Bobref

It was 50-0 at halftime. Tardy rushed for 300 yds. The LB you refer to was “Brick Graham,” who went on to play at Michigan. In addition to being a fabulous linebacker, he was also their “wedgebuster” on the kick coverage team. I had a great view when WC kicked off — and the kicked off a lot. With a 40 yd. running start, when that guy hit the wedge it sounded like a bomb going off.

And, in the example given, a Texas school could still be playing for a conference championship, too. The observation remains valid.

You probably realize this is a powerful argument for a playoff qualification system. The implication of your statement is that games where playoff qualification is an issue are more meaningful than those where it isn't. We have 9 of those latter type of games in Indiana.

Honestly, I don’t feel that I know enough about criminal procedure to have a comprehensive opinion on that subject. It’s not what I do. But the first thing that occurs to me is that many times a criminal investigation/prosecution involves multiple defendants. As some plead out and agree to cooperate, the prosecutors learn new information that can lead to additional charges against the remaining subjects of the prosecution/investigation. Nothing particularly nefarious about that.

In 2003 we probably had the best post-season run an officiating crew ever had. From the first week of the sectional through the semi state our 5 games were all decided by 5 points or fewer, and all within the last 60 seconds of the 4th period. I know @Coach Nowlin remembers one of them. 😀 Then we worked the 5A title game in the RCA Dome between Penn and Warren Central ... which was another story entirely.

???

Be careful what you ask for. If prosecutors had to stop incentivizing defendants to plea bargain, and had to try all those cases, either the constitutional right to a speedy trial would become meaningless, or we’d have to triple the number of prosecutors and double the number of judges, courtroom personnel, physical facilities, etc. You willing to pay for that?

When they play at ND, it’s always in October. When they play at USC, it’s in November. The whiny, wimpy Trojans would never come to the Midwest in November. No harm done.

I could tell you ... but then I’d have to kill you. 😅

The folks at ND don’t make a big deal out of it. It’s just accepted as a part of the University’s culture.

“Notre Dame” is French, of course. The full name is “University of Notre Dame du Lac.” But the similarity ends there. 😉

It’s not a “gentlemens’ agreement.” It’s a matter of honor. Believe it or not, at Notre Dame some things are even more important than national championships. Here’s the story: In World War II, enrollment had declined to the point where the University was no longer financially viable. Notre Dame was on the brink of closing the doors for good. But the Navy came calling and rented dormitory space in which to house it’s V-12 trainees. The rent the Navy paid allowed Notre Dame to remain solvent, and when the war ended, and enrollment went back up, the University went on to become a world renowned institution — all made possible by the largesse of the Navy. Notre Dame considers that it owes an honor debt to Navy which can never be repaid. Their game each year is just an installment payment on that debt. If you ever get a chance to go to a Notre Dame - Navy game, you’ll understand there is a special relationship there that goes far beyond a football game. As I said, at Notre Dame, some things are more important than national championships. Honor is one of them. I hope it’s always that way. It’s just one of the things that makes it such a special place.

Notre Dame will never stop playing Navy, that much I can state with absolute confidence. I have explained the reasoning before. But I assure you, if that series ever ends, it will be Navy’s idea, not Notre Dame’s.

Have the GID admins ever considered a “membership drive?” We all know lots of high school, college, and pro football fans. If everyone signed up here could get just one other person to join, we’d be in the tall cotton in terms of funds. This is the most exciting time of year for HS football, and the college football playoff extravaganza is about to start (the first FCS rankings come out Nov. 5). This would be prime recruiting time.

I’m on record as advocating ND for full membership in the ACC, but I’d be content to see them in the B1G. I just want them in a Power 5 conference so, when the time comes, they can have a conference championship game on their resume for playoff qualifying purposes. The problem is that the B1G plays 9 conference games (plus the conference championship game). If they expand to 16, they’re certainly not going to play fewer. That leaves 3 non-conference games which, for the Irish, means they only get 1 “discretionary” game, since they will always play Navy and USC. Because of their academic restrictions, ND needs to have a truly national recruiting base. Historically, they have filled this need by playing games around the country, to show the flag on a national basis. So, unless the B1G eliminates “crossover” games between East and West, it would be very difficult.

