On 2/15/2024 at 7:48 AM, btownqbcoach1 said:

I don't think we accomplish anything by not allowing certain teams in.  

Sure you do, you give actual meaning to the regular season. Why should every team be entitled to play a sectional game? I've never heard of another postseason format that entitles an 0-9 team who loses every game by 50 points the opportunity to play for a state championship. 

13 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

About the only state outside of Indiana i have a little bit of knowledge on is Illinois. From what I know, they don't have a lot of conference games. They travel a lot to play teams within their class. Because of conferences being the majority(for some schools the entirety) of the schedule, in some cases I just think things would get interesting in terms of who gets different seeds. Obviously we could go by different rating systems, but at the end of the day, if two good teams didn't play each other and one got in and the other didn't because of that rating system, you're gonna have some pissed off coaches.

If we go to the 1-16 seeding for all classes and do away with all-in, one thing that could help would be having a week 10 regular season game to schedule more of those out of conference games. 

There wouldn't be a "good" team left out of a system that cut a 64 team class to 32 at the conclusion of the regular season using a rating system/formula that calculated W-L record, opponent W-L, SOS, and opponent SOS. That I'm sure of. 

I am a huge proponent of adding a 10th regular season game.

2 hours ago, JQWL said:

We have that now and if seeded properly we wouldn't have it after week 1 of the post-season.

Ya at the expense of #1 and #2 beating each other in the 1st round. That’s the only way to justify 70-0 running clocks; “that’s the way the ping pong balls fall” aka the All-In blind draw.

If seeded appropriately, the IHSAA can no longer hide between CG or Ben Davis beating Tech 80-0 every year. Multiply that by 40 some sectionals and you get what’s called redundancy. It’s the only reason why seeding hasn’t yet been implemented because we all know what the next step.

52 minutes ago, JQWL said:

I feel like this number is high. In an 8 team seeded sectional, I think you'll get a running clock in around 50% of first round games. 

If seeded appropriately 1-8? I think 50% is low but for argument sake say it is 50%, do we really need 70-80 something “playoff” games with a running clock? Precisely why cutting the field in half at the conclusion of a new 10 game regular season is the next step.

22 hours ago, Bobref said:

My post in the Travel Rule thread:

 

I love it when one of our schools decides it wants to wear big boy pants all the time.

St. Frances is going to be interesting. They were “only” 5-6 last season. But their schedule included heavyweights like Buford (GA), Chaminade (FL), Mater Dei (CA), East St. Louis, (IL), St. John Bosco (CA), IMG (FL). A little road trip to Indianapolis is nothing for those guys.

St. Frances typically has about 7-9 high level FBS recruits. 

4 hours ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

Good luck finding something else

Ok Calpreps, Massey, create your own formula....

Literally every other state has some kind of rating or qualification system that seeds the postseason or counts for inclusion. 

52 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

I’ve said this before, if you’re going to do seeding, just get rid of the all-in then as well and go to a qualifier. 

That's the next step.

Once you appropriately seed the sectionals, the need for what is now considered the first round becomes redundant. There will be running clocks in 75-80% of games if and when they seed appropriately. 

We're getting there....slowly but surely. 

On 1/16/2024 at 11:14 AM, Bash Riprock said:

Looks like he did indeed interview....

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2024/01/14/jim-harbaugh-nfl-rumors-michigan-contract-updates-chargers-coaching-candidates-raiders/72225729007/

A couple of more spots may open up with terrible playoff performances....Dallas and Philly.  Going to get interesting.  Michigan is also working on an extension that I can only guess is extremely lucrative.  Will boil down to how badly he desires the NFL.  

Guess Belichick interviewed with Atlanta and assume he will be in demand as well, presenting a little competition.  Seems like a number of Raider players are pushing for their interim coach, Antonio Pierce.

And the Falcons as well

Jim Harbaugh reportedly meeting with Chargers.

4 hours ago, tango said:

LOL. I'm not sure that is the flex you think it is, Titan32, but hey, at least someone posted on the GID!!

Who's going to tell him that Lutheran isn't a Catholic high school?

