cloudofdust

Very exciting for the MSC.

Both Schools had outstanding girls seasons as well.

Brownstown lost to a very good Luers team this year at state and Scottsburg was cut out at Semi-State

8 hours ago, JustRules said:

The issue is he's using the term "back" as a player wearing an eligible number and referred to as a running back on the roster. Roster positions do not exist in the rule book though. All offensive players are defined as either a lineman or a back (unless they are in no-man's land). #68 is clearly a back if he's lined up behind the QB in front of the tailback. He's a lineman on the roster, but by rule on that play, he's a back. He's not eligible due to his number, but by definition he's a back. And the WR lined up on the line of scrimmage because he's breaking the waist of the snapper is by rule a lineman.

The other issue with the example cloudofdust is using is let's say the guard is breaking the waist of the snapper, he's a lineman. Then the tackle is breaking the waste of the guard but not the center, he's a lineman. Then the TE is breaking the waist of the T but not the snapper, he's also a lineman. If the LOS is the +20, you now have a TE lined up with his feet on the 16 but by his definition a legal formation. And the wideout on that side who needs to be a back is on or inside the 15. That's quite the V formation.

If the TE is not breaking the waist of the snapper how is he still allowed to be classified as a lineman?

I know it happens all the time but by rule he is not a lineman.

Definition states lineman must break waist of the snapper. I cant find anything saying they just have to break waist of nearest lineman. Albeit my rule book is 2021 model...

34 minutes ago, Bobref said:

It’s finally happened. I have lost the ability to communicate effectively to civilians. I can make myself understood only to other officials. 🙁

Been following this forum for a good bit, enjoy reading your comments and always value your input. You are well respected but this comment deserves a flag.

I'm very well aware of the rules, and definitions. I'm just slinging mud. Keeping a communication line between everyone is nothing but beneficial if you allow it and seeing point of view from even lowly fans can't hurt. That's what is great about this forum.

I think it's been proven that the rule is cloudy. The definitions need improved or enforced on the field to deal with "no mans land".

Lineman must break plane of snapper...everyone else is a back. Similar to what Impartial_Observer stated.

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

Not necessarily. He’s on the line if he’s breaking the plane through the waist of the snapper.

Correct, but in the example the player does not break the plane through the waist of the snapper, which makes him a back.

However, because he breaks plane of the nearest lineman that makes him a back that is on the line. 

Am I wrong? If so, hopefully this point of emphasis this year clears this gray area up.

On 2/14/2024 at 7:48 AM, Bobref said:

The definitions of a “lineman” and a “back” have not changed. Rule 2-32

“ART. 3 . . . A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn ­parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.”

“ART. 9 . . . A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and with his head or foot breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped.”

So, a player assuming a position where neither his head nor foot breaks the plane through the waist of the snapper, but who does have any part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman teammate, is neither a back nor a lineman.

Based on the definitions your example of a player that has a part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman makes this player on the line, correct?

It would be less confusing if it was worded a little different and in order from lineman to back:

Center - Lineman- Always

Lineman - Any player who breaks plane of waist of center, including wideouts

QB - Back - Always

Back - ON the line if breaking plane of nearest lineman - OFF the line if not breaking plane of nearest lineman

How can there be a  "no man's land". You are either breaking the plane or you are not making you a back on the line or off the line.

1 minute ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Per some conversations with people in the know, I don’t see Scottsburg replacing their surface anytime in the foreseeable future. 

I can see that. Scottsburg and Pekin both have newer hybrid fields I believe. They seem to be good shape.

I would bet North will jump on shortly after Corydon's goes in.

26 minutes ago, Coach_K said:

Yes we were approved for upgrades for the entire South Harrison School Corporation last fall.  Athletic upgrades include turf on the football field this summer (soccer and football will both play there), new track after the turf, and new locker room facilities ready for the 2025 season.

Wow, that will be a great change! A lot of these fields in this area haven't had major improvements in decades. They were nice at the time but times change.

5 minutes ago, Coach_K said:

With Corydon and Salem changing over to turf, who all will still be grass in the MSC?

I wasn't aware Corydon was getting it. That's great news as well.

That leaves Pekin, North Harrison, and Scottsburg. 

