Footballking16

4 minutes ago, BTF said:

Although I completely agree with the affects socioeconomic factors, I can see why some struggle with the concept. But enrollment? That's grade school math. 

How has enrollment worked for North Central (3rd), Pike (5th), Lake Central (8th), and Noblesville (10th) the last 20-25 years? HSE and Fishers have had some pretty meh to bad teams over the years despite having large enrollments and high socioeconomic demographics.

Culture, Coaching, Commitment. That is the common theme among programs with sustained success. Enrollment and socioeconomic factors are not defined either of those.

13 minutes ago, temptation said:

I’ll take it one step further.

Program A and Program B have similar enrollments.

Program A has a 25 percent free and reduced lunch status and majority of two parent households.

Program B has a 70 percent free and reduced lunch status and majority of single parent households.

He just doesn’t understand that athletics is the farthest thing from families in Program B’s minds.  Many students have to care for siblings and sometimes support the family by working an afterschool job and a minute situation in which they could participate in athletics have no transportation to and from practice daily.

The difference between Center Grove and Arsenal Tech is more than just Eric Moore dude.  You can’t build the same culture you speak of at each place because the starting line is significantly different.  Kids at program B are trying to survive.

 

Quit using Tech. What is the difference between Noblesville, Fishers, HSE vs Center Grove other than Center Grove having nearly 1000 less students?

6 minutes ago, BTF said:

Seriously. Let's try this again. Enrollment and socioeconomic factors have NO impact on the success of a football program. None?

I didn’t stutter. 

6 minutes ago, temptation said:

CG was not a “football school” prior to Moore’s arrival.  If Noblesville hires the right guy and he is given time, they could potentially follow CG’s path.

The difference also becomes that Noblesville is middle of the pack in the HCC when it comes to socioeconomics.  CG has a clear advantage in that regard in the MIC.

Center Grove would lose its socio-economic advantage if it joined the HCC and would still run roughshed in that conference despite being one of the smaller schools. Enrollment nor socio-economic factors dictate coaching, culture, commitment.

27 minutes ago, BTF said:

Not a guarantee, but a major advantage. Can you agree to that?

No.

North Central. Pike. Noblesville. HSE. Fishers. 
 

Neither means a damn thing.

14 minutes ago, temptation said:

Noblesville and CG basically have similar demographics, enrollment and socioeconomics.  The difference is that Noblesville travels north and has a grind from day 1 in the sectional whereas CG gets a “sectional bye.”

No fault of CG but facts are facts.  Noblesville should be better and Eric Moore is the big difference maker here.  He could make Noblesville a threat in 2-3 years.

Lets not forget the Millers had an undefeated Homestead outfit on the ropes a couple of years ago.  They are not nearly as bad as their record indicates.

You’re talking in circles. There’s nothing that ensures enrollment or socio-economic demographics guarantees or dictates success. Clearly as you’ve been given examples of each end of the spectrum.  

Culture, coaching, commitment however are common themes in successful programs, enrollment or socio-economic demographics be damned.

21 hours ago, temptation said:

There’s a point of diminishing returns wise guy.  In a school of 3800 (even with a free and reduced lunch rate of 65 percent) you can field a formidable football squad.

In fact, enrollment is the only thing keeping Warren and Ben Davis afloat right now.  Shrink their enrollment by 1000 and you have a souped up version of Arsenal Tech.

When you take a look at enrollment on its surface, it’s easy to fall into the trap.  Why is Ben Davis (the second largest school in the state) not dominating in state championships across the board?

Because, even though they boast 2000+ male students, when you figure in a free and reduced lunch rate of nearly 70 percent, that diminishes the pool of available student athletes considerably.

We just had a prominent football coach leave Warren for FRANKLIN CENTRAL.  

Wrap your mind around that.

You “privileged” Cathedral folks are out of touch with reality.

Your 600 male students (none of which are disadvantaged) is comparable to BD’s 2250 at a 70 percent disadvantaged clip.

Then explain to me Noblesville. Or Fishers. Or HSE. Suburban mega-schools with socio-economic demographics at the complete other end of the spectrum. What’s the causation for their meddling performances? Sure as hell ain’t what you’re preaching.

