8 man cutoff

[nenebskers]

Just heard, though not confirmed, that Ponca only has 14 players suiting up for their game tonight against BRLD. They started the year with 25 and suited up 20 last week against Norfolk Catholic. They have struggled with numbers the past few seasons and their win loss records reflect it. Once a proud program is now greatly putting kids safety at risk. Future games on the schedule include undefeateds Hartington Cedar Catholic and Fremont Bergan. Sadly enrollment wise Ponca should be able to field much better numbers but particpation is very low.

Three thoughts.
1. Although the 8 man eligibilty cutoff numbers have increased in past years it still needs to go higher. Were always putting a bandaid on it and being reactionary. Put it plenty high, along the 120 line, which is where most other states are at. Schools can always opt up to 11 man. Get rid of 4 classes of 11 man and go to 3.
2. Strongly consider 9 man. Most of D1 and C2 should be in one 9 man class.
3. This is on the Ponca board, administration, and coaching staff. Shame on you. You debated it at lengths last year and made the wrong decision to not opt down. Most likely they are gonna end up forfeiting at least part of their remaining schedule. The writing was on the wall. You were too blind and prideful to make a logical decision.
4. Shame on the head coach. Not a fan of bashing coaches on this site but he's deserving of it. You can blame the kids and say this generation is weak but its well known that the coach is not well liked and he does little to grow a program. Blame the kids if you want but maybe you need to look in the mirror and be honest with yourself that your a big reason why the participation is low.

 

[runningback43]

A couple of things on what you posted. 120 would be rather high. If you went that high Douglas County West would be eligible and they are the 11th team in C-1 for enrollment. I have no problem with raising it, but when comparing the number to other states people need to remember that Nebraska uses a boys only count not total enrollment.

I agree that the NSAA member schools really need to look at having only 3 classes of 11 man football. Several years ago there were 64 teams in C-2. When C-2 first went to 16 teams in the playoffs there were over 50 schools in C-2 I believe. Now there are 29 schools eligible for the playoffs in C-2.

As far as Coach Evans goes, he and his assistant coaches at Ponca had them playing at a very high level 3 years ago. Not sure what has happened since, but it is sad to see Ponca having trouble with participation.

 

[speedy66]

It’s ironic that when programs that are struggling are faced with this decision, they have a tendency to opt down and become ineligible. When they do their usually have more success and they’re participation usually goes up. After that, they begin to face criticism for being prideful and selfish because they’re playing in a class they shouldn’t be and it’s unfair to the other teams in their class. When a program that’s had some success faces the same situation, they have a tendency to stick it out and face the possibility of forfeiting games. If they do have to forfeit, they are criticized for being prideful, selfish, and being unfair to the other teams in their class.
It’s a tough call either way because enrollment is no longer the overwhelming determining factor in how many kids come out. Popularity of the staff, athe amount of sports offered at the school, and how much success you have in a particular class all help determine participation

 

[nenebskers]

A couple of things on what you posted. 120 would be rather high. If you went that high Douglas County West would be eligible and they are the 11th team in C-1 for enrollment. I have no problem with raising it, but when comparing the number to other states people need to remember that Nebraska uses a boys only count not total enrollment.

I agree that the NSAA member schools really need to look at having only 3 classes of 11 man football. Several years ago there were 64 teams in C-2. When C-2 first went to 16 teams in the playoffs there were over 50 schools in C-2 I believe. Now there are 29 schools eligible for the playoffs in C-2.

As far as Coach Evans goes, he and his assistant coaches at Ponca had them playing at a very high level 3 years ago. Not sure what has happened since, but it is sad to see Ponca having trouble with participation.

Sorry, I meant 60. I was thinking of the old days when we used combined girls and boys enrollments.

Yes they were playing at a high level, for one year. That same year they had, I think 15 or 16 seniors out which in the case of C2 football is a huge benefit. That was also the year of their 2nd state basketball championship in a row, obviously having some good athletes. Outside of that year they haven't posted a season better than 5-4. The year they went 9-0 in regular season then won 1st round of playoffs before losing at Battle Creek you could make a strong case they should have gone much deeper. Running an offense from 25 years ago that doesn't allow for a quick score was questionable with the athletes they had. In the Battle Creek game they got down late by a score and the offense was not capable of making a 2 minute drive unless someone broke a big run. Outside of that uear I don't know if they've ever gone better than 5 wins. Now, on the flip side they've always had a meat grinder of a schedule with Cedar, Oakland Craig, BRLD, Crofton, Norfolk Catholic, Fremont Bergan, and Battle Creek consistently being on their schedule. There were some years that if in a differant district they would have qualified for state playoffs.

