oldtimeqb

Sounds like you have already assumed bias exists with referees. It’s tough to prove a negative.

No. No. No. If you want to argue it shouldn’t be until 42 points, the 4th quarter, or exist at all- fine. But once it runs, it runs. The starters should never be thrown back into a game just to preserve a running clock, perhaps after sitting for 30 minutes or more. If a losing team wants to shoot off fireworks and celebrate for a full minute after cutting the lead to 35-6 so be it. But the clock shouldn’t stop.

Whiting plays MD Saturday at the Bowl. Clarksville, Tennessee plays Friday. That’s almost 400 miles between schools that will use the visitor locker this weekend

According to the Evansville Courier, Kentucky’s mercy rule kicks in at 36. I kind of like that. It’s more than 5 scores, so something else had to happen besides 5 TD’s. Either a 2 pt, a safety, FG, etc. The idea of a team trailing by 35 and receiving the 2nd half kickoff still having a chance - at least one possession before it kicks in seems reasonable to me.

Indiana teams never get a fairly called game in Kentucky. So that Central/Owensboro matchup will be interesting

Conference championship in week 2? Quite possibly

I’ll play Switzerland and say it was probably just an honest miscommunication between the two. Lol If a ref told me it stops ‘after a score’ and I’m the clock operator, I would assume I stopped it after a TD. PAT’s are untimed. Actually reading the rule, it doesn’t stop until after the PAT. First week under a new rule. I remember similar issues with the :40/:25 that ironed themselves out after a week or two.

I would have liked to see a year w/ 6 quarters prior to mercy rule as well. Mercy rule good: It limits chances (snaps) for injury to starters in a blowout. It also allows the JV kids to run a true offense. Out of bounds, incomplete passes, etc. don’t stop the clock, so you aren’t forced to run a kid straight up the middle for 3 plays and punt. Bad: I would have preferred 42 at half/35 4th.

If memory serves, Union is not a public school anymore. Their school was consolidated - or should I say contracted - into neighboring districts. I think this is the group of families who started a charter school after that. By the same token, to use your logic - East Germany and West Germany contracted their Olympic Programs.

Amazing how both the PAC thread and SIAC threads can quickly get derailed. Best of luck to the Titans and Tigers tonight. My biggest ? - with the running clock, will the beer in Fort Branch have proper amount of time to get cold? 😀

Snyder? Snider? I could have sworn it was Dave Schneider.

It doesn’t really matter now, since the IHSAA has made their ruling, but the 2018 Boys state track championship featured a 4x100 team of Evans, Evans, Evans, and Wilkerson from Princeton. http://www.ihsaa.org/Portals/0/boys sports/track/2017-18/201718BStateHeatSheets.pdf

Is it possible that he served the suspension by sitting out of a track meet while enrolled at Princeton? Or would the suspension have to be in the sport he got ejected from? Great week for the #FaceOfSportsmanship

It’s rather quite simple. Had Luers been a 2A playing 3A they had enough success to remain 3A rather than dropping to 2A. Instead, they were a 3A playing 3A and had success, but not enough success, so they can drop to 2A rather than be bumped up to 4A. I was waaaay off last month when I said this whole success factor business was a convoluted mess with arbitrary rules.

First I will reiterate - this whole Punish Success Factor business is a convoluted mess. Second - Did I miss something? I thought the whole point of the "keep up" part of the Punishment Factor was only applied to schools who had been bumped up previously. I didn't think it applied to ALL schools. I could be wrong and misunderstand. But FW Luers and Snider ARE NOT in the same position. FW Luers was 3A by enrollment (601 in 15-17, and 617 in 17-19) which put them in the middle of class. Now their enrollment is 542. They are 2A by size. Snider was 5A by enrollment in 15-17, Bumped up to 6A in 17-19, and then Kept up in 6A by success. Bishops Luers' drop is a bona fide enrollment issue. Look at those class sizes on the left hand side of the graphic @Titan32 posted. Replacing a senior class of 193 with a freshman class of 129? Darn right that would affect your enrollment.

It’s a good thing the EVSC administration has not shown favoritism towards any schools. If only there was someone at IHSAA in Indy who could pull some strings.

I had heard a rumor they were hosting a team from Tennessee. Which team exactly wasn't mentioned, but that would agree with what I heard.

Nice moving the goalposts there. http://www.ihsaa.org/Portals/0/ihsaa/documents/about ihsaa/2018-19 By Laws.pdf I will say I’m not an expert on the IHSAA by-laws but looking at Rule 15-3 (page 59) only one sport specially has its summer contest days limited. There might be a limit somewhere else in the by-laws but I don’t know. I can say as a parent of a multi - sport athlete, that he has attended ‘voluntary’ open gyms to football workouts by about 2 to 1.

