Footballking16

3 minutes ago, Bobref said:

A system of rules designed to accomplish a particular result should not be written to address the “one in a million” situation at the expense of the great majority of students wishing to change schools and continue to participate in athletics without suffering eligibility restrictions.

It's not a one in a million situation, and again, you'd have to be naïve to not think of the unintended consequences of an open market transfer portal in high school athletics. There were 1000+ transfers in the immediate year following the NCAA's decision to grant a one time transfer waiver to all players, which more than doubled from the year prior. 

5 minutes ago, crimsonace1 said:

The "tampering" is easier on hardwood because travel teams can be used as intermediaries. The coach doesn't have to contact kids ... he can simply have an "in" with a travel program and have the travel program (or parents in that program) do it for them. 

High school football doesn't quite have that "travel" component and so the third-party access isn't quite as great (although with Team Indiana in Indy and specialized private speed/skill coaches - who just happen to be affiliated with high school programs - there are some avenues for "recruiting," but it's not as widespread). 

Correct. And if the IHSAA lifts any restriction on athletically motivated transfers, what is to stop an elite AAU program like Spiece Indy Heat which features a ton of good local prospects from colluding with one another as AAU teammates to all transferring to one high school? 

Is it an extreme example? Probably, but it's not unheard of or unfathomable. With social media the way it is today, you already see high school recruits recruiting one another to come join them in the collegiate ranks, why stop there?

Lifting restrictions on athletically motivated transfers is going to come with some severe unintended consequences. 

9 minutes ago, FootballQB1 said:

Cathedral's schedule gets pretty easy at this point. Irish only struggle with athletic teams like Brownsburg, Ben Davis, Warren Central, & Center Grove. I see a running clock in this one with Penn scoring late. 49-14 Irish.

I disagree that Cathedral struggles with those type of teams nowadays. Cathedral is more adept in the skill department than they were 10 years ago when they were regularly playing WC, Ben Davis, etc. Cathedral lost to Brownsburg because they were manhandled up front. Brownsburg beat Cathedral up front time after time (and Cathedral has 2 D1 recruits on the DL), pure and simple. Couple that with extremely poor special teams play, a few dumb penalties that extended drives for Brownsburg, and a costly turnover inside the 10 yard line, and that's how you lose a one score game. 

3 minutes ago, whiteshoes said:

I do complete a Top 100 for two national forums every week and you are correct when you state that Indiana teams are tough to gauge because of the limited OOS games.    Hopefully, the change in the 300-mile rule will allow that to happen more as we move forward.    A national promoter has told me that he is in touch with some Indiana teams regarding some possible matchups with national relevant teams in the next several years.    However, getting back to ranking Indiana teams, a look at last year's Center Grove team is a good study.   They were ranked in everyone's (including mine) top fifteen teams in the country.    The other fifteen teams' level of competition was much more difficult than was Center Grove's.    Then as you watch Center Grove eking out a championship win over an unranked but determined Westfield team, it gives you pause when they are being put at a level of say Duncanville (TX), Fort Lauderdale (FL) St. Thomas Aquinas, or any other team ranked in that tier.   On top of that, I have to really be careful with Indiana teams to avoid bias, one way or the other.

We had a previous poster spanning multiple handles on here who used to always advocate for a CG/Carmel vs IMG type match-up. I don't think even DT, in all his infinite wisdom, could really understand the level of mismatch that a program like IMG or any of the regular top 10 nationally teams would present for a team like Center Grove or Carmel or any team for Indiana for that matter. 

This is why I'm always skeptical of where Indiana teams stack up nationally whenever they appear in some of these national rankings list. I bet if you did a week by week list like this, you would find that most of these teams in the top 100 are playing against top 100 competition (or close to it) week after week, whereas a team from Indiana ranked in the top 100 is only playing 1-2, maybe 3 teams who come close to sniffing the top 100. 

9 minutes ago, AW0352 said:

This type of thing happens everywhere.   Most coaches just aren’t dumb enough to send texts or emails about it.

I'm not going to throw out any baseless accusations because there's none of which I have first hand knowledge, but I think you ought to be pretty naïve to not think there is some pretty widespread tampering going on given all the influx of transfers. I think it's more common on the hardwood vs gridiron, but I just don't think kids wake up in droves and decide to transfer without somebody in their ear or their families ear. 

