foxbat

Or Covenant Christian. It was more recent and during the tourney. That more likely holds the key for LCC.

Tell that to Faith Christian ... or St. James Lutheran High School in Lafayette.

For 2019, it would depend on what you mean by compete. If you are talking sectionals, I don't think they could have won 33, 34, 36, 37, and 40. Could have possibly won 35, 38, 39. The problem for LCC though would be they likely would have ended up in 33 or 34 this go-round, even though in the 2013/2014 they ended up in the equivalent of this year's 35. Assuming equal chance to play across the board in 2A, being able to win three of eight sectionals probably puts them in that "compete" realm.

I doubt that the 2019 LCC team would still be playing if not for their experience in the Hoosier Conference this season. LCC used to augment its schedule back when it was in the HHC with teams like Mishawaka Marian, St. Joe Ogden, CMA, and Benton Central, but that was only a couple of teams in a season. The grind of the Hoosier Conference means that you don't get much breathing room and really conditions a team, especially LCC, for a post-season run.

Here's the picture of the seniors on that squad, back when they were just starting their careers as 3rd graders. This is the 3rd/4th grade combined teams after winning the championship over East Tipp back in 2010.

Of interest is that there are a few kids in that picture who ended up playing ball at other schools including Harrison, Jeff, CMA, West Lafayette, and McCutcheon ... I feel a disturbance in the Force.

Was 17-0 at half.

Will at least be back to full strength. Will be an interesting feeling going in as underdogs this millennium.

LCC returns to LOS. LCC 24 AC 14 Final

LCC 24 AC 7 End of 3Q

LCC 17 AC 0 Halftime

LCC. 7 AC 0 End of 1Q

I understand what you are saying. I was watching 6A and 5A while the Lafayette-area schools were in, but with Harrison being knocked out last week and Jeff knocked out in the first 6A sectional game, I'm kind of done watching those classes until, maybe, Thanksgiving weekend ... and even then, it's probably 50/50 whether I'll tune in to watch. Still kind of watching 3A just to see if Chatard basically smokes the remaining competition like they've done so far or whether there's someone out there to possible slow them down a bit. Haven't followed 4A at all this season and with fellow Hoosier Conference members RCHS and Cass now eliminated, 2A kind of catches my attention on the fringes.

Don't want to speak for @Coach Nowlin and his guys, but I think RCHS fits in nicely with the Hoosier Conference mix despite the time changes that teams put up with.

With no disrespect to Barrett, he isn't in the range of Kiser or Zachery ... especially with regard to his legs. He looks more like previous LCC QBs that were passers and not runners. Also, as a sophomore, he's still a pretty raw talent, but learning very quickly and I think he certainly has the build and potential to make a name for him self at LCC like Mills, Munn, Denhart, and Preston. As has typically been the case with LCC teams, even with Danny/Jackson Anthrop, Cronk, Corcoran, etc., the cast is more the strength than a player. I think this year's team looks more like the 2009 and 2010 teams, not from the depth/ability side of things, but from the "no name" aspect. That's also part of the focus moving forward ... a team of one-way players with duties spread all over the place. I think that's part of the reason that, while LCC has had folks out, like Schrader in the last game, and will have Roach out this game, there's less panic amongst LCC fans.

If there's a team that can exploit a few weaknesses, it would be LCC ... although AC proved last week that they can too.

If it's LCC, then it would be their first loss at LOS aka LaRocca South. They are 5-0 in state championships there and also beat Guerin in a regular-season game there too in 2011.

Already got it. Thanks for your support.

Not at all, just looking for information.

Have no idea. It was a general statement. My kids aren't in LCSS and I don't teach there. Not that it matters. Never seem to miss a chance to take a swipe at folks, huh?

Has nothing to do with get better or get used to it and has little to do with GID sentiments. Has to do with society as whole nowadays, for better or worse. You can't give Johnny a failing grade even if he got every question wrong and misspelled his own name and you certainly can't tell him directly that he's performing lower than the class. Has to do with the fact that everyone's OK with saying move the guys up so that everyone can get a shot when everyone thinks they are the one that might get a shot. Kind of like kids in a classroom with extra credit. They all want extra points for showing up to class, but they all think the teacher is mean/unreasonable for counting off points when they skip class. I would conjecture that the psyche of most folks views success factor as an artificial mechanism in the current scheme and thus it creates something that's "unnatural" to the current process. As such, anything that moves back into the state prior to the introduction of artificial process isn't viewed in as negative a light. Time is necessary for SF to be considered more of the "norm" or less artificial and it may well be that, in the future, it may well be scene as "demotion," but for right now, that's not specifically how it's viewed. Again, that could well change, but as I posted above, this SF thing is only a half a decade old. Needs time to grow on folks. Nope ... just a Texan now. 😃

