Leaderboard

I’m not hiding, Mr. Keyboard Warrior. You can find me in the alley behind the Silver Dollar in Elwood at sundown.

BK is on the gridiron digest?!? He better have booster status haha

Eagerly awaiting New York State Pistol and Rifle vs Bruin hopefully in June. That will end “may issue”.

Isn’t it a bit presumptuous for you to be deciding what’s most important for someone else? Someone whose circumstances may be radically different from what you view as the norm? Somehow, I just can’t square that with the philosophy of personal liberty and individual freedom of choice you’ve espoused when pushing your right wing political agenda over on the OOB. It’s quite the paradox.

It appears that Mr. Harrell has finalized most of his football schedules for next fall and and what can only be viewed as a hilarious twist of fate, all 8 current/former MIC members are still scheduled to play one another, lol. “If you are looking elsewhere, see ya. But we will still play you so that when you likely beat us you can still claim a conference title.” Carry on with your Thursday.

Well, this topic derailed rapidly….nice.

Eh, I was on the dline humiliating your boys 😉. Soft as butter like their coach. Someone get baby his bottle.

Don’t bring logical consistency into this lol

There's been many "chosen ones" over the years, and they only seem to pan out 50% of the time. I like better odds than that so I won't take that bet. Do I think Tyler B. has heisman qualities? Yep, but I'll take a pass on the title "chosen one." I'm just thrilled that ND has two quarterbacks on their roster cable of leading the Irish to the playoffs. Kelly put too much stock in Coan last year and not enough on Pyne. In fact, Pyne got screwed after bailing ND out against Wisconsin. "Thanks, but my commitment is to my transfer, go sit over there on the bench for the rest of the season." And for neither one of them to play against Oklahoma State was just utterly disturbing. I like Freeman, but damn! Playing Coan from beginning to end didn't work all season, not sure why Freeman thought it would work against OSU.

ok...I hope that statement was an attempt at humor...seems a little extreme. Wasn't long ago that a student athlete could transfer, but had to lay out a year. But they could always transfer. In the Big 10 conference, wasn't that long ago that a student could transfer, but lost the scholarship. I believe Jeff George experienced this leaving Purdue for Illinois. I don't think anyone is arguing for the abolishment of the ability to transfer.....but for perhaps some accountability for their decisions which hopefully will result in a higher degree of dedication and perseverance. I thought the rule the old rule of laying out a year for staying at the same level of play was just fine. Let's be honest...athletes in many cases, don't have to meet the same academic criteria that the non-athlete needs to be admitted to an institution. In a high % of schools, NCAA minimums won't get the average student admitted. So there is already an admittance break that has been afforded to many athletes. Show some level of gratitude and moxie to compete before giving up and heading to "greener pastures". Only an opinion.....

No problem at all!

Again, I agree. But what you or I believe is the right choice for a kid to make is completely irrelevant.

I happen to agree with you. I just don’t believe in imposing my beliefs on others, taking away choices they have every right to make, even if you think they’re wrong.

and the left saying this and that about phone records regarding 1/6/21......more fake news. cnn reporting it. to the people that believe all this 🐂💩 boy are you all gullible and need to check your critical thinking skills...

Great thoughts.... we pretty much align...I totally agree about having an excellent TE. Speaking of GB, sure hope the former Indiana State guy Robert Tonyan comes back 100%. Seems he and Rogers have a nice connection. No doubt Tyreek Hill benefited from Kelce. But I also think Kelcey benefited from Hill. Hill kept safeties honest, while opening up the underneath for Kelce. LB's can't hang with him. Guess we shall see how Kelce does this year as clearly the #1 target. Hey, we see the importance of speed differently for a WR corp. If I am an offensive coordinator, and I can stretch the field, I will absolutely do it. Opens up the slot, TE, short to middle routes, and the running backs sure appreciate it as well. I don't need all of my WR's to be blazers....but I would sure like one or two to get some attention. I just hope Campbell can finally be that guy for the Colts.

Which points to the entire screwed up world of "big time" college athletics. Classically why does an individual enroll at a college or university? To get an education. But I guess now it's clear that many enroll to just play football, basketball, etc. with the hopes of becoming a professional at that sport one day. And education is a secondary priority, if it's a priority at all. So let's just stop the charade. Completely separate D1 college/university athletic departments, or at least the big money making sports like football and basketball, from being under the auspices of the university president and board of trustees. It will be become basically an "amateur" club sport organization that is allowed by the college/university to bear it's name, mascot, school colors, etc. Members of this club sport organization don't have to enroll at the affiliated university unless they want to, or they focus 100% on their athletic endeavors. Let's just stop the hypocrisy.

