Auburn football

[Cousin_Hoyt 87]

Did Auburn forfeit their last 2 games?

[sixcat 2,919]

8 hours ago, Cousin_Hoyt said:

Did Auburn forfeit their last 2 games?

Cancelled the Galax game last Friday and my understanding is, they have cancelled with Giles and George Wythe as well to finish the season. 

Apparently, they are already practicing basketball from what I have heard. 

[Hard Hitter 10]

38 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Cancelled the Galax game last Friday and my understanding is, they have cancelled with Giles and George Wythe as well to finish the season. 

Apparently, they are already practicing basketball from what I have heard. 

well that's a bunch of BS!  if they had enough bodies to play they should be playing and if they still cancel just to cancel they should be forced to sit out the next sport they play. BASKETBALL!! VHSL needs to grow a pair and step in or this will continue!! If I was an AD and I was in certain teams conferences Bland, Auburn, Craig county... I just wouldn't schedule them at all. 

[60minuteMan 44]

1 hour ago, sixcat said:

Cancelled the Galax game last Friday and my understanding is, they have cancelled with Giles and George Wythe as well to finish the season. 

Apparently, they are already practicing basketball from what I have heard. 

heard their JV team picked up a game against Abingdon last week, and Giles this week. I can't confirm it, but I heard they even beat Abingdon's JV. Maybe that bodes well for the future, at least numbers wise.  At least they're trying to keep the future of the program going. Some posters wanting to punish next years team, or even this years basketball team, because they can't finish this season, seems unrealistic to me.

[BandanaVTDavis4321 1,717]

15 minutes ago, 60minuteMan said:

Some posters wanting to punish next years team, or even this years basketball team, because they can't finish this season, seems unrealistic to me.

I don't know about the word "punishment," but if you are saying some posters wish there were consequences, then count me in as one of those posters and that sounds very Realistic to me.  This has got out of hand, and I warned of that early last year and this year with the cancelled seasons.  It's getting to where the cancelled season by the cancelled team is given a pass, and it's chalked off to "well, they tried and gave it a go and gave the kids a chance."  The problem is...there's no consequences for not finishing the season and the other teams that get cancelled on are simply told to "Suck it Up and Move On."  That's not fair to them.  Should be 2 rules in my opinion.

1.  If you don't have 23 kids for game one, then you don't have a season, period.

2.  If you cancel during the season, you don't get to schedule a district game for 2 years, unless other district teams choose to schedule you, but the other teams shouldn't be obligated or forced to schedule you for the next 2 years if they so choose. 

The above is not unreasonable.  It's fair.  It's fair to both the team with limited kids and the teams that are about to get cancelled on.  It makes the AD think twice about whether they should give it go and have a season, and it lets them know that if you cancel, there are some consequences because YOU are not the only one involved.  There are other teams involved and effected.  There is some Narcissism going on here.  Yes, the goal should be for all kids that want to play football to play football and that's a noble cause for sure.  But, when we get to the point to where we try at all costs to make "all things fair," we often end up with 2 Unfair things.  It's unfair for the team with limited kids, but it also becomes unfair for the teams cancelled on and we end up with 2 unfairs.  

As for Auburn in Basketball, their basketball team or any school's basketball team or program should not be effected based on their football team cancelling their season.  Trying to punish the basketball team or force them to have consequences for the AD's not so good decision to attempt a football season would be crazy talk in my opinion.  Another rule, if a team doesn't have enough kids to participate, that kid or kids from the team with not enough participants should be allowed to play football at the closest or nearby school for that season.

 

[sixcat 2,919]

39 minutes ago, 60minuteMan said:

heard their JV team picked up a game against Abingdon last week, and Giles this week. I can't confirm it, but I heard they even beat Abingdon's JV. Maybe that bodes well for the future, at least numbers wise.  At least they're trying to keep the future of the program going. Some posters wanting to punish next years team, or even this years basketball team, because they can't finish this season, seems unrealistic to me.

I agree punishment isn't the answer but we do have a serious question on our hands that needs to be addressed. 

According to the MED calendar, they picked up JV games with Abingdon (10/24), Giles (10/28) and Alleghany (11/3). Considering Auburn didn't have a JV game prior to the October 24th contest with Abingdon, it appears they reclassified their varsity team to JV and scheduled whoever they could. This is probably the direction they should have gone from the beginning of the season considering their roster is 70% freshmen and sophomores.

