Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bobref

What We Can Learn from MLB

Recommended Posts

This topic has been beaten more than a clubhouse garbage can in Minute Maid Park.    

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I'm scratching my head following your logic a little Bob.  The regular season has always been critical for MLB.  If you didn't have have one of the best records, a team didn't qualify.  So now there will be more teams making it....which many purist believes it dilutes the game.  It will become even easier to make the playoffs and worse records are awarded.

To me, this is more about increasing revenue through more playoff games....games that cost more to attend and TV ratings.  I'm not sure adding more teams to the playoffs makes your argument any more stronger than the old MLB format.

Almost half of the teams makes the playoffs?  On the way to an all-in tournament.......😉

Try and think of it in terms of economics. That may make it clearer.

In a qualification format, the ability to participate in the postseason is a relatively scarce good. The demand for that good outstrips the supply. The inevitable result of demand markedly greater than supply is competition among consumers, which drives up the price. In this case, the consumers are the players, coaches, administrators, students and fans — all the stakeholders in high school football.  Increased competition between consumers for that scarce good means the price consumers are willing to pay to obtain that good goes up. Simply put, in a qualification format, the stakeholders are willing to do more to get into the playoffs. This means better regular season football in Indiana.

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 12:41 PM, Bobref said:

Try and think of it in terms of economics. That may make it clearer.

In a qualification format, the ability to participate in the postseason is a relatively scarce good. The demand for that good outstrips the supply. The inevitable result of demand markedly greater than supply is competition among consumers, which drives up the price. In this case, the consumers are the players, coaches, administrators, students and fans — all the stakeholders in high school football.  Increased competition between consumers for that scarce good means the price consumers are willing to pay to obtain that good goes up. Simply put, in a qualification format, the stakeholders are willing to do more to get into the playoffs. This means better regular season football in Indiana.

Bob, been fighting off the flu, so a delayed response. I think your economics argument can work both ways. 

Just last year in 6A, a young, developing Center Grove team lost its best player before the season started. They went 4-5 in the regular season playing one of the toughest schedules in the state. They got healthier, developed as a team and went all the way to the 6A championship game, just coming up short at the end. Do you really think a 32 team playoff is better served not having this type of team in the playoffs?  Speaking of consumers, don’t you think the IHSAA would prefer CG’s fans attending games in the post season?  

I attend a lot of regular season games.  I don’t see much “sand bagging”. I don’t see teams stepping off the gas in the regular season just to step on it during the post season. Perhaps you do?  What I’d hate to see the possibility of coaches and parents to be tempted to play an injured young man sooner than he should, just to get a regular season win. 
 

I understand your theory....I just don’t buy limiting supply of teams in post season will lead to significantly increased quality of play in the regular season.  But perhaps I’m just spoiled watching a well-coached program play in a great conference with quality non-conference games.  Only 32 teams in 6A....only 32.  MLB isn’t cutting back teams for the post season....they are adding. Almost 50% of its team now qualify?  Seems to me a much more forgiving regular season. They might want to focus more on how to prevent their teams and players from cheating.....
 

I respect your thoughts....thank goodness for those Econ classes in grad school...😉


 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLB threw this out there to deflect attention from their poor handling of the Astros cheating scandal and the response has largely been very negative.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Bob, been fighting off the flu, so a delayed response. I think your economics argument can work both ways. 

Just last year in 6A, a young, developing Center Grove team lost its best player before the season started. They went 4-5 in the regular season playing one of the toughest schedules in the state. They got healthier, developed as a team and went all the way to the 6A championship game, just coming up short at the end. Do you really think a 32 team playoff is better served not having this type of team in the playoffs?  Speaking of consumers, don’t you think the IHSAA would prefer CG’s fans attending games in the post season?  

I attend a lot of regular season games.  I don’t see much “sand bagging”. I don’t see teams stepping off the gas in the regular season just to step on it during the post season. Perhaps you do?  What I’d hate to see the possibility of coaches and parents to be tempted to play an injured young man sooner than he should, just to get a regular season win. 
 

