scarab527

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 

3 minutes ago, BTF said:

So weather is the great equalizer only sometimes. You're right, blowing snow has no affect on a team that throws the football. 

I put as much stock into a warm bucket of hamster vomit as I do CalPreps. That being said, I wouldn't bet against EC. I'm just saying it wouldn't be the blowout everyone claims it would be. I would have EC as a 58% favorite. Some posters just talk out their ass, someone needs to level the playing field. 

Self imposed warning point: 1

Last year you guys averaged 80.69 passing yards per game. Against Valpo you had 58 yards passing and had more passing TDs than your average per game. Yes, those 22 lost yards of passing were definitely what lost you guys the game. Not the fact that Valpo threw 5 passes all night and you guys still couldn't stop the run even though you knew it was coming. C'mon man. 

37 minutes ago, BTF said:

I don't agree with that, not even a little bit. Snider's season ended last year in a brutal snow storm, they never got their chance to showcase who they were at the state level. 

I would also argue that EC wouldn't be a lock to win 5A this year. I'm not sure I'd bet against them, but I know that if they hit Snider, Snider would hit back. Everyone thought New Pal was untouchable in 2015, then they quickly found themselves down 42-14 at state. 

EC has already convincingly beaten a team in Moeller that is substantially better than any team in 5A (who CalPreps puts at a 92% chance of beating Snider, fwiw). 

Only thing I'm going to say about the snowstorm comment is that Valpo played in the same weather. If Snider was that much better the weather should not have been a factor. Just sounds like sour grapes. 

Just now, Bash Riprock said:

Can you prove this for separated shoulders that the onset of this injury in the NFL is less on grass fields than on field turf?

How can anyone be shocked when a team chooses to run their QB in the fashion the Colts do in the NFL?  2 concussions and now a shoulder separation?  Get to the real root cause of his injuries. 

Remember the experiences of Andrew Luck?  While everyone takes the simple approach and blames his protection, people have seem to have forgotten his poor choices when running the ball and refusing to slide.  His lacerated kidney was due to him getting smoked while running the football.  

I am not saying there isn't some factor for turf....but its not like Richardson gets up and skips back to the huddle on some of these hits he's taken, including the one that just separated his shoulder on ANY surface.

Here's a link to a study that shows in the NFL shoulder injuries are 9% more likely to occur on turf than grass. https://www.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/11/08/the-effect-of-turf-on-injuries-in-the-nfl/ 

Also relevant to this, this study actually shows that contact with ground injuries happen more on turf than natural grass:  https://www.the33rdteam.com/category/analysis/analyzing-nfl-injury-frequency-on-grass-vs-turf-fields/

I will also say that many studies have come out saying that mobile QBs actually get hurt at similar rates than 'statue' QBs (with some even saying they get hurt less), this being just one of them: https://www.bruinsportsanalytics.com/post/qb-mobility

1 minute ago, Bash Riprock said:

Because no one else has ever had a separated shoulder on grass when they are smoked and the body weight of another person drives them into the ground??

Lol this argument is so tiresome. No one is arguing that injuries don't happen on grass. They just happen at lower rates than artificial turf, which has been proven over and over again in studies. 

Think there’s been good points made on both sides here. Some thoughts:

- Only Chatard in 3A could be a consistent contender in 5A. This does not make 3A as a whole better than 5A. 5A as a whole is much better than 3A and I would argue that this year and last year 3A was actually very weak outside of Chatard. 
 

- East Central would win 5A this year. No other 4A team would as I believe the class is actually pretty weak outside of EC. Last year you had 3 teams (EC, New Pal, Roncalli) that could’ve won 5A. However I don’t think you can say however that since the inception of the sixth class 4A has been better than 5A overall. Most years 5A I would say was better. If you look at the history, the two teams that have played for 5A state have been better than the two teams that have played for 4A state nearly every single year. 
 

- Cathedral/New Pal dominance in 5A is hard to look at as a knock on 5A when those teams were some of the very best in the entire state those years. 
 

- There is a significant jump in competition from 5A to 6A that is the largest between any two classes. 5A is a lot closer to 4A than 6A. This is why you’ve seen 4A teams bump up and still do well and mediocre 6A bump down and make long runs. 

This is the first I've heard of this and as crazy as this is, I think it does have some legs to it. The authorities themselves stated the crime scene was highly posed and even described it as 'non secular'. And the defense wouldn't just say all that stuff about the details of the bodies if it wasn't true, whether or not all of what described was actually at the crime scene is obviously easily provable in court. 

Now I think the question becomes: did Mr. Allen (or the actual murderer, presuming innocence) know about this cult (assuming it is actually real) and deliberately make the crime scene appear this way to throw off investigators? Or is the supposed cult not real and this was just a total red herring to begin with? Or, as unbelievable as it sounds, was this a real cult sacrifice? Either way a very strange twist in what has already been a very strange and sad story. 

