foxbat

I think changing its title to something like Indiana Player of the Year as opposed to Mr. Football opens it up to that, provided that the rules are changed, and also would (hopefully) minimize some of the career stuff that tends to creep in in both discussion and, likely, voting, too.

Then why not just let nature take its course? If ADs aren't fanatics, they'll put more into their other sports. If communities are waning in their support, then the sport will fall by the wayside. As for football zealots, you would probably have more of a convincing line in Texas, Florida, and perhaps Ohio, but as folks point out often, in Indiana basketball is king. Are there football fanatics? Sure. Are they "coming out of the woodwork" to force a school to spend their money without putting up their own dollars? Not quite to the extent that you might think and certainly not to the point that there are massive numbers of communities held hostage by a few football folks against the vast majority of the folks who don't want football. There are two IHSSA schools in the Lafayette and near-Lafayette area that don't field football teams and have put their resources into other areas: Rossville and Faith Christian. Faith tends to do decent in soccer, but not too well in other male sports. Rossville has found better success in soccer, basketball, and baseball. Rossville, in particular, came together as a community and decided across all levels to focus their resources on other sports rather than football. They actually don't have any decent-sized footprint, if any, in youth football. There's an example of an AD and an entire community making that decision. Again, I don't disagree with any of the general ideas that you are proposing ... outside of the IHSAA canning teams over arbitrary numbers. I just think that it is a decision for local communities to make rather than dictated to them. In your original proposal, you stated that a team could petition to not play for a couple of years ... I think that's what Noll is doing. If I'm not mistake, there are schools that have had football, dropped football, and are now reviving football while others have dropped football and left it dropped. Again, their call, their agency.

I know that these often focus on folks that get to LOS, but I wanted to focus on some of the ones that weren't as visible and would certainly miss consideration based on more conventional methods. These aren't likely COY in the eyes of the state, but in the eyes of their communities, schools, and players the deserve a bit of recognition. Brad Bevis at South Newton - The Rebels were 1-45 for the last five seasons. This season they finished 5-5. Plenty more road to cover, but certainly a good season to build on after some handfuls of dirt were surely ready to throw on the "contraction coffin." Blake Betzner at Carroll (Flora) - Carroll hasn't seen a sectional title since 2003. To put that in context, Frankton and Lapel were still 1A back then. In his first season at Carroll, Betzner took the Cougars to a 9-4 and their first sectional title in just under a couple of decades. Andrew Tetheroh at Tri - First trip to semi-state in more than two and a half decades. Tri has typically not been a name on the radar screen in post-season, but this season they got there. Brett Jennings at Whiting - When Cain left Whiting, the program went on much harder times; especially with a mere four-game season in 2020. They were 3-11 in the last two seasons and, while 5-7, this year's finishing record, isn't great, the Oiler's scrapped their way to a sectional title showdown with Andrean. Rob Gibson at Owen Valley - OV was 12-39 over the last five seasons and hadn't seen a sectional final in more than two and a half decades. Gibson led OV to a sectional title and a 10-2 season record. I'm sure that's not all of them. Anyone else have any others?

I don't know enough about Indiana's inter-/intra-county culture to determine how co-op would fair in the state. Similar to the issue of whether 6-man/8-man would be welcome enough to fly. I'm not sure you gain much, in terms of extra teams playing or teams dropping down from 11-man, with 9-man that would pick up teams, but there's a psychological break at 8-man, at least in football circles, that would pick up bodies. Similarly across small schools. I have to admit that, even coming from Texas and Oklahoma, where 6-man and 8-man are part of the lay of the land, I've not been partial to it. Like you said; however, if it provides opportunity for kids to play I'm not one to stand in the way. I got a chance this last season to see 7-man played at the youth level. Definitely odd and, having coached 11-on-11 at the youth level for just under a couple of decades, I'm not sure I'd ever select it as my go to. With that said, the fact that it provided the league a chance to field six teams instead of just three and a half. It provided some variety for the kids as well as an opportunity to get more reps. Granted, there's a big difference between youth and varsity, but going to your point, it gets kids involved. It also probably doesn't hurt as much in also getting kids to eventually get to the higher levels.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure if Indiana is culturally ready or if there's enough critical mass there to make it viable. I've lived in Oklahoma and Texas and 6-/8-man flies there fairly well. There's a level of football involvement there that spans traditional 11-man ball that I just don't think permeates Indiana the same way. Also, football is not the primary sport of Indiana, so expansion into other derivatives of the sport may not fly here. Oklahoma has two classes of less-than-11-man ball, 8-man, and there are roughly 80 teams competing there. Texas has about 160 teams or so in 6-man ... and that's just the public schools. There may, however, be something to your idea in the schools that don't tend to make it to the IHSAA radar screen or to teams that struggle in the traditional IHSAA-format for 11-man. I wonder how many Indiana schools there are that are rural or perhaps smaller private/parochial with under say 80 students. When I lived in Oklahoma, the vast majority of teams that were in what is called Class-C had total school sizes of like 70 or less kids. No argument in any of that, but I note in your presentation the words "community" and "civic" ... which hits exactly with the argument that I've been making. It would seem to be something that THE COMMUNITY should make the call on. If a community wants the ROI, then that's their call to make. Schools do these pretty much every year when they fire a coach that isn't cutting it for THEIR desire of competitiveness or results or decide to do a bond for a stadium build or renovation, etc. Again, have no issues with the idea that a community might decide it's too expensive or they aren't winning enough or they are winning state or they aren't beating their cross-town rival every year ... we are in agreement there. Matter of fact. if there was a MANDATORY requirement in teh state of Indiana that you had to have a football team, then I'd be in complete agreement with you. Nonetheless, in the state an COMMUNITY has the ability and responsibility to determine ITS OWN level of participation, competition, or even whether they even want to play the game at all. It should be the COMMUNITY'S choice.