[SWVAgridiron 1,469]

13 minutes ago, sixcat said:

I agree punishment isn't the answer but we do have a serious question on our hands that needs to be addressed. 

According to the MED calendar, they picked up JV games with Abingdon (10/24), Giles (10/28) and Alleghany (11/3). Considering Auburn didn't have a JV game prior to the October 24th contest with Abingdon, it appears they reclassified their varsity team to JV and scheduled whoever they could. This is probably the direction they should have gone from the beginning of the season considering their roster is 70% freshmen and sophomores.

You are correct. Giles JV will basically be playing their Varsity which consist of mainly underclassmen so I think it’s still a fair match up. 

[Pegasus 27 20]

25 minutes ago, sixcat said:

I agree punishment isn't the answer but we do have a serious question on our hands that needs to be addressed. 

According to the MED calendar, they picked up JV games with Abingdon (10/24), Giles (10/28) and Alleghany (11/3). Considering Auburn didn't have a JV game prior to the October 24th contest with Abingdon, it appears they reclassified their varsity team to JV and scheduled whoever they could. This is probably the direction they should have gone from the beginning of the season considering their roster is 70% freshmen and sophomores.

So what seems to be true is that it is the upperclassmen that are quitting. So for I don't feel sorry for the players at all if this is the case.

[SW_VA_boy 492]

This is just more examples of the thought of 7 or 8 man football needing to become a thing.  And while I understand the point behind a 23 man cut off rule, there's still been schools that's played, and won, with under 20.  Narrows won the MED with 18 when Grayson was the largest A school in the state in the late 90s.  However, I'll secede the point, that is usually the exception to the rule. 

[60minuteMan 44]

43 minutes ago, BandanaVTDavis4321 said:

I don't know about the word "punishment," but if you are saying some posters wish there were consequences, then count me in as one of those posters and that sounds very Realistic to me.  This has got out of hand, and I warned of that early last year and this year with the cancelled seasons.  It's getting to where the cancelled season by the cancelled team is given a pass, and it's chalked off to "well, they tried and gave it a go and gave the kids a chance."  The problem is...there's no consequences for not finishing the season and the other teams that get cancelled on are simply told to "Suck it Up and Move On."  That's not fair to them.  Should be 2 rules in my opinion.

1.  If you don't have 23 kids for game one, then you don't have a season, period.

2.  If you cancel during the season, you don't get to schedule a district game for 2 years, unless other district teams choose to schedule you, but the other teams shouldn't be obligated or forced to schedule you for the next 2 years if they so choose. 

The above is not unreasonable.  It's fair.  It's fair to both the team with limited kids and the teams that are about to get cancelled on.  It makes the AD think twice about whether they should give it go and have a season, and it lets them know that if you cancel, there are some consequences because YOU are not the only one involved.  There are other teams involved and effected.  There is some Narcissism going on here.  Yes, the goal should be for all kids that want to play football to play football and that's a noble cause for sure.  But, when we get to the point to where we try at all costs to make "all things fair," we often end up with 2 Unfair things.  It's unfair for the team with limited kids, but it also becomes unfair for the teams cancelled on and we end up with 2 unfairs.  

As for Auburn in Basketball, their basketball team or any school's basketball team or program should not be effected based on their football team cancelling their season.  Trying to punish the basketball team or force them to have consequences for the AD's not so good decision to attempt a football season would be crazy talk in my opinion.  Another rule, if a team doesn't have enough kids to participate, that kid or kids from the team with not enough participants should be allowed to play football at the closest or nearby school for that season.

 

problem I see with rule #2 is, you might as well tell a sophomore or junior thinking about playing football next year, don't bother. Can't see how  that can  help out a struggling program.

 

[44cov3 55]

I think Auburn needs to do like several other schools have done throughout the state and thats play an independent schedule.  I know that means they dont qualify for playoffs, but at this point does it really matter.  Create a schedule that has 10 competitive football games on it, build up some confidence in the kids and program, and if in several years things are improving join back in the MED.  Yes, playing the JV schedule to finish out the year seems great but will that really change their attitude next year when it comes time to play Galax, George Wythe, Grayson, Giles, etc?  They had double digit upper classman on the team at the start of the season and now are down to a couple.  Now that its happened 2 years in a row.....its becoming the norm.

[BandanaVTDavis4321 1,717]

1 hour ago, Pegasus 27 said:

So what seems to be true is that it is the upperclassmen that are quitting. So for I don't feel sorry for the players at all if this is the case.