Ultimately I'm not debating their on field performance but the lack of a program and ability to get kids excited to play football along with those that do to respect him.

 

[runningback43]

Sorry, I meant 60. I was thinking of the old days when we used combined girls and boys enrollments.

I was guessing that was what you meant, but I wasn't sure. I would be surprised to see the member schools of the NSAA jump it up to 60. They should propose a move to 55 and that might go. I do agree on your comments about 9 man. In fact I'd like to see 9 man across the board instead of 8 man.

 

[runningback43]

Sorry, I meant 60. I was thinking of the old days when we used combined girls and boys enrollments.

Yes they were playing at a high level, for one year. That same year they had, I think 15 or 16 seniors out which in the case of C2 football is a huge benefit. That was also the year of their 2nd state basketball championship in a row, obviously having some good athletes. Outside of that year they haven't posted a season better than 5-4. The year they went 9-0 in regular season then won 1st round of playoffs before losing at Battle Creek you could make a strong case they should have gone much deeper. Running an offense from 25 years ago that doesn't allow for a quick score was questionable with the athletes they had. In the Battle Creek game they got down late by a score and the offense was not capable of making a 2 minute drive unless someone broke a big run. Outside of that uear I don't know if they've ever gone better than 5 wins. Now, on the flip side they've always had a meat grinder of a schedule with Cedar, Oakland Craig, BRLD, Crofton, Norfolk Catholic, Fremont Bergan, and Battle Creek consistently being on their schedule. There were some years that if in a differant district they would have qualified for state playoffs.

Ultimately I'm not debating their on field performance but the lack of a program and ability to get kids excited to play football along with those that do to respect him.

I understand what you are saying. No doubt that they play a meat grinder of a schedule every year. That's a tough tough district, and then throw in some tough non district games and you better be ready to play every Friday night.

 

[Llama57]

Just heard, though not confirmed, that Ponca only has 14 players suiting up for their game tonight against BRLD. They started the year with 25 and suited up 20 last week against Norfolk Catholic. They have struggled with numbers the past few seasons and their win loss records reflect it. Once a proud program is now greatly putting kids safety at risk. Future games on the schedule include undefeateds Hartington Cedar Catholic and Fremont Bergan. Sadly enrollment wise Ponca should be able to field much better numbers but particpation is very low.

Three thoughts.
1. Although the 8 man eligibilty cutoff numbers have increased in past years it still needs to go higher. Were always putting a bandaid on it and being reactionary. Put it plenty high, along the 120 line, which is where most other states are at. Schools can always opt up to 11 man. Get rid of 4 classes of 11 man and go to 3.
2. Strongly consider 9 man. Most of D1 and C2 should be in one 9 man class.
3. This is on the Ponca board, administration, and coaching staff. Shame on you. You debated it at lengths last year and made the wrong decision to not opt down. Most likely they are gonna end up forfeiting at least part of their remaining schedule. The writing was on the wall. You were too blind and prideful to make a logical decision.
4. Shame on the head coach. Not a fan of bashing coaches on this site but he's deserving of it. You can blame the kids and say this generation is weak but its well known that the coach is not well liked and he does little to grow a program. Blame the kids if you want but maybe you need to look in the mirror and be honest with yourself that your a big reason why the participation is low.

Sorry that Coach Evans kissed your girlfriend. Yes, you are a fan of bashing coaches, because you did it.

 

[liltoad_99]

Not wanting to argue because I get the sentiment of your post. The fall at Ponca is sad, as they were very good just 3 years ago. I'll add one thing...we need the Huskers to be good at football again. When the N is good, many boys want to grow up to be a Husker, when the N isn't good...younger boys tend to care less...or so it seems.

Here's the schools with an enrollment of 60 or less boys...most of these have done very well in C2. I will add, there's just something about Northeast Nebraska high school football. Those schools can play, and they play hard! Those schools are prepared because of the gauntlet they go through in the regular season, which results in finding a lot of success in the post season. It's on communities to decide what's best for them and not be too prideful to change. Also, we have to remember that almost every community has ebbs and flows with their student population.

115 11 C2 16 BRIDGEPORT 60
116 11 C2 17 CENTENNIAL 60
117 11 C2 18 BRLD - BANCROFT-ROSALIE(28) / LYONS DECATUR(31) 59
118 11 C2 19 YUTAN 58
119 11 C2 20 TEKAMAH-HERMAN 56
120 11 C2 21 PONCA 55
121 11 C2 22 SUTTON 55
122 11 C2 23 HARTINGTON CEDAR CATHOLIC 54
123 11 C2 24 CROFTON 53
124 11 C2 25 OAKLAND CRAIG 53
125 11 C2 26 ARCHBISHOP BERGAN 52
126 11 C2 27 CHASE COUNTY 52
127 11 C2 28 SUPERIOR 49
128 11 C2 29 SANDY CREEK 46
129 11 C2 30 DONIPHAN-TRUMBULL 44
130 11 C2 31 HASTINGS ST CECILIA 41
131 11 C2 32 NORTH PLATTE ST PATS 37

 

[TC53]

How bad would a situation be if the schools on that list had been told to choose 11-man or 8-man, and they would be eligible for playoffs either way. Would we get better decisions?

