Bobref

I love this idea. The only reason these kids don’t have a shot at the NFL is a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the players. Other kids their age have the right to go out in the world and try their hand at their chosen pursuit. Why shouldn’t they?

Try and think of it in terms of economics. That may make it clearer. In a qualification format, the ability to participate in the postseason is a relatively scarce good. The demand for that good outstrips the supply. The inevitable result of demand markedly greater than supply is competition among consumers, which drives up the price. In this case, the consumers are the players, coaches, administrators, students and fans — all the stakeholders in high school football. Increased competition between consumers for that scarce good means the price consumers are willing to pay to obtain that good goes up. Simply put, in a qualification format, the stakeholders are willing to do more to get into the playoffs. This means better regular season football in Indiana.

Be careful what you ask for ...

Some people are missing the point. This thread is not about the wisdom of the changes MLB is contemplating. It’s about the fact that a multi-billion dollar organization decided that an effective way to bring more meaning to their regular season is to manipulate the playoff format to make more regular season games have meaningful consequences for the post season. As long as we have an all-in, unseeded tournament, we are denying ourselves the use of the tool that MLB has decided is the most effective way to generate greater interest and excitement in the regular season. A shame that people on here ostensibly to promote the game of high school football don’t — or won’t — recognize the real opportunity cost of the present system.

You can’t possibly be that unaware. Currently, 1 out of 3 MLB teams make the playoffs. This proposal would expand that to just under 50% (14 out of 30) and, thus, keep more teams in contention for the postseason longer, resulting in a better and more competitive regular season. An all-in format doesn’t have any teams “in contention,” because they all make it. Surely you can see the difference?

MLB certainly doesn’t think so, and you can bet they’ve done a lot of sophisticated market research before they reached that conclusion.

Big changes to the MLB playoff process are being proposed now. What does that have to do with Indiana high school football? It just confirms something that some of us have been saying for years. If you want to make the regular season games more exciting, ignite fan interest, keep people and teams engaged to the greatest extent possible, you take steps to make those regular season games more meaningful with respect to post-season opportunity. MLB has obviously realized that changing the playoff protocol is a legitimate and effective way to do that. In order to make regular season games more meaningful, they are proposing changes that would keep more teams fighting for more playoff spots. It would increase playoff participation from 10 to 14 teams. The stated purpose is to make the stakes for regular season games higher, to make for more competitive games, greater "buzz" and, of course, the increased revenue that flows from that. This teaches us that the most sophisticated minds in sports see using the playoff structure as a way to improve the regular season … just what we should be doing in Indiana with at least playoff seeding, and better still, a playoff qualification format.

Now we will see if the culture at Portage is ready for a change that will restore this once great program. Because whether they know it or not, Hell is coming to breakfast.

If you accept the proposition that nothing comes without a cost, your question then gets split into three, all of which have to be answered: Just exactly what is a person “entitled “ to? How is that decided? Who is going to pay for it. I thought the article stated that part of the issue quite well. A lot of the rest was just “make weight,” IMO. But those basic points are right on the money.

The proper question is not whether it is a good idea to have to suffer through a presidency that does all that, but does not include actual criminal behavior. The question is whether that’s what the Constitution requires. It seems pretty clear that criminal behavior is required: “High crimes and misdemeanors.”

Would love to see if his offense works when you’re playing the big kids every Friday night.

Where do they still arrest people for that?

I was only pointing out his current lack of connection to Harvard. He’s no doubt a brilliant legal scholar. But he’s also more than just a bit of a contrarian. Appropriately, I have no idea what his personal politics are, because that’s not what drives the causes he takes up.

That might be a little harsh ... let’s just say he tends to take positions that end up getting him in front of the camera. He’s a good enough lawyer to be able to convincingly argue for whatever side he chooses. It’s not really ideology. He’s a professional “devil’s advocate.”

Dershowitz retired from Harvard a little over 6 yrs. ago. Nowadays he’s basically a quote machine in search of a microphone or camera.

No, but I believe he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😀

Best name of all time: George Costanza, alias “Buck Naked.” 😅😂🤣

CG’s Austin Booker drawing interest from Notre Dame. https://247sports.com/Article/Notre-Dame-stops-in-to-see-in-state-2021-pass-rusher-142679774/

Please. My self esteem can’t take many more hits like that one. 🙄

How about “DKDC because even though I know it’s my civic duty, I can’t bring myself to watch or read about any of it because it just makes me want to puke?” 🤮🤮🤮