Quote from: Crawford on October 18, 2025, 03:02:52 PMWhat is going on Indiana?  IU kicked a 58 yarder, Wabash and Depauw both have 51 yarders! Is a yard shorter than when I was a player?

DePauw has a 51 yarder, but think Rucker's was only 50 (with enough leg for 55+). Brody is a good kid. I hope he gets a chance at a big one in the next few weeks.

Wooster beat Wittenberg?
... and wow, Wooster is not very good!

Congrats to Brody! That ties a record that has stood since 1985.

Bear with me on this. I know it's long, but it took some digging. Before I start though — I want to acknowledge how much I miss Sigma One.  For 25 years, he was a close friend and mentor, and he was gone too soon.
 
Now, fun fact, if Wabash wins this week, it will be only the third time that both Wabash and IU have been 4-0 at the same time.
 
1910
IU finished 6-1, winning their first five.  They shut out Butler, Purdue, and Depauw, and gave up only six points all season.
Wabash finished 4-0, also with shutout wins over Butler and Purdue.  In fact, they weren't scored on the entire season, but this was the year of Ralph Lee Wilson's death. The remainder of their season was cancelled.
 
2015
IU started 4-0, but finished with a losing record.
Wabash went 12-1, with a season-ending loss to St. Thomas.
Coincidentally, DePauw was also 4-0 in 2015.
 
All-in-all, 2025 is the eighth time IU has started 4-0.  Only three times have they started better than 4-0: 1910, 1967 (Rose Bowl year), and last year. Wabash has started 4-0 twenty five times.
 
(Crawford, feel free to use AI and fact check me if you want)

Crawford - again, happy to have differing opinions, but you can't cite something that's specifically allowed in the rulebook to justify something that isn't.

Crawford - I did not see that, but it makes sense. It's also a situation that is specifically addressed and allowed in the NCAA rulebook. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know what Wabash did last week is neither addressed nor allowed anywhere in the rule book.

I said early on that I'm happy to agree to disagree, but when folks keeps citing situations that are just not the same, I'm going to respond.

Dr - that is a perfect example, as this Twitter post confirms. And if you look at the pictures you'll see two sets of hash marks (pic 1) and adjustable goalposts (pic 2).

https://x.com/ohiostadiums/status/690325494827474945?s=46&t=57Idl2kdBt4XRffKcNPGpA

Maybe I'm just a bit of a purist, but my suggestion is that if a field would not be approved/suitable to start a game, then it shouldn't somehow become suitable to finish the game.

Pat's Hickory reference seems a little off to me. When measuring the court in Hinkle, the lane was the  exact same length; the rim the exact same height. Wasn't that the point of the scene? Not the case with HS posts and markings.

Can you imagine a potential game winning field goal ricocheting through after bouncing off a HS post, or a doink rejection from an NFL post?

I'll admit there aren't many "pony" league baseball fields with 75 foot bases, but there are some. Dimensions of a HS basketball court is an absolutely relevant comparison. Different goalpost widths (whether moving to a HS field or a pro field as was done for the Wabash/Wash U game in 1984) can change the outcome of a game.

Entire coaching schemes and strategies are based on sets of established criteria. Football game plans are routinely based on field and boundary schemes, both offensively and defensively. Those things should not be changed mid-game.

Twice Wabash has moved a tied game to Crawfordsville HS (won one/lost one). I'm a Wabash guy. It's my opinion that neither game should've been moved. We can agree to disagree.

1988 - Benedictine (IL) (at that time it was Illinois Benedictine) blocked four kicks twice.

And I'm glad to see Wabash win, but I'll go on record saying that a game should NEVER be moved to a HS field. No basketball coach would consent to a HS 3Pt arc. No Volleyball coach would consent to a shorter net. No baseball coach would consent to a 75 ft base path. It wasn't the right decision when Wabash did it to Wittenberg in 2000, and it wasn't right today.

I can feel for CWU not wanting to risk two incomplete games, but Wabash has to do better. Get lights, or just accept the risk, but moving a game to a non-conforming field is unacceptable - should never even be considered an option.

https://sports.wabash.edu/news/2025/7/30/main-athletics-peeples-named-director-of-athletics-and-recreation-at-wabash-college.aspx

Wabash has their new AD. Hands down the best of the three finalists. All three coaches on the committee and the FAR had him as their #1.

Yeah - this is an interesting move, and the timing puts Wabash in an interesting spot.  Dr.A, I was asked a similar question on a lacrosse specific board yesterday, and this was my response:

Ned, you're right -- I've never complained about him in the past, but neither have I ever praised him. In my book the jury was still out, but opinions range from negative to middle of the road.

He is a Wabash alum, and was the AD at Western Illinois prior to Wabash. He's a JD and I think very intelligent/qualified, but aloof and withdrawn. He likes to run things from behind his desk, insulated by senior associate directors of this and operational coordinators of that. He's from a football/coaching family, but to my knowledge he's never coached anything. He also looks a little like Waldo, but that's not why you can't find him in the crowd -- it's because he's probably not there.

I guess in short, Wabash is one of those places that's pretty tough to screw up (kinda like being Indiana's Governor). If you've got a personality and some vision, then you'll do great. If you can't get out of your own way, then you're going to get exposed pretty quickly (or maybe elected Vice President). But if you're competent and a good person, then you'll do fine, and this is where Matt fits. He does fine. But if you told me he's going to be the AD for the next 20 years, I'd rather that happen in Granville than Crawfordsville.

In one way or another, I've experienced six Wabash ADs over the last, eh ... long time. Two great, two bad, and two fine. I certainly wish Matt and Denison well, but I think Wabash has the opportunity now to do better, and my guess is that this administration has the wherewithal to take advantage of that.

Fair comments. Like I said, my first time seeing either, and no dog in the fight. I happened to be sitting nearer the BW parents, so I absorbed some of their mood.

I had the chance to see Baldwin Wallace v. UW Oshkosh in the Elite 8 game last night (my first time seeing either team). UWO led wire-to-wire, opened up a big lead, but allowed BW to claw back to 3 points (with possession) in the last minute or two. A very good game.

The biggest surprise to me was BW's coaching (or maybe lack thereof). For a coach with 700+ wins, there wasn't a single moment where you felt BW had a coaching advantage. Twice they played for the final shot in the quarter — each time one player held the ball at midcourt into the last five seconds, and then threw up a bad NBA 3-point shot. 35 years of coaching and that's the best you've got?  And I imagine it's kinda easy to roll through average competition without challenging for rebounds, but when you're behind ten in the first five minutes, you kinda need to challenge for the ball a little. Very disappointing for the BW crowd as they watched some cold shooting lead to conceding a 15 point lead. Just my two cents, now I'll go back to the football boards.

And just like that, LG89 read my signature line and went, "doh!"