From my time in 8-1/C2 I felt the quality of players was identical for the most part. C2 was maybe easier to game plan because they had three extra players on the field and many teams didn't have three quality guys to put in those spots. You could find places to attack.

I guess what I'm saying is, if there was a system where those borderline teams could choose between 11 and 8 with no penalty, that some might choose 11. Any validity to that?

I am interested in the 9 man idea and I endorse the idea that it is time for just 3 classes of 11-man. (Of course, I'm ready for just four classes of basketball again, too.)

 

[PowerTfootball]

I miss the days of seeing the 8 man schools being listed under 11 man classes.

I would actually be for 3 Classes. A-B-C, and then go 9-man, 8-man, 6-man

 

[LikeNebraska]

Sorry that Coach Evans kissed your girlfriend. Yes, you are a fan of bashing coaches, because you did it.

Give Nenebskers a break, ALOT of people kissed her.

 

[bruiser84]

Just heard, though not confirmed, that Ponca only has 14 players suiting up for their game tonight against BRLD. They started the year with 25 and suited up 20 last week against Norfolk Catholic. They have struggled with numbers the past few seasons and their win loss records reflect it. Once a proud program is now greatly putting kids safety at risk. Future games on the schedule include undefeateds Hartington Cedar Catholic and Fremont Bergan. Sadly enrollment wise Ponca should be able to field much better numbers but particpation is very low.

Three thoughts.
1. Although the 8 man eligibilty cutoff numbers have increased in past years it still needs to go higher. Were always putting a bandaid on it and being reactionary. Put it plenty high, along the 120 line, which is where most other states are at. Schools can always opt up to 11 man. Get rid of 4 classes of 11 man and go to 3.
2. Strongly consider 9 man. Most of D1 and C2 should be in one 9 man class.
3. This is on the Ponca board, administration, and coaching staff. Shame on you. You debated it at lengths last year and made the wrong decision to not opt down. Most likely they are gonna end up forfeiting at least part of their remaining schedule. The writing was on the wall. You were too blind and prideful to make a logical decision.
4. Shame on the head coach. Not a fan of bashing coaches on this site but he's deserving of it. You can blame the kids and say this generation is weak but its well known that the coach is not well liked and he does little to grow a program. Blame the kids if you want but maybe you need to look in the mirror and be honest with yourself that your a big reason why the participation is low.

I don't know, this is a difficult one for me. 8 man is a different game. I have tried to watch it, it can be exciting, especially if you like a lot of scoring, but I just can't get into it. Seems very one dimensional at times. The fastest man on the field shines in those wide open spaces. Maybe 9 man would improve it.
But that being said, if that is what you got the manpower to play, so be it. When it comes to making those decisions, boards and administrators are possibly looking down the road. All schools have lulls in participation, or smaller classes from time to time, that affect team size. I don't know Ponca's situation personally, but I have served on school boards before, and it seems there is always a hopeful "looking down the road 2-3 years" when making these type decisions. I know that jumping back and forth is not the answer. Teams from C1 dropping to C2 is no big deal (although some fans always feel it is a step down in quality), but from C2 to D1 is a commitment.
When it comes down to it, success leads to success. I for one, hope Ponca can get the ship righted. It is good for high school football to have tough, perennial rivalries. Yes coaches do affect participation numbers, and some of the "outdated" offenses seem counter productive when run poorly. But I have seen those same offenses pound out long drives, eating clock, and keeping the opposition's high power offense on the sidelines, while winning a pile of games. I think though coaches who have been around long enough, have a lot of film out there on their offensive schemes. Predictability becomes their worst enemy. Ask the coaches who play each other every year, they practically know what the other coach is going to call. Then you get in the playoffs, and score 50 against a team that has never seen your style before.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