16 minutes ago, temptation said:

Lawrence North @ Lawrence Central:  Two teams obviously better than their record indicates and the case could be made that LC (along with Carmel) is the best 0-2 team in the state.  Is this a changing of the guard on the northeast side?  LN is not "rebuilding" per se but is definitely feeling the losses of a couple of blue chippers over the last couple of falls.  LC, on the other hand, might have the talent advantage here and will undoubtedly have the best player on the field in Mickens.  Both teams very well coached, but I am going with the Bears, 28-24.

Can't get a read on either of these teams but will know more after this one. Thought LN would have competed a little better with Whiteland and put up more points in the scoring column given the heavy edge in the athletic department. Most would have guessed LC would be 0-2 heading into this game, but they've played two good teams extremely tough. LC wins this one 31-21 and proves they are heading in the right direction. 

19 minutes ago, temptation said:

Warren Central @ North Central:  The Warriors proved they are among the state's (and possibly midwest's) elite last week with a thumping of a talented King squad.  The Panthers, on the other hand, laid an egg for the second consecutive week.  These are programs heading in opposite directions at the current moment.  It gets worse for NC this week.  Mercy rule could come into play.  Warren wins 41-6.

Warren rolls 49-0 and O'Shea is starting to wonder why he took this job.

20 minutes ago, temptation said:

Ben Davis @ Pike:  BD woke up in the second half and throttled west side rival Avon, while Pike had its second near miss against an HCC foe in as many weeks.  This one is for west side Marion County bragging rights and there are usually a lot of points in this one.  I say the Giants pull it out on the road, leaving Pike 0-3, all in fairly close affairs.  41-34 BD

BD big in a statement game, 35-14. Feel like giving up 34 points even in a win would feel like a disappointment.

21 minutes ago, temptation said:

Center Grove @ Trinity (KY):  Can't really get a feel for this one.  Both teams own wins over Carmel and are very well coached on both sides of the ball.  The transitive property does not always work but Trinity's double digit road win at Carmel looks slightly better than CG's home win over Carmel.  Now that I have said that, I am going to throw it out the window, lol.  I just can't predict CG to lose until I see it.  31 in a row for the Trojans in another nailbiter.  CG wins 27-24.

I hear you on predicting CG to lose, but unfortunately I have to do it this week. Big home field advantage to the Rocks and I think CG will really miss Wheat in this one. Low scoring game, Trinity 17-13

23 minutes ago, temptation said:

Cass Tech (MI) @ Carmel:  Could a central Indiana squad make it 2/2 over Michigan powerhouses?  Both teams have some elite, power 5 next level talent.  Looking on the surface, that may be a push.  Cass Tech lost an in-state shoot out last week while Carmel suffered a narrow rivalry defeat in a hostile environment.  I say the Hounds get back on track this week.  34-28.

Feel like this a must win game for Carmel (even though it isn't in the grand scheme of things). Don't know much about Cass Tech other than they pump out regular D1 talent year after year, but so does King and they were throttled by Warren. King can't overcome the long bus ride down and Carmel gets their first win of the year 28-22

21 minutes ago, temptation said:

You are overthinking it.

Way overthinking it.
 

He’s right in one sense, a week 2 poll doesn’t mean anything in the long run, but if you’re going to release a weekly poll, don’t half ass it. Otherwise just drop it completely.

8 minutes ago, RegionFBFan said:

It seems to me that if you want to reduce or impact the amount of transfers that we are seeing, the simplest way is to essentially have the departing school "not release" the student athlete period. At that point, the parent and student athlete have a decision to make:  stay at school, transfer and accept limited eligibility for one year, or appeal to IHSAA.

The appeal to the IHSAA then should be able to vet whether it is purely for athletic purposes or not and then make a judgment.

I believe this will create at least some sort of deterrent to transfers. It will also create more work for the IHSAA.

Personally, I am more aligned with MHSTigerFan and not punishing a young man for what is already a shortened high school career (2-4 yrs).  I also see the concern around competitive balance.

Great topic.

This is essentially the process is now. In instances where both schools sign off, the IHSAA rarely interjects themselves into these type of situations. Eron Gordon is the one high profile case where the IHSAA went great lengths to block a transfer where both schools had signed off. 