Campbell is that receiver, IF he stays healthy. I'm hoping that the Colts will draft Bell, a speed receiver, and a TE. Bell can always replace Pittman if Pittman becomes injured or demands far too much money, and we all know cheap Ballard can be. Ashton Dulin is a pretty fast receiver too if he ever develops. I just don't see the point in skipping Bell if he's there because he's just been so darn productive at every level, dominating with his route running and hands. I'm not sure if Bell will be as productive as a pro due to his lack of speed, but barring injuries, I really don't see how he won't be productive, since he's been extremely productive at every level so far, without a doubt. I'm a Purdue diehard and I am really rooting for Bell, so I'll be overjoyed if he's drafted by the Colts.

Great points……I do think if you put them opposite each other, it could help. What the Colts have to look at as far as putting defenses in a bind is the TE. The dominant teams feature really good TE’s. I thing Tyreek Hill benefitted from how good Kelce was. Hill will not be anywhere near as effective in Miami because he won’t have that. He sill see a lot of coverage combos that will limit him, even with his speed. I do think the deep threat may be overrated some. Green Bay has not really had one. Adams was really good, but he did not have that breakaway speed. He did have multiple receivers who were great possession guys, and a TE before he was injured, that kept defenses honest. In fact, I have said for a couple years, the Packers deep game has not been good. As the West Coast Gurus Walsh and Holmgren would say, just keep the chains moving.

I did read Bell's interest. Great character guy, playing for his home town team and catches everything that comes his way sounds awesome. I agree there are some comparisons with Harrison in terms of hands and route running. But they are very different physically. Bell is much bigger than Harrison, but Harrison was timed in the 40 at 4.38 while still at Syracuse. He could definitely stretch the field. The 4.65 40 Bell ran at the combine does raise eyebrows, and would seem to be more of a possession receiver. It would be great to have him, but I hope the Colts find that receiver that makes the safeties respect and play deeper. I hope that is Campbell.....and he can stay healthy. I like Bell a ton, but hard to compare him now to a HOF player.

Having a surplus of top flight talent at the position would be a nice problem to have.

Fisher looks the part. Big kid with a good arm. Not afraid to tuck the ball and be a physical runner. I’m guessing it’s going to be a pretty open competition for the 1st time in several years. Ellsperman is athletic enough to help in other spots but he’s also 1 half away from a state title game. Good to have tough decisions. Fisher looked impressive pitching opening day for the Tigers. Hard to believe he’s just a freshman.

None of the clubs(at least in basketball) are allowed to practice/play during IHSAA school ball season. It's against IHSAA rules to participate on the same team in an organized event with athletes from other schools

Tigerfan20 hinted all last season from the get go that perhaps Ellsperman shouldn't be the guy. Is Tigerfan20 Fisher's Dad? LOL