I don't know, this is a difficult one for me. 8 man is a different game. I have tried to watch it, it can be exciting, especially if you like a lot of scoring, but I just can't get into it. Seems very one dimensional at times. The fastest man on the field shines in those wide open spaces. Maybe 9 man would improve it.
But that being said, if that is what you got the manpower to play, so be it. When it comes to making those decisions, boards and administrators are possibly looking down the road. All schools have lulls in participation, or smaller classes from time to time, that affect team size. I don't know Ponca's situation personally, but I have served on school boards before, and it seems there is always a hopeful "looking down the road 2-3 years" when making these type decisions. I know that jumping back and forth is not the answer. Teams from C1 dropping to C2 is no big deal (although some fans always feel it is a step down in quality), but from C2 to D1 is a commitment.
When it comes down to it, success leads to success. I for one, hope Ponca can get the ship righted. It is good for high school football to have tough, perennial rivalries. Yes coaches do affect participation numbers, and some of the "outdated" offenses seem counter productive when run poorly. But I have seen those same offenses pound out long drives, eating clock, and keeping the opposition's high power offense on the sidelines, while winning a pile of games. I think though coaches who have been around long enough, have a lot of film out there on their offensive schemes. Predictability becomes their worst enemy. Ask the coaches who play each other every year, they practically know what the other coach is going to call. Then you get in the playoffs, and score 50 against a team that has never seen your style before.

All classification numbers are set by member schools and they have tried to raise 8-man to 55 but the 8-man schools voted it down and no school has wrote a new proposal and they voted on 9-man and no one was interested, its up to schools what the cut offs are and what the classes are not NSAA

 

[loveD2football]

As one of those 8 man schools why would I want 9 man? Also why would I want to vote to add larger schools to my class?

 

[bruiser84]

You are correct about the official process nut. We are talking 2 different issues here.
1) Member schools not wanting to expand the 8 man eligibility to more and larger schools. (wonder why) AND
2) An individual school, or school board not wanting to drop down and play 8 man when they have traditionally been 11 man, even though their numbers may allow it.
These are 2 completely different questions with completely different reasoning. Even though both reasons may be selfish.
1) I don't want to have to compete with more and larger schools.
2) I don't want my school to play a different game in a lower class.
Maybe 9 man would be a good compromise.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

You are correct about the official process nut. We are talking 2 different issues here.
1) Member schools not wanting to expand the 8 man eligibility to more and larger schools. (wonder why) AND
2) An individual school, or school board not wanting to drop down and play 8 man when they have traditionally been 11 man, even though their numbers may allow it.
These are 2 completely different questions with completely different reasoning. Even though both reasons may be selfish.
1) I don't want to have to compete with more and larger schools.
2) I don't want my school to play a different game in a lower class.
Maybe 9 man would be a good compromise.

I agree, but 9-man has been disgusted and received no support I think just expanding 8-man to 50 would solve a bunch of issues but again no proposal has been written for this year so far

 

[ClkTwr2011]

This topic has been argued forever. Move the number, move the number, 9 man, other states do it this way, and the list goes on and on. At some point the individual schools need to make a decision and live with the consequences. This is the issue that Ponca has right now.

But here's the thing, don't you think if the Ponca administration KNEW that they were going to be down to 14 players midway through the season they would have approached it differently? Some of the attrition that occurs through a season simply can't be accounted for. Kids get hurt, kids quarantine, kids decide not to play, families move, kids pick other sports. Sometimes things just happen. A decision makes sense at the time it is made, and that same decision looks foolish 6 months later.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

This topic has been argued forever. Move the number, move the number, 9 man, other states do it this way, and the list goes on and on. At some point the individual schools need to make a decision and live with the consequences. This is the issue that Ponca has right now.

But here's the thing, don't you think if the Ponca administration KNEW that they were going to be down to 14 players midway through the season they would have approached it differently? Some of the attrition that occurs through a season simply can't be accounted for. Kids get hurt, kids quarantine, kids decide not to play, families move, kids pick other sports. Sometimes things just happen. A decision makes sense at the time it is made, and that same decision looks foolish 6 months later.

i applaud them for staying in the class they are suppose to be in, I believe if you cant play in your class then you should not play, because you have teams playing 8-man for 6 years now that have not been eligible and also have went 7-1 during that time but never go up, they take the easy way out and this is why it is not allowed to opt down in 41 of the 50 states

 

[Buff-alo]

Still waiting for your phone call and visit NUT, yet you toot your horn on here and never see what goes on first hand at my school, so give me a call (402)287-2012 and ask for Coach Hassler. We are punished for our decision (no play-offs) and we accept it. 27 on my roster with 11 of those being Seniors. Had the 2 year cycle fallen differently (i.e. last years team had been year one of the cycle and this years had been year two) we would have seriously considered 11 man. As it stands we will have around 20 next season. I made, and have made educated decisions in the best interest of my boys. Of our 6 games this year, LHNE, GACC, STANTON, and LCC have all had over 30 on their rosters. Come spend a week with me and I’ll show you why we are successful. I work hard and my boys work harder, it has nothing to do with opting down. You never complained about us when we went 3-5 and 2-6, why was that?

