Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

Personal Information

  • School
  • Affiliation
    Coach / Staff

Recent Profile Visitors

577 profile views
  1. It was Batesville. Coach Heppner used to run the Wing T / Single Wing. They would shift pre snap from one to the other. We called it the James Brown Turn Around when we played against it. Absolute nightmare to play & coach against.
  2. Always thought the same. Even though the number disparities would be larger for the higher classes they would still have an easier time at finding those 11-22 guys than the little schools would.
  3. Always know it's playoff time when STC is catching the rest of the state up on EIAC nicknames.
  4. And cue DT bringing up contraction in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
  5. So then a Field Goal that goes out of bounds at anywhere outside of the End Zone would be the spot where the opposing offense takes over?
  6. Yeah but will this movement create a different 64 teams for 3A, 2A, and 1A, and will that force a situation where all the sectionals will be redone?
  7. Let me ask the dumb question. Is the IHSAA only doing realignments for the 4A through 6A sectionals or every class?
  8. Didn't I read a while back you were "retiring" from the GID? We'll have to change your name from DT to Brett Favre.
  9. Ok so I'm trying to think to myself why would the state require this of teachers? I guess to get more involved in the community, maybe? My question is if the state want to require PGP points come from specific areas of concentration then how come the state does not provide any PGP points for coaching? Or why wouldn't the state require teachers gain X amount of PGP points from coaching a sport, sponsoring a club, or doing x, y, z for students? I've heard multiple head coaches say the issue is schools are hiring teachers who show up at 8 AM and leave at 3 PM. I know a lot of this comes down to years of experience issues talked about above but it would be a way to get teachers who are already in the building involved in something.
  10. Last year in our regular season game against Batesville we were down by 30 at half, I know it's not 35 but less than a score away. We came back in the second half of the game. Batesville didn't score and our offense tied us up at 30. We lost in OT on a FG. I know this isn't the norm but these situations do occur. I understand what you're saying here and agree that would be ridiculous, I'd like to think common sense would prevail in that situation but we all know how that works out sometimes. My worry is when a team is down 35-0 to start the second half and runs the opening kickoff back to make it 35-7 but will still have to attempt to make a 4 score comeback with a running clock. I think the issues with the rule are not in how we play the last half of the 4th quarter like the scenario you listed above. The issue is how we play the 3rd quarter. I understand wanting to end blowouts quicker, preventing injuries and everything else. I agree with the overall intentions of the rule. But the way the rule is written there is no incentive for a team to attempt a comeback. This is a great point. I remember coaching a game before the 40 second play clock where we had a running clock going in the second half. The white hat would sometimes wait a good extra 10 to 15 seconds to start the old 25 second clock. Can't do that anymore. The only thing the running clock will eliminate is stopping the clock after an incomplete pass. This kind of creates a new strategy for coaches too. If you on the positive side of a running clock won't you just wait until the play clock goes to 1 second every play? You could launch a fade out of bounds for three plays and still run the clock.
  11. Totally agree it's a starting point. My issues aren't with the mercy rule in general just the way it's being implemented. I know 35 point comebacks are rare. My issue, which is a small one, is they are treating a 35 point deficit in the third quarter like it is equal to a 35 point deficit in the 4th quarter. I'd like to see the point differential higher for the 3rd quarter but that's more of a personal preference. The part that I do not agree with at all is the continuation of the running clock whether or not the point deficit is still 35 points. If you come out at half time down 35-0 however small your chances to come back were your chances now are essentially over, especially if the other team gets the ball first. What incentive are we giving for teams to fight back if there is no chance the clock goes back to normal? Might as well do it like baseball and have a 35 point "run rule". I think this part of the rule is going to create second half scenarios that are absolute jokes. Your two possible scenarios are the losing team surrenders defeat and doesn't try or they make a comeback only to run out of time to do so.
  12. Overall I understand why the rule is being put in place but two things bother me . . . 1. No stopping a running clock if the score is brought back within 35 points. I'll call it right now that this will end many teams chances at having a chance to come back. 2. Only 35 points at Halftime. In my opinion that's not a big enough point differential. I understand that means a team will have to score 5 times without the other team scoring just to tie but I still think that's too quick. I hope the IHSAA revisits this in a year or two and makes some adjustments like they have with the Success Factor.
  13. It's a total double standard for athletes. Unfortunately many people in education don't see the link between athletics and academics.
  • Create New...