22 minutes ago, temptation said:

Love how the tough guys from Cathedral and LCC have chimed in and are attempting to throw their weight around in this discussion.  It’s honestly adorable.

”We play big schools all of the time.  What’s the big deal?”

Or...just don't make dumb comments. The enrollment disparity between Warsaw and Warren is similar to the enrollment disparity between Warren and Carmel, in terms of raw # of students. Bet I'll never catch you on here saying its dangerous for Warren to play Carmel.

12 minutes ago, temptation said:

55-3 final...Warren misses an XP.

Yeah, but is it dangerous?

someone tell @temptationthat this is a dangerous idea. 

21 minutes ago, temptation said:

The socioeconomics and turnover is related my friend.  Nice trolling attempt.

LOL at your lame attempt to use your favorite "school of 1200" as the norm when they are obviously the exception.

Clown show.

Your direct quote.... "Eh, I think asking a school of 2400 to play against a school of 5200 is dangerous".

If it's simply a numbers game as you suggest, why the sudden change of tune? 

Full disclosure, if you're a school with 2400 students and can't field a football team to the point where it would be dangerous to play on a Friday night against a Carmel or Ben Davis then we're talking about a completely different power struggle to the point where bumping you down a class is a moot point. 

On 4/19/2021 at 4:39 PM, temptation said:

As I stated before in a separate thread, Nick Saban could take the reins at Tech and it simply would not matter.

Its a numbers/socioeconomic status issue.

Look no farther than the turnover.

So it’s more than just a numbers/enrollment game? Thanks for making the point.

On 4/19/2021 at 8:09 AM, temptation said:

Eh, I think asking a school of 2400 to play against a school of 5200 is dangerous.  
 

That’s an issue.

What about a school of 1200 playing against 5200? Based on your posting history why is this now suddenly a problem?

On 3/10/2021 at 11:47 AM, DE said:

Schedule all the directional michigan schools and sneak a few out in the conference.  BOOM.  6 wins and dancing in the taxslayer, mudslinger, turf builder, boca raton outback bowl.

IU is 11-5 in the B10 the last 2 years. Hardly the scenario you ascribe. They won 6 B10 games alone last year. Try harder.

On 3/10/2021 at 11:01 AM, Coach Nowlin said:

Onto IU Football:   With that kind of investment (same that PU gave thier coach who brought back life and recruiting to a dormat program) would it be safe to say that IU (just like PU) will need to actually beat teams this year who finish with a winning record? 

No. IU needs to beat their weekly opponent. Period. IU has no control over Penn State or Michigan’s final record. The same sad statement Purdue fans use over and over to discredit IU’s last two seasons is laughable. “Beat somebody with a winning record” as if that is an insult. Just imagine if Purdue could BEAT teams with a losing record? The two programs are going in opposite directions and in a hurry.

IU added some really solid transfers this offseason.

Added former top 50 recruit DJ Matthews from Florida State who should replace Whop Philiyor in the slot

Added Ryder Anderson DE from Ole Miss who immediately gives IU a solid pass rusher, the one thing IU's defense lacked last year

Interior lineman Zach Carpenter from Michigan who started for the Wolverines last year.

Those won't show up in any recruiting rankings but 3 players who should all contribute immediately for a team set to return 17-18 starters. 

Good move for him, should be the feature back. Has had a ton of durability issues dating back to his sophomore year of high school. Looked good at USC but due to injuries was passed up by some other backs and limited to short down/goal line situations. 

3 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I’m pretty sure some smart people are going to look very closely at those, and other issues, before they throw $12 million/yr. at anybody.

Well we’re talking about the Jaguars so who knows 😆 But I do think Urban has “earned” his chance at shot in the NFL. Not convinced his cut out for it. But if something thinks, and is willing to pay $12/mil a year for Urban, more power to them.

Not sure how Meyer translates in the NFL. Always viewed him as a great recruiter and master program builder that surrounded himself with the best coordinators and simply had a monopoly on his competition, none of which matters in the NFL. Not sure he’s the greatest X’s and O’s coach don’t think his scheme is conducive to the NFL. 