I'm fine with keeping it that way, but in this current transfer climate, you're going to see more and more athletically motivated transfers. Schools/coaches are going to have to start rejecting some of them to keep the integrity of the game, especially if the IHSAA isn't willing to do anything about. 

40 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I'm saying that these don't sound like the common profile.  They sound like outliers -- being used to create an extreme situation to defend a rule that impacts many (most) kids who aren't accurately described this way.

And forgot to add in my last post, these are only outliers now because there is deterrence from the IHSAA in the form of varsity restriction. Take away the IHSAA's ability to regulate transfers and these type of outliers become the norm.

Just look at the explosion of transfers in the NCAA the last 10 years. The NCAA initially ruled that grad students could transfer without a one year penalty and in the last year have given every player a one time transfer waiver. It's a mess. 

11 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I'm not talking about the *reasons* kids transfer.  I'm talking about their profiles.  You've repeatedly mentioned kids who transfer to 3 or 4 schools and now a kid who transfers a week into a season after learning they won't be starting.

I'm saying that these don't sound like the common profile.  They sound like outliers -- being used to create an extreme situation to defend a rule that impacts many (most) kids who aren't accurately described this way

What is the common type of transfer then?

If a parent's true intention of moving their child into a different school district isn't athletically motivated (academics, safety, etc) then losing varsity eligibility for 365 day should be an after thought at that point. But this clearly isn't the case, as you can see all the fuss. I had a family member who was a dual sport athlete at a mega-enrollment Indy area high school. He wasn't getting it done in the classroom and his dad took him out of said school and put him in a small, private 1A high school that was less than 5 years old at the time. The school he was transferring from told the parents they weren't going to sign off on his release and the dad simply told the school, "I don't care, he's not playing sports until his grades are up to my standards". It was a genuine sentiment and the mega school eventually signed off without any restriction. Unfortunately in today's world, this isn't the primary type of transferring. Kids are absolutely jumping districts for pure athletic purposes. 

30 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I agree that most kids who transfer either want to go to a team that is more likely to win or they want more playing time.  Personally, I don't see a problem with either one.  If that's what a kid wants to do, it's his life...not his school's, not the IHSAA's.

That's where you're wrong. It is the job of the IHSAA to keep the best interests of its member schools. I would potentially give a second thought to the IHSAA interjecting themselves into these kind of situations in the event both schools sign off on a transfer, but I simply cannot get behind the idea of high school athletics turning in to free agency. 

1 minute ago, Bash Riprock said:

that's debatable....Cathedral and BD both have one loss.  Now BD played Brownsburg very hard and almost came back to pull it out, but they were down very similar earlier in the game.  Warren has played 2 tough opponents and the win against DK looks awfully impressive.

I can align with you, but I think with the top 7 teams, we are splitting hairs in 6A.  I know the least about HSE.  

Yeah total brain fart, they aren't undefeated. Would argue they played Brownsburg better than Cathedral though. Cathedral was down 3 TD's in the 4th quarter at one point. 

But do agree in principle, 6A does appear to be as wide open as it has ever been and there isn't a clear cut favorite as it stands. 

Can't really get a good read on HSE. Buried a North Central team like they should have and edged out a win against LC, whom I don't have a read on yet either. 

1 minute ago, temptation said:

Agreed.  Also, I second the Carmel vote as a headscratcher.

Didn't even see that. Ya wow.

I get the sentiment at having Cathedral at 3 and if you simply look at the box score of the Brownsburg game I can see how many would construe it as a close game, but the Irish were soundly beaten in all facets of that game.

I would vote an undefeated Ben Davis team and a Warren team with a better resume win over Cathedral right now. 

17 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I think you could make a good argument that a student-athlete has to either finish a season with the school he started it with or otherwise sit out the remainder of a season once started.  I agree that policies shouldn't encourage the situation you're describing.

I just don't agree with losing a year of eligibility.  Again, you really can't compare it to the NCAA -- even pre-portal.  Because the NCAA always gave student-athletes a time period of 5 years to complete 4 years of participation.  If they transferred, they had to sit out a year -- but they didn't forfeit any eligibility.  In a practical sense, most HS athletes only get 1-3 years of varsity participation to begin with.  And nobody's extending HS to 5+ years to accommodate athletes being forced to sit out.