I hate speculating on something so dark but I must admit this case has intrigued me ever since it originally happened. 

15 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Agree with you here when it comes to sectionals.  In the eight seasons, from 2009 - 16, LCC and Pioneer finished the season ranked #1 and #2 in 1A four times and #2 and #4 in 2012 and #1 and #3 in 2016.  In 2013-2014, they couldn't meet because LCC was in 2A via SF.  In other words, in four of six seasons, they were #1/#2 in the state.  Here's how that went down:

• 2009 - #2 LCC eliminated #1 Pioneer in the first round of the sectional
• 2010 - #1 LCC eliminated #2 Pioneer in the sectional championship
• 2011 - #1 LCC eliminated #2 Pioneer in the first round of the sectional
• 2012 - #2 LCC eliminated #4 Pioneer in the sectional championship
• 2013 - No meeting, different classes
• 2014 No meeting, different classes
• 2015 - #1 LCC eliminated #2 Pioneer in regionals
• 2016 - #3 Pioneer eliminated #1 LCC in regionals

And there's a longer history of these two teams ending each others' seasons earlier in the tournament than just these, but these are the recent ones where you had #1 and #2 meeting in sectionals.  Matter of fact, Pioneer knocked off LCC in 2017 and 2018, although it was #1 vs. #2, on the way to being SF'd for the 2019 and 2020 ... and they haven't met since.  In all of those years, I don't recall any of the Pioneer or LCC players or coaches worrying about the fact that they were meeting first game of sectionals, last game of sections, etc.  I always remembered them always talking about #1 vs #2.  Probably would have been fine playing against each other at the church picnic with a chance to play #1 vs. #2.

Exactly. Big games are big games no matter what round they come in. Neither team is thinking about the semantics of what round it is being played in during the lead up to or during the game. 

2 minutes ago, JQWL said:

Literally not a single person on this thread agrees with you and you think you've won an argument.

I'll say this, if you have coached anything, it's hard to tell.

I'll say this, with coaches like you, it's not hard to see why Paoli has never won anything. 

1 minute ago, JQWL said:

You've obviously never coached anything.

Lmao you obviously don't know me. 

I'll take I won the argument since you've resorted to (wrong) ad hominem attacks. 

Just now, JQWL said:

And my point is more development can happen when your season is longer.

Then win the games in front of you.

Even then, we're talking about max 2 weeks extra development. And how much time are coaches going to spend working with young guys when they have playoff games to prepare for? In my experience, most coaches focus less on their young guys as the season moves deeper into the playoffs. The playoffs are not about developing younger players on your team. 

2 minutes ago, JQWL said:

Well the coach can't practice with any of his kids once the season ends. So it's kinda out of his hands.

My kids do a lot of travel baseball, softball, and basketball. The organization that runs the tournament, seeds the tournament based on pool play. This happens in every single tournament. I doubt anyone would sign up for a tournament if the organization said, You will play pool play Saturday for no reason then we will randomly put you in a bracket. It's easy to seed a tournament.

My point is that development should be happening during the season, when the coach knows he has practices and games. If we did away with the all-in, I would not be opposed to seeding the tournament. But with the current format I do not see the need to seed. 

3 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Not sure why the IHSAA wouldn't just prioritize the regular season to begin with? What's your rationale or opposition for not seeding the sectionals other than "cream always rises to the top"?

Again, it's a simple fix.

I am not opposed to a format like Illinois/Ohio where you have to qualify and are seeded in a bracket. However with our current all-in format and Sectionals I just don't find seeding to be necessary other than to placate a few teams who are salty they lost in the de facto Sectional Championship as opposed to the official Sectional Championship, which I do not find to be a compelling reason. 

1 minute ago, WestfieldRocks said:

So don't put them in the same sectional. Why do sectionals have to be predetermined prior to the regular season anyway? Seed the sectionals, then go from there.

Because with the all-in format you essentially have to put Sectionals together geographically to reduce travel time. And if you did away with the all-in, it would make more sense to just do away with Sectionals altogether and go with a bracket like you see Illinois. I am not opposed to this, my point is that with the current all-in format seeding Sectionals is in my opinion pointless when it comes down to it. 

35 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

One of these teams isn't even going to get the chance to play for a sectional title, let alone anything past that. It isn't a tragedy, it's just ineptness from the IHSAA. 

It's a simple fix.

If you're playing the other best team in your Sectional, isn't that the de facto Sectional Championship? Again, seems like its really only a semantic issue. If a team is that shook up about losing in the de facto Sectional Championship as opposed to the official Sectional Championship, I think they've got their priorities in the wrong place. 