17 hours ago, temptation said:

Harbaugh’s hands caught on the national championship trophy…

Temp…OUT.

Where'd he go?

3 minutes ago, temptation said:

There are a couple of exceptions to this rule (guys that have succeeded at both levels) but I just can’t put my finger on who they are…

One of them even lost QB1 and still went to the Super Bowl…and that QB1 was never the same after the coach departed.

Harbaugh and Carroll are certainly the exceptions. 

On 1/1/2024 at 10:18 PM, Boilernation said:

6-10 is is reality for a lot of NFL coaches who go into the season with no real talent at QB1. Not really sure it's that big of a blemish on the guy. Besides, the NFL has no bearing on being the GOAT in College. Resources? A lot of the Blue Bloods he's beaen over the years also have resources. Especially in the SEC. Feels like you're really reaching. The guy first won with with the strength of his defenses at LSU/Bama and then adjusted with the evolution of the game to build championship caliber offenses. He's the epitome of being a CEO as HC.

Seconded. Ask Belichick about that reality. 

Most coaches are only as good as their players. Frank Vogel went 54-110 in two years in Orlando, was fired, hired by the Lakers and won a championship the next year. Monty Williams went from winning 60 games a year in Phoenix to coaching the Pistons and went two entire months without recording a win. 

7 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

If you look at the larger window....it is definitely a possibility he is looking right past 68 toward 70 who is running in at the him...like he did the other times he reported.  In a attempt to game the Cowboys the Lions ended up confusing the official.  I can't feel bad for them.

If he didn't report (like he said he didn't) there's no reason to report the number on the assumption that he's reporting, especially when you have someone in front of your face reporting eligible. 

What video are you guys watching? 68 is at white hat reporting before 70 even gets into the picture. White hat looks and acknowledges 68 (there’s video). 70 never reported because 70 was never going to line up in an eligible position.

13 hours ago, Bobref said:

https://www.totalprosports.com/nfl/detroit-lions-blamed-nfl-penalty-deception/ 

REPORT: NFL Is Now Blaming The Lions For “Engaging In Deception And Gamesmanship” With Cowboys & Refs

It does not look like the NFL feels sorry for the Detroit Lions over what happened on Saturday.

According to Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, the NFL has no plans to change the rules on players reporting as eligible after Saturday night’s fiasco in Dallas.

To make matters worse, the league is actually placing blame on the Detroit Lions for what happened.

“Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL does not plan to change the procedure for players reporting as eligible. The league views the situation as an effort by the Lions to engage in deception and gamesmanship that backfired.”

 

Following Amon-Ra St. Brown’s touchdown reception that brought the team to within a point inside the final minute of the game. Jared Goff found offensive tackle Taylor Decker in the end zone for what appeared to be a successful two-point conversion. 
 

However, Decker was flagged for illegal touching and the conversion was nullified.

Replays showed Decker approaching referee Brad Allen before the play, presumably to report himself as an eligible receiver.

Allen said after the game that offensive tackle Dan Skipper, not Decker, was the one who reported as eligible.

Florio also explained the Lions included an added layer of deception by having Skipper and Decker both approach Allen before the snap.

“Basically, the Lions wanted the Cowboys to think Skipper was reporting as eligible and that Decker was not,” he wrote. “Which would have caused the Cowboys to cover Skipper, not Decker, when the play unfolded. The problem is that, in trying to confuse the Cowboys, the Lions confused Allen.”

Despite the league not changing any rules, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported a “large part” of Allen’s crew won’t be working the postseason because of multiple missed calls over the course of the season.

If 68 reported eligible and the crew announced anybody but 68 the fault lies with one person and one person only. 

Glad to see some new blood and both games be highly competitive. Refreshing for a change.

Thought UM would have opened as a much bigger favorite but suppose it'll get bet up a few more points before kick off. I do think UM has a big advantage in the trenches but Penix does such a great job of getting the ball out on time and delivering it on point. Michigan will ground and pound until Washington stops it, can they score enough points to keep it close?

