foxbat

I love that line about making a travesty of the game. Have to be careful playing God though ...

It was an epidemic this last weekend over there. Four turnovers for the game with three fumbles in the second half and two in the last two possessions of the game including a scoop and score that gave Plainfield the lead.

You forgot the post game activities by the victors:

I would not disagree with that idea that a 0-4 start with a qualifier could provide a persistent damper to a season. I've seen it play out in a qualifier state. It's not everyone, but there are are some. If there's the idea that a qualifier makes teams "fight like mad" during the season and "makes the season more meaningful," then I'm not sure why some would feel that the opposite is also not a possibility as well ... that is, that a team gets deflated when the season is essentially over ... even if it happens midway through the season. I'm not saying that the all-in keeps teams playing at peak, but, coming out of Texas where qualifiers are life, I certainly have seen evidence of a qualifier putting out fires in a team's season earlier in a season.

I agree. Andy's done a great job with the team. Folks may not know this, but I'll toot Andy's horn for him ... he and Steve Ade did a phenomenal job with the BC youth program back in the day even when the odds seemed stacked against them. They gutted it out and worked with those kids and kept them engaged when the program, both youth and high school was struggling. Andy's now getting that chance to take those kids that he nurtured early on and be with them to enjoy the fruits of their early labors. Hats off to him and Steve ... and all of the other coaches around who just won't quit and invest that time at the youth level.

Perhaps not, but it points to potential mindset in competition. Might be nothing, but could also end up falling in that unintended consequences arena. May be nothing at all, but also might also be in the same vein that teams facing 0-4 in a qualifier are impacted negatively in the rest of the season. Anecdotally, and perhaps statistically, there seems to be a fairly decent correlation between fans that leave games early and fans that stop buying tickets later on in the season if the team has no chances of post season play or, in college environments, getting a bowl berth. That's a single event propensity vs. an over-time propensity.

I haven't seen this argument put forth by anyone ... at least not on GID. What I have seen is an idea that a qualifier could prematurely dampen enthusiasm and drive there's early indications in a season that post-season isn't in the cards. I've actually seen that directly on the baseball side in situations where pool play takes you out of a tournament bracket and puts you in a single-game consolation bracket and teams notify the tournament that they won't be coming back the next day to compete in that game and head home early. Interestingly, and perhaps something to consider, is that most teams that have declined to play, that I've seen, have tended to be teams that were borderline not making the championship bracket ... having missed out on tie-breakers like runs against or runs scored. Teams that stayed were typically teams that got blown out in pool play.

That's not every travel situation and, where you are starting to see it, it's a money grab and a resource issue. Both of my boys play travel baseball. My youngest boy played AA ball this past season. USSSA Indiana State Tournament had pool play and then ALL teams in each age group advanced to the Championship Bracket with seeding determining issues like byes, how early you had to play, and how many games you had to gut out. This was over 300 teams across seven age divisions. Also, when my oldest boy was younger and played in those tournaments that started on Thursdays, they always advanced because there was enough time to play full tourney on Saturday/Sunday. Again, pool play results might pit you against the #1 seeded team to start with or make you have to play the 8:00 am game on Sunday an hour and a half away from your house or, if you did better, you got to sleep in on Sunday or got a bye or got to play the worst team in the tournament for your first game and didn't have to play tougher competition until later in the day. Are there tournaments where there's an A bracket and a single-game consolation bracket or nothing beyond pool play? Certainly. The things that I tended to notice in plenty of those kinds of tournaments is early on they had issues with not enough umps, quality of umps, and overbooking for the parks/locations. They have also moved to two-day or two-and-a-half-day tournaments too where a couple pool games are played Friday night, with the bulk on Saturday, and tourney play actually starting Saturday night and running Sunday or just on Sunday. There's no way you can honestly tell me that these tournaments are designed this way to promote/increase competitiveness ... they are designed the way they are to maximize profit and minimize resource use and to make sure they meet their contract obligation of guaranteed X number of games. Incidentally, I've seen teams in that situation decide to leave early and not play that single consolation bracket game that's just for fulfillment of contract. On the other hand, I've not seen a situation of a tournament that has a consolation bracket that feeds from the championship bracket where someone has abdicated that game.

Into the home stretch ... I'm coming for you @CoachDurham, three-time Caddy winner.

The biggest drawback that I see for Rochester is that LCC's three losses have come with teams that have put the ball up in the air at least minimally. Even HH, which had the least passing shots at LCC's defense still completed more passes in their game with LCC, 12, than Rochester has completed all season, 11. HH even put up more passing TDs in that one game than Rochester has all season 3 to 2. Guerin also put up 3 passing TDs and WL put up 3 passing TDs as well. In watching LCC, their secondary was vulnerable in the air, which is uncharacteristic for LCC teams, but pretty decent when playing the expected run. Where they got in trouble was when a team could keep them honest, or worse, burn them, when they were looking into the backfield from the secondary. It will be interesting to see if they stuff 10-11 in the box and dare Rochester to throw on them. Rochester only has 31 attempts for the season and hasn't completed a pass since September. Of the 11 pass completions for the season, nine of them have been to a single person and he hasn't had a reception in a month and a half. Both schools have played some 3A competition, but SOS, particularly for those 3A opponents goes in LCC's favor. LCC still has three 3A opponents left in the mix right now including Hamilton Heights who is #16 Sagarin in 3A, Guerin who is #5 Sagarin in 3A, and WL #2 Sagarin in 3A while Rochester still has #13 Sagarin in 3A left in the mix. The one thing that I am interested in is Rochester's last game against Benton Central. BC hasn't entered stats, so it's hard to get some data points, but BC put up 26 points on Rochester, but put up zero on LCC.