It gets back into MARGIN for ERROR.  When you have less kids to start the season, the odds are....you are going to take some beatings.  This is not always the case and there are exceptions, but by in large it holds true.  You often take some big losses, and that is another thing that cuts into Margin for Error.  If you start with 22 or so players, aside from injuries, flu, Covid, suspensions, or other life events, you have the added variable of usually losing games by lots of points which further cuts into that 22 that you started with.  We see it all the time....by game 6, 7, 8, teams are cancelling when they SHOULD NOT been allowed to start.  One poster wrote that about 20% of Craig County's team had quit.  That's expected and not an anomaly.  When you have less to start with, you have little to zero depth and you generally lose big, which adds to the psychological element of kids not wanting to continue by week 8 or 9.  It's par for the course.  I think a team should have to have 25 kids to start, but 23 is being generous.

[SamJackson 14]

I believe this is a trend that will continue.  Schools will allow their teams just quit because they can not win.  I believe you will see more forfeits during the 1st round of playoffs this year.  I still think it's absurd to play a 1/8 and 2/7 game.  I just can't believe anyone makes any money from those games.  

[PV8 8]

15 minutes ago, SamJackson said:

I believe this is a trend that will continue.  Schools will allow their teams just quit because they can not win.  I believe you will see more forfeits during the 1st round of playoffs this year.  I still think it's absurd to play a 1/8 and 2/7 game.  I just can't believe anyone makes any money from those games.  

Agree, the trend was set last year. Hang it up, and play a JV season with varsity players. What message are you sending to your players, school, and community?

[Gridiron60 2,554]

The kicker is that Auburn bailing and not being forced to forfeit affects teams like Graham who have been top of PP all season only to be outpointed because of rider points that would have come from GW & Galax beating them. There needs to be consequences for this not necessarily punishment. It’s setting a bad precedent and other teams reap negative consequences when they shouldn’t because of these schools. Just my opinion…makes me a huge Bluefield fan this Friday! 

[44cov3 55]

To address yalls point with Graham not getting the PP; I do believe Galax, GW, and others have the option to either take a forfeit or take a cancellation (dividing by 1 game less) soooooooo, you could make the argument that Galax, GW, Giles are screwing Graham out of points, but it works out for them in the long run taking the cancellation.  IF they take the 16 points for the win and add it into their total which their averages are over 16 it hurts them so they are all going to take it as a cancel.

[Cousin_Hoyt 87]

You want to put a stop to it, put a monetary clause for forfeitures into a signed contract.  If you lose a home game, forfeiture fee - $4000.  Lose an away game, forfeiture fee - $2000. If you can find a replacement game for a forfeit, you would still receive a forfeiture fee of $1000.  This Friday, Giles receives $2000, 11-4 George Wythe receives $4000. If forfeiture fees are not paid (District & Non-District), then none of that school’s teams can compete in winter and spring district competitions thus eliminating them from Regional and State competition.  Harsh, NO, means that ADs and Coaches are going to have to work harder to field a team, especially in the offseason. 
 

 

[Cousin_Hoyt 87]

Just now, Cousin_Hoyt said:

You want to put a stop to it, put a monetary clause for forfeitures into a signed contract.  If you lose a home game, forfeiture fee - $4000.  Lose an away game, forfeiture fee - $2000. If you can find a replacement game for a forfeit, you would still receive a forfeiture fee of $1000.  This Friday, Giles receives $2000, 11-4 George Wythe receives $4000. If forfeiture fees are not paid (District & Non-District), then none of that school’s teams can compete in winter and spring district competitions thus eliminating them from Regional and State competition.  Harsh, NO, means that ADs and Coaches are going to have to work harder to field a team, especially in the offseason. 
 

 

Should be Winter and Spring District Tournament not competition.

[Gridiron60 2,554]

1 hour ago, 44cov3 said:

To address yalls point with Graham not getting the PP; I do believe Galax, GW, and others have the option to either take a forfeit or take a cancellation (dividing by 1 game less) soooooooo, you could make the argument that Galax, GW, Giles are screwing Graham out of points, but it works out for them in the long run taking the cancellation.  IF they take the 16 points for the win and add it into their total which their averages are over 16 it hurts them so they are all going to take it as a cancel.

