scarab527

3 minutes ago, temptation said:

I can even help with setup/grading if need be.

If we're just doing picks I think I should be able to do it. If it was a bracket challenge then I think I'll need some help. 

How do we feel about the 100 game total format? Yes/No? Was thinking of doing something similar to that. 

4 minutes ago, BTF said:

Will there be a new contest for the tournament?

Was gonna pose that question. If enough people are interested I’m willing to run it. 

It came down to the last week, and one competitor correctly picked 10 of the 12 final games to be able to just squeak ahead of the competition. Congrats @temptation for taking home the prestigious prize of GID bragging rights for the year.

Final Standings:
 

1. @temptation 71 points

T2. @Bears62, @Boilernation, @DumfriesYMCA, + @LC_Bears_04 70 points 

3. @wvigo13 61 points (of 89 possible)

4. @PCFan1996 67 points

5. @00NWP 64 points

6. @sbriant20 63 points 

T7. @CJJL + @gonzoron 62 points 

T8. @NE8_Fan, @WCGrad92, + @whiteshoes 61 points

9. @scarab527 59 points

T10. @Komets2727 + @Muda69 58 points

11. @NLCTigerFan07 51 points (of 89 possible) 

12. @TransplantedPanther 57 points

13. @bigcityp 56 points

14. @1st_and_10 55 points 

Lawrence Central

Brownsburg

Portage

Columbus North

Northridge

Northview

Mount Vernon (Fortville)

Hamilton Heights

Lakeland

Alexandria

North Vermillion

West Central

7 minutes ago, Boilernation said:

Is Burda also out for the year? Losing Davis was huge. Losing Davis and Burda at RB is possibly too much to overcome. Semi-State is likely the ceiling and that's just because of who they'd see in Sectionals and Regionals.

Not sure on his status. But agreed if he’s out for the year I think it becomes even more of an uphill battle for them to repeat. 

14 minutes ago, Boilernation said:

I disagree. Their run game by the time the Tourney rolled around was no joke. Not alot of 4A defensive front 7's could have handled it for 4 quarters. 

They were legit, no doubt. But EC, Roncalli, and New Pal could’ve handled them. 

12 hours ago, Rodney said:

imagine for a minute Valpo in 4a South last year

woulda been out in sectionals.

 

why talk about an 8 year old game when we can talk about Snider literally handing a state championship away last year

Valpo would’ve won the Evansville sectional but other than that no lies told. 

If anyone wants to bet, you can have the field in 3A and I’ll take Chatard, since apparently so many are convinced they’re not a sure thing. 

Warms my heart to see coaches of mediocre teams coming together ❤️

12 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

So you admit it. 

Step back, deep breath. It's a HS football message board, and you've somehow tried to make it personal. 

Check the mirror and move on. 

1 minute ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

They clearly did. 

Lmao you’re the clown getting mad defending turf.

Sorry my comments struck a nerve. The truth hurts. 

30 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Are you 12?

I apologize my internet words hurt you. 

They didn’t. Just making an observation.

12 minutes ago, BTF said:

Actually, I think the gap was bigger. Luers won the SAC title that year with victories over Carroll, Homestead, and Dwenger. No one saw that Eastside debacle coming. I only have Lutheran as a slight favorite this year. There's a team from Adams County that might have something to say. 

Eastside had beaten them two years earlier and only lost by a touchdown the year prior. They were also undefeated. From a person outside of the FW bubble it really wasn’t all that shocking. There were also Andrean and Mater Dei. This year there’s legitimately likely one team in 1A that Lutheran won’t running clock. 

3 hours ago, temptation said:

Temp’s opinion:  (after getting caught up from being out of town)…

East Central could hang with anyone in 6A and would be favored over all but 4 Indiana teams on a neutral field.

Yeah, I said it.

Would that be BD, Brownsburg, CG, and…?

Just now, Coach Nowlin said:

Bummer,   thought you had love for my Bombers and our 1 state title 

Will work harder to stay say less 

No, any team with a state title or even appearance is exempt from this.

You know it’s all love for the Bombers.

47 minutes ago, Ballhawk said:

I'm going to have to disagree to some extent on 1A & 3A.

In 1A I believe Carroll (Flora) and Adams Central are legit contenders to Lutheran.  Lutheran is a safe bet, but all it takes is one game on one day, and it is possible for someone to knock them off.

I also feel that Chatard may have difficulty just winning their 3A sectional, and possibly their first game of the sectional.  There are 4 undefeated teams in 3A Sectional 28, and 6-2 Guerin took Chatard to the wire, losing in OT.  It may be a breeze for the Sectional 28 winner after surviving that killer sectional, but I don't think it's time to just hand over the trophy.

 

I’m sorry but Chatard beat Cathedral…if they’re healthy they’re not getting touched in 3A. Their QB went down against Guerin and that’s what made it so close. They play again healthy I doubt it’s as close.

I guess I’d give someone in 1A a slightly better shot than someone in 3A because AC did take Lutheran to the wire a couple years ago, while Chatard has won 3A almost every year it’s been in the class for seemingly forever. 

17 minutes ago, kdets89 said:

I recall many people feeling this way about Bishop Luers in 2A a couple years ago.  I think their name was being etched onto the trophy as Eastside shocked them in the sectional final.  You never know.

