Bonecrusher

Many here have described 6-man as being like "basketball on a football field". Scores, especially the winning team's in mis-matched games, gets crazy high. There is a 45-point mercy rule that gets used a fair bit. Think of the St Louis Rams "greatest show on turf"-style offense, and you have a high school version of that in the 6-man game if your offense is clicking on all cylinders. Put two well matched 6-man teams together, it's going to be a very fun and interesting evening if you like huge offensive numbers. Good offenses score basically every time they get the ball. Some teams play better D than others, but it's more often than not an offensive showdown. Oh, and the field is slightly smaller. I'm not against 6-man. Better that than nothing. If the kids want to play, I say more power to them. There is blocking, tackling, running, passing just like 11-man, but as told to me by a 6-man parent "it ain't quite the same game". Doesn't mean it's inferior, just different. Those kids train just as hard and long as 11-man players and are asked to do just as much. I would rather see schools playing 8-man or co-oping than not playing at all.

I was just throwing that idea out there for whatever it's worth. I know neutral sites works great down here in Texas, and no one can say the fans here are just casual, but maybe that's what helps it work. Playoff teams down here have fan bases that travel well. The neutral school gets a portion of the evening's takings, and if you have large crowds, that can turn into a nice little sum, especially if you have a nice facility and host several playoff games, and many do. Same goes for the neutral school's concession stand, and I might be wrong but I believe the stand keeps everything they bring in. Saving some driving time when your opponent is 4 hours away, or more, is a big deal. Drive time may not be that big of a deal in Indiana due to it;s smaller size, but that might be relative. 2 1/2 hours for you could be equivalent to 4+ for us. I also would beg to differ regarding the home field excitement factor - down here. Maybe not 100% across the board, but the playoff games I've been to had the fans as pumped up (IMO) as any home game. But then again, neutral sites are what we're used to and I can understand it could be a very big change for some communities up there. I would think if schools see it as too much work to be a neutral site, that could be a little apathy or maybe it's just that round ball is such a close competitor to football it makes the effort not worth it to have both going at once if it's not your team playing? I still see Indiana as primarily a basketball state, is that accurate? Currently, do schools split the gate in playoffs, or is it 60/40 or 70/30 or how do they do it? What works down here may not work somewhere else. It seems to be the "fairest" method, but lots of things need to be factored in.

👍👍

Not OT since my question is regarding playoffs, but just came to mind so here goes. Does Indiana use neutral sites for the playoff's? I'm guessing they don't. We do down here and I think it's a great idea. Reduced travel time by ~1/2 (this is the biggest benefit IMO), you can usually can find a decent stadium with enough seating, smaller schools get to play a few games in a "big" stadium environment. Both coaches have to agree on the site, obviously, I don't see a down side. Apologies for the digression.

I've wondered this myself, as well. Haven't lived in Indiana since 2006, but when we were there they were on EST and DST. I didn't think it made a whole lot of sense, especially that double whammy during the summer. I'm not going to be mowing my yard at 9:00 p.m., and unless I was snowmobiling I wasn't planning on doing much of anything outside after 4:00-5:00 p.m. in December/January. Just seemed like we were too far east to be on both EST and DST, or even EST by itself. But I realize that's just me and everyone's schedules are different.

Agree with this post. I've wondered numerous times how far can we go before the cumulative effect of numerous or prolonged shutdowns makes the treatment worse than the disease. I'm all for masks, distancing, sanitizing and as much temperature taking/testing we can do. Lets isolate those at greatest risk but the rest of us live our lives while practicing the aforementioned precautions and using common sense.

Question asked and answered. The reporter, and most likely the newspaper, knew beforehand the wildfire this story would start. "Journalism" these days.......

Amen. When my oldest was a freshman IIRC, our varsity had probably the best offense in the school's 11-man history. To me, the textbook definition of a perfectly balanced offense or close as you can get with a small school team. We would force the ground n' pound teams to commit to the run then burn them in the air. They found out long, clock-eating drives got them nowhere when suddenly down by 3-4 TD's mid-2nd quarter. In fact, the ball control worked against them as it took them so long to score, they didn't have time to pull even with us. Some of these teams only had a handful of passing plays that they worked on sparingly. By halftime, the game was basically over.