If that's what the IHSAA wants to do, that's their call for the tournament. I would still be against it. Frankly, I would hopefully expect the IHSAA to create a seeded tournament and have a winning record requirement long before they excluded a team because they had the minimum number to play by the rules. And let's not lose track/focus that the proposed number for keeping a team out of season play and not just tourney play was proposed at 22 for 1A, 25 for 2A, 30 for 3A ... etc. 11's an extreme; not near to the norm that is actually what spurred the discussion in the first place.

I guess what I'm not seeing in this argument, and others have alluded to it as well, is how, other than via cosmetics does forcing schools to not field a team increase competitiveness in the overall scheme of things? It would be somewhat different if we had a system like Texas where you don't pick your schedule or your conference. In Indiana though, it would seem that competitiveness is somewhat more tied to choice, although there are some with some limitations given ideological or geographical issues. For example, I believe I've seen a few Linton folks, and I'll let them correct me if I'm wrong, indicate that one of the reasons that they left their old conference and became more independent was because of competitiveness, or more specifically, lack of competitiveness. They used their legs to increase their competitiveness. One issue that concerns me of the talk in competitiveness is that I suspect that there are schools that have football not for the level of competitiveness that some folks are wanting to reach for the state, but as an extra-curricular activity for their kids just like band, dance, chess club, robotics, science club, etc. For schools that have the ideology of football being an activity to keep kids off the streets and give them options or just something else to do, would not the rug be potentially pulled out from under their feet if the idea of having such an activity is tied to having to win sectionals? As a general reminder, if I recall correctly, someone posted that roughly 7-8% of kids that play high school football will never play football again beyond their senior year. It would seem that, if that number holds true, competitiveness can certainly be part of the equation, but seems harsh to make it THE PART of the equation that is the thumbs-up or thumbs-down component that comes from a source that is external to the school.

No nerve, just found it a weak argument, given that I have three school affiliations ... two public and one P/P ... and two conference affiliations ... and there's only a single P/P in both of those conferences ... listed on my account, and I get tagged for the P/P school as if somehow that negates everything else. Also, the issue has nothing to do with even competitive balance or anything else. I don't see why ANY TEAM should have to not field a team because someone put in an arbitrary minimum number to force them out. Whether or not a school decides to field a team or not should be the sole decision of that school and their constituency. I'm not sure of the NFHS rules about minimum number that you can have on the field at a time, but about the only time I could the the IHSAA stepping in and telling a school no dice, or anyone for that matter, is if they have less than 11 on the team.

Yeah, what's even richer is that three of the five kids of this "LCC poster" have graduated or are about to graduate from Jeff, one is Harrison, and the fifth will be Harrison ... but let's not let the facts get in the way in our perception of ideas, right?

Oh, OK you were talking about South Bend schools in particular. I could potentially see that in a limited geographic area, but I was thinking if it statewide and it has that huge an impact on statewide player numbers, then we have a much bigger problem, as a state, than competitive balance in football. Similarly, I would suspect the issue of declining numbers, due to transfer, to be more of a geographically-impactful item as opposed to a statewide issue; especially given that there's a lot more open-enrollment activity and there also seems to be a fairly decent among of "both ADs signing off" activity. I could certainly see, if you are talking about just South Bend, how the transfer aspect could impact as the flow is most likely not in equilibrium.

Eligibility? Do you mean like students who aren't able to play because of transfer or not making grades?

Context matters ... As for competitive, I think that's going to be up to each team to determine what is competitive for their goals. My youngest son's travel baseball team schedules their season with the idea of being competitive being playing at peak and going .500. For others, I'm sure it's winning every tournament they enter. And for other's still, it might just be playing in tournaments and not getting 10-run ruled this season.

The premise put forth, see below, was that they should not be on the field, not that they could beat a state championship team or even that they could win. The team with 19 was competitive that year despite the numbers. If state championship is the moniker for being competitive, then there are probably at least some 250 teams in the state that probably shouldn't ever be on the field. Luckily, it's not all about getting to LOS or even out of sectionals in some cases to determine the worth of the activity and the effort.