Otherwise, I don't disagree with your assessment of 5A parity.

You’re right. However I don’t think people thought the gap between Leurs and the rest of 2A that year was nearly as big as between Lutheran and the rest of 1A currently (at least I didn’t). And with that “you never know” mentality I doubt you guys will have a letdown. 

1 minute ago, Bash Riprock said:

Silly comment.....you may want to go look at Brownstown's record for the past 25+ years before deciding to type.  Outstanding program.

3 regionals in a state where only the post season matters. I stand by my comment. 

One thing I'm gonna say is last year 5A had by-far the most interesting tournament (in my opinion) and this year its stacking up to be the same way. Whether the class is weak or not there's a whole lot of parity in it and I think that's nice from a fan's perspective (and maybe was one of the goals of the 6 class split/success factor?). This year there's 3 classes (1A, 3A, 4A) where we truthfully could just save a lot of time and give the trophy to the best team right now and not even need to play the tournament, that's how lopsided they are. So while I might think that the teams that currently make up 5A are mediocre in relation to their size, I have to say that 5A is arguably the 'healthiest' class (if you consider healthy to be the fact that seemingly anyone in the top 10 of it could win). 

2 hours ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Oh wow. Another topic completely off topic, I'm shocked

Did I read someone blame the turf for ARs injury? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Grass sucks, tbh. 

Always coaches of teams that have never won anything that talk the most on this website, ironic. 

Week 9 Pick ‘Em Games:

1. Carmel @ Lawrence Central

2. Hamilton Southeastern @ Brownsburg

3. Portage @ LaPorte

4. Terre Haute South @ Columbus North

5. Northridge @ Warsaw

6. Northview @ Indian Creek

7. Yorktown @ Mount Vernon (Fortville)

8. Hamilton Heights @ West Lafayette

9. Bluffton @ Lakeland

10. Madison-Grant @ Alexandria

11. Seeger @ North Vermillion 

12. North White @ West Central 

Standings after Week 8:

T1. @Boilernation + @DumfriesYMCA 63 points

2. @Bears62 62 points

3. @wvigo13 54 points (out of 77 possible) 

T4. @LC_Bears_04 + @temptation 61 points 

5. @PCFan1996 58 points

6. @00NWP 56 points

T7. @CJJL, @gonzoron, @sbriant20, + @whiteshoes 55 points

T8. @NE8_Fan + @WCGrad92 54 points

T9. @Komets2727 + @scarab527 52 points

10. @Muda69 51 points

11. @NLCTigerFan07 43 points (out of 77 possible) 

T12. @1st_and_10 + @swcgillespie 49 points

T13. @bigcityp + @TransplantedPanther 48 points 

26 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

if owners truly felt they were losing millions as a result of player injuries due to field turf, it would all be replaced much like the old artificial turf back in the day.

also, if coaches didn't feel there was a risk to QB's running more at the pro level, there would be a lot more teams running RPO's similar to the college model.  Richardson has been hurt 3 times this season....each time running the football.  That is not refutable.

The point is the owners aren’t the ones losing money here…lol

And not to get too far off subject, but that’s not the reason RPOs aren’t the run in the NFL more at all. The speed of players make RPOs much less effective and ineligible man downfield rules are enforced much more in the NFL than college. Not to mention NFL teams utilizing offenses that operate under center more often than not. It’s not about avoiding getting QBs hurt. 

25 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

I guess doctors confirmed that the 48 additional injuries was due to turf and no other reason?  The report does not in any way say how that determination was made.  The same report also says non-contact injuries are actually lower on turf than on grass.  Also, what are the severity of those additional 48 injuries even if it can be proved that the injury cause was only due to one factor...turf?    Risk = incidence x severity.  48 additional injuries (certainly not all of them serious) over 272 regular season games (153 plays/game average) = 41,616 plays per season.  48/41,616 = .0012.  Is that statisically significant??  I guess the real focus comes down to how serious the injuries are and IF they are soley or even partially attributable to turf.

My comment was about Doyel, and Doyel was talking about the Richardson injury...did you see it?  Do you believe it was absolutely turf caused?  If so, we will agree to disagree.

It’s obviously significant to the guys who potentially lost millions of dollars over it. 
 

My point was that the whole “running qbs get injured more” take is not really backed up by evidence.

15 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

I only took the time to review your first report, and you are leaving out tons.  Focusing on the shoulder, injuries per game incident rate for shoulders was 2nd lowest to core body injuries at 0.39 vs 0.42.  Signficant?  That would be debatable.  Looking at legs and hips....pretty much the same.  I believe the report goes on to suggest the data indicates non-contact injuries are even lower on turf.  So I am not sure this report overall is compelling with the results to push the full elimination of field turf.

My point on the Richardson injury was this was in no way shape or form a turf injury.  If one watched him being hit, and drove to the ground on his shoulder, one would not have called this a turf injury.  Doyel was doing what he does best and what the Star pays him to do....stir up 💩

The report also flat out states that approximately 48 extra injuries are caused per year solely because of the use of turf in the NFL. I would say that’s compelling enough reason to not use turf. 

5 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

I would have taken Snider against any one of those teams last year and no, none of those teams would have been a heavy favorite against Snider. You are delusional if you believe that

The irony is I think some of the only people on this forum that don’t believe that are you Snider guys lol