I understand your theory....I just don’t buy limiting supply of teams in post season will lead to significantly increased quality of play in the regular season.  But perhaps I’m just spoiled watching a well-coached program play in a great conference with quality non-conference games.  Only 32 teams in 6A....only 32.  MLB isn’t cutting back teams for the post season....they are adding. Almost 50% of its team now qualify?  Seems to me a much more forgiving regular season. They might want to focus more on how to prevent their teams and players from cheating.....
 

I respect your thoughts....thank goodness for those Econ classes in grad school...😉


 

 

Every MIC team except Pike was in the top 16 per Sagarin (just one possible measure for qualification) and CG was #4 in 6A despite their record. By almost any measure they make the tournament even with a qualifier.

I don't know if sand-bagging is the most accurate term, but I can definitely tell you there isn't much excitement around games at the end of the season like there could be if playoff spots or seeds are on the line for at least one of the teams. When the team has more on the line they will put more out there to achieve what they are trying to achieve. In CG's last 2 games last year they were playing teams very likely in even with a 50% qualifier. But seeding could have been at stake. LN ended up #13 in 6A so they could have been playing for a spot, but they would definitely want to improve their seeding to get away from the MIC powers in the first round. Cathedral finished #2 in 5A which in a seeded tournament where highest seed gets home field, that would have been huge!

I wasn't at either game, but I watched the Cathedral game on TV. It was a fun and exciting back and forth game, but the excitement around it would have been much more if Center Grove was attempting to improve their seed and Cathedral was trying to keep their #2 seed. It would be similar excitement around a playoff game because the winners and losers impact what happens going forward. Losing the LN game or winning the Cathedral game wouldn't have changed anything regarding playoff matchups.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 11:22 AM, JustRules said:

Every MIC team except Pike was in the top 16 per Sagarin (just one possible measure for qualification) and CG was #4 in 6A despite their record. By almost any measure they make the tournament even with a qualifier.

I don't know if sand-bagging is the most accurate term, but I can definitely tell you there isn't much excitement around games at the end of the season like there could be if playoff spots or seeds are on the line for at least one of the teams. When the team has more on the line they will put more out there to achieve what they are trying to achieve. In CG's last 2 games last year they were playing teams very likely in even with a 50% qualifier. But seeding could have been at stake. LN ended up #13 in 6A so they could have been playing for a spot, but they would definitely want to improve their seeding to get away from the MIC powers in the first round. Cathedral finished #2 in 5A which in a seeded tournament where highest seed gets home field, that would have been huge!

I wasn't at either game, but I watched the Cathedral game on TV. It was a fun and exciting back and forth game, but the excitement around it would have been much more if Center Grove was attempting to improve their seed and Cathedral was trying to keep their #2 seed. It would be similar excitement around a playoff game because the winners and losers impact what happens going forward. Losing the LN game or winning the Cathedral game wouldn't have changed anything regarding playoff matchups.

I assume you are talking Sagarin....post playoffs, CG was ranked #5 with a 8-6 record.  I would struggle with a #4 ranking with a regular season record of 4-5. Not doubting you, but that's a head scratcher.

Again, perhaps my sample size isn't large enough....I don't see kids taking plays off because nothing is on the line.  CG and Cathedral plays that final game every year like its a war.  I'm not sure that a higher post season seed would make a ton of difference how those 2 teams play that game.  The same in the old days when CG vs. Warren was the final game of the year.  

Maybe it does mean more to a fan.....but enough to pack more people in the stands?  Enough to offset the loss of people in the stands during the post season because their team didn't qualify?  

I can see this back in my day when there were only 3 classes.....but now we have 6.  And to eliminate half of a 32 team class just doesn't seem right to me.  Especially in Bob's example of a pro league adding more teams to their playoff....