1 hour ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Very exciting news. I had spoke with Seth Hobson last night and he said this went through... only replacing the press box, though? Which is VERY much needed to be replaced, but how old is the stadium itself? 

I've not heard any specifics on the press box but it looks like it was also approved and was definitely due to be replaced.

The stands themselves seem to be in good shape still. I believe they were put in in the early 90's. Could use a good power wash though!

Looks like the playing surface at Salem will finally get an upgrade and should be ready for home opener in August.

This is exciting news! 

https://www.facebook.com/salem.schools.5

19 hours ago, JQWL said:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1bYMTnbetTf6n1WlRqudBX6WJ6X8YGQE&ll=38.581727596860034%2C-87.00908379867599&z=8

 

I propose something similar to this every year. Going to keep at it until it happens. I'm a really big fan of what the PAC has done with their Big/Small Divisions. We should steal this idea. Unfortunately, Perry Central I'm sending you to the Small PAC but I think it would be a great fit. Almost everyone would be on Central Time. Almost everyone is right off 64. 

MSC Big Division (Charlestown, Corydon, North Harrison, Brownstown, Scottsburg, Madison, Silver Creek)

MSC Small Division (Eastern, Crawford County, Mitchell, Paoli, Springs Valley, West Washington, Salem)

Everyone would have 6 conference games and 3 non-conference teams.

I haven't figured it up but I bet the travel expenses would be less with this as well.

Also, this would create a really fun 16 team conference for other sports with Austin and Orleans being non-football schools.

I don't know much about wrestling but this might help the PLAC wrestling schools as well.

This is a interesting concept. 

I like the idea of more non conference games and playing some other teams from around the area.

If going by enrollment Brownstown and Salem would switch, like it or not. 

OR there is this scenario where you could match up based off of Sagarin rating of past season.

MSC Gold (Brownstown 82, Paoli 136, Silver Creek 154, Charlestown 158, Springs Valley 171, Scottsburg, 196, NH 203)

MSC Silver ( Salem 241, WW 244, Eastern 248, Corydon 265, Madison 272, Mitchell 294, Crawford 304)

4 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

This always turns into a ....I have to win this argument kind of discussion.  Any good decent human being who really "cares about the kids" etc. knows there is an advantage in population type that skews enrollment.  Why would someone fight to screw over so many good hard working football kids?  Because it's always been that way?  Why are there so many attempts to fix this issue in every state in the union?  Seems like a lot of effort going into a problem that isn't real.  I would just rather you guys man up and say....we like our advantage, we paid for it therefore we deserve it.  I could live with that.

This right here... let's start with this.

45 minutes ago, Bobref said:

And we haven’t even discusses the subject of capital improvements in public school facilities … and how it also adds to the local tac burden.

The great thing about these improvements is that they are, more often than not, open to anyone that wants to enroll, regardless of beliefs, aptitude and/or wealth. The choice is yours!

39 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

It's a travesty the state subsidizes any $$ via vouchers.

Throw in the fact that the vouchers aren't beneficial to anyone in a rural setting and/or not within reasonable driving distance of a school that would accept them.

Even if you had the desire and funds for a P/P education, it's not feasible if the commute is absurd.

13 hours ago, foxbat said:

I've posted this in many threads over the years.  Most people who make the statement that you've made operate from the idea that private school demand is much more than the supply and thus private schools are "obviously" gaming the system to stay in various sports enrollment classes.  The reality is that demand is way under the supply space available. 

There are many things that drive lower demand than seats available, but let's start with some general demographic info about folks that MIGHT consider private school education.  incidentally, I'm going to speak about the idea of religious private schools because that's the bulk of private schools in Indiana and that's also where my response came from and also likely where @coachkj's coming from as well.

