been at peace with her vocation as a wife, mother, and professor — that she must have been scheming for more. But who is she to tell Justice Barrett what kind of woman she is, or ought to be? I do not claim to speak for our newest justice’s jurisprudence, nor do I know how she will vote in Dobbs. A legal scholar might take up the questions of originalism and “common-good constitutionalism” that Talbot raises in her article. I have written previously, though, about my relationship with Justice Barrett as a family friend and neighbor. For as long as I can remember, she has been a mentor and maternal figure in my life, the mother of one of my best friends, and my mother’s best friend. It is because of that relationship that I wrote this piece, and it is with that familiarity that I say only this: Amy Coney Barrett is strong enough to withstand the swamp, faithful enough to place vocation above careerist aspirations, and courageous enough to offer the world a different — truer — kind of feminine genius. Just yet another liberal hit piece against an accomplished conservative, what else is new? But I wonder if the GID's own @Bobrefcan speak to the Notre Dame Law School as being the “the nation’s elite conservative law school”.

Yes sir.