3 minutes ago, temptation said:

Florida didn’t show up the moment they lost the SEC title game.  Nearly half of their team opted out.

Not excusing it, but the Cotton Bowl doesn’t mean as much to Florida as the Outback Bowl should have meant to Indiana.

And why I harped for two weeks that a 3 loss team didn’t deserve to be in a NY6 bowl.

1 minute ago, temptation said:

Results don’t lie.  Iowa State proved they belonged by showing up ON THE FIELD.
 

You can’t whine for two weeks, make some bogus statement by refusing to wear the conference patch and then fail to show up when you get the chance to prove you deserved better.

They are who we thought they were.

 

That’s hindsight. You could make the same argument about 3 loss Florida. You knew that team wasn’t going to show up. Yes, IU didn’t put up, but still doesn’t mean they didn’t deserve a better bowl. 

On 1/3/2021 at 7:48 AM, DT said:

ISU handled PAC 12 Champ Oregon rather easily while IU loses to SEC bottom dweller Mississippi 

Indiana fans - lets not get ahead of ourselves.  High school coaching rants and LEO slogans are great, but Mississippi's 16 Four Star athletes and #29 Roster Composite Ranking are going to beat Indiana'a five 4 star players and #53 Roster Ranking the vast majority of the time.

Talent wins out.

We need more 4 star players.   The target is 15   This is Allens next great challenge.  is he up to it?

 

https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

IU’s loss had zilch to do with Ole Miss “stars” and everything to do with one team preparing and executing a game plan better than their opponent.
 

IU beat plenty of more “talented” teams than Ole Miss this year that had several more 4 and 5 star recruits. Not sure why you always have to go down this rabbit hole?

1 hour ago, DT said:

NCAA football writer takes a well placed shot at IU football in his column this week.  

 

 

Big Ten

3-https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2020-21-college-football-bowl-records-by-conference-big-12-and-mac-are-perfect-while-acc-disappoints/1

3-1

Given the Big Ten's mess of a regular season, there are not many complaints about the postseason. No. 3 Ohio State drilled No. 2 Clemson in the CFP semifinal to avenge last year's loss. The only loss was by No. 11 Indiana, one of those teams we see every season that complains about their game only to go out and lose it. The Hoosiers took their discontent to a new level by covering up the Big Ten logos on their uniforms in protest. They lost to Ole Miss, which was 4-5 entering the game.

Indiana talked the talked but failed to walk the walk. Still doesn’t excuse the fact IU was jobbed. Both things can be true.

8 minutes ago, southend said:

BS

Ever.

2 minutes ago, Staxawax said:

Agreed. Stevie Scott had 99 yards. But the running game was no where to be seen in the 1st half. Some ball control would have kept the defense a little fresher. But the script was written for IU to have the final drive to win the game. Unfortunately the understudy was given the lead part and he couldn’t deliver. A healthy Tuttle is not close to Penix, a wounded Tuttle, well, you get the idea.

I think long term Tuttle is fine with reps and experience. I like his mobility in and outside the pocket. But yes doesn’t have near the arm strength of Penix. I remember a lot of people saying there wasn’t a huge difference between Ramsey and Penix and that was put to rest this year.

1 hour ago, Boilernation said:

I was close. Figured Ole Miss would eclipse 30. I missed this one. Looks like IU’s offense was a no show for most of the game.

Play calling didn’t put IU in a great position. Tuttle’s a serviceable back up, similar to Ramsey without the reps or experience, and it showed today. Really struggled to push the ball down the field and locked on to too many receivers. However, IU neglected to run the ball the first 2.5 quarters and likely did them in. IU’s defense was ok today but if you would have told me IU held the Ole Miss offense to 26 points, I would have guessed IU was a 2-3 TD Victor.

1 hour ago, southend said:

Boy IU is really in the driver’s seat now , recruiting wise 

Opting out is what cowards do. Not particularly happy with the result (or the offensive play calling) but you don’t sit that game out. Ever.