Jump to content


Jr. Varsity
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About Bullhorn99

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Position
  • High School
  • Location
  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Another good, sound reason!! Keep'em comin'!! Bobref or anyone else??
  2. My goodness!!! I'm not a proponent of the doggone all-in format. If it were gone by October and replaced by a system that was an improvement for most/ all football programs in the state, I would not shed a single tear. I'm just trying to find really good reasons for changing, rather than wringing my hands about the evils of the system we currently have. Thanks!! This is seriously a good argument!! I've been involved with teams in this boat many a year, and there's no doubt in my mind that this situation plays itself out freqently every year! So I'll keep pushing it a bit. More good/positive reasons for changing?
  3. Well, I'm not posting about the current set-up. I have yet to post about the current set-up-positively or negatively (besides saying I'm not married to it). Would you be able to post another positive reason for a qualification format? As I've said, I'm not married to the current format so I'm not really interested in defending it. If there were some over-arching/wide-spead positive for most, if not all, programs around the state to enjoy, I'd be all for it. Really, I would be very interested in positive changes to our game; I just have yet to hear a broad-based positive reason for making a change.
  4. Again, I am not interested in the arguments against the current all-in. I question the one reason provided so far: that being the potential for increasing what is at stake for football programs across the state. While the season progresses, the stakes will obviously increase for some and some of the positives you outline may occur. Can you deny that for a similar number of programs the stakes will decrease at about the same rate? And that the opposite of those positives that you outlined will also likely occur? Is there any other reason, besides this "stakes" argument, why a qualification system is the way to go?
  5. So how is your premise legitimate and mine not? I didn't bring up anything about this in my post. Not sure how it relates to my questions. I'm not interested in defending the current system; I just hope to understand how changing to a qualification-type structure would be an improvement for enough football programs in the state to make it worthwhile. Ok--It's your senior year. Now what? Additionally, that speaks to the off-season and next season. It doesn't address the original questions--"If a team is eliminated after week six, isn't that greatly diminishing the "meaningfulness" of the final three regular season games for that team and its community?" So they don't have something to compete for now when their record is 3-3? Additionally, that speaks to a scenario that I wasn't questioning. Rather than 3-3, when your record is 2-4 and the last three games have lost there meaning because you have been mathematically eliminated from qualifying, isn't that greatly diminishing the "meaningfulness" of the final three regular season games for that team and its community?
  6. Meaningful isn't confusing; it is imprecise and open to broad interpretation. Wouldn't it also have the exact opposite impact? As teams are eliminated from the possibility of qualifying, the stakes for those teams will diminish. Couldn't the same be said for the quality of play, the fan involvement, and student enthusiasm. If a team is eliminated after week six, isn't that greatly diminishing the "meaningfulness" of the final three regular season games for that team and its community?
  7. Pretty vague statement. How does it add more meaning to the regular season? In what way is more meaning added? For whom is more meaning added?
  8. For anybody who is in favor of some type of qualification for the tournament, what broad-based, significant positive outcomes would result from such a change? In the other column of the ledger, what negatives would come about? What unintended consequences would result?
  9. Interesting . . . why do you think that/how does it hurt?
  10. Bullhorn99

    Best Chances for 2018 Title

    Shouldn't be a problem for New Pal since they are not in the same sectional.
  11. I don't know anything beyond the result on the field as listed on the Harrell website, but Hanover Central is 25-15 over the past 4 years including a 10-1 season a couple of years ago.
  12. Bullhorn99

    Lawrence Central Filled

    I found the Kerry Coombs paragraph a bit puzzling because I'm not sure what the implication is, but more so because Kerry Coombs moved on to the greener pastures of the NFL about 3 weeks ago so he won't be recruiting for Ohio State or anybody else for the foreseeable future.
  13. Thought this would be posted already, but here it is: http://www.kokomotribune.com/sports/football-colby-retiring-after-seasons-as-kats-coach/article_37f3c1a6-1068-11e8-bfa7-ebe6105a688e.html
  14. Once again, you make a broad, sweeping generalization and only provide one bit of anecdotal evidence. Please provide actual, legitimate statistical evidence that football is being "de-emphasized as a primary sport" . . . "across the state". Also, what insight do you have that indicates "AD's around the state would pull the plug on football?"
  15. Yes, but you specifically referred to this particular rule and said that coaches frequently got it totally wrong. I'm curious what that rule actually is and how exactly coaches are misunderstanding it. i know that one post refers to a 3 yard cushion past the LOS and another said it was 2. I tried to look it up in the NHSF rule book and found no mention of the 2-3 yard cushion. Maybe I missed something??