MDAlum82

Quote

 

Funny...no one was dismissing the fact that MD played well...geez...talk about having panties in wad...I was just stating they seemed to be more mental errors then the fact that MD was actually causing them...didn't mean any disrespect there...

 

 

Actually, chalking the errors up as being “mental” i.e. “unforced errors”, is completely dismissing the fact that MD played well.  That was the entire basis of my post.  Such comments ignore the not insignificant role MDs’ defensive pressure played in forcing those errors.  That, in and of itself, was the dis-respectful part of your statement(s). 

1 hour ago, NorthKnox94 said:

even the tipped ball...looks like they were covered well...and may have been intercepted anyway...

Foolish comments like this are why I so rarely post these days as surely someone will get their panties in a wad over what I am about to post and decide to flame me for it.  Well, flame on…

The argument that LS “shot itself in the foot” is both short-sighted of what actually occurred on the field last wk & highly dismissive of the effort put in by the MD defense, IMO.   Pressuring the other team into making mistakes is the entire basis of winning football & competitive sports, in general.  To begin with, “the tipped pass” was the result of a great play by an MD D Lineman who beat the blocker (the first of many times!) and the LB being focused enough to see the ball in the air and make a play.  The many fumbles were certainly influenced by, if not directly caused, by the fact that the MD Defense was in the LS backfield shaking hands with the QB & creating havoc - ALL. NIGHT. LONG.  It becomes demonstrably more difficult to hand the ball off with a D linemen or LB in your face.  Further, when you are being hit/tackled even as the QB attempts to hand you the ball, it is much more difficult to hold onto it.

 LS was a fine team that unfortunately did not have its best game against another fine team.  I doubt we would have the same or similar result if the game were played 20 times.  However, to completely dismiss MD’s role in why & how LS “shot itself in the foot” is further proof that denial is not just river in Egypt…  Mi dos centavos.

This topic got off to a nice start and then the 5th graders took over...peace, out.

2 hours ago, NorthKnox94 said:

no...because I am a coach...you guys can do all the paper math you wan.!  I am just going to laugh at it every time I see it.

Any fool can criticize and most do....Dale Carnegie

9 hours ago, NorthKnox94 said:

lol

Care to venture a guess of your own then?  Easy to scoff at others predictions, a bit more difficult to come up with your own.  I'l put my money where my keyboard is, MD 35-14

15 minutes ago, lp3coda said:

And I for one can't believe for one second that there was anything malicious with his logic. I sincerely believe whatever he did, he did for the young men playing. 

From an outsider's pt of view, it was an odd time-out, even the radio guys called it out as "unusual".  The game was using a running clock and the result was no longer in doubt so there was no tactical reason for it.  However, logically, there must have been some reason, and it was likely related to the players .  Only the coach knows for certain.  

The biggest issue an opponent might take with such a move is the need for another, completely unnecessary play to be ran.  Anything can & will happen on the field and you are putting players at risk, even if minimally.  Fortunately, nothing bad happened and hopefully whatever goal the coach had in mind was accomplished.  No harm, no foul here.

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

Your friend in stripes needs to get with the program. No running clock possible until the second half.

Then I must have misunderstood what they said/intended.  Very impressed with their knowledge of game and, more importantly, their ability allow me to understand it.  Mea Culpa

1 minute ago, globemstr3 said:

Harrels has EMD a 4 pt favorite? I think thats insane and blows all validity too predictions.

 Apparently no love for the Wildcat's from Harrell for 2nd wk in a row.   I was mildly surprised with the Harrell pick of Linton over MD, esp at the Bowl, but most viewed the game as a toss up going in.  Curious how MD is only a 4pt favorite over NK, esp after last night. Calpreps favors MD 31 - 14, & Sagarin gives MD +14.   One of my newfound friends in stripes made the prediction of a MD working with running clock by halftime vs NK.  That remains to be seen but only 4 points seems awfully thin to me.  Anywhere that tracks how well Sagarin or Harrell do with their predictions?  

21 hours ago, Uncle Rico said:

I think Linton has played enough quality teams that strength of schedule shouldn't be a factor.  Both teams are much improved from last year.  Linton runs an offense that Mater Dei doesn't see too often and it'll be interesting to see if they can deal with it.  This game will most likely be decided by the offensive and defensive lines, as most games are.

Prescient comments Uncle, as the game was definitely decided in the trenches, IMO.  MD's D line was able to get yds penetration most of the night which created all sorts of issues for the Miners and resulted in several TOs.  I would venture a guess that is the most fumbles Linton has had this year (if not several years) with 4 or 5 fumbles & 3 lost in first half alone and a total of 5 TOs overall for the game with the 2 INTs.  Hard to win a game with that many TOs at any level.  