Anyway, most of the situations you cite seem kind of extreme -- kids jumping 3 or 4 times, doing so after a week, etc.  I don't think that's representative of the typical transfer.

The typical transfer has already been described by @crimsonace1.

Kids are either transferring to trophy shop or they are disgruntled with lack of playing time, exposure, etc and transfer to other school districts. These are absolutely athletically motivated transfers which the IHSAA wants to discourage. If you uplift a rule that restricts varsity eligible for 365 for athletically motivated transfers, where does the line stop? What is to prevent a kid from transferring 3 or 4 times during his high school career? Can you really say that transferring at-will promotes a healthy system? What is to stop kids/parents from colluding and transferring to form all-star teams at various schools across various sports? 

New Pal only receiving 6 first place votes is utterly comical. 

1 hour ago, FastpacedO said:

Is that shocking at how good Loyola is or shocking at how bad St. X is? Honest question.

Loyola has some serious talent but to dismantle an X team like that is saying something. General feel on the Ohio boards is that this X team is extremely inexperience and lacks significant playmakers. Doesn't excuse the fact that X has a mammoth offensive line that was physically dominated. It's definitely a down year for the Bombers and have seen some of their posters already advocate for playing time from their Freshman QB who is apparently a stud athlete. I think that alone tells you the rest of the outlook in regards to the remainder of the season. 

14 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I do not believe him when he says they're motivated by the best interest of the student-athlete -- because the IHSAA isn't even equipped to know what is in the best interest of every student athlete.

Pulling a kid from school after week 1 because your son isn't a sophomore starter or transferring because your son gets yanked after a couple of bad series even if it is a "parental decision" doesn't always serve in the best interest of a student-athlete either. The IHSAA is trying to avoid this by deterring immediate eligibility at the varsity level. 

If the IHSAA didn't have a say in this matter, this would be a common theme continuously occurring with parents who are trying to vicariously live their kids. 

Penn is definitely resurgent (or at least appears that way) from the last two years and should be a more formidable opponent this go around. That being said, I think this is a terrible week to be playing Cathedral given the outcome of last week, especially how poorly the Irish played for most of the game. I can assure you practice this week will not be fun and I think the Cathedral defense will be out for blood. 

2 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The OT loss to Moeller was the only blemish on the Eagles’ record on their way to the state championship. This year is payback. The Eagles journey to Cincinnati on Oct. 15. That date is already circled.

How the tides have changed in the GCL. Moeller seemed like a program left for dead just a few years ago after several consecutive losing seasons and a carousel of coaching changes. Big Moe appears to be the heavy frontrunner in the GCL South and a legitimate state title contender. St. X who has dominated the GCL South for years and won a state title two years ago is 0-2 and coming off an absolute drubbing to Loyola up in Chicago. Bombers may only be a 2-3 win team this year. Just goes to show you how cyclical things are in high school football and how quick things can change for better or for worse. 

12 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Now you're doing it.  Does it exist to protect the schools or to promote the best interests of the student-athlete?  You can say "both" -- but one has to take precedence.

I think that the motivation -- just as it is with success factor and various other things they've either done or considered -- is to try for more parity.  Neidig has said as much and I think he's being candid when he does.

Let's put aside football for a second and talk about soccer.  This one hits a closer to home for me.  Our boys and girls soccer programs are both among the most successful in the state.  I had a conversation with a coach from another school recently and they told me that our girls team has 5 transfers on it -- and they're going to be hard to beat.  To me, it's not hard to understand two things here...

1) Why competing coaches would be resentful about that -- especially the coaches who lost players to transfer.

2) Why the girls who transferred would've wanted to.  I don't know for sure, but it seems reasonable to guess it was trophy shopping.

To say that the IHSAA should step in to discourage this is to put the interest of the resentful coaches who lose players to stronger programs ahead of the interest of the student-athletes who, for whatever reason, believe their interests are best served being somewhere else.

It's basically holding them hostage in service to the idea of parity in competition.  But these aren't indentured servants we're talking about here.  They're teenagers.

The IHSAA serves as the intermediary between all its member schools. The rule is obviously in place to protect its collective members as a whole. If that means star players from School A, B, C, and D can't transfer without repercussion to School E then so be it, as that is the collective outlook you're going to see if the IHSAA completely absolves themselves from transfer situations. 

