MHSTigerFan

It was good to see Leo dressed last night. Hopefully he’ll be able to go next week. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the QB position. Personally, I thought Fisher outplayed Ellspermann. But you clearly lose the benefit of Caleb’s legs. He made a couple nice plays on the ground.

Are you talking about Lindauer? I can’t think who else would qualify. This is our 4th season since Lindauer left. Colton Pence started 2 seasons (and won a state championship as a junior). And Ellspermann started last year. Granted, neither of them are/were as good as Lindauer. But it’s not like he was here last year and we’re struggling to fill his shoes.

I can understand that. But he’s good enough to play at that level today. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him getting Power 5 offers.

I’m pretty sure that all freshmen are dressing this year. It usually just depends on the numbers.

I’m surprised Eliot Smith isn’t playing varsity for you guys. That kid is going to be the best player in the SIAC for a good part of the next several years. He’s already 6’3” 220 - playing RB and LB. And very athletically gifted.

Somebody near me said “They’ve already got Brady Combs out there playing!” I knew that wasn’t right, Brady is out for the season. But Brady is listed as #4. They need to get an updated roster printed.

Louis Seward is a pleasant surprise for the Tigers’ D. He had a fantastic game. He’s got some wheels, too.

OL Trevor Lauck 6’6” 285 of Roncalli ‘23 has committed to Iowa.

Ben Decker 6-6 300 OL, Noblesville ‘23 has also committed to Miami (OH).

I'm not talking about the *reasons* kids transfer. I'm talking about their profiles. You've repeatedly mentioned kids who transfer to 3 or 4 schools and now a kid who transfers a week into a season after learning they won't be starting. I'm saying that these don't sound like the common profile. They sound like outliers -- being used to create an extreme situation to defend a rule that impacts many (most) kids who aren't accurately described this way. I agree that most kids who transfer either want to go to a team that is more likely to win or they want more playing time. Personally, I don't see a problem with either one. If that's what a kid wants to do, it's his life...not his school's, not the IHSAA's.

I think you could make a good argument that a student-athlete has to either finish a season with the school he started it with or otherwise sit out the remainder of a season once started. I agree that policies shouldn't encourage the situation you're describing. I just don't agree with losing a year of eligibility. Again, you really can't compare it to the NCAA -- even pre-portal. Because the NCAA always gave student-athletes a time period of 5 years to complete 4 years of participation. If they transferred, they had to sit out a year -- but they didn't forfeit any eligibility. In a practical sense, most HS athletes only get 1-3 years of varsity participation to begin with. And nobody's extending HS to 5+ years to accommodate athletes being forced to sit out. Anyway, most of the situations you cite seem kind of extreme -- kids jumping 3 or 4 times, doing so after a week, etc. I don't think that's representative of the typical transfer.

In light of @Irishman pinned post regarding rumors, I think I’d be well-advised to stop passing these tidbits about who is/isn’t supposedly playing, and where, along. I appreciate the discussions on the board and we all need to respect the rules. This isn’t college or pros where the coaches regularly release information about a player’s status.

I doubt that will go on too long. This is just speculation on my part. But I think Hurley would prefer to stick with Ellspermann. It’s just hard to defend that with 0 TDs in 8 quarters of play. So he’s introducing some in-game competition. I’ve been critical of Ellspermann in the passing game. But I don’t think it’s fair to put so much on him. His best receiver hasn’t played. And the O-Line went from 3 new players to 4 after halftime of the Jasper game, and it showed. He had no time to pass on most dropbacks against North. A number of dropped passes, etc.

Hartig will start at RG. They’re going to stick with Mattingly at RT. Wade and Wallen are competing for the start at LG. It was. That changed today.

I’m now being told they’ll alternate possessions. If so, I don’t really like that. But they’re obviously looking for answers and putting pressure on both kids to perform.

I’m guessing we’ll see Collins next week for Mater Dei. Weinzapfel’s situation sounds more uncertain.