I guess we all have an opinion on this one....much respect...just don't align on this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I don't see kids taking plays off because nothing is on the line.  CG and Cathedral plays that final game every year like its a war.  I'm not sure that a higher post season seed would make a ton of difference how those 2 teams play that game.  The same in the old days when CG vs. Warren was the final game of the year.  

I officiated somewhere around 400 varsity regular season games. I also had approximately 110-120 playoff games. I hope you’re not trying to say that there’s no appreciable difference in the excitement, intensity and effort between regular season games and playoff games. Because anyone who is as astute an observer of high school football as you are would never say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bobref said:

I officiated somewhere around 400 varsity regular season games. I also had approximately 110-120 playoff games. I hope you’re not trying to say that there’s no appreciable difference in the excitement, intensity and effort between regular season games and playoff games. Because anyone who is as astute an observer of high school football as you are would never say that.

Not saying that at all Bob. 

I played during the old qualifier system....watched my son and others play under the current system.  I see no increased level of intensity during regular season games.  Not saying there aren't exceptions.  But do I think its worth eliminating half of a 32 team field in the playoffs, just to make some fans feel better?...no I don't. 

As we've said before....to each his own.   

Just curious, with your impressive resume, can you tell me that under a qualifier system, regular season games = playoff games intensity?  Especially early in the season?  Do you actually witness a lot of teams taking plays off and not giving their best during the regular season under the current system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Not saying that at all Bob. 

I played during the old qualifier system....watched my son and others play under the current system.  I see no increased level of intensity during regular season games.  Not saying there aren't exceptions.  But do I think its worth eliminating half of a 32 team field in the playoffs, just to make some fans feel better?...no I don't. 

As we've said before....to each his own.   

Just curious, with your impressive resume, can you tell me that under a qualifier system, regular season games = playoff games intensity?  Especially early in the season?  Do you actually witness a lot of teams taking plays off and not giving their best during the regular season under the current system.  

I think you’re still not getting my point and I apologize for not being able to state it more clearly. The lesson we can learn from MLB on this topic is that an effective way to increase the competitiveness of regular season games is to tailor the post-season process to the goal of making more regular season games meaningful with respect to playoff qualifying. That’s the lesson we can learn, and that’s the only point I was trying to make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bobref said:

I think you’re still not getting my point and I apologize for not being able to state it more clearly. The lesson we can learn from MLB on this topic is that an effective way to increase the competitiveness of regular season games is to tailor the post-season process to the goal of making more regular season games meaningful with respect to playoff qualifying. That’s the lesson we can learn, and that’s the only point I was trying to make.

Bob...I understood it the first time.  I am questioning if this will really be the result.

There used to be little margin for error to make the playoffs......kind of like today's College National Championships...only 4 teams make the playoffs.....there is little forgiveness for a loss.  For most teams, one loss and you are out.  Baseball drove teams to truly be upper echelon to make it to post season.  Now with nearly 50% of their teams making post season, that is not the case.  That is dilution of quality.

With MLB continuing to add more teams, it also allows more forgiveness for losses.  Sure, some of the teams playing for the final spots may play more competitive.  Teams that have already clinched higher will rest players and those teams out of it, will bring up youth to develop.  So I am not sold it will result in across the board better games.  Some yes....overall...not sure.

MLB is trying to make more money out of the playoffs.....I don't think their #1 intent is to make the regular season higher quality games.  This is about $$.  

I get your point....just not sold...ok??  No need to apologize.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be a CRAZY amount of conference shuffling and schedule changes if there is a qualification system/seeding.  Not sure how much this plays a role in the process.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the NFL has now chimed in with exactly the same strategy as MLB. That’s two pretty savvy groups of people who came to the same conclusion: design the postseason process with the goal of making the regular season better. Those of you who doubt a seeded, qualification format would have that effect (cough, cough, @TrojanDad) should take heed. You don’t have to take just my word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bobref said:

And the NFL has now chimed in with exactly the same strategy as MLB. That’s two pretty savvy groups of people who came to the same conclusion: design the postseason process with the goal of making the regular season better. Those of you who doubt a seeded, qualification format would have that effect (cough, cough, @TrojanDad) should take heed. You don’t have to take just my word for it.