I think, given today's culture, the IHSAA would be hard-pressed to get enough programs to agree to the idea of having a list of folks names to the relegation list. It took a mandatory mercy rule to get folks to do a running clock that doesn't require agreement. They can't even get folks to even start to think about seeding sectionals or maybe even identifying the top four seed to prevent #1 from having to play #2 right out of the gate. It's one thing to promote/punish successful programs, but having a public list of the demoted isn't likely to find traction from too many circles when it comes down to a vote.

Depends on what the expectation of the rule was. If it was making it where p/p teams can't win titles, then it didn't work. If the idea was to look at the idea that some teams have advantages whether they are p/p or sole options in a large market, or in affluent suburbs, or *fill in the blank* or just happen to have gotten better over time and "outgrown" their fishbowl, then I think the general idea is certainly workable. Of course, there are more instances of some of the wrong programs perhaps getting swept into the net approach, but that's more because the "holes in the net are too small ... make it four years and make winning a regional, or two sectionals, in the new class perhaps the minimum necessary to stay in a class and I think it ends up being more successful in addressing the issue regardless of p/p or public standing. As for what would have changed? I can't speak for all classes, but I can pretty much say that, in 1A, LCC would have, minimally, seven-peated from 2009-2015. I agree that it's not the best thing, again see the issues regarding length and remaining criteria, but if you look at 2012 - 2008 ... the five seasons before SF ... at a minimum, what you see respectively is six p/p with four winning, seven p/p with four winning, six p/p with four winning, three p/p with two winning, and five p/p with three winning ... BTW, note that these are all 5-class seasons. Just on the comparison of the two five-year periods, the data says that, 'yes' it works if the idea is to blunt p/p and, if the idea is a broader to effect a blunting of all teams with "advantages" or just progress that outgrows the fishbowl, then the answer would again be 'yes' ... with allowances that the short time period and remaining criteria could have caught a couple that shouldn't have perhaps been caught and perhaps released a couple that shouldn't have been released.

Linton would have moved up on enrollment anyway. Give it another year and Pioneer will likely be back to put some potential balance back into things. Realize that while you are talking about making it smoother, the two years that LCC spent in 2A, , along with Scecina SF'd up to 2A too despite not having a state title win, made the road smoother for Tri-Central, Eastern Hancock, North Vermillion, and Pioneer to make it to 1A state in 2013 and 2014. This stuff is coming in cycles and you have to look at the totality rather than a single year. In 2013, the first year of LOS-influenced LOS appearances, five made it and three won. In 2014, three made it and one won. In 2015, three made it and three won. In 2016, three made it and three won. In 2017, only two p/p teams made it to LOS and one won. In 2018, only 2 p/p teams made it to LOS and only one won. The trending suggests decrease in p/p appearance for the last five years. The idea of "getting it wrong" has too few data points to make that determination yet and, more importantly, looking at a single season out of six makes this year actually look more like an anomaly or a start of a new cycle as opposed to a decision point for the success or failure of the policy. With that said, I think there's a preponderance of agreement that they length of the cycle should be longer ... perhaps 4 years ... and possibly the criteria for remaining elevated once moved up could also be changed.

If a team is able to make things happen when the chips are down, especially against the odds, I think that says much about them. This harkens to another thread whether the idea of "the best team always wins" and whether that's true or not was pretty much distilled down to, at least in my eyes, whether folks are talking in a holistic sense or in the moment. My thought is that, when we are talking tournament time and head-to-head competition, the only measure that matters at that point is in the moment. There are no "style points" for stats, ratings, schedule strength, etc. ... ultimately, it comes down to what you are able to do in that 48-minute period that determines who was the better team for that game. To look at items beyond that seems, at least to me, to do a disservice to the team that figured out how to make it happen. I think AC deserves to be recognized for doing what they did to take an opponent that had won a previous meeting by a four-TD margin and put up 42 points on the board and holding that team to a single TD and effectively shutting them out for three quarters. Barring things like injuries, like you said, teams make their own fates at this time of the season. It's been 20 years and a semi-state game since LCC and AC last met ... and the last time they did, LCC eventually ended up with a blue ring. We'll see how this year plays out as both teams work to make their own fate. Looking forward to Friday's game.