CoachMack219

For the sake of conversation, where would you have liked to see Penn ranked in this poll? My answer is I could see them at 10 or 11 (Most Others Receiving votes total). Snider shouldn't be "punished" too harshly for losing to a top 5 6A team but neither should Penn for beating a top 5 5A team. If the 10-13 was Lawrence North, Penn, Snider, Noblesville OR Penn, Lawrence North, Snider, and Noblesville, we're PROBABLY (can't say for certain) not even having this conversation. On the original topic, I've been scratching my head since my post on Wednesday. Lol

Amen brother. Amen.

I'm as perplexed as you are @BLACKGOLD2007! That's why the only thing I could think of was someone "mistyped." Makes no sense to me. Congrats to Penn on a nice start to the season against a deserving state ranked opponent. Hopefully the rankings will be revised after this week.

It was a typo. They meant to put Penn as the team with 2 votes but somehow that autocorrected to Lake Central... 😂

100% agree.

RegionFan you are mostly correct here, based on my sources/ information. LC/ Munster lost guys, per usual, and I do not believe they added anyone at either place, from Illinois or otherwise (again, based on the intel I have). That's probably the extent of you being "incorrect" though as the rest of your post is very accurate, based on the information I have. CP allegedly got a few Illinois folks, Hanover got at least 1 from over the border, and I'm sure Merrillville had at least one transfer come in (this last point is pure speculation based on historical data lol).

Been off the board a few months. Gonna be a tough trip for the Blue Indians of NWI.

I'd agree that's a nice matchup for top end DAC and other Region teams who can be defined as "competitive." Crete on a down year is getable by the LC's of the world. On a year when they're pretty good, idk if any more than 3-4 Region teams would be able to compete with them. I agree with ya though Gipper, better matchup year in and year out than some other games we've seen with longer travel.

There has been a slight adjustment to this list that has not become official on Harrell yet. But LC will NOT be playing Providence Catholic. Per Providence Catholic's official website the Celtics will be playing Wheaton North for their week 1 and LC's week 2 on 8/30. Not sure how this happened. I have heard rumblings in the Region that LC will now play Grand Rapids Central Catholic, winners of 6 State Championships since 2016 and 12 total in their existence. Last game vs a Region opponent was against the 2021 Andrean State Championship team (34-14 W for the Cougars). The Blue Indians could be in for a tough one against the Central Catholic Cougars. Lake Central at Grand Rapids Central Catholic (MI) Week 2 (1st meeting, 13-1 with a State Championship last season. Only loss coming in week 1 to Loyola Academy, Chicago, IL)

12% using various legal supplements, sure... 12% using the illegal juice, NO SHOT. If so, I'd have won A LOT more games (or so I'd like to believe). 😂

I agree TOTALLY that this study is outdated and irrelevant to the headline created by said media outlet (IndyStar). However, I do feel it's dangerous (because of society's insistence that they/ we know more than the experts in *insert any field of study here*) to suggest that "any 'scientific study' can be crafted to get the data you want," due to the fact that ACTUAL researchers (not whatever this guy was/ claims to be) take the time to minimize bias and the skewing of results in their studies. Even this not so great study that this letter to the editor references are not "alarming numbers" and the data (as @Just a dad pointed out kindly) CLEARLY indicates/ explains how their study was conducted, what the results were. The problem there is that people have to read (and know how to) in order to understand WHAT the study says/ studied, and A LOT of folks won't go through that effort and thus, the headline wins... I truly believe the REAL PROBLEM, as you pointed out, is the misleading headline, writing, and publishing of a "letter to the editor" article that references data that is 12 years old (well outside of the appropriate mark for quality research) by a newspaper/ publication that (I assume) many on this forum either read, have read, respect, or have respected previously. This is essentially my point above.

I'd agree. Not every coach/ program is handling the recruiting of their student-athletes the same/ the way that they SHOULD be handling the recruiting of their student-athletes (sad but true). Parents value schools/ programs/ coaches that give their kids the opportunities to achieve their dreams and if that's an athletic scholarship then parents are going to want to be in a situation where they feel their child is being taken care of and guided in that direction. I think allowing a one-time "free" change allows parents that chance to remove themselves and their child from a situation that isn't what they signed up for and isn't providing them the service(s) they believed they would receive. Similar to coaches who go in a different direction after 1-3 years because a school is not holding up their end of the bargain.

Not to mention NCC Conference Champs in year 1 in the League. Jury needs to wrap it up in there by the sounds of it. 😂

Yes he was. Such a shame I've only seen him "virtually" or via stream/ archived film. Would've loved to be old enough and "wise enough" to have watched him through my current lens when he was at 5959 Broadway.

In Person Viewing from me... Decade: Noah Ehrlich All Time: Matt Desomer Virtual Viewing from me (live or archived)... Decade: Brady Allen All Time: Tommy Finn

Totally agree.

Best question yet.

This is a big part of my reasoning for having no issue with this should it come to fruition. Kids (and parents) should be able to make the best decision for their athletic and/ or academic futures (like coaches are allowed to do) without being handcuffed by a governing body or institution. I actually believe the 1 time transfer rule might help eliminate some of the transfer portal behavior I see going on out here presently (kids going to more than 2 high schools in 4 years).

As chaotic as ever. Can't wait to see the matchups for Sectional 5. What a snooze fest, AmIright? 🙄😂 If you ever wanted or NEEDED reasoning to seed the BIG class, look no further than Sectional 5. There's probably a few sectionals beyond Sectional 5 that make seeding make sense for ALL classes but not sure we'll ever get there, unfortunately...

Really tough draw for them. I saw your and @BTF's exchange on the topic. Going to be a tough challenge for them to get ANY of those teams even on a down year. As BTF stated, not necessarily a slight to Harrison as much as it is a credit to the Indy suburb schools and how good they've gotten over the years. Nothing would be better for Indiana football, in my opinion, than if Harrison proves us wrong and can do what we're assuming (based on previous data) they will struggle to do.

Don't think a lot of folks foresaw Penn jumping into Sectional 1. Tough draw for Lafayette Harrison, gotta imagine they'd rather be grouped with the DAC (like Jeff was) than Westfield, Zionsville, and Carmel. Tough draw for LC and Portage as well.

Don't think a lot of folks foresaw Penn jumping into Sectional 1. Tough draw for Lafayette Harrison, gotta imagine they'd rather be grouped with the DAC (like Jeff was) than Westfield, Zionsville, and Carmel. Tough draw for LC and Portage as well.

LOVE this thread! Hope more names are added over the next few weeks as UDFA's.

He for sure has 3 accounts on there (based on all of the evidence/ posts). I think two of the accounts are in the current "hot topic" on that forum and even invited the 3rd (main account) to the party. After reading here and reading there, I think he's having a grand ole time "stirring up the boards." Lol

This can't be happening. 😂 Lol I defend the Govs almost everywhere I go. No way I can defend naming them a top 10 team in 5A. Gotta earn that first and while the Govs have the ability, and schedule, to EARN making it into the top 10, they're gonna HAVE TO prove it (like we all do).