I have always supported seeding the playoffs.  I have never supported elimination of teams, especially in classifications of only 32 teams.

With MLB and now the NFL adding teams to the playoffs, does it really strengthen your argument?  The more teams added to the post season, the more it dilutes the importance of games in the regular season....much more forgiveness now for teams to falter, yet still make the playoffs.  With college football, every regular game is critical.  Heck, if the trend of adding more teams to the playoff continues, pretty soon MLB and the NFL may have an all-in playoff system!  😉

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I have always supported seeding the playoffs.  I have never supported elimination of teams, especially in classifications of only 32 teams.

 

I can agree with that.  Especially given that we are talking about high school kids.  Gives a chance to do both ... all-in while having some weight on the regular season progress.  In essence, it just makes a 10-week "regular season" and the "real" post season starts in second game of sectionals while also getting rid of some of those #1/#2 meetings that sometimes may pop up in the first-round of sectionals. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I have always supported seeding the playoffs.  I have never supported elimination of teams, especially in classifications of only 32 teams.

With MLB and now the NFL adding teams to the playoffs, does it really strengthen your argument?  The more teams added to the post season, the more it dilutes the importance of games in the regular season....much more forgiveness now for teams to falter, yet still make the playoffs.  With college football, every regular game is critical.  Heck, if the trend of adding more teams to the playoff continues, pretty soon MLB and the NFL may have an all-in playoff system!  😉

You're still missing it. The number of teams they've decided to go to is not the significant part. The significant part is that they're using the playoffs to make the regular season better. You can only do that with a qualification format or, to a much lesser degree, seeding because, otherwise, regular season games have no connection to the playoffs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bobref said:

You're still missing it. The number of teams they've decided to go to is not the significant part. The significant part is that they're using the playoffs to make the regular season better. You can only do that with a qualification format or, to a much lesser degree, seeding because, otherwise, regular season games have no connection to the playoffs.

I contend its you that doesn't get it.  My point is that it doesn't necessarily make the regular season better.  Adding more teams may make it more exciting for the few on the bubble.  For teams firmly in, not so much.  For teams out, not so much.  With it being EASIER to make the playoffs, it makes the regular season much more forgiveable and MORE LOSSES will still get teams in the playoffs.  Teams don't have to be a good during the regular season to make the playoffs.  I get more teams will get a few more fans excited.  But quality of the regular season performance becomes suspect.

Again, if more is better Bob, then lets quick jacking around and add even more teams...heck, let's push toward all in.  Then all fans will be happy their team is in the post season.

Stop saying I don't get it because I don't buy your theory.  I don't think adding more teams to the playoffs equals a more exciting regular season for all.  I think it sucks the NFL is adding more teams to the playoffs.  Definitely dilution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, foxbat said:

I can agree with that.  Especially given that we are talking about high school kids.  Gives a chance to do both ... all-in while having some weight on the regular season progress.  In essence, it just makes a 10-week "regular season" and the "real" post season starts in second game of sectionals while also getting rid of some of those #1/#2 meetings that sometimes may pop up in the first-round of sectionals. 

That is where I am FOX...I would even support regional or semi-state games being played on neutral fields, if we felt that added to the quality of games.  Or seed the teams so the higher teams host and they are rewarded for having an excellent regular season...in lieu of the current flip flopping of hosting playoff games.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I contend its you that doesn't get it.  My point is that it doesn't necessarily make the regular season better.  Adding more teams may make it more exciting for the few on the bubble.  For teams firmly in, not so much.  For teams out, not so much.  With it being EASIER to make the playoffs, it makes the regular season much more forgiveable and MORE LOSSES will still get teams in the playoffs.  Teams don't have to be a good during the regular season to make the playoffs.  I get more teams will get a few more fans excited.  But quality of the regular season performance becomes suspect.