IMHO, you saw a little bit of how "strength of schedule" does matter, at least to some extent.  For certain, it isn't the one stat above all others by any means.  However, MD benefits from playing the larger Evansville schools where even some of weaker teams often have above avg size in their lines & more speed at the skill positions than we do in a typical year. Having to deal with those conditions every week is huge help in preparing us for playoffs.

I had the pleasure of sitting next to a couple of old guard officials from the Linton area, Mr Beach (still refereeing @67!) & Mr Devault (retired after the Central Vs Jasper Mud Bowl game about 10 yrs ago).  They had some great insights into not only the game last night but the high school game, in general. Thanks for sharing some great stories from between the lines and I hope we cross paths again.   

32 minutes ago, jets said:

But what do I know, we're no where near MD's ability according to some on this thread. 

Curiously “odd” to see posters purporting to support both Southridge & South Spencer jawing on this thread about a game btwn Linton & MD.  Certainly, everyone is welcome to an opinion on this forum but representing them as from one of the involved teams seem a bit disingenuous.  Pot stirring perhaps?

1 hour ago, globemstr3 said:

Calpreps has Linton 26-22

I ran this match up on Calpreps a few days ago and it had MD as a slight favorite.  Now, Harrell picks the Miners as well.   MD will have its hands full, no doubt.  

Should be a great game btwn two very good football teams.  Good luck to both teams for a well played and injury free game!

Picking up from a previous thread about the Bowl, LS will get to see the Bowl up close & personal for the first time, if I am not mistaken.  Here are a couple of suggestions for those LS fans who really want to be able to see the game.  While the visiting bleachers are larger than usual, viewing the game from there is limited due to team typically standing along the sidelines btwn the 40 yd lines. This and the low risers of the visiting bleachers will make it difficult to see much of the action on near-side of the field up to about where the yard markers are painted. (see image below)  An alternate area to consider for better viewing would be "the curve".  This section is located in the South end of the field, closest to the river.  You will get a much better view of the game - at least in my opinion - than just about anywhere on visitor's bleachers.  mi dos centavos.

5 hours ago, itiswhatitis said:

As far as cool places to see a high school game not called LOS, try Fawcett Stadium in Canton, Ohio.  Seats 25,000.  Same field they play the Hall of Fame game on since it is next to the Hall Of Fame.

 

It must suck for Mater Dei to have to play on that field with the big R in the middle.  Always a reminder you have to "borrow" a football field.  Why doesn't Mater Dei have their own?  Is it a real estate issue?

The biggest reason MD does not host games at their field is little to no parking in the vicinity.  There are barely enough spaces for 500+ kids, teachers and staff on a daily basis. There would be no way to accommodate 5,000 fans, which is not out of the question for MD home games against a quality opponent.  However, even if you built a stadium, it would pale in comparison to the Bowl.  btw - as tax payers, we don't have to "borrow" the bowl, we pay for it already.  

13 minutes ago, itiswhatitis said:

Good grief, it was a joke!  

Yeah, my bad.  I did not catch the sarcasm initially.  Tried to delete/edit but could not.  Mea culpa.

On 10/16/2019 at 4:47 PM, itiswhatitis said:

His "daytime job" is math whiz.  You never question a math whiz.  Besides, it's way too complicated for inquiring minds to comprehend.

I happen to be an engineer with a PE degree and somewhat of a "math whiz" myself so I think I can muddle through it.  Not saying he is wrong but if the number is so "pure", it would seem reasonably easy to justify how it was derived as opposed to something pulled out of thin air.   I think I will be able to understand but maybe he can dumb it down a bit for me...or I can ask my 5th grader for help.

On 10/15/2019 at 11:05 AM, DT said:

I would prefer to see a simple petition process, which has been used before by Mishawaka, if a school chooses to play up for competitive reasons.  

The SF is very sloppy.  Its confusing, and fans don't know where their  school is slotted from year to year.  I doubt it makes much difference to the kids.  Certainly, it will impact the way coaches think about their team.  

I like the simplicity of the Multiplier.  It treats all PPs the same, and all publics the same.  PPs have been calling out publics for years to get better or get beat.  The same can be said for laggard PPs who dont keep up with their private peers.  You mentioned Noll and Park Tudor, both schools that have been on The Contraction Watch list.  Some PPs, like some publics, do not have the resources nor the will to play competitive high school football.  They should drop the sport.  Everyone is treated the same.

 

Curious, how do you come up with "1.65" as the "Pure" number?