Regardless of the outcome, these cases will generate a firestorm of controversy. Should be a lot of fun to watch. http://www.dri.org/docs/default-source/webdocs/the-voice/2019/voice_10_23_19.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Supreme Court Will Render Landmark Decisions Regarding LGBTQ Protection Under Title VII By Chelsea E. Thompson This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court heard three employment cases that collectively ask: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of…sex,” encompass discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity? The legal landscape surrounding this question is complex, with state statutes, municipal ordinances, circuit court decisions, and federal policy overlapping and conflicting. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision could signal sweeping change in employment, housing, credit, and other areas subject to discrimination prohibitions. Cases Before the Supreme Court On October 8, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Title VII employment discrimination protections in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., and Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’ v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. Bostock and Zarda deal with sexual orientation, which GLAAD, a nongovernmental media-monitoring organization founded by LGBTQ individuals in the media, defines as “an individual’s enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to members of the same and/or opposite sex.” Harris addresses gender identity, which GLAAD defines as “a person’s internal, deeply held sense of their gender.” According to Gallup, 4.5 percent of the U.S. population identifies as LGBTQ in 2019, meaning that these cases could provide Title VII protection to over 11 million individuals. A Divided Federal Government The Supreme Court must evaluate Title VII while navigating the complex—and often contradictory—legal landscape regarding LGBTQ employment discrimination. Perhaps the best demonstration of this contradiction is in the federal government. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held that Title VII protected gender identity (2012) and sexual orientation (2015) as subsets of “sex” and began administering claims on those grounds. In 2018 alone, the EEOC received 1,811 sexual orientation/gender identity discrimination cases (double those in 2013) and resolved 2,101 such cases with awards totaling $6.1 million. Thus, the EEOC not only recognizes LGBTQ protection under Title VII but is increasing enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on the other hand, submitted an amicus curiae brief and argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of employers. Its position, in part, is that the ordinary definition of “sex” does not include sexual orientation or gender identity, and Congress—not the Supreme Court—should clarify the scope of Title VII. As a result, two federal agencies have taken diametrically opposed positions, underscoring the need for Supreme Court intervention. The Recent Federal Circuit Court Split The federal circuit courts are equally divided on the issue. Historically, cases held that Title VII did provide protection based on an individual’s sexual orientation. Scrutiny of this case law intensified in 2015, due, in part, to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision recognizing same-sex marriage and the EEOC’s recognition that Title VII applies to sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus, a circuit split was born: The Second Circuit (Zarda), Sixth Circuit (Smith v. City of Salem), and Seventh Circuit (Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana) held that sexual orientation and/or gender identity falls within Title VII protection; and The Fifth Circuit (Wittmer v. Phillips 66), Tenth Circuit (Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority), and Eleventh Circuit (Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital and Bostock) found that sexual orientation and/or gender identity do not. Because of these decisions, the Supreme Court faces a nearly even, though still developing, circuit split regarding Title VII’s protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A Patchwork of State and Local Antidiscrimination Laws Given the uncertainty surrounding Title VII’s protections for LGBTQ individuals, some states have legislatively enacted statutes to incorporate protections at the state level. According to the Human Rights Campaign and the Movement Advancement Project, the patchwork consists of the following: •Twenty-one states, two territories, and Washington, DC, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; •One state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation; •Two states interpret existing statutes on sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and/or gender identity; •Seven states prohibit discrimination against public employees based on both classifications; and •Four states prohibit discrimination against public employees based on sexual orientation. The states are therefore evenly split on the issue. Currently, 26 states and three territories have no state protections against LGBTQ employment discrimination, leaving these employees to rely principally on Title VII. This data raises two important caveats. First, the Supreme Court’s decisions will affect state-level antidiscrimination laws to the extent that they rely on the EEOC for investigation and enforcement. If the Supreme Court finds that Title VII does not cover gender identity or sexual orientation, the EEOC could no longer assist the states. Second, municipal and county ordinances may offer protection where no statewide law exists. According to the Movement Advancement Project, roughly half the states have at least one city or county with its own nondiscrimination ordinance. These ordinances, however, have a varying impact due to population density. For example, in West Virginia, a dozen cities have such ordinances, but those ordinances encompass only 12 percent of the state’s population. Collectively, federal Title VII cases, state statutes, and municipal or county ordinances create a complicated patchwork of employment discrimination protection for LGBTQ Americans, with geography being a determining factor. Conclusion: The Stage Is Set for Change This term, the Supreme Court will evaluate the piecemeal protections currently in place and decide whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of…sex” within the meaning of Title VII. It remains to be seen how Bostock, Zarda, and Harris will change our legal and social landscape. It is certain, though, that these landmark decisions will undoubtedly reverberate well beyond employment law.

I don’t know ... Mickey D’s french fries are awfully good.

Nope. Legal blocking below the waist can only occur if both players involved were on the line of scrimmage at the snap, the contact occurs in the free blocking zone, and the ball is still in the free blocking one.

Yes, I remember that night well. We had to dress in the band room. Some kids came in to get their instruments while we were in there. Pretty sure the experience scarred them for life. And yes, Bowman is hosting Andrean at Gary West Side Friday night. I’ll be in the house.

Gary Roosevelt has a stadium ... unless they knocked it down since I was last there. I confess, it’s been a while.

Forfeit.

And I was glad to see that Coach Curtis finally has his offensive line setting for a second before the snap. 😀

I suppose he could have asked the kid to show him a mouth guard.

Calling back a TD for a block in the back well behind the play should only happen if the contact was significant enough to rise to the level of UNR. Ordinarily, a block in the back is not considered a safety foul, and therefore, should only be called when it places the defense at a disadvantage. My suggestion would be if the contact is sufficient to warrant a flag, call it UNR, not a block in the back. There is plenty of rules support for this. 9-4-3 “ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall: b. Charge into or throw an opponent to the ground after he is obviously out of the play,” I think 30 yds. behind the runner qualifies as “obviously out of the play.” On the forum where I got this play, you would not believe the number of officials who said the block in the back should be flagged and the TD called back.