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

Still waiting for your phone call and visit NUT, yet you toot your horn on here and never see what goes on first hand at my school, so give me a call (402)287-2012 and ask for Coach Hassler. We are punished for our decision (no play-offs) and we accept it. 27 on my roster with 11 of those being Seniors. Had the 2 year cycle fallen differently (i.e. last years team had been year one of the cycle and this years had been year two) we would have seriously considered 11 man. As it stands we will have around 20 next season. I made, and have made educated decisions in the best interest of my boys. Of our 6 games this year, LHNE, GACC, STANTON, and LCC have all had over 30 on their rosters. Come spend a week with me and I’ll show you why we are successful. I work hard and my boys work harder, it has nothing to do with opting down. You never complained about us when we went 3-5 and 2-6, why was that?

First i do not know who you or your school even are, second I have complained with letting teams opt down forever and do not believe in it. I think opting down, shares the problem of one school and makes it the problem of many schools now. What school are you from ? In reality I dont care what school you are from, if your opting down I think its wrong, regardless of what ever your reason is. Instead of opting, maybe play another sport instead or coop or those who want football open enroll to another school, I hate opting because it is the everyone gets a ribbon mentality, nice repy but believe it or not, everything isnt about you and your school, win or lose opting down is wrong

 

[Buff-alo]

Cute NUT... claim ignorance. We had this same discussion last year at this time. I’ve more than clearly stated my position on this board about my program and who I am. We simply followed the rules. I have no more players than most of the teams I play, and we can’t make they play-offs. Just because we happen to be good, that now makes our problem everyone else’s problem. You have to play 8 regular season games no matter what, so playing us has no impact on your season, and don’t use the injury excuse, because regardless of who you play you stand the chance of kids getting hurt regardless of who the opponent is. The positive of playing us is at least you don’t have to worry about running into us down the road in the play-offs. The number the state assigns us is not the pool that I draw from for my football team. We have ELL students, Asylum Students, and students that have never been in an organized school until they arrived here and are now supposed to be in high school. In fact the last two years the state has made us still count 6 to 8 boys that they have declared ineligible because they are too old. So even if they had wanted to play they can’t. They could give us no good explanation on why we still had to count them and basically in a nut shell told us we were screwed. I deal with my school’s problems at my school the best way I know how, we play 8 games against other teams with similar roster sizes that are required to play 8 games, and we accept that as our season.

 

[MacMan92]

Maybe one of my favorite quotes of all time:

“Instead of opting, maybe play another sport instead”
highschoolfootballnut

Call it irony or hypocrisy, either way it’s astounding.

Enough trolling, now for a serious question:

Could any of these issues be helped by moving to a 1-year classification cycle? It seems to me, especially in the lower classes, participation numbers are fluid at best. Moving to a 1-year cycle might allow schools to make more informed decisions about what is best for their program. When schools are dealing with such thin margins of error it might be much easier to make choices with the newest information as opposed to their predictions from 18 months earlier.

 

[bruiser84]

I am not a coach, purely a fan. But I can't imagine jumping from 8 man to 11 man and back to 8 man based on a 1 year cycle. Buff-alo, since you said you would have considered moving up had the years/classes fallen differently, do you think a team can effectively do that and be successful? Sounds like your job is tough enough as it is. How could you possibly coach like that? Do you feel that playoff eligibility affects your participation numbers? If you were playoff eligible would that help increase your numbers and facilitate the move back to 11 man? We have talked of program building, success leading to more success. When does that occur? After 3 season? 5-10? I have no dog in this fight. I don't believe too many people choose to opt down so they can win championships against smaller schools. And I don't hear you complaining about why your kids can't make playoffs. You know the rules, and seem to play by them. And I for one have no problem with someone lobbying to change the rules either.
Forgive my ignorance, I am just trying to understand a difficult situation

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

Cute NUT... claim ignorance. We had this same discussion last year at this time. I’ve more than clearly stated my position on this board about my program and who I am. We simply followed the rules. I have no more players than most of the teams I play, and we can’t make they play-offs. Just because we happen to be good, that now makes our problem everyone else’s problem. You have to play 8 regular season games no matter what, so playing us has no impact on your season, and don’t use the injury excuse, because regardless of who you play you stand the chance of kids getting hurt regardless of who the opponent is. The positive of playing us is at least you don’t have to worry about running into us down the road in the play-offs. The number the state assigns us is not the pool that I draw from for my football team. We have ELL students, Asylum Students, and students that have never been in an organized school until they arrived here and are now supposed to be in high school. In fact the last two years the state has made us still count 6 to 8 boys that they have declared ineligible because they are too old. So even if they had wanted to play they can’t. They could give us no good explanation on why we still had to count them and basically in a nut shell told us we were screwed. I deal with my school’s problems at my school the best way I know how, we play 8 games against other teams with similar roster sizes that are required to play 8 games, and we accept that as our season.