• The VAST majority of people who attend faith-based schools in Indiana are members of that faith.  That is, the vast majority of kids at LCC are Catholic.  The vast majority of kids at Faith Christian tend to be Protestant.  I'd suspect that the vast majority at Indy Lutheran are Lutheran.  I don't know about Indy Lutheran for sure because my experience with them has typically been as a visitor on their campus, but I know that locally, the vast majority of kids that attend St. James Lutheran are Lutheran.  Are there kids that crossover?  Sure.  There are a couple of kids from St. James that attend LCC.  St. James only has K-8, so kids from St. James that play football might attend LCC if their folks want a Christian schooling and they want to play ball, but that's about 50/50 at best ... see below.  There are kids from Faith Christian that played youth ball at LCC because Faith didn't have football up until this year when they started playing 8-man.
• Now let's get to the demand side of things.  For you to attend LCC, there are MANY things that have to all be true to get you in the door that have nothing at all to do with test scores, etc.  Those kinds of items cloud the very basic fact that the front of the funnel is wide, but there aren't that many that even end up in the funnel:
  • As mentioned above, the first thing is that the VAST majority of people entering LCC are going to be Catholic.  That takes out a LARGE number of people from the "potential" attendees.  Yes, there will be some that aren't Catholic that will attend, but it's not a very large number and most non-Catholics self-select out before they get anywhere near the funnel.
  • Secondly, Catholics in general don't attend Catholic schools ... PRACTICING Catholics do.  So while Tippecanoe's Catholic population is around 11-12% Catholic, the practicing Catholic population is less.  Note, practicing Catholic population doesn't necessarily mean registered parishioner either.  There are plenty of registered Catholics that are what are referred to as Creaster Catholics ... they attend Mass only at Christmas and Easter annually and, sometimes, just one of those.
  • The next step involves money or DESIRE for Catholic/Christian education.  You can take them in either order, but I'll take desire first as, if the desire isn't there, then the money part really doesn't matter.  If you are Catholic and practicing, you then have to have the desire for the kids' education to be served by the Catholic school.  The idea behind Catholic education is that faith is an aspect of every part of life, including the education, and thus the focus on faith is present, in a Catholic education, across the board at all times in education.  It's not the only way, but it is a way where that idea is baked in to the process.  My kids were/are homeschooled for part of their education.  We have a pretty good faith life, so for my kids, faith was always part of their day whether they were at Catholic school, homeschooled, public school, etc.  For others, they have that desire to have a more structured education and a more structured infusion of faith during that time.  If you don't care about the faith part as part of the daily education process in non-religious coursework, and I don't mean that in a bad way, then even if you are Catholic and practicing, you aren't going to worry about Catholic school as a vehicle.  With that said, there are also varying levels of desire which impact "exit point" in Catholic education even with practicing Catholics with desire. 
    • Some are interested in general foundation, so they enroll kids up until they make their First Communion in Catholic school.  Typically through 2nd or 3rd grade.
    • Some take the foundation further and have their kids in Catholic schools through various break points ... like 6th grade or 8th grade to build a faith foundation.  This also comes into play sometimes where parents want a hybrid education for their kids ... i.e., some Catholic and some public.
  • Next is money.  You can be Catholic, practicing Catholic, and have the desire, but money can be an issue too.  Vouchers help with some of the cost offset, but depending on the number of kids and other issues facing you, the finances just may not work out.  Also, even if you have the money, you may want to spend it on something else or, in making a cost benefit decision, even with desire, might decide that tuition is something that you want to start spending when your kid gets to college.  There are a decent number of people who would probably send their kids to Catholic school if it was free, but have made a cost-benefit decision against that option.  There are also some, like desire above, where there are "break points" for financial impact.  Typically price breaks take place between elementary and junior high and junior high and high school in most Catholic education environments that can have impact on exit ramps in Catholic education.

So now we get back to the original question and also to the fact that, while the argument is that Catholic/private schools can get students from "all of the state" and from everywhere, more realistically, you have to typically find:

• Someone who is Catholic
• Someone who is practicing Catholic
• Someone who has the desire for Catholic education compared to the alternatives
• Someone who has the willingness to pay for the option
• Likely, in most cases, in closer proximity to the school ... although the desire aspect above can sometimes overrule the money and distance aspect

Using the items above, and applying them to the VAST majority of people, even if you are talking about the entire state, you see that the demand side is the constraint in the equation.  Just a quick number exercise for TippCo:

• Tippecanoe County has around 180,000 citizens
• The county has 27,390 school age kids aged 5-17
• Assuming that 12% of those kids are Catholic, that leaves LCSS a "pool" of 2,739 Catholic kids to work with.
• About 4 in 10 Catholics say that they attend Mass at least once a week.  We can use that as a surrogate for practicing Catholics.  That's 40% of 2,739 or roughly 1,095.  And that's BEFORE we get to desire and money.
• LCSS, across five schools and K-12, has about 900 kids enrolled.