Can you imagine the Zoom-bombing that would happen if they posted the link on GID?

Do we get points for betting this route? I suspect that it will turn out a lot like the 1A 2011 title game where there were plenty of cautionary tales about city vs. county speed leading up to the match. I don't know about hanging 80 on the Warriors, but I suspect that the fingernails of the Lutheran fans will be intact after the game. His son, who plays on the JV, says that's just a rumor.

Not really. There will be SOME teams that can still be eligible after starting 0-4, but MATHEMATICALLY ... and more importantly, realistically, not ALL and certainly not MANY.

Put a little Frank's on it ...

The interesting aspect of Batesville is that they were #33 Sagarin and Indian Creek was #32. As expected, the game was close, 35-34, but a top/bottom qualifier would have left Batesville out of the post-season.

Didn't realize that. Thanks for the info. I'm surprised that something like this wouldn't apply in HS; especially since it does apply in NCAA/NFL. In light of this, I'd have to go with @Irishman's solution. I admit back in the day when I played ball in Texas, we used to run the old "two off, one on and talk to the coach play" where one guy would come on and two would go off with a coach yelling his head off at one of the guys coming off. That one guy that went "off" and was getting yelled at would not leave the field, but would stand on the sideline, but about an inch inbounds and would stand there with his head down and hands on his hips like he was being admonished by the coach. On the snap he'd jet down the sideline, typically uncovered, as everyone was focused on the activity near the ball and not the sideline outside of that guy getting his butt chewed out ... having just seen the motion of two players "going out." I believe that since the caveman days, there's a rule that addresses that and makes that type of deception no longer legal. Have to admit, it was fun to run it ... along with the bounce pass trick play.

Does this fall under the same considerations for no-huddle offense situations? That is, if the offense breaks from no-huddle "speedball" and substitutes even one player, then time has to be allowed for similar type substitution for the defense and an official will often straddle the ball to prevent a premature snap.

The question ends up being a major part of risk/reward. If New Pal is already on the ascendancy and has a process in place for maintaining a top competitiveness in 4A, then the risk might be higher than being worth it. They already play Westfield and Decatur Central for their non-conference games, which can hardly be considered "soft week" scheduling. Not sure that they need to add an additional six 6A schools on top of that. The regional with Roncalli or Brebeuf will give a better idea, but like you, I'm inclined to say tweak their current model rather than completely overhaul it.

If history is any indication, the no-point issue also applied to both Chatard and Pioneer and they drop. Pioneer exited in the first round of 1A, their enrollment home, this season. Conversely, Chatard will be playing for a sectional championship in the Sectional of Death in 3A, their enrollment home.

Then you allow teams to "opt out" of the post-season and schedule their own game if they wish ... the team they were scheduled against moves on just like the issues we had with COVID. Again, it has less external stress on issues like conferences/rivalries, reduces scheduling issues at the end of the season, potentially reduces travel issues, and, again, ends up being quite risk averse. Perhaps it eventually accomplishes exact the same thing as a qualifier, including the increased "value" or regular season games, but gives all teams options.

Here's why I think it's a stretch in reasoning and here's why I think you'll have to hold a gun to the heads of the IHSAA and LOTS of coaches to get them to agree to cutting the field in half ... and I'll use the proposal that everyone who wants to cut the field in half for the post-season often states: "Use a qualifier ... cutting the field in half ... extend the season to 10 weeks for all of the folks who don't make it and let them play one last game." Allowing an all-in, with seeding, cuts the field in half for all classes by the end of the first week of competition in the respective classes ... albeit with games played. This addresses would already address the "extend the season to 10 weeks for the 'non-qualifiers' and let them schedule a last game. It would also do it 1) within the structure of a system that's already in place ... after adding a seeding process, 2) without the scheduling rush and anxiety at the end of the season for half of the teams in the state, 3) allows for the potential of a Cinderella possibility, no matter how rare it might be, providing that glimmer of hope no matter how misguided some might consider it, 4) avoids any potentials for lawsuits/actions regardless of level of merit or potential success, 5) tying to #1, allows the IHSAA to maintain the assignment and structure of sectionals which in turn helps to reduce travel issues earlier on in the post-season, 6) has less direct external impact on conferences/rivalries, ... In essence, you get your field cut in half after the first week of play ... hence your "one extra game of the season." The seeding mostly gets rid of your #1 vs. #2 issue. As pointed out above, it also mitigates potential negative impacts, and, in the IHSAA's eyes, is fairly risk-averse. Again, while I don't doubt that seeding is a possible potential implementation, I find it very hard to buy in to the idea that there some type of inevitable next step to having a qualifier and cutting the field.

That's an interesting logical assumption. What follows? Dogs and cats living together?

Again, already addressed in another post ... this specific sectional as a matter of fact. Not an issue of consideration of the all-in format ... an issue of seeding.

Plainfield 35 Harrison 28. Final. Harrison with at least four turnovers on the night including two on last two possessions... one of which resulted in the game winning scoop and score for Plainfield.