Bobref

2 hours ago, BLACKGOLD2007 said:

Under Gees it was always about the man to your right and to your left.

One of the things I liked about Coach Geesman is that he had a standard, and it was the same regardless of the score or who was playing. True story: We were at Freed and Penn was crushing someone. It was the 4th quarter and they were pretty far into the depth chart. A Penn offensive lineman false started and Coach Geesman just about lost it. He was almost out to the numbers when my line judge, facing the field of play, stepped in front of Coach and just started backing up. He backed Coach all the way back to the sideline. When they got there, Coach said “You just saved a sophomore’s life.”

3 hours ago, temptation said:

This is actually a fair point and the correct answer but triggering @Bobref is so damn fun and easy.

It took him less than 20 minutes to reply.

Now that I know I entertain you, I can die having accomplished my life’s purpose.

14 minutes ago, temptation said:

Good for him. Now let’s see which goes higher in the draft.

7 hours ago, Boilernation said:

Embrace it, Bob. Dont' be afraid to get sucked into the hype. We finally have our franchise QB! 😁

That would be great … but I’ll believe it when I see it. Until then, I’m not pinning my hopes on a guy who paints messages to opponents on his fingernails, refused to provide medical information … or do anything at the combine, and has come up small in many big games. That is especially true when he comes from that place out of California. When you think about the haul in draft capital they could get for trading that pick … we’ll, he’s going to have to be awfully good awfully soon to justify passing that up.

36 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said:

Russ WIlson on open market now too 

Trying to figure out whether this improves the trade market for Fields, or not. I think not. One more veteran QB capable of starting on the market, and I don’t see Denver as a destination for Fields. Plus, Russ is dirt cheap.

46 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

What a tool:  

And I think Keith Olberman should be dissolved. He should have stuck with Sports Center.

30 minutes ago, swordfish said:

SCOTUS says Individual States can't take the former President off the ballot by claiming insurrection.  

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/breaking-supreme-court-unanimously-overturns-colorado-ruling-throwing-trump-off-ballot/

That the opinion was unanimous is very significant. Increases the legitimacy of the decision … and the Court.

3 hours ago, Coach Nowlin said:

They never really had leverage in first place because I think the entire NFL was willing to call POLES bluff on keeping FIELDS 

So there was really no leverage anyways.   The question remains if you can still get a 2nd round for him....its looking dicey 

 

Their trade position deteriorates with every free agent QB signing. Mike Evans got an extension, so Baker Mayfield is probably going to re-sign with the Bucs. 

For me, it’s difficult to be objective about Caleb Williams since he’s from USC. But there are an awful lot of red flags popping up. Either way, it’s time for the Bears to fish or cut bait. Deals are getting done. Free agency starts in a week, and the Bears are losing leverage in the Fields trade market.

Happy 136th birthday to the legendary Knute Rockne!

Note from the NFL Scouting Combine: There’s no doubt who stands atop the leaderboard in the “Best Hair” category.

2 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

If the TE is not breaking the waist of the snapper how is he still allowed to be classified as a lineman?

I know it happens all the time but by rule he is not a lineman.

Definition states lineman must break waist of the snapper. I cant find anything saying they just have to break waist of nearest lineman. Albeit my rule book is 2021 model...

That’s what I was trying to convey. In that scenario, the tight end is not on the line.

25 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

everyone else is a back

Again, not true.7

25 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

You are well respected but this comment deserves a flag.

It’s more of a knock against me than you. I clearly did not understand what you were trying to get across because I was thinking in rulebook language. Non-officials don’t do that.

6 hours ago, JustRules said:

The issue is he's using the term "back" as a player wearing an eligible number and referred to as a running back on the roster.

It’s finally happened. I have lost the ability to communicate effectively to civilians. I can make myself understood only to other officials. 🙁

44 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

Correct, but in the example the player does not break the plane through the waist of the snapper, which makes him a back.

However, because he breaks plane of the nearest lineman that makes him a back that is on the line. 

Am I wrong? If so, hopefully this point of emphasis this year clears this gray area up.

 

Yes, you are wrong on several counts. You can’t have a back “on the line.” Your problem is that you feel compelled to classify a player as either a back or a lineman, and that is incorrect.