Comments are spot on. I always thought of Baker Mayfield as a "lite" version of Johnny Football. Not quite as extreme in his conduct, or having the same bad decision making ability, but still the same type of guy. But back to the RPO topic......

According to Maxpreps the top five states with the most top-500 football recruits: Florida, Texas, Georgia, California & Alabama. That's just one source, there are many more. I'm sure Texas would make just about anyone's top 5 list for hs recruits. If they're that high they must not be the only ones playing "7 on 7".

When I read the 66-57 score comment, I initially thought DT was referring to 6-man! With two boys playing Texas high school football from 2012-2017 my personal recollection of game scores is closer to the 39-16 than 66-57. I don't have the time right now to research data, but I can only remember a couple games where it looked like neither team was playing defense. I'd say generally, most games the score differential was in the 3 to 21 point range. Typically in games where someone scored high 40's or more (mostly us thank goodness, lol) the other team would only score maybe 14 max against the winners subs. Those games were the exception, not the norm. When my oldest was an underclassman we still played a fair amount of teams, I'd say six or seven, that were "3 yards and a cloud of dust" offenses. We had a handful of local teams and would face another one to three in playoffs that kept it on the ground. This is for 2A ball, the smallest classification in TX playing 11-man, so take that into consideration. By the time my youngest was a senior, I'd say through 13 games (10 reg season, 3 rounds post) we faced three teams total that favored the run, and only two of them ran from what we would call traditional formations. So yes, overall the majority of our opponents ran some version of RPO. We even used that scheme more often towards the end of my time watching hs ball. Started out as a spread team, that was balanced run/pass, and over time began adding options for the QB. The hs game has definitely morphed in just the time I was watching my kids play. Personally, I think both extremes are very boring. I prefer a balanced, or close to, game.

Back in the dark ages when I played, it was called ringing someone's bell. It was highly encouraged to pop a guy like that if you could, in fact, if you had a chance to "knock him into the bleachers" and you didn't, you might have got chewed out a little for not taking the shot at him. Been on both ends of hits like that. I remember our starting running backs coming up at an angle if the tackler was not low enough and put those shoulder pads between his pads and helmet (basically hitting defender on chin strap/facemask). Saw many necks snap back, many helmets come off and even guys lifted off the ground. It used to be a brutal sport. Looking back I'm really surprised more people didn't get hurt, or seriously injured, than did. In more recent times (i.e. my sons playing days) I thought we had swung too far the other way, basically overcompensating, and were "wussifying" the sport. I also thought the lack of reps would result in more injuries due to bad form. I am re-thinking that however especially watching my youngest's last couple years (OLB/RB @ 2A school so plenty of chances to both tackle and be tackled). I think they're getting it right and some of the new techniques focused more on bring a guy down than "cleaning out the cobwebs" results in the same net outcome but with somewhat less chance of injury. If they can do reps with dummys or other means and figure it out, I'm all for it.

Idiot. You're the kind of jerk who should be banned.

Almost nailed it. Congrats LCC.

East Noble

I'm sure the right attorney or law firm could have a field day with this, as well they should. There is so much that was mis-handled here it makes my head spin. Be interesting to see how this plays out. Unfortunately no punishment or settlement will ever erase those events for that poor young man.

Going with the underdog in this one. LCC 31-28.

EN will show up and do what they do. Win.

Hope Lutheran's team isn't looking looking ahead like some of the fans are lol. Agree 100% with you regarding post season home games.

Adams Central East Noble

Within any given classification, moving schools up that that win a lot and moving down schools that lose a lot makes no sense to me. Like others here have said you're punishing success and rewarding failure. If you can't beat the school you're lining up against, get better. Best team wins. Period. It's life, get used to it. Coddling bad teams & punishing good teams. I call BS on that. I know, I know I'm a mean old man. So get off my lawn lol.

OK, now I get it. Was not aware of that one. Ouch! Thankfully for both sides, won't get anywhere near that. I agree with foxbat, this game most likely comes down to the sum of the little things - that aren't so little in reality.

Huh? You lost me there. But yeah sure, if AC can win by 96 points instead of the 6 or 7 I'm thinking, why the heck not! That would be a statement win lol. Think I'll stick with my original prediction.

Pulling for the Jets in a close one. Thinking 1 TD win, hoping for more.

OK, you want it coming down, not just a sloppy field. Would prefer an AC win, but realistically gotta pick SA. Hope Jets prove me wrong.