33 minutes ago, JQWL said:

I agree I don't think teams care if they lost in round 1 or in a sectional title game but that's not the point. You get very few games in football. The teams that are better, should be rewarded with more games. Those freshmen and sophomores that may not play a lot of varsity but those extra weeks of practice that teams get when they advance are a huge advantage for those kids and their development.

Is it the IHSAA's responsibility to ensure more reps for Freshmen/Sophomores, or is it the coach's? The IHSAA's responsibility in this is to run a football tournament in the most expedient way possible. 

25 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Can't imagine Brownsburg thinks the regular season means much after going undefeated in the hardest conference in the state and drawing the #2 team in the state in the first round while 1-8 Pike and 0-9 Tech play on the opposite side of the bracket.

Coaches and players might not come out and say it publicly but every single one of them knows it's total bush league. 

What a tragedy they have to play a team one week earlier than they otherwise would’ve. 

13 minutes ago, WWFan said:

Regardless of class I've never heard a team celebrating sectional runner up. While I get it sucks for fans who may wanna go I don't get why it matters if they play rd 1, 2 or 3. Win sectional. That's all that counts. 

Exactly. Don’t think teams care whether they lost round 1 or in the sectional title game. 

9 minutes ago, BLACKGOLD2007 said:

Sure, but when two of the three best teams in 6A south are playing game 1, it makes the overall tournament less interesting. 

But, you are correct, the best teams will typically be standing in the end.  

I agree that Brownsburg and Ben Davis playing in round 1 does kinda suck, but is it really that big of a tragedy that they’re playing round 1 instead of round 2? I would support seeding if the tournament were like Illinois/Indiana where not every team makes it, but with the all-in format basically necessitating that sectionals be divided up geographically, I don’t really see the need for seeding. The best team in that area will win the sectional no matter what order of teams they play.  

9 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

While it is an opinion true, you are correct that cream always rises to the top. However it completely renders the regular season meaningless in the process.

See I always hear this refrain about the regular season not mattering, but is that actually how coaches/players feel? I don’t remember any coach or player I played under/with ever saying “the regular season doesn’t matter”. That’s literally only something I started hearing when I got on this board. Is it a case of the regular season actually not mattering or does it just not matter to us pundits? 
 

Unpopular opinion: It doesn’t matter what round teams play each other in sectionals. The cream will always rise. This is a semantic issue more than anything. 

3 hours ago, GOLDRUSH1985 said:

I would take Lawrence North , Franklin Central and Noblesville over Penn and CP . 

I’ve seen CP play 4 times this year. Pretty confident any of these teams beat the Dogs by 21+. CP is just the best team in an extremely mediocre DAC. 
 

Worth mentioning that Valpo’s 2nd string RB went down in the first half of their game against Portage this past week and did not return. Valpo even went to a 2 QB system in the second half seemingly because of it, using the backup QB who is a better passer than Clark. Needless to say, the Vikings look VERY vulnerable at the moment.

Fishers 

FW North

Franklin

Leo

Mooresville

East Noble 

Greenfield-Central

Yorktown

Western Boone

North Posey

Sheridan

Hot Take: Lutheran could compete for 3A this year if you removed Chatard from the equation

Week 8 Pick ‘Em Games:

1. Fishers @ Westfield

2. Fort Wayne Wayne @ Fort Wayne North

3. Greenwood @ Franklin 

4. Columbia City @ Leo

5. Mooresville @ Martinsville

6. New Haven @ East Noble

7. Delta @ Greenfield-Central

8. Pendleton Heights @ Yorktown 

9. Western Boone @ Danville

10. Southridge @ North Posey

11. Sheridan @ Eastern (Greentown) 

Standings after Week 7 (people who missed a week are ranked by %):

1. @DumfriesYMCA 57 points

T2. @Boilernation + @LC_Bears_04 55 points

3. @temptation 54 points

4. @wvigo13 46 points (out of 66 possible) 

5. @Bears62 53 points 

6. @Football Guru 25 44 points (out of 66 possible)

7. @00NWP 50 points

T8. @PCFan1996 + @sbriant20 49 points

T9. @CJJL, @gonzoron, + @WCGrad92 48 points

T10. @Muda69 + @scarab527 47 points

11. @NE8_Fan + @whiteshoes 46 points

12. @Formerly Number 39 39 points (out of 66 possible)

13. @Mongo 45 points 

14. @NLCTigerFan07 38 points (out of 66 possible)

15. @TransplantedPanther 44 points 

16. @FridayNightLights 37 points (out of 66 possible)

T17. @1st_and_10, @Komets2727, + @swcgillespie 43 points 

18. @bigcityp 40 points

Double check your points! 

4 hours ago, Donnie Baker said:

I’m sure that boy whose name I can’t say is cranking out the excuses. I gotta go 

He was up bright and early on the other board making them this morning