https://mises.org/wire/nato-our-international-welfare-queens But here's the problem: a so-called no-fly zone would be a de facto declaration of war on Russia by NATO. Moreover, when we say “by NATO,” we mostly mean “by the United States." At around the same time, the Polish regime began its own scheme to escalate the war and bring the US into direct conflict with Moscow. Warsaw, apparently without consulting Washington, hatched a plan to send fighter jets to Ukraine via US military bases and then have the US “backfill” Poland's air force with F-16s. This would have constituted a significant escalation as well, and was fortunately quashed by the White House. This sort of behavior that free rides on the American taxpayer has become an identifiable pattern with countries that see themselves as benefiting enormously from US military spending but who contribute next to nothing to US security or even to the NATO alliance. As a result, when Estonian lawmakers—Estonia being a country that has no air force at all beyond a few unarmed surveillance aircraft—want a no-fly zone, these people know it will be mostly somebody else who will fight, die, and sacrifice to pay for it all. “Someone else,” of course, will often mean American pilots and American taxpayers. Moreover, the idea that these countries offer any sort of strategic advantage to the US in terms of defending vital American interests is implausible. The current war in Ukraine has well illustrated just how weak the Russian regime is in terms of projecting power anywhere beyond its immediate neighbors. The idea that Poland and Estonia serve as valuable “buffer states” between the US and a second-rate power like Russia is hardly convincing. These NATO members are simply not critical allies. Rather, they are net liabilities that may even end up forcing an escalation that draws the US into a war with another nuclear-armed power. The US's pledge to defend Eastern Europe through organizations like NATO can at best be described as a form of humanitarian aid for member states that have nothing to offer in terms of vital American geopolitical benefits. Who Pays for NATO? In collective security organizations like NATO, Americans find themselves in a position of financially supporting the military defense institutions of foreign states that not only benefit from the largesse, but have the potential of turning regional wars into a global Third World War. The unfortunate mechanism behind all this is NATO's key provision—article 5—which states that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all members. This means that when some NATO members court conflict and act recklessly, this could end up imposing large costs on all other NATO members. This enormous downside to NATO's structure is generally ignored in favor of focusing on NATO's presumed deterrent effect. That is, it is assumed that the enormous amount of military resources controlled by NATO members overall will prevent any outside state from attacking any NATO member. Some member states, however, contribute an outsized amount of this spending, while other states contribute very little. This is true of the two types of spending on which NATO and its deterrent effects are based. The first is NATO's operational budget, which funds NATO joint programs and institutions. In this, the US has historically put forth more than a fifth of all funding. As recently as 2019, for instance, 22.1 percent of NATO's "common-funded budgets" came from the United States. Germany came in second place with 14.7 percent, and France came in third with 10.5 percent. In 2021, NATO members adopted new budgeting that reduced the US's share. The current plan, to be in effect through 2024, has the US and Germany as the largest contributors at 16.3 percent of common funding. The United Kingdom and France are third and fourth, respectively, with 11.3 percent and 10.5 percent of common funding. Total spending on the NATO budget, however, is a small affair at only €2.5 billion. Military Spending by Member States The real benefit of NATO membership—felt mostly by its small-state members—comes from the deterrent effect that comes from the collective military capability of all members. For example, the total military spending of all NATO members combined is more than $1 trillion. So how much of this total is provided by US taxpayers? In the first graph, we see that the US's share of this is 70.5 percent, and that the top ten contributors constitute 95.0 percent of all military spending. That is, the US contributes 70 percent of all NATO defense dollars while the next nine states contribute an additional 25 percent. The other twenty NATO member states contribute a meagre and forgettable 5 percent of all spending. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2020 figures in constant 2019 US dollars). In the second graph, we see this spending for 2020 expressed in constant 2019 dollars. (I've left off the US for the sake of providing a better sense of scale.) Most NATO members spend totals on defense that constitute a tiny fraction of US spending—which totaled $766 billion in 2020. The next largest spender—the UK—came in at less than one-tenth of US spending, with $58.4 billion. Estonia, meanwhile—where a majority of legislators call for the rest of NATO to enforce a no-fly zone—spent less than $1 billion. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2020 figures in constant 2019 US dollars). Admittedly, of course, it is not reasonable to expect a NATO member like Latvia or even Hungary to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on military personnel and equipment. They're simply too small. But even when military spending is measured as a percentage of GDP, it is clear these countries are counting on someone else paying most of the tab. By this measure, the US still spends the most at 3.7 percent of GDP. Yet, no other NATO member even cracks three percent, and, at least as of 2020, eighteen members were spending less than 2.0 percent of GDP on defense. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2020 figures in constant 2019 US dollars). By pointing this out, I'm not congratulating the United States regime for spending enormous amounts of taxpayer wealth on the Pentagon. Indeed, military spending in the US is absurdly bloated. Much of this spending is claimed to be necessary on the grounds that the United States must "defend" Europe—and thus continue to allow Europe's regimes to milk American taxpayers, year in and year out. Nor am I claiming the US's regime is a victim here. The regime in Washington clearly benefits from this status quo since it ensures Washington retains an enormous amount of geopolitical power and well-funded military institutions. Rather, it is the US taxpayer who suffers in this corrupt bargain between Washington elites and the regimes of Europe. [Read More: "Russian Weakness and the Russian 'Threat' to the West" by Ryan McMaken] So, if the regimes of Europe are ever going to stop being the world's welfare queens—sponging off the hard work of America's productive population—the US regime is going to have to be starved of defense dollars until the regimes of Europe are forced to go justify the cost of military defense to their own taxpayers. As I've pointed out here, the medium-sized states of Europe have more than enough wealth and military potential to deal with a second-rate power like Russia. The American taxpayers, on the other hand, deserve a break from Europe's grifting. Agreed. Force the other members of NATO to pony up and defend themselves. The US should be done being the regions strong man.

45 correct AGAIN!

A Varsity coach who coaches a club team cannot have anyone who attends his school on the club team. The IHSAA does have rules and they DO apply. No

I hate club sports, but unfortunately that's where a lot of sports are heading. I have spoken to an AD and he thought that's the future, whether right or wrong. Softball actually has a rule that is no club ball during the season. I don't know the specifics but I have talked to multiple softball coaches who have confirmed this. Basketball and Volleyball are ridiculous! Those kids are out there all the time! PAY TO PLAY!

What is most crazy about Cathedral this year is that in the championship football game Tibbs had 200 receiving yards...and in the basketball championship he was the leading scorer for the Irish.

Meet Michael Jasaitis the "region" lawyer with a 100% success rate against the IHSAA in transfer cases. He is the guy Neidig no longer wants in the room so that he can bully unsophisticated parents. https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2021/02/23/ihsaa-transfer-process-under-fire-claims-bullying-being-unprofessional-indiana-eligibility-review/6751342002/

Hearing that the Cannelton Bulldogs will be starting 8 man football and have landed a stud transfer from Heritage Hills. The Dogs are getting a dynamic athlete and proven football player!

But the last 2 years you would/could have beaten any 6A school that wasn't named Center Grove. And the battles with them were winable.

Luers 2007-2008 football, basketball, baseball.

👍 And no. Hell hasn’t frozen over.

Democrats FIFY