So teams in those districts that played 10 games are now at a disadvantage compared to teams that get to pick their best scenario which is a 9 game season. My point is, no one should have the option. They should all be counted at forfeits. There needs to be a set rule, period.  

[sixcat 2,919]

Had administration at Auburn been proactive, they could have (and should have) prevented this whole scenario. They knew the struggles the school faced in fielding a football team from previous seasons. They knew the roster was 70+% freshmen and sophomores. They should have gotten with their scheduled opponents prior to the season and played an entirely JV schedule. Those schools on Auburn schedule would then have had time to schedule other varsity competition much like Grundy and George Wythe did when Bland bailed on their season. 

The problem here is waiting until mid-October to do what should have been done in mid-July. Playing an entirely JV schedule would have benefited Auburn in several different facets. They could build a little confidence among the players, wouldn't have resulted in as many injuries, and gotten some momentum in building the program back to a varsity level over the course of a season or two as opposed to all at once. 

I blame Auburn administration, AD and head coach. 

[goose111874 967]

4 hours ago, Gridiron60 said:

The kicker is that Auburn bailing and not being forced to forfeit affects teams like Graham who have been top of PP all season only to be outpointed because of rider points that would have come from GW & Galax beating them. There needs to be consequences for this not necessarily punishment. It’s setting a bad precedent and other teams reap negative consequences when they shouldn’t because of these schools. Just my opinion…makes me a huge Bluefield fan this Friday! 

Thought I seen a post where Ridgeview has been affected by forfeits also so it may even out.  Ridgeview fans would know more than me on this subject though

[Gridiron60 2,554]

1 hour ago, goose111874 said:

Thought I seen a post where Ridgeview has been affected by forfeits also so it may even out.  Ridgeview fans would know more than me on this subject though

If it’s a forfeit, rider points will be given. If it’s listed as a cancel, no rider points is my understanding. At the end of the day, teams will have to play every game like it’s the championship regardless of the location. At this point, it stinks for teams like Graham but it is what it is. 

[BandanaVTDavis4321 1,717]

1 hour ago, sixcat said:

Had administration at Auburn been proactive, they could have (and should have) prevented this whole scenario. They knew the struggles the school faced in fielding a football team from previous seasons. They knew the roster was 70+% freshmen and sophomores. They should have gotten with their scheduled opponents prior to the season and played an entirely JV schedule. Those schools on Auburn schedule would then have had time to schedule other varsity competition much like Grundy and George Wythe did when Bland bailed on their season. 

The problem here is waiting until mid-October to do what should have been done in mid-July. Playing an entirely JV schedule would have benefited Auburn in several different facets. They could build a little confidence among the players, wouldn't have resulted in as many injuries, and gotten some momentum in building the program back to a varsity level over the course of a season or two as opposed to all at once. 

I blame Auburn administration, AD and head coach. 

Exactly what I've been saying, but I can't put it into words as well as you do. The AD's need to be more proactive, cautious, and really think about things BEFORE the season. My knock hasn't been as much about canceled seasons as it has been about poor decisions Before the season (the decision to have a season.)

[goose111874 967]

21 minutes ago, Gridiron60 said:

If it’s a forfeit, rider points will be given. If it’s listed as a cancel, no rider points is my understanding. At the end of the day, teams will have to play every game like it’s the championship regardless of the location. At this point, it stinks for teams like Graham but it is what it is. 

Even if Ridgeview is the 1 seed Graham or Ridgeview may lose before playing anyways but I don't see anyone beating either before they play

[BandanaVTDavis4321 1,717]

10 minutes ago, goose111874 said:

Even if Ridgeview is the 1 seed Graham or Ridgeview may lose before playing anyways but I don't see anyone beating either before they play

1 of them is playing Union in round 2. If I'm Graham or Ridgeview, I would want to avoid that, even if it meant traveling for game 3 in the region finals. Obviously, you play to win and neither Graham or RV is going to tank it in order to be the 2 seed, but if I'm a Graham fan and I finish 2nd, I would be happier avoiding Union in round 2 and traveling to RV for the Region title instead of playing Union in round 2 at home and then playing RV at home. Just my thoughts on it and they apply to Ridgeview also. 

I write this because come playoff time, I believe Union is the 1 team in the region that will be very close to RV and Grahams level, so if I'm Graham or RV, I would rather play 1 of those 2 opponents instead of playing both (2 out of 2 opponents). It's the 1 seed that will likely host Union in round 2. All I'm saying is...careful what you wish for.