Again I do remember discussing this last year but really have no clue what the heck school your are from, The team I follow plays 11-man and has several ELL kids that start and play both sides of the ball, as well as some who receive a lot of help in Sped room, not saying your school doesnt have more or more problems again these are the problem at your school and the please feel sorry for me mentality is your problem not other schools problem, your issues are shared with other schools now and they get nothing out of it but risk with zero reward and because you want and get to do what you want regardless of how it effects other schools, you get all reward and zero risk, Like I said it fits for some of our Americans who think everyone should get a ribbon and everyone should get what ever they want

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

Ok I think I got it, looking at past discussion you are from Wakefield and even possible Coach from Wakefield again yes you are with in the rule I agree. I disagree with the rule because teams take advantage of it, Wakefield is a great example of that So you have been above the cut off for 6 years and your last five years you have a record of 31 wins and 6 losses 2016- 6-2 -- 2017 7-1. -- 2018 6-2-- 2019 7-1 and this year so far you are 5-0. so you have been able to compete at a high level for a very long time now and could have easily played 11-man, C2 has many team 3-6 and 4-5 and some 7-2 that have 28 or less on the rooster this is what I am talking about, your beating team 74 to 14 playing in the class they a suppose to play in, while you opt down to kick them around at their loss and expense and for you'er profit and pleasure

 

[Buff-alo]

I am not a coach, purely a fan. But I can't imagine jumping from 8 man to 11 man and back to 8 man based on a 1 year cycle. Buff-alo, since you said you would have considered moving up had the years/classes fallen differently, do you think a team can effectively do that and be successful? Sounds like your job is tough enough as it is. How could you possibly coach like that? Do you feel that playoff eligibility affects your participation numbers? If you were playoff eligible would that help increase your numbers and facilitate the move back to 11 man? We have talked of program building, success leading to more success. When does that occur? After 3 season? 5-10? I have no dog in this fight. I don't believe too many people choose to opt down so they can win championships against smaller schools. And I don't hear you complaining about why your kids can't make playoffs. You know the rules, and seem to play by them. And I for one have no problem with someone lobbying to change the rules either.
Forgive my ignorance, I am just trying to understand a difficult situation

I feel their is a need for 9 man in the State of Nebraska. It would help with transition between 8 and 9 better, and would definitely help if there was talk of 1 year cycles (11 to 9 you take the tackles out of your playbook; 8 to 9 you add a back to your backfield in the playbook).

Our success really started in year four of our transition... the two biggest keys were that we had a system in place (we were no longer scrambling every year to adjust “O” and “D” to limited numbers) and the impact of having a FULL J.V. Schedule every year (our last 4 years of 11 man because of limited numbers we played 5 1/2 J.V. Games which led to ZERO player development for our young kids).

As for ineligibility impacting my participation I get the boys out that want to play and have built a culture that my boys buy into. Play-off eligibility would have little to no impact on my numbers I feel. As I have stated before our ever changing demographic is what keeps us constantly adapting and trying to figure out what is best for our program.

I’m proud of my program and my kids. We are good this year not because we opt down but because I have young men that commit to my vision.

 

[Buff-alo]

Again I do remember discussing this last year but really have no clue what the heck school your are from, The team I follow plays 11-man and has several ELL kids that start and play both sides of the ball, as well as some who receive a lot of help in Sped room, not saying your school doesnt have more or more problems again these are the problem at your school and the please feel sorry for me mentality is your problem not other schools problem, your issues are shared with other schools now and they get nothing out of it but risk with zero reward and because you want and get to do what you want regardless of how it effects other schools, you get all reward and zero risk, Like I said it fits for some of our Americans who think everyone should get a ribbon and everyone should get what ever they want

What ribbon? What reward? We DON’T MAKE the PLAY-OFFs! I coach and my players play for the love of the game. We’ve made our sacrifice (and a damn big one) and live with it. I Don’t buy that you don’t know me when you call out my program in the post for opting down for 6 years and going 7-1, and you argued with me at length last year. Again, your pretend ignorance is cute NUT. Coach Hassler (402)287-2012.... come educate yourself first before you talk about things you know little about.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

What ribbon? What reward? We DON’T MAKE the PLAY-OFFs! I coach and my players play for the love of the game. We’ve made our sacrifice (and a damn big one) and live with it. I Don’t buy that you don’t know me when you call out my program in the post for opting down for 6 years and going 7-1, and you argued with me at length last year. Again, your pretend ignorance is cute NUT. Coach Hassler (402)287-2012.... come educate yourself first before you talk about things you know little about.