You won't find but maybe 1 or 2 coaches in all of the IHSAA sanctioned sports who actually support the idea of an open-window, free agency like market. It's just not conducive to high school sports and certainly not the message it is intended to deliver. My stance on that won't change. 

16 hours ago, fenderbender said:

9 kids on Chatard's roster from schools that are in Ritter area schools.   Chatard is the only one that publishes affilications on their rosters, so I imaging there are more at other schools.

Which I know has to pain Coach Purcell. Purcell is a Chatard grad himself and a very good guy. 

There will be better days for Ritter ahead (I hope). Too good of a program with sound tradition to stay down forever. 

4 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

It's a tough situation and I understand completely where you're coming from and agree with a lot of it. But I would say the NCAA is a whole different situation as there's millions of dollars and a much bigger potentiality for pro careers at play there. Maybe it's all the stuff that's come out about Niedig and his ilk over the years that gives me (justifiable) pause in trusting them to be unbiased arbiters of these kinds of situations. 

There's been an established rule for years (long before Niedig) that restricts varsity eligibility for up to 365 days from athletically motivated transfers. And up until these last few years, its been enforced as such. With such a large influx of transfers these last few years that the IHSAA has been pretty lax about enforcing, it's going to be an absolute free for all if the IHSAA abolishes it's long standing rule. I do not support the idea that kids should be able to transfer at-will without some kind of repercussion. My stance on that won't change. The rule absolutely exists to protect the IHSAA member schools as a whole. 

1 minute ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Well, what happened to the 3 or 4 times?  That was the specific complaint you made several times.

I'm saying if the IHSAA doesn't put their foot down on all the influx in transfers, you're going to see kids transfer 3-4 times before their high school career is over. There's a top 50 basketball recruit here in state who started his freshman year Franklin Central, then transferred to Crispus Attucks, transferred to a prep school for his junior year, and is now back in-state this time playing for Warren Central. It's an absolute joke that is allowed to happen.

6 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Personally, I think the default position of the IHSAA should be to stay out of it -- and to only get involved in circumstances where there's evidence of a pay-for-play or some other kind of genuinely undue influence going on.  Other than that, I think kids should be able to go where they want, without being controlled by their current school or the IHSAA

If both schools sign off on a transfer, then I would agree the IHSAA needs to stay out of it. But the IHSAA should absolutely be allowed to have a say in an athletic transfer when one school doesn't sign off. A precedent needs to be set. Open enrollment allows kids to choose any school district they want prior to their freshman year. 

9 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Paul Neidig has said point blank that the thrust of the rule and the enforcement is to foster a level playing field -- lest the best athletes end up at a handful of schools.  I can understand why they'd want to have that -- particularly those institutions that aren't in that handful.  But the problem with this is that they say this while maintaining that their primary interest is in the student-athletes.

Deterring a kid from transferring 3-4 times in his high school career is the IHSAA's way of looking out for the best interest of a student-athlete. It's not healthy to do that, at all. 

34 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

I agree that the transferring has gotten a little out of control the past few years, but the question is, do we really want an institution to be meddling this much in the lives of students? Over high school sports? Just seems a little ridiculous to me that there's investigations into kids over this kind of stuff. And the fact that some schools have tried to keep seniors out of their last year of a sport is just shameful, and frankly, downright pathetic. 

Of course you do. I don't agree with everything the IHSAA does, but you don't want Indiana High School Football turning into a charade like the NCAA has become do you? The NCAA has lost full control on the power dynamic they once held and college athletics is turning into a circus. 

6 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I get the impression from some of the comments here that the IHSAA and its member institutions know and care more about a kid's situation and well-being than his parents

No one has suggested that. But the rule absolutely protects the IHSAA member schools and the IHSAA has to put the best interests from its members first and foremost. That's a no-brainer. 

8 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

But, in most cases, I'd still say that parents are better suited to determine what's best for their kids than a coach, an AD, and a principal....and certainly Paul Neidig and his gang.

You're confusing the two. The IHSAA can't restrict a parent from moving their kid from one school district to another, but they can absolutely restrict (as they should be able) varsity eligibility for blatant athletic purposes. Kids can still play JV for a year as well as club sports.