By Sam Ellsworth
The Scoreboard
Winners listed first.
Cadena – Hodges 19-6
Bradford – Sheffield 21-14
Martinez – Sutton 14-6
Green – Hargrave 14-13
The Rankings
- Cadena (-)
Cadena is who we thought they were: a team with very little for fans to be upset about. They’re near the top of the league on both sides of the ball and as well-coached as anybody. They let safety Dominic Iannelli play centerfield and roam around as he pleases, wreaking havoc on any receiver who dares to go deep. Down their two top players, Cadena looks to improve to 3-0 after their highly-anticipated matchup with Bradford in Week 3.
2. Bradford (-)
What can’t this Bradford team do? For the second week in a row, they led the league in scoring and showed immense improvement defensively. Big body Reeves Moseley continues to terrorize defenses on underneath routes and steals safeties’ attention when quarterback William Nisimblat decides to unleash it deep. This team will be without edge rusher Shrishti Dubey (dubbed the next Aaron Donald by one anonymous analyst) for their Week 3 matchup with Cadena, but don’t be surprised to see this team as the one-seed come playoff time.
3. Martinez (+2)
Way to prove me wrong, Martinez. I had some not-so-nice things to say about this team after Week 1, but here they are undefeated heading into the final week of the regular season. Martinez’s team came out of the tunnel looking like the 2001 Ravens and never looked back. I still don’t know if I buy them as championship contenders, but all they’ve done so far is prove me wrong, so why stop now?
4. Green (-)
This is the Green team we expected to see coming into the season. Hargrave managed to give them a scare in Week 2, but the better team eventually came out on top. This team is still clearly missing the injured Lydia Son, the loss of whom leaves this team without a serious speed threat, but expect them to come out and play like they have everything to lose as they fight for that last playoff spot in their final regular season game of the year.
5. Sutton (-2)
It’s true, Sutton did get the best of the Green squad ranked one spot ahead of them in this week’s rankings, and I know Sutton fans will wonder how a defense like theirs doesn’t earn a spot in the top half. But when that stout defense is sharing the field with an offense best compared to the 2024 Michigan Wolverines’, this sports writer questions how they managed to pull off that week in the first place. Cheng’s intolerant attitude toward law school offenses may keep this team out of the gutter, but I’m not expecting much come playoff time.
6. Sheffield (+2)
You could call Sheffield our most improved team of the week. Sam Fadel, I called on you to perform, and in many ways, you did. Still, I feel I left this game wanting more from you. Receiver Ashleigh Rose dubbed herself earlier this week as “the most athletic person in Sheffield, boy or girl,” and it’s hard to argue with her confidence. Rose led the team in receptions and yards and ignited an offense that looked all but extinguished in Week 1.
7. Hargrave (-1)
Hargrave managed to keep it tight against a solid Green squad in Week 2. This may seem like a positive for Hargrave fans, but this team had so many opportunities to come out with a win in this game that were ultimately squandered by poor coaching. Grad-transfer from USC Reeves Cameron is a player to watch out for, but there’s a strong possibility this upcoming Week 3 game is his last in a Hargrave uniform.
8. Hodges (-1)
Time to hop on Tripadvisor, Hodges, because it’s looking like a one-way trip to Cancun for you.
Parting Thoughts
Section 2-207 of the UCC was created to weed out weak law students, I still don’t know what substantive due process means, and I’m pretty sure I read the wrong section for the proximate cause lesson on Wednesday. God, could I use some football. If you could use a break like me, I suggest you come out to watch some society flag football on Tuesday 6:00 – 8:00pm at the IM fields. #1 Cadena v. #2 Bradford kicks off at 7:00pm. I promise you’re not going to want to miss it.
Leave a Reply