i do know you now, but your schools is not even on my radar bud, I dont care what your case is, your school though now, makes a great example of you get what you want at the cost of other people and schools YES I agree 100% you are with in the rule and doing nothing wrong. I disagree with the rule, I was not pointing anyone school out I was not intending on brining your school into this at all, just the rule but you made this about your school and so I pointed out you are a great example of abuse of the rule and you're records and scores are the facts of this. We can move to arguing the rule or we can make this about you if that makes you and you're school feel better

 

[Buff-alo]

Abusing the rule... cute. Our scores prove that? Our scores mirror all the other top teams in D1. We aren’t even considered the best team in D-1. Cross County, DCS, and Burwell have rolled people, but it’s o.k. For them to do that? When you stated 6 years and 7-1 you did call me out and make this about me. You didn’t mention the teams that opt down that don’t win games. I don’t hear teams complaining that roll Conestoga and Madison every week. I never made this about me, but I’ll defend my program and our choice until I’m blue in the face. You think we are successful because we opt down. We are successful because we work out butts off in the weight room, we condition like hell during practice, and have 11 seniors who committed 4 years to this program. You act if you are educated about this when you have ZERO clue. Come spend a day with me in my program and I’ll show you why we are good.

 

[JAW20]

i do know you now, but your schools is not even on my radar bud, I dont care what your case is, your school though now, makes a great example of you get what you want at the cost of other people and schools YES I agree 100% you are with in the rule and doing nothing wrong. I disagree with the rule, I was not pointing anyone school out I was not intending on brining your school into this at all, just the rule but you made this about your school and so I pointed out you are a great example of abuse of the rule and you're records and scores are the facts of this. We can move to arguing the rule or we can make this about you if that makes you and you're school feel better

Oh man...... where to start.......

First off, you can miss me with all of the "if your school doesn't have enough to play in their own class, opt to a different school..."
1.) That makes the kid transfer away from his friends to play one sport.
2.) His family has to figure out transportation for that kid every day during the school year.
3.) Hurts other sports like basketball, wrestling, track, in the initial school due to kids leaving for a stupid reason.
4.) Takes away the role players' opportunities to even play the sport of football at the initial school because they aren't going to transfer just to play football....
List goes on, didn't think I'd have to list those things as I would think they are obvious, but apparently not.

You can also miss me with the "Just have them go out for another sport" issue....
1.) We have very good football players in our school, and they just don't get the opportunity to play because their parents moved to a certain town? "Go play another sport"
2.) We don't have enough students/participants to have another boys fall sport! Seems pretty obvious!

People like you are the exact reason this sport is dying in small towns. Your thoughts and suggestions on what should be done are ignorant, and downright arrogant.

Please DM me and we can figure out a time that you can come and visit my school and would love to fill you in on much more, could go on and on! You won't though, just keep going with your schtick.... Btw, I'm from Wakefield.......

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

Abusing the rule... cute. Our scores prove that? Our scores mirror all the other top teams in D1. We aren’t even considered the best team in D-1. Cross County, DCS, and Burwell have rolled people, but it’s o.k. For them to do that? When you stated 6 years and 7-1 you did call me out and make this about me. You didn’t mention the teams that opt down that don’t win games. I don’t hear teams complaining that roll Conestoga and Madison every week. I never made this about me, but I’ll defend my program and our choice until I’m blue in the face. You think we are successful because we opt down. We are successful because we work out butts off in the weight room, we condition like hell during practice, and have 11 seniors who committed 4 years to this program. You act if you are educated about this when you have ZERO clue. Come spend a day with me in my program and I’ll show you why we are good.

11 seniors and 5 years in row of 36 wins and 6 losses but you can not play 11-man I disagree 100% but again you did make it about you The school I most aware of is Ravenna who is opting down, reason was when they did it, was to rebuild but that was not it and to be honest I would have to google you to even know where the heck Wakefield is at, I think you are very very defensive because you might know I am right, otherwise not sure why you immediately thought it was you, again i will restate I do not agree with rule, but thanks for the example

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

Oh man...... where to start.......

First off, you can miss me with all of the "if your school doesn't have enough to play in their own class, opt to a different school..."
1.) That makes the kid transfer away from his friends to play one sport.
2.) His family has to figure out transportation for that kid every day during the school year.
3.) Hurts other sports like basketball, wrestling, track, in the initial school due to kids leaving for a stupid reason.
4.) Takes away the role players' opportunities to even play the sport of football at the initial school because they aren't going to transfer just to play football....
List goes on, didn't think I'd have to list those things as I would think they are obvious, but apparently not.

