Bobref

He’s got all 3 attributes you want from an OL: great technique, immense strength, and he’s just nasty mean.

Exactly.

You can’t get a personal foul penalty for “something they said.” Contact is required for a personal foul (except for fighting, where a swing and a miss is still a foul).

The rule is very clear. A player must be replaced for a down, unless the halftime or an overtime intermission occurs if: “The helmet comes completely off during the down or subsequent dead-ball action related to the down without being directly attributable to a foul by an opponent.” Only explanation I can come up with, without seeing the play, is that the helmet only partially came off, and the player took it off the rest of the way to make some sort of adjustment before putting it back on. But that’s just a guess.

Saw a great piece of officiating at the game I observed last night. Home team scored a TD on a short run with a big pileup at the goal line. After the play there was a bit of a scuffle and some name-calling. The home team coaches started out on the field, clearly as “peacemakers, but got out almost to the hash before the line judge threw his flag and ordered them back to the sideline. The crew conferred and called offsetting unsportsmanlike conduct penalties on each time, and a sideline warning on the home team. By the black letter of the rule book, that could have been USC on the home team. But after the conference, they decided to administer as a sideline warning. Perfectly appropriate, by a veteran crew, who understood that the rule book is only the starting point. Judgment and discretion prevailed. They got a big upgrade from me for that.

Like a lot of people, you use the term “recruiting” like it’s a bad thing. Check the IHSAA bylaws. They don’t say anything about recruiting. They talk only about “undue influence.”

If the dead ball foul occurs before the ball is ready for play on the next down, it’s always 1st & 10.

I was in Jamaica last week. Practically had to beat the weed vendors away with a stick. I confess, I tried it ... but I didn’t inhale. 😜

Makes me nostalgic for the old days. #ditchweed 😉

There are more states in the US with fewer schools than Indiana, than there are that have more. Guess how many of them have an all in format. And as far taking away something good, just remember: “Good is the enemy of better.”

Exactly right. Add to it that Elmer was not the kind of guy that was going to say things people wanted to hear if he didn’t mean them. A Hall of Famer. Similar scenarios have been played out in several places, and it always mystifies me.

As a postscript to my earlier observation, I believe there are only 3 other Power 5 schools that have admission requirements comparable to ND: Stanford, Duke, and Georgia Tech. That 2 of the 3 are in the ACC was a significant factor in ND’s decision to “affiliate” with that conference. Now, if we could only convince Clemson to elevate their standards .... 😆

The admissions process at ND, like most places, is multi-factorial. So, there is no absolute “standard” against which applicants are measured, be they athletes or not. Each application is an individual decision. I can say 2 things, however, with confidence. 1. Notre Dame has higher eligibility standards than the NCAA. The latter requires students to maintain a 1.8/4.0 GPA, while ND requires a 2.0. And a 2.0 at ND is no laughing matter, since athletes do not have a P.E. major where they can take courses like recreational camping, or dodgeball 101. As a consequence, the admissions philosophy is that they won’t admit a student athlete who the admissions committee does not believe will achieve that. 2. The last assessment I saw on the subject said basically that if you took the top 100 recruits in a given year, ND would not even bother talking to 50 of them, because there would be no hope that they could withstand the scrutiny of the admissions process. Where Mr. Stepp falls in all this is unknown, at least, to me.

I’m confident Commissioner DT would have some sort of Veeck-like promotion that would pack ‘em in.

The concept of the Cluster system was, and remains, valid. The implementation was fatally flawed because the rules did not allow enough teams to qualify, leading to inequitable results. Expand the number of teams getting in, and problem solved.