6 hours ago, Bobref said:

Your incorrect understanding of the rule is preventing you from analyzing what happened on the field and reconciling the video and post-game statements. It is perfectly legal to have multiple players with ineligible numbers report as eligible, as long as they are correctly positioned at the snap. 

Why would #70 report as eligible lined up as a RT covered up by TWO players on that side of the LOS? 
 

There’s clear video evidence of #68 reporting as eligible and the official acknowledging it. #70 never reported as eligible, the official announced the wrong player and then doubled down on his mistake. It was a perfectly legal formation. The NFL downgrading this crew from playoff contention is their unofficial apology to the Lions that the crew screwed up. 

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

That does not explain why Campbell said after the game that both #68 and #70 were supposed to report as eligible.

What Campbell said after the game and what actually transpired on the field are two different things. Two people can’t report as eligible. #68 very clearly walks up to the referee to report as eligible and referee nods in acknowledgment. #70 is nowhere near the official. The Lions sent 3 lineman towards the official to try and deceit the Cowboys but ultimately ended up confusing the referee. 

The ref announced the wrong player eligible who was lined up in an ineligible position on the field to begin with. They really blew this call the more I read into it and the more video that surfaces.

15 minutes ago, Bobref said:

That runs counter to what Campbell said after the game. He said Detroit’s intent was to have both #70 and #68 be eligible … which can only happen legally if one or both of them lines up in the backfield. 

It appears the official mixed up the numbers of who reported as eligible and doesn’t want to own that mistake. Why would #70 (who didn’t even get close to the official upon substituting) report as eligible while he’s covered up?

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

Did a little more digging on this play, and it looks like the Lions were the ones who screwed this up. Campbell said after the game that both #68 and #70 reported as eligible, and they were told that they couldn’t designate 2 players. If that were the case, then their formation would have been illegal. Think about it. If both ##68 & 70 were on the ends of the line, and the 2 guards and center were in their accustomed positions, that’s only 5 players. The other 6 would have to be off the line — and you’re limited to no more than 4 in the backfield. So, there would have been an illegal formation foul at the snap. Also, if #68 reported as eligible, he would have been specifically identified to the defense: “#68 has reported as an eligible receiver.” It doesn’t appear that happened either.

Early in my career, a veteran official explained this sort of play to me as follows: “A fuc*ed up play deserves a fuc*ed up call.”

#70 appears to be lined up at RT and not on the end of the LOS. Does that change things? I just saw this clip this morning. Sounds like 68 is the one who reported eligible but the official announced 70 who was ineligible regardless because of where he was positioned. It looks the only way that formation would have been illegal is if the WR on the left side covered up 68. It appears he is lined up off the LOS.
 

I think Ryan Clark is a donkey but wondering if his interpretation is correct here?

@Bobrefcan you give us an explanation on the 2 pt play? 

Anybody but the SEC but I think we’re getting a Bama/Texas rematch.

Zero doubt the SEC will take credit if Texas wins.

2 hours ago, ragdoll said:

If Tom Allen goes to Penn St as DC, that says he has a lot of drive to win now. Will he become a torturer of IU football just as Kevin Wilson was at Ohio State?

Tom Allen will have a much larger voice and subsequent impact at Penn State (one way or the other) as DC than Kevin Wilson did at Ohio State. Wilson was OC in name-only. Ryan Day has and continues to call plays at Ohio State and did so throughout Wilson's entire tenure.

15 minutes ago, Staxawax said:

Of course I meant Tayven. Sorry for the mistake.  I'm surprised he's staying.  How ironic if Cherry commits and beats out his former HS classmate for the job.

He's going to have to compete if he wants to play at the B10 level. He's not there yet. I'm much more impressed with Cherry as a prospect coming out of high school than I was with Tayven. IU added a one year rental this year at QB so should be some healthy competition next in two years for the starting job assuming Tayven wants to battle. 

1 hour ago, temptation said:

I heard $15 million instead of $20 but could be wrong.

Yeah they negotiated it down from $21.8 million paid in monthly installments over the remainder of his contract life (4 years) that would have been offset by any future earnings to $15.5 million paid in two installments within a year.