You can also miss me with the "Just have them go out for another sport" issue....
1.) We have very good football players in our school, and they just don't get the opportunity to play because their parents moved to a certain town? "Go play another sport"
2.) We don't have enough students/participants to have another boys fall sport! Seems pretty obvious!

People like you are the exact reason this sport is dying in small towns. Your thoughts and suggestions on what should be done are ignorant, and downright arrogant.

Please DM me and we can figure out a time that you can come and visit my school and would love to fill you in on much more, could go on and on! You won't though, just keep going with your schtick.... Btw, I'm from Wakefield.......

Case point 1. life is full of scarifies, you can not have your cake and eat too
Case point #2, see answer to one
Case point #3 your schools problem not other school, also see case point one answer
Case point #4 in life you dont get everything you want, and thats a fact
People like you and this feel sorry for me generation that doesn't want to work and wants a easier path, is why sports are declining as far as football it leads all sports in participation by double the amount

 

[nenebskers]

Buffalo and Nut, you both make good points. The decision isn't easy and the NSAA membership doesn't do itself any favors. Only thing I'm wondering.....Buffalo don't you have any morning classes to teach. Good grief, LOL!

 

[JAW20]

Case point 1. life is full of scarifies, you can not have your cake and eat too
Case point #2, see answer to one
Case point #3 your schools problem not other school, also see case point one answer
Case point #4 in life you dont get everything you want, and thats a fact
People like you and this feel sorry for me generation that doesn't want to work and wants a easier path, is why sports are declining as far as football it leads all sports in participation by double the amount

LOL ARROGANT!!!! Ain't nobody telling you! Thing is, there's part of me that thinks you are just a huge troll.

Edit: and Narcissistic!

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

Buffalo and Nut, you both make good points. The decision isn't easy and the NSAA membership doesn't do itself any favors. Only thing I'm wondering.....Buffalo don't you have any morning classes to teach. Good grief, LOL!

LOL. I would like to continue the discussion and would much rather leave school names out it, I understand it is the rule and they are following it I want to discuss the rule and my believe its flaw and abuse

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

LOL ARROGANT!!!! Ain't nobody telling you! Thing is, there's part of me that thinks you are just a huge troll.

Edit: and Narcissistic!

wish that made sense but get it, usually know you have won an argument with that person when they start with the insults

 

[coachlanum]

Does anyone know why when a team opts down, the team they play doesn't get the Classification bonus in wildcard points.

 

[Buff-alo]

Buffalo and Nut, you both make good points. The decision isn't easy and the NSAA membership doesn't do itself any favors. Only thing I'm wondering.....Buffalo don't you have any morning classes to teach. Good grief, LOL!

Student Teacher.... she has the full morning load. So to answer you question... NO I do not a the moment.

 

[hailvictors2]

Opting down (or up) is something that should be solely up to the football coach (in this case), AD, and players on the team. The school board shouldn't have a say. Some random guy on a message board shouldn't have a say. Unless you walk in the shoes of the teams that choose to opt up or down, don't comment because you don't know what they are experiencing.

Regarding the rule...I am fine with making teams ineligible that opt down. I am fine with them being able to opt down. The 2 things that I would like to change are
1- If a team that is supposed to be D1 plays a team that opts down from C2 to D1 I think they should still get the 2 bonus points for playing a team from a larger classification.
2- I don't think teams that opt down should be placed in districts. I don't say that as a "punishment". I look at the current C2-6 district and see a problem. The district has 6 teams and 2 of them opt down. 33% of the district is ineligible. I think it would be better to not place those teams in a district, but still offer them an 8-9 game schedule. Those teams could still play games against some of the teams in their area (Gordon-Rushville vs Bridgeport) but it wouldn't count towards district standings because G-R wouldn't technically be in the district.

Just my two cents.

Buff-alo, I applaud you for standing up for your program, not hiding your identity behind a computer screen, and looking at the best interests of your student-athletes. Until someone has walked in your shoes, they won't understand what it is like. Keep on keepin' on.

 

[123GRC321]

Have seen this idea posted on here before of going to 6 classes for football.

A
B
C - 11 man
9 man
8 man
6 man

9 man enrollment between 60 & 40
8 man between 39 & 27
6 man 27 and below

New classes
A no changes
B no changes
C-11 man 60 teams +\- depending on opt ups
9 man 60 teams +\-
8 man 50-55 teams
6 man 40-45
Would think many of the 8 man schools below 27 would change to 6 man. also think this could encourage more coops because the expanded class sizes wouldn’t force the coop to move to a classification they didn’t want to be in.