On 10/15/2019 at 10:46 AM, Bobref said:

Sit back, as this is going to take a while. But if you are really interested in this issue, I think it’s worth it.

 

 I think DT is one of the more progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers on this site. But DT and I are going to have to part company on this one. If you are going to address competitive issues by adding criteria other than raw size to a classification system, a Success Factor (SF) is a much better way to do it than a Multiplier (M). The M is a broadsword when what we are really looking for is a scalpel. Here’s why.

 

In order to determine the best solution, you must first identify the issue and then decide on the goal you want to achieve. The issue the classification system attempts to address is simply that schools that are larger have advantages over schools that are smaller. Nowhere is this more evident than in football, which is in some respects, a numbers game. The goal of a classification system is to, within practical limits, have like schools playing like schools. The call for a classification system that takes into account more than just sheer school size came about not because P/Ps have some distinct advantages (although they do), but because they were having success disproportionate to their numbers. Is it really an advantage if it is not translated into success? Of course not. It was not uncommon to go to Thanksgiving weekend in Indy and see 60% P/Ps in the finals, when they comprise only 10% (or less) of the football-playing schools. This disparity was reflected in all levels of the tournament, i.e., sectional, regional and semistate championships.

 

It has been well-documented on here that P/Ps have certain advantages:

 

1. Absence of geographic boundaries, giving them access to a theoretically greater pool of potential players.

    

2. A demographic makeup that results in their students being more willing/able to participate in extracurricular activities.

    

A selective admissions process that, again theoretically, allows them to “recruit” athletes.

 

Of course, there are P/P supporters who will fight you to the death as to whether these advantages actually exist, whether they are offset by advantages that public schools have, or whether these advantages translate to athletic success. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that these advantages do exist, and that they can result in greater athletic success.

 

The problem with a M is that it treats all P/Ps exactly the same when it is inarguably clear that they are not. Some P/Ps capitalize on their inherent advantages, and some do not. No one in his right mind would argue that Cathedral and Bishop Noll should be treated the same. Yet, that is what a M system does.  Chatard is a perennial contender for a state championship. Park Tudor has won just 15 of the 70 games they’ve played going back to the 2013 season. Yet, a M treats them as if they were the same. A classification system that seeks to promote fairness should address the real issue: disproportionate success resulting from a willingness to take advantage of the factors that contribute to success. Some P/Ps do, and some don’t. A M paints with too broad a brush.

 

Since the issue is disproportionate success, a classification system based on success is the best way to address the issue. Now, you can certainly quibble over whether the current SF system is the best way to go about it. Is the cycle too short? Does it award the right number of “points” to certain achievements? Does it measure disproportionate success accurately? But what you can’t argue is that a success based system is the only fair way to address the problem of inherent advantages resulting in disproportionate success. Because it’s only when a school uses those advantages to be disproportionately successful that a perceived problem arises. If all the P/Ps had a level of success like Bishop Noll and Park Tudor, would anyone be clamoring for a M or SF? Of course not.

 

The other positive attribute of a SF system is that is applies across the board to all schools, not just P/Ps. Because, you see, there are public schools that have advantages, too. They have greater access to financial resources than P/Ps. They pay their coaches better. They generally have better facilities. When was the last time you saw a P/P float a bond issue? New Palestine is a great example. During the same period that Park Tudor was 15-55, New Pal went 82-4, with 4 sectional titles, 4 regionals, 3 semistates, and 2 state championships. They have certain advantages in terms of their demographics, facilities, and, most importantly a supportive administration and community. They’ve leveraged those advantages into great success. In other words, they’ve proved they can punch above their weight class. A M system, however, would not address their disproportionate success. But under the SF, they are 5A, rather than the 4A they would be simply by enrollment. And they’re doing quite nicely in 5A. So there is no unfairness there.

 

The bottom line is that if the objective of a classification system is to have like schools playing like, so that the playing field is “level,” a M is too blunt an instrument. Its basic assumption – that all P/Ps are alike – is demonstrably wrong. If you’re going to address a disproportionate level of success for certain schools, then the best way to do it is to affect the schools that use their inherent advantages – whatever they may be – to achieve that disproportionate level of success, and not make things even harder for those schools who, for whatever reason, have not been able to translate whatever perceived advantages they have into that type of success.

 

My two cents.

Excellent & insightful read...thanks for posting.

Not certain if this violates any of GID rules but this was just reported on Evv C&P website.  Sorry to hear about this but not altogether surprised either.

On 7/29/2019 at 8:43 AM, Evansville50 said:

I’ve heard MD is looking like the potential top  team. 

Curious what you've heard about this year's team?  Most of my sources do not seem to share your optimism.