So excited about this! Bagdad is ready and they are going into the game with a great mindset. They have the confidence to KNOW they can win this game, but at the same time if they don't it will give them an accurate standpoint on where they are and what they will need to work on to improve.
I think this is what makes the Bagdad program special, and is instilled by the coaching staff.
...and they were allowed to miss a game against Pima at a time (and a week) when their numbers are down. Win. Win. Win. I'd be shocked under the circumstances, though, if there is any charge for the facilities.
It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that Pima and GC were initially scheduled (or maybe "penciled in") during the season but it was on a week that GC students attend some other event and their numbers are a little low to begin with (their current MaxPreps roster shows 12 players)so that game was pulled, causing Pima's bye and the addition of the week zero game against Bagdad - not surprisingly, at GC.
If that is incorrect or someone knows more, I'd be interested to know.
I volunteer assist with the football team so I'll be on the sideline during the game. Sadly, the best way to describe me since I'll be matching at least 5 other coaches is that I am the smallest. 5'7" - Goatee. Should be easy to spot.
And I just remembered that it is wrong to say that it is the first time they will play against each other. My son played a little as a sophomore the year Pima beat Bagdad in the semis before losing to Joy in the finals.
FballFan99: Ya'll forgot the third winner in this game. Gilbert Christian. They charge a lot for the use of their field, and they have no travel to scout the top two teams in the division.
Any team that would have the opportunity to rent their field out to a competitor and have the luxury of being able to scout them on their home turf would jump at it. And whatever they charge, you seem to have some insight on this, let's not forget both teams agreed to play at GC!
84sheepdog: ..and they were allowed to miss a game against Pima at a time (and a week) when their numbers are down.
Really? They were allowed to miss a game because their numbers are down? More insight or speculation here?
84sheepdog: It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that Pima and GC were initially scheduled (or maybe "penciled in") during the season but it was on a week that GC students attend some other event and their numbers are a little low to begin with (their current MaxPreps roster shows 12 players)so that game was pulled, causing Pima's bye and the addition of the week zero game against Bagdad - not surprisingly, at GC.
Let's go with "I could be wrong" if you really believe that GC was allowed to bow out of a game due to a school function that would cause their numbers to be even lower than they are. There are seven other teams that have a bye during the season. Did GC cause those byes as well? I would think, but now I could be wrong, that being a volunteer with access to the sidelines you would have the confidence of the coaches and be privy to some information that a regular supporter would not. So why the speculation? And again you make it sound like GC somehow forced Pima and Bagdad to play at their facility.
dodgerboue88: Honestly, sounds like a good excuse. I don't think GC wants Pima just my opinion!
Even if there ever was a legitimate excuse it would never be a good enough excuse for all the naysayers! And GC not wanting Pima is just that, your opinion. It's not based on anything credible. You are not at the practices, you're not involved in the conversations with the coaches and players. How could you possibly know whether or not GC wants Pima?
I did do some research, and have found out that the GC/Pima situation is truly unfounded. That the whole bye was based on scheduling. Although, I honestly don't think that GC wants to play the rural powers, and you are right that's just my opinion.
Okay. I did some more research myself. Here's the whole story. At the scheduling meeting, it was clear that there was going to be an odd number of total teams, so some zero week games were going to be necessary. Pima had already made it clear that they were interested in a zero week game(plus their full schedule) if any were necessary. Pima had identified GC and Mesa Prep as teams they were interested in playing. GC was in attendance (Pima was not) and Pima/GC was discussed as a zero week game. The GC rep made a call and concluded they could not play a zero week game because they have an annual retreat and would be missing both coaches and players. After failing to work out the odd-team issue, the committee had the computer create a schedule which included randomly selected, mandatory zero week teams. Those were FT, Pima, St. David, Gila Bend, Ash Fork, Tohono, and AZ Charter. The committee matched those teams up. Once you factor in that FT, St. David, and Pima all play each other already, the committee decided on Ft./Charter, Gila Bend/St. David (for travel), Tohono/Ash, and Pima/Bagdad. Pima and Bagdad both already had 4 home games so it was determined to play in the middle - though Bagdad is the designated home team. Concerns, Tejano?
No concerns here. But isn't t it a lot different to say that GC was unable to commit to playing Pima on week zero due to some event than to flat out say that Pima and GC were initially scheduled (or maybe "penciled in") during the season but it was on a week that GC students attend some other event. You all but accused GC of pulling out. And then to say that was what caused Pima's bye week and the addition of the week zero game versus Bagdad. Again blaming GC. I can promise you GC wanted to play Pima week zero. That was the talk all summer. And not out of arrogance or over confidence but out of respect and a genuine desire to compete against the best of the best. And GC is well aware that in order to earn some respect they will have to, as dodgerbluee88 puts it, take down the rural powers!.
I don't know what GC charges for field rental. I have heard it was a little high, but hey, it's a nice field. You're right, teams agreed to play there, so I suppose it's not astronomical for the astrotuficial.
FballFan99 - "they do charge" doesn't mean they are in this case. I would still not be surprised at all if GC offered their field for this game, or maybe discounted the rate. They should do well at the gate and with concessions and, as already mentioned, they'll get some great scouting. With the mess that ensued at the scheduling meeting, I just would not be shocked at all if GC stepped up in a helpful way. To add, both Pima and Bagdad already had four home games and it was Bagdad that stepped up to be the designated home team for the game, meaning the cost would be theirs. They could simply require Pima drive to Bagdad - they don't even have school on Friday. Why would Bagdad take on that extra cost? I could again be wrong, but the details seem to indicate that some compromise and helpfulness may have occurred. And it would be classy on GC's part if that were the case.
Tejano - I agree that those are very different things to say. Remember, though, that not only did I indicate (in advance) that I was not 100% sure of the info, I also ended by saying "if that is incorrect or someone knows more, I'd be interested to know." It was pretty clear I was relaying what I had been hearing to that point. And...if the talk all summer at GC was to play Pima (maybe in a week zero game) then why weren't preparations made to be able to add the game if the opportunity presented itself?
Now Sheepdog, I sense a weasel in the flock. Before you said you would be shocked if they charged for the field, but now you say you would NOT be shocked if they stepped up in a helpful way. This sort of back-pedaling and shock shifting suggests you might be well suited for a career in politics. It would certainly pay more than your football gig, heh, and may be much less satisfying.
My point is, I think we've run the field payment topic into the artificial turf. Yet, still I just wanna see someone shocked.
You just blew my mind, FballFan. Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but aren't saying "I'd be shocked if they charged" and "not shocked if they stepped up and offered their field for no charge" EXACTLY THE SAME THING?!?!?!?!?!
I do agree, though, that I'd probably be pretty good in politics!
And lastly, just so you are satisfied, I am shocked you had so much trouble deciphering my very clear view that, all things considered, it would not surprise me if GC offered their field as a neutral site with no (or little) fee. Where's the backpedal?