Surely you are not saying volleyball and basketball aren’t sports? Like Coach Nowlin said, my beef isn’t that IHSAA has a moratorium week. It’s that there is zero restrictions on summer club/AAU sports. Not sure going back to Aug 1 and 2-a-days would solve anything. I can tell you this much - every HS football coach I’ve known will follow the rules. I can’t speak to club sports.

I think it’s a ridiculous double standard imposed on IHSAA coaches and teams. I get the purpose of moratorium week. However my son who plays football isn’t allowed to use the HS weight room, workout with his coaches, or have organized team activities. Meanwhile he has friends playing club volleyball in Indianapolis and AAU basketball in Louisville. Multiple games each day. Both events have hundreds of teams in every age group, and it would be a safe bet to say some are from more than 300 miles away. I don’t have any answers, it’s just something that grinds my gears and felt this was the place to vent!

The ENTIRE success factor promotion and "stay up" factors are 100% arbitrarily set. The success factor points and 2 year count process could easily be changed a number of ways which would yield other results. @Bobref claims the system is designed for when teams 'consistently' overwhelm the competition. Really? Is TWO years consistent? Or is it the byproduct of a good class of athletes attending a school at the right (or wrong, depending on perspective) time? East Central High school from 2015-2018 is a great example. Those four years: state runner up, Regional Champ, State Champ, Sectional Champ. That's 10 points in a 4 year span. 6 points in a two year span. But because it's a two year cycle that resets, they never bumped up to 5A. Meanwhile Indianapolis Scecina has losing seasons in 2009 and 2010. Then they are state runner up in 2011 and 2012. That's 6 points in two years - the RIGHT two years by the arbitrarily set standard and they get bumped up. So which team consistently played above their class? So the system currently in place tells Scecina they've had "enough" success while East Central hasn't. Got it. Making a change like a rolling 2 year count, a 4 year cycle count, adding a bonus to a state championship - making it worth 5 points instead of 4. All of these tweaks could be made to the current system. Would we say teams that get promoted under that system would be more or less representative of consistent success? And both @BTF and @slice60 feel Snider has been competitive enough in 6A. Perhaps. I am not downplaying any team that wins a sectional, representative of a good season and lots of hard work by the teams. But my biggest beef is that sectionals are somewhat geographically constructed and teams are blindly drawn. Being best in your local area is good enough, and not when judged against the entire state. The problem is not all sectionals are created equally, and it's more noticeable in 5A and 6A when there are four teams. New Pal is currently playing in 5A. So winning Sectional 14 should be viewed the same as winning sectional 13? And both of those are the same as winning sectional 16 two years in a row? Southridge is playing up in 3A. They were put in sectional 32. Winning sectional 32 is the same as winning sectional 30? And those are both the same accomplishment as winning sectional 28 in back to back years? No, I don't think being the best around and winning your sectional in two years is "enough" success to keep you up, when you had to be one of the best in the ENTIRE state to get promoted. And as the East Central/ Scecina comparison proves, even getting bumped up is more a matter of timing than continued success.

It’s really quite genius of the IHSAA. By putting Cathedral in 4A and Snider in 5A, we are arguing the uniform application of the ‘keep up’ rule. In the meantime no one argues the stupidity of lowering it from 3 points to 2, or even the validity of a success factor rule. Genius.

Off the top of my head, SIAC schools have played non-conference games against Henderson Co, Daviess Co, Owensboro, OCath, Apollo, TH North and South, Princeton, Washington, Pike Central, Crawford Co, New Albany, Jasper, and Indian Creek in the first two weeks of the last few years. There are probably a few more. There should be plenty of schools looking for partners if the SIAC decides on a 9 gamer. I am slightly disappointed that there won’t be a crossover game, but I can see the argument against it. The ‘championship’ game only makes sense if the conference it evenly split or done geographically.

The rumors I heard suggested the SIAC was going to split east-west down 41 (roughly). Boonville, Jasper, Castle, Harrison, Bosse, and Memorial to the east. Vincennes, Gibson Southern, North, Reitz, Central, and Mater Dei to the west. That’s fairly balanced in terms of school size, if you consider Memorial is 3A by enrollment. It’s all a moot point now.

Seems about right if you saw last year’s sectional. The best Boonville team in a generation needed to score a last minute touchdown to beat Bosse - who went 1-6 in the SIAC. That result probably scared them from joining. Edit: I guess if I read the article first, I would have seen that probably was true! My bad.