The problem with this analogy is that college athletes have typically had 5 years to complete 4 years of eligibility. You can’t really do that in HS. While HS athletes technically get 4 years of varsity eligibility, in a practical sense most only get 2 or 3. As such, losing a year of HS eligibility is a bigger penalty than what the NCAA used to do. You had to sit out a year, but you kept the same eligibility as long as you hadn’t used a redshirt.

Now you're doing it. Does it exist to protect the schools or to promote the best interests of the student-athlete? You can say "both" -- but one has to take precedence. I think that the motivation -- just as it is with success factor and various other things they've either done or considered -- is to try for more parity. Neidig has said as much and I think he's being candid when he does. Let's put aside football for a second and talk about soccer. This one hits a closer to home for me. Our boys and girls soccer programs are both among the most successful in the state. I had a conversation with a coach from another school recently and they told me that our girls team has 5 transfers on it -- and they're going to be hard to beat. To me, it's not hard to understand two things here... 1) Why competing coaches would be resentful about that -- especially the coaches who lost players to transfer. 2) Why the girls who transferred would've wanted to. I don't know for sure, but it seems reasonable to guess it was trophy shopping. To say that the IHSAA should step in to discourage this is to put the interest of the resentful coaches who lose players to stronger programs ahead of the interest of the student-athletes who, for whatever reason, believe their interests are best served being somewhere else. It's basically holding them hostage in service to the idea of parity in competition. But these aren't indentured servants we're talking about here. They're teenagers.

Then why is he saying that their motivation is fostering competition? Those are not the same thing. I believe him when he says that, BTW. I do not believe him when he says they're motivated by the best interest of the student-athlete -- because the IHSAA isn't even equipped to know what is in the best interest of every student athlete.

1) I said I get the impression this is the case. It's implied when you say that the IHSAA's determination should prevail over a parent's reasoning on where their kid can go to school..... 2)....and participate in varsity sports. I think we all realize we're talking about eligibility here -- not just where they go to school. Don't be daft. 3) Thus my question about why eligibility should be blocked for a kid who concedes that he believes he could get more playing time at another school. Can you explain to me why this reasoning -- which is certainly a "blatant athletic purpose" -- is unreasonable? I'm sorry, I just don't see anything necessarily nefarious or untoward about a kid wanting to go somewhere else that he thinks is a better situation for him athletically.

Well, what happened to the 3 or 4 times? That was the specific complaint you made several times. Personally, I think the default position of the IHSAA should be to stay out of it -- and to only get involved in circumstances where there's evidence of a pay-for-play or some other kind of genuinely undue influence going on. Other than that, I think kids should be able to go where they want, without being controlled by their current school or the IHSAA. Paul Neidig has said point blank that the thrust of the rule and the enforcement is to foster a level playing field -- lest the best athletes end up at a handful of schools. I can understand why they'd want to have that -- particularly those institutions that aren't in that handful. But the problem with this is that they say this while maintaining that their primary interest is in the student-athletes. Those two ideals can't both be true.

I'd also point out that coaches approaching players from other schools about transferring is just as much against the rules. I just always found that ironic. The IHSAA gives us the death penalty for a season...only to result in multiple instances of tampering from coaches from other schools who got away with that scot free.

Heh. Well, no, but neither was that the case with any of the kids who had to miss the postseason that year. As I recall, the one instance where they found that had happened was with a kid who graduated a couple years later and never spent one day at Memorial. He went to Henderson County in KY. So a bunch of kids who had nothing to do with it get punished for that. I think the IHSAA probably could've come up with a more equitable way to punish the school that didn't come down on a bunch of kids who had nothing to do with it.

I get the impression from some of the comments here that the IHSAA and its member institutions know and care more about a kid's situation and well-being than his parents. Don't get me wrong. I've met some parents that I think are pretty unreasonable, too. I've met some parents who insist that their kid is better than that kid, that coaches play favorites, that it's all politics, that my kid's entitled, etc. So I'm not saying that every parent has the right attitudes or motivations. But, in most cases, I'd still say that parents are better suited to determine what's best for their kids than a coach, an AD, and a principal....and certainly Paul Neidig and his gang.