That's the enrollment issue in a nutshell for almost all of the religious private schools that you will see.  And, as you can see, the enrollment capping stuff pretty much happens before a family even gets a hold of an application form.  Most of the argument from folks about enrollment control tends to address it from the county population or the school age population in the area, but the pool is, realistically, much smaller than that.

 

Thank you for the very thorough explanation of the rigorous enrollment procedures. It's not an exaggeration when I say I actually  read most of it.😉 Narrowing 27,390 students down to just 900 (3%) is no small task indeed! 

The law of supply and demand is basic economics. When demand is low and supply is high, you lower the cost and/or standard. If numbers are truly at the top of the list, I would suspect that strategy would be in place.

It's apparent that a student/athlete's decision to attend one of these schools and their dedication and commitment to their faith, school, teachers, administrators, parents and self is truly unparalleled. 

Conversely, public schools have registration day. Five minutes of filling out forms gives you a genuine ticket to ride!

3 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

No he is telling you P/P's are not controlling their enrollment to remain in a certain class for football so they can win blue ring.

Most are hoping to have more applicants to fill to capacity. Those who wouldn't be good candidates to enroll likely aren't enrolling in the first place because their parents aren't going to take the risk.

I wasn’t really talking so much amount numbers as I was quality.  Read the line next to what was bolded. 
The quality of the student/athlete is different. 

Who would not be a good candidate specifically? I’m genuinely curious what you P/P guys consider a “risk”. 

8 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Actually, it really only takes a couple of weeks of Mass announcements at the start of the registration period to hear the fact/tone that it's not a PSA and, instead a very earnest appeal for enrollments.

Again, what causes enrollment to be an issue?

Surely students wouldn't be turned down or left out for any reason would they?

16 minutes ago, coachkj said:

This is the most ignorant argument that can possibly be made.   Spend a year at any private or parochial school and you'll realize how *absolutely foolish this often used statement is made.  

 

You're telling me P/Ps cannot control who is or is not allowed to enroll at their school?

2 hours ago, Just a dad said:

Here is a photo I saw on X yesterday of the Chatard State Championship team from 25 years ago. To save everyone from having to count (unless you love seeing enormously oversized shoulder pads), there are 31 kids in uniform. What’s my point? Every program has to start somewhere. Chatard didn’t get to 85 on varsity overnight.

And 97 and 98 were back to back State Champ years. 2 years later they went on to a 3 peat

I'd bet there are a lot of schools that would love to win a state championship with only 30 kids. I wonder what the difference is?

Most likely this picture is truly just the varsity players, as the caption reads.

6 minutes ago, Whitehat said:

They all have access to it as needed. Private school students do not, even though private school parents also pay taxes.

However, they do have access to the public schools their tax money goes towards.

3 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

I always forget about Bishop Webo and St. Gibson of Southern. 

This absolutely made me laugh out loud.

16 minutes ago, Whitehat said:

We control the enrollment. All your theories are true. The board of the school actually meets before every school year and decides which athletes are getting free tuition, and final cuts are made to bring the total enrollment down to desired levels specifically for football classification. It’s usually the theatre nerds that don’t make the final cut. Their loss.

There's always a grain of truth in any rumor.

You can't tell me there aren't discussions when it comes to athletics.

Success breeds success and success means money. Plain and simple.

39 minutes ago, kdets89 said:

Any help you can provide Indy Lutheran would be appreciated.  They'd like to "control their enrollment" up about 50-70 students.  Building holds 400, but staff/course offerings are optimized at about 320.  Last enrollment figures were 245.  Thanks in advance.

Simple, lower tuition and standards.

It's obvious they fare better at the 1A-3A level because they can control their enrollment. The quality of student/athlete is just different.

The solution is to move them all up a class. No P/P should ever be competing at a 1A level and it's been proven through SF that they can compete at higher levels.

The problem is, the powers that be don't care because the big schools don't care. They have the enrollment numbers and funds to overcome.

35 minutes ago, littleviking75 said:

Lol okay

  🛒🐴