Again, if more is better Bob, then lets quick jacking around and add even more teams...heck, let's push toward all in.  Then all fans will be happy their team is in the post season.

Stop saying I don't get it because I don't buy your theory.  I don't think adding more teams to the playoffs equals a more exciting regular season for all.  I think it sucks the NFL is adding more teams to the playoffs.  Definitely dilution.

The teams solidly in would be playing for seeding and home field advantage if done right. This would give more games more consequences late in the season. Having a qualifying tournament and/or seeding definitely helps make regular season games more interesting and exciting. I think a better argument for you would be if that is interesting or exciting enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JustRules said:

The teams solidly in would be playing for seeding and home field advantage if done right. This would give more games more consequences late in the season. Having a qualifying tournament and/or seeding definitely helps make regular season games more interesting and exciting. I think a better argument for you would be if that is interesting or exciting enough.

NBA has a fair number of teams in the playoffs.  Do you attend many of those regular season games?  Do you invest in their product?  Watch a ton of NBA on TV?  How are their ratings?  What is their current trend?

NBA has a total of 30 teams...16 make the playoffs. 

https://www.si.com/nba/cavaliers/news/nba-tv-ratings-abc-espn-tnt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/12/24/nba-ratings-decline-explanation-espn-tnt-abc-adam-silver/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bulls/ct-chicago-bulls-nba-tv-ratings-20191204-nluusfjsmja4pf3ynd2b7lcjru-story.html

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2020/01/nba-ratings-decline-lakers-rockets-celtics-abc-tnt/

I think current ratings data illustrates that more doesn't always equal more interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 8:09 AM, TrojanDad said:

NBA has a fair number of teams in the playoffs.  Do you attend many of those regular season games?  Do you invest in their product?  Watch a ton of NBA on TV?  How are their ratings?  What is their current trend?

NBA has a total of 30 teams...16 make the playoffs. 

https://www.si.com/nba/cavaliers/news/nba-tv-ratings-abc-espn-tnt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/12/24/nba-ratings-decline-explanation-espn-tnt-abc-adam-silver/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bulls/ct-chicago-bulls-nba-tv-ratings-20191204-nluusfjsmja4pf3ynd2b7lcjru-story.html

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2020/01/nba-ratings-decline-lakers-rockets-celtics-abc-tnt/

I think current ratings data illustrates that more doesn't always equal more interest.

There is a decline in TV viewing of most live sporting events. The excitement around end of season games where teams are jockeying for seeding positions especially the #1 seed for 3/4 better than 5/6 for home court and the teams on the edge of the #8 seed. The atmosphere is playoff like for those games. If every NBA team made the playoffs and who you played and where was randomly drawn those end of season games would be a lot less exciting. What difference does it make if you finish as the #3 seed or #5 seed? Or #8 or #10? In the NBA that would affect TV ratings and attendance. There wouldn't necessarily be as big of a change in attendance and viewership isn't an important measurable in HS athletics. But I guarantee the energy, excitement, and enthusiasm around regular season games would be much higher if seeding and/or qualification was on the line. Even if you oppose qualifying and/or seeding (an opinion I can respect), that is not a point you should argue against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JustRules said:

There is a decline in TV viewing of most live sporting events. The excitement around end of season games where teams are jockeying for seeding positions especially the #1 seed for 3/4 better than 5/6 for home court and the teams on the edge of the #8 seed. The atmosphere is playoff like for those games. If every NBA team made the playoffs and who you played and where was randomly drawn those end of season games would be a lot less exciting. What difference does it make if you finish as the #3 seed or #5 seed? Or #8 or #10? In the NBA that would affect TV ratings and attendance. There wouldn't necessarily be as big of a change in attendance and viewership isn't an important measurable in HS athletics. But I guarantee the energy, excitement, and enthusiasm around regular season games would be much higher if seeding and/or qualification was on the line. Even if you oppose qualifying and/or seeding (an opinion I can respect), that is not a point you should argue against.

