Bobref

Please disregard. Some questions were raised about this morning’s e-mail regarding the IG enforcement. I contacted Asst. Commissioner Faulkens, and this comes directly from him. Hopefully, this will be the final clarification. 😂 The enforcement for IG has not changed from previous years, despite the new rule changing penalty enforcement for fouls by the offense behind the neutral zone. It is still a 5 yd. penalty from the spot of the foul, plus loss of down. Sorry for the confusion.

Anyone find this credible?

Folks, this is hot off the presses from the NFHS Rules Interpretation Meeting held in Seattle on June 29. There is an exception to the new rule on enforcing penalties for offensive fouls that occur behind the neutral zone. In the case of intentional grounding, that foul results in loss of down at the spot of the foul, with no distance enforcement. It is not previous spot enforcement as it is with other offensive fouls behind the NZ.

Here’s the MaxPreps rundown on Center Grove’s Week 1 opponent, the mighty, mighty Eagles of St. Edward. 3 P5 commits on the offensive line. As always, it’s a great day to be an Eagle! 2023 Preseason MaxPreps Top 25: No. 16 St. Edward Back-to-back Division 1 state champs return one of best offensive lines in the country. No. 16 St. Edward (Lakewood, Ohio) Head coach: Tom Lombardo | Record: 91-15, ninth season 2022 record: 15-1 | National ranking: No. 17 Last five years: 58-9 | State championships: (6) 2010, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2021, 2022 Players to watch OL — Deontae Armstrong Height: 6-7 | Weight: 285 Status: Committed to Ohio State | Class: Senior (2024) OL — Devontae Armstrong Height: 6-6 | Weight: 295 Status: Committed to Ohio State | Class: Senior (2024) QB — Casey Bullock Height: 6-2 | Weight: 205 Status: Uncommitted | Class: Senior (2024) DL — Troy Regovich Height: 6-5 | Weight: 270 Status: Uncommitted | Class: Senior (2024) OL — Ben Roebuck Height: 6-7 | Weight: 320 Status: Committed to Michigan | Class: Senior (2024) Key dates Aug. 19 — vs. Center Grove (Greenwood, Ind.) Aug. 27 — vs. No. 22 Good Counsel (Olney, Md.) Sept. 9 — at Elder (Cincinnati) Sept. 15 — at Washington (Massillon) Sept. 30 — vs. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) Oct. 20 — at Archbishop Hoban (Akron)

He gone! I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Can you say “lawsuit?”

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.’ Lewis Carroll — Through The Looking Glass

He’s toast.

“You’ll never work here again.” 😂🤣

🤣

I guess my viewpoint is that I don’t see buying ice cream as “supporting” some type of political opinions. Just like going to see a movie that has Jane Fonda in it is not “supporting” her political stance on the Vietnam War.

Very insightful post and, IMO, right on the money.

Tom Jones just turned 81. I was once diagnosed with “Tom Jones Disease.” When I told my doctor I had never heard of that, his response was “it’s not unusual.”

If you had ever tasted their Topped PB, you wouldn’t care if the CEO was Satan himself.

Their “topped” varieties are my favorite. Especially the peanut butter.

There are only 2 basic rules at the Rock.

For those of you hailing the decision as a blow for “equality,” there is another viewpoint. It’s based on principles of societal benefit, rather than legal reasoning. While I don’t agree with a lot of the author’s anti-SCOTUS remarks, he makes an excellent point about the value of diversity in the classroom. https://michaelleppert.com/yes-white-folks-the-u-s-supreme-court-hurt-you-too/ YES, WHITE FOLKS, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HURT YOU TOO The U.S. Supreme Court really outdid themselves at the end of their session this year. For the top cadre of the American judicial branch — one experiencing its lowest level of public confidence in the history of measuring it — you would think they would try harder. And now that the ink is dry on some of the court’s lowlights from last week, the white folks celebrating them should be sober enough to give these awful rulings a little thought. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION It is always fascinating to see the reactions to SCOTUS rulings. They often say more about the celebrators than they do about the decisions, and this week is a prime example. In the expected decisions ending affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Americans rejoicing were largely white, largely male, and largely Republican. It will take some time, but time will show how that bunch is largely wrong. Segments of our culture continue to display infinite smallness, and those supporting the decisions in Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) v Harvard/UNC-Chapel Hill, do so by claiming these are victories for fairness. “Merit-based” standards for college admission is the only way for the process to truly be fair, right? The problem with this shallow perspective primarily is its smallness. Look no further than the precedent that was overturned by the rulings themselves, the landmark decision on affirmative action, Regents of the University of California v Bakke in 1978 for guidance. Most of those celebrating this week don’t mention the reversal of the reasoning of this case, because the most important part of it is the finding that affirmative action in admissions provides obvious value to everyone. Kevin Brown, a former law professor at Indiana University, currently at the University of South Carolina, described the important standard from that case in an interview with The Atlantic. He said that in the ruling, the court “went on to say that the only justification for affirmative action was the educational benefits of having a diverse student body.” Those are educational benefits that white people benefit from too. Trust me. I’ve already seen it with my own eyes. The value of a diverse classroom cannot be overstated, and that value is felt by every student in the class. Yes, every student. No one in America won on Thursday when the court attempted to throw red meat at partisans who believe that any benefit felt by a minority is, by definition, a loss to the majority. The white majority will not benefit from a less diverse student body. And the white majority won’t always be the racial majority in America either. In the 1978 case, six of the nine justices wrote opinions. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” The decision ended quotas in admissions while touting the inherent value affirmative action provided. Compare the thoughtfulness that the court invested in the 1978 decision versus the lack of it in 2023, and it becomes clear how far the institution has fallen. Today’s court doesn’t seem to have the capacity to handle concepts as difficult as “equal but different.”

You don’t see any Penn people asking that question.

Same difference. The IHSAA wants to avoid divided loyalties.

We saw this sort of thing for years (before SCOTUS overruled Roe) when Indiana legislators passed bill after bill curtailing abortion, and were regularly enjoined by federal courts.

My understanding is the IHSAA doesn’t want a situation like this: Little Johnny’s School A doesn’t have a football team, so he plays on School B’s team. Then comes basketball season, and school A, with Johnny a team member, plays against School B.

😂🤣😆

I remember when I was in law school the Bakke case - one of the precedents overruled by the Court in this decision - was working its way through the 9th Circuit and headed for SCOTUS. We debated it endlessly. Regardless of your politics, anyone with a brain can recognize that there are compelling arguments on both sides. In reading the opinion, I was struck by Justice Thomas’ take on the issue. He’s not considered the greatest intellectual that ever sat on the Court. But he took a very practical view. America is, more than ever, a racial melting pot. Who is black? Who is Hispanic? Sometimes it’s obvious. But often it is not. Racial discrimination has been a problem in this country for a long time. Affirmative action was designed to create opportunities for those who would not otherwise have them because of that discrimination. But in the college admissions context, it sought to make up for “systemic” racism that saw people of color being denied opportunities, not because of the color of their skin, but because they otherwise didn’t meet standards due to inferior primary and secondary schooling - a consequence of systemic racism. Have we come far enough as a society to say that is no longer true, and thus the need for affirmative action in college admissions no longer exists? I don’t think that’s what the Court was saying. The opinion paints with a much broader brush than the college admissions process. There is going to be a lot of fallout from this decision. By the way, I think it’s fair to characterize both this decision and the earlier decision overturning Roe v. Wade as part of the legacy of President Trump.

I’m having knee surgery on the 17th and the game is the 19th so … no. ☹️

Both can be true.