Showing 7. Still made your number at 30. Is this a new addition to your number cutoffs? Now it has to been non-freshman? Incidentally, WL only had 53 on the roster last season ... and 11 of those were listed as freshman. Using your comparison issue, WL and Benton Central, which actually play each other every year, would have been 42 non-freshman vs. 30 non-freshman. For 3A, seems close enough on straight numbers on paper.

Benton Central is a 3A school that had a roster of 37 last season. 7 more than your cutoff "numbers." Your numbers wouldn't have impacted them or their "serious injuries." Now where do we go from here.

Before I run out and tell a bunch of faceless teams that they can't play this year because of an arbitrary number that someone came up with, I'd like to look at the data. I'd like to see is it tied to numbers or something else? Look, we've already endured a thread about how it's not safe or competitive for the bottom half of 6A to play against Ben Davis and Carmel, yet the defining difference between 5A and 6A in your proposal is a mere 5 players. Forgive me if I see waning internal validity in the argument and would like to see something else. If it really is such a big thing, there should be all kinds of examples that we can point to to at least start looking at the problem. You tossed out WL as an example, yet there's no one that I've seen WL play in the past decade or so, or longer, that I can think of that even comes close to your example and they play in a conference with 1A and 2A schools. Likewise, I threw out a very recent example based on a game that I watched in person where a team with 19 players actually led the eventual state champs, with a roster of nearly 45 players no less, by a point at halftime in a sectional final. If you don't have the numbers or just want to play in generalities, then by all means, feel free to do so; but don't get mad at the rest of us who might be willing to listen to your plan or give it consideration and ask for something to help us along in that evaluation. I'm not the one making the initial premise.

Again, I'd like to see some science in this. Anecdotally, it's an issue of can vs. will. I'm not sure who WL is facing on their schedule, but I'll bite. They play a 1A school and a couple of 2A schools in their schedule, but none of those have down to 25 dressed players. I'm not sure if WL plays anyone who has 25 on a roster. I guess, before I buy into considering this as a premise, perhaps we could get an idea of just what we are talking about here? How many schools are out there that currently wouldn't make your cutoffs? Are they still competitive and/or safe for what they want to do? As an example, in 2019, Trader's Point dressed roughly 19 kids for a sectional championship against LCC. They lost a total of two games in 2019: one to eventual state runner-up, Indy Lutheran, and the sectional championship to state winner, LCC. Would have been a shame if they were unable to compete that season over an arbitrary number.

Mi Espanol no es muy bueno. 😀

Seems like that should be their choice, right? I'm not seeing it. Three guys make the difference between 1A and 2A and 5 between 2A and 3A? I think it's a question of the players and not the numbers in 1A. It's just going to end up being a situation of gaming the numbers anyway for many that want to have a team regardless of whether they want to be LOS competitive or just "Friday night active." A 1A team with 20 that wants to play is going to grab 2 kids from the band to say that they are on the team even if they don't play. There will be similar issues at that 2A level as well. I don't have an issue with "recommended" numbers, but required for something like extra-curricular activities seems like that would be the call of the individual school. I'd also like to see some type of science behind the numbers because these look relatively arbitrary. Is there any research on the ability to complete a season based on number of starting bodies?

Carmel seems to be underperforming. Given the discussions on size and SES of GID ... Carmel has FRL around 10% or so and around the second lowest public school FRL rate in the state... there shouldn't anyone in the state that can touch them.

At 3,000 that puts then in the top dozen and in the top 5% of of the state's football schools.

Can't imagine that this is the top item or even in the top three. Maybe kids being pulled in MANY different directions by MANY different options, but soccer's just a scapegoat. I know kids who aren't planning baseball because they are: playing football and want to focus on that, running track and wanting to focus on that, racing dirt bikes, and another wanting to focus on robotics. I know a kid who was going to play soccer, but plays football instead. Know one that who was going to play football, but now plays soccer. In essence, while there may be a regional propensity for soccer, soccer's not the reason for any statewide or national decline. Incidentally, football has ALWAYS tried to recruit from the soccer team ... used to be kickers, but now there's an appreciation for other things like footwork if you can get the hands to work. Some of my better fullbacks were soccer players.

Had to give a "like" just for the use of the word "antediluvian." In the older days, between linebackers, corners, and safeties, you tended to have 2-3 defenders for every guy going out. That allowed you to often have one guy with eyes on the ball and another with eyes on the defender. Even in man coverage, there was usually someone lurking behind you. Today, with everyone heading downfield including the water boy and ball boy, you pretty much have to be on the receiver from the start and the ball is icing on the cake. I think @Titan32's point also has some play in this too as a strategy as I think it definitely has an impact in folks taking the bump knowing that everyone else is busy and can't help out.

First Hey, how come *insert name from Top 50* doesn't show up on the *insert IFCA Class 6A SR All-State* list? These lists are a joke. 😀 I just wanted to be the first to post that ... over/under on time until someone really posts it?

I know Allen well ... some of my tax dollars, I lived in Allen before moving to Indiana, are tied up in that stadium.