And that's your opinion.  I don't necessarily buy into it.  I played during qualification period here in Indiana...watched my son play during a non-qualifier.  I've seen it with  my own eyes, so I'll take my own word for it.

Bob indicated what MLB is doing will raise excitement during the regular season.  I say bull....MLB did it for the post season...more money generated during the post season.  I provided data with the NBA have >50% of its teams in the playoffs and it doesn't lead to tons more excitement during the regular season.  It does not drive up attendance or TV ratings.  

I respect your opinion JR...but I don't buy it would lead to a marked difference...and using MLB's addition of playoff teams isn't a great predictor of renewed or additional enthusiasm of the regular season.  

I would love to see seeding in place for HS football....but I don't buy that it will lead to increased fans in the stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

And that's your opinion.  I don't necessarily buy into it.  I played during qualification period here in Indiana...watched my son play during a non-qualifier.  I've seen it with  my own eyes, so I'll take my own word for it.

Bob indicated what MLB is doing will raise excitement during the regular season.  I say bull....MLB did it for the post season...more money generated during the post season.  I provided data with the NBA have >50% of its teams in the playoffs and it doesn't lead to tons more excitement during the regular season.  It does not drive up attendance or TV ratings.  

I respect your opinion JR...but I don't buy it would lead to a marked difference...and using MLB's addition of playoff teams isn't a great predictor of renewed or additional enthusiasm of the regular season.  

I would love to see seeding in place for HS football....but I don't buy that it will lead to increased fans in the stands.

I never said it would increase fans in the stands. It could. But the fans in the stands and the participants would experience a more exciting game in a more electric environment because there would be more on the line. Again, think of the Cathedral/CG game if the winner would be playing for home field in the first few rounds of the tournament or possibly a spot (not likely in either case because they were clearly in any qualifying tournament). There are too many other factors in play that could affect attendance. Game location (CG fans more likely to attend a home game rather than driving to Tech), weather, Fall Break, etc. You'll probably get a few more casual fans but that could vary. If you have a player with a minor injury that could otherwise play but sits out to help recover for the playoffs, he would definitely play if there was home field (seeding) or a playoff spot on the line. I'm not talking about the player risking further injury who really shouldn't play. But think about the difference in energy in the playoff games with WC/BD compared to regular season games. Yes, they are competitive, but the energy is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

And that's your opinion.  I don't necessarily buy into it.  I played during qualification period here in Indiana...watched my son play during a non-qualifier.  I've seen it with  my own eyes, so I'll take my own word for it.Bob indicated what MLB is doing will raise excitement during the regular season.  I say bull....

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2875682-14-team-expanded-playoff-format-is-perfect-fix-to-reinvigorate-mlb-for-a-new-era  Here  are some excerpts that explain why MLB is proposing this change, since you have asserted that the reasoning behind the proposal is simply to generate more revenue from more playoff games:

“In 2019, attendance was down for a seventh straight year. Many factors have led to the dip, but clearly one is so many teams surrendering playoff objectives before or during seasons. MLB wants to have as many regular-season games matter as possible.”

“The drama would ratchet up leaguewide. More eyeballs would be glued to screens, and more butts would be in seats.”

“Is your team hovering below .500 in late August? Don't worry! It's a five-game winning streak away from being smack dab in the postseason mix. And if this protracted playoff dance plays out, imagine the drama. That would undoubtedly turn the heads of the younger demographic baseball needs to court.”

“... it's about a bigger pool of fans investing, rooting and cheering every year.”

So, you are free to disagree with the fundamental proposition here: that the playoff procedure can — and should — be adjusted so as to make the regular season more competitive and more meaningful. But you’re not just disagreeing with me and @JustRules. You’re also disagreeing with the MLB people who are charged with making their sport — both regular season and postseason — more attractive to fans. Of course, no one is infallible. But the logic makes sense, and people with millions of $$ at stake are willing to bet on it. To me, it’s just a question of whether you’re willing to do what is best for the future of Indiana HS football, even if it involves a significant change in the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...