If any part of his body is breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn ­parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, he cannot be a back. But if his head or foot is not breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped, he cannot be a lineman, either. That is the issue. He’s neither “fish nor fowl,” and that is illegal under the rule as written. Yet, it happens all the time.

Picture a wingback, located just outside the tight end, and in a 3 pt. stance. His helmet breaks the plane through the waist of the tight end, but not the plane through the waist of the snapper. That is an illegal formation at the snap. 

35 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

Based on the definitions your example of a player that has a part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman makes this player on the line, correct?

Not necessarily. He’s on the line if he’s breaking the plane through the waist of the snapper.

7 minutes ago, temptation said:

Counterpoint to your most important point though:  Stetson Bennett was nowhere near 1st round QB talent.

I suppose you can win without elite QB play … if you surround your “good” QB with 5 star talent at every other position. But as you pointed out, “ND simply isn't going to "out five star" the usual guys (Bama, OSU, UGA).” 

59 minutes ago, temptation said:

You can win a national championship with the caliber and type of player ND typically recruits…trust me…😉

I don’t know about trusting you … 😂🤣 … but we’re in agreement here. But “can” is the operative word. The margin for error is much smaller. So, it certainly “can” happen. But everything has to break right; they have to be lucky with injuries and with the schedule. And most importantly, they need a 1st round draft choice talent at QB.

16 minutes ago, US31 said:

And to use your quote....ND appears to be happy getting to a nice bowl with smart kids.

Notre Dame has held to a particular set of values for over 180 years. Any practice, of any type, that is inconsistent with those values is a nonstarter. They will win their way, or they won’t win … and every true Notre Dame person is fine with that. Believe it or not, the University is bigger than any sport, TV contract, or national championship.

1 hour ago, BTF said:

My vote is for Notre Dame to not sell their soul to the devil

That will never happen.

On 1/13/2024 at 11:27 AM, Whiting89 said:

Out of curiosity can ND get anyone out of transfer portal or do they still have to meet some academic criteria?

Their standards are the same, whether you are coming out of high school, or through the portal.

12 minutes ago, BTF said:

The way I'm reading it, Bob is correct.

I can’t take credit … if I was correct. I stole it from a post by @temptation, who posted that ND’s “ceiling” under the new plan was #5. Since he is the clearinghouse for all things potentially negative about Notre Dame, I trust his interpretation. 😉

So, the new college football 12 team playoff is in place. Jack Swarbrick (on his way out the door in a few months) was one of the unanimous votes for the plan. Under the new format, even if ND is ranked in the Top 4 at the end of the regular season, the highest they can be seeded is #5, meaning they have to win 4 playoff games to win the natty.

If this comes back to bite them (they have to get to the Top 4 first), the inevitable result will be an even louder outcry for the Irish to join a conference. They’ve always said a few things would have to happen for ND to reconsider its position on conference affiliation. One of them is if independent status was a formidable obstacle to competing for a championship. This might be it.

6 hours ago, JQWL said:

It does seem like with what you're wanting to do is add a 10th which according to you would add a meaningless game. It wouldn't make it a playoff atmosphere for teams trying to qualify because we'd use some kind of mathematical formula to determine if you're in the top half that wouldn't come out until you know the scores of all the games Saturday. If you're not in the top 50% after week 9, then it won't change much after week 10.

All I can say is that you’re dead wrong about all of that. Take a look at a state like Ohio. That last weekend of the season, you have de facto elimination games, where whether you get in or not depends on that last game. You think those teams, their fans, the coaches, the media, don’t keep track of their Harbin points, and those of other playoff contenders? The last few weeks of the season all they talk about is potential playoff scenarios based on “what ifs.” Just like the pros … and college … and every place else but Indiana. 

46 minutes ago, JQWL said:

It always amazes me on a forum that should be for promoting football in Indiana, the amount of people on this forum that either want to eliminate teams completely or eliminate teams from playing games. There is nothing wrong with the all-in. Kids get very few football games to play in their entire lives and once it's done, it's done. Let's not try and minimize the experience just so fans can feel like it "means more."

A very typical “objection” to a qualifying format: all emotion and supposition. No facts or logic.

By the way in a top 50% qualification format, you can add a 10th regular season game and the number of games played in the season, in total, is the same as it is now, so the experience is not “minimized.”