Evidently not enough schools in the state believe there is a problem. I believe that the schools in Nebraska vote in proposals at NSAA meetings.
8 man enrollment limit
- Thread starter nenebskers
- Start date
Obviously they didn't see a problem and the number stayed the same, but lets not sit here and bash on the schools that choose to opt down, or say that shouldn't even be an option. Quite a few schools choose to do it, so obviously it is an option that is needed.
You also have the ineligible 8 man teams like Friend about 10-12 years ago and Johnson Brock 5-7 years ago who ran the table destroying their competition opting down. What does that prove? Not the best scenario for an eligible 8 man team to have to face ineligible teams to try and reach the playoffs and stay healthy. Sometimes you might have to teach kids that not everything comes easy and sometimes you have to work for the things you want. Not just water down the competition.
What are you teaching a 130 lbs freshman who has to play because their is nobody else when he has to come up and tackle a fully mature 190+ Senior Runningback who isn't going to take it easy on him? I'll tell you what you'll be teaching him, how to walk again and eat his meal through a tube. Even worse, pretty damn soon the NSAA is going to get a kid killed that shouldn't have been playing varsity football in the first place. That'll be fun for the coach of the deceased kid to have go and tell the parents "not everything comes easy and sometimes you have to work for the things you want." My point is, a lot of times for these schools that choose to opt down, their #1 priority is safety, not competition. The biggest appeal of opting down to 8 man is you get to put 3 less kids on the field that aren't physically ready or have no business in the first place playing varsity football.
Buff-alo I wasn't saying teams shouldn't be able to opt down. Re-read my post again. I was simply saying if there is still a 2 year grace period (which I believe there is) there are probably some teams who opt down during this time if they project that during the next cycle they will be back in 8 man anyway, so to them it wouldn't make sense to go to 11.
I think the 8 man limit number should be raised. I never said you shouldn't be able to opt down.
If you dont have enough then just play JV YOU are the one choosing to play Varsity with a freshmen YOU are the one choosing to get him killed These are your choices of your school, so we should all change because of your poor choices ? No one is forcing you Play at the level your enrollment it set for or dont play at all Maybe your school should not be playing football BUT I know this the world shouldnt have to change because thats what you need.
If I were kids from Elwood or Weeping Water I would be petitioning to the NSAA to transfer and not have to sit out for the year. Especially the seniors. Or at least let them go play for the school of their choosing.
It's not fair to the kids that the school they go to should have known this could have happened and talked to a neighboring town to co-op.
It's not fair to the kids that the school they go to should have known this could have happened and talked to a neighboring town to co-op.
I'm tired of people complaining about numbers. If you consolidate or co-op it usually fixes the problem.
Make the cut off at 90. If you want to play 8 man, but have C2 numbers play a JV schedule.
Make the cut off at 90. If you want to play 8 man, but have C2 numbers play a JV schedule.
Buff-alo I understand your point my point is some schools do opt down that should not be there. They should be competing for a 11 man title instead of opting down to beat up on smaller schools. Doesn't make sense to go 8-0 and then sit home and watch the playoffs. Two years down the road make the change if numbers are dropping you don't have to do it when you have teams that would have competed very well at the 11 man rank. Lawrence-Nelson for example during their run actually performed better at the 11 man level than the 8 man. They didn't opt down and play ineligible they went with what the state told them and were successful.
It's going week by week, but they only have like 14 players somehow. Doubt they play the rest of the year.
Like all of you said....State won't do a thing with the number, we can talk about it til we are blue in the face. In the end it will come down to consolidation. It is happening already, other schools will follow when the money runs out. It's a just a sad day to see small towns lose their teams, but it's reality. Great discussion from everyone as always, a lot of great points and counter-points. Just shows the passion for small town football is still alive and kicking.
I don't know what the answers are. The situations are not only disappointing for the players and coaches who have worked hard to keep their football programs alive but also unfair to the teams that were scheduled to play them. Thanks for all of the different points of view!
I would agree losing your school and cooping is a hard decision to make and letting go is always very very difficult. It has always been that way, and schools have always hung a little to long before the consolidate or coopI don't know what the answers are. The situations are not only disappointing for the players and coaches who have worked hard to keep their football programs alive but also unfair to the teams that were scheduled to play them. Thanks for all of the different points of view!
It sad that schools and towns wait around so long. Why not co-op with someone else and attempt to be competitive? Instead of playing football with 14 kids.
I'm more for consolidations, but at least a co-op, you still have the school in town. Ewing for example was really stupid for waiting around.
Literally they are in the middle of Clearwater and Orchard. Why would you not go with them? Stupid move by them by having too much "pride." I wouldn't even call it pride I would call it senselessness.
But why opt down when you could attempt to co-op? Honest question. I agree with your point on the playoffs. I'm sick and tired of seeing 2-5, 3-5, 4-4 teams making the playoffs.
opting down should not be allowed, our choice should be cooping or JV schedule or Tough luck
Well said sker...I would have to agree with looking at the opting down option if the number was changed. I guess when we discuss the issue of opting down I'm looking at it in regards to the number being at 83. It is way to low. Even if consolidations/co-ops happen, the number needs to be higher.
Your dead on sker09. Raise the number and let schools up as opposed to down.
Also, always been a proponent for consoldiation and/or cooping and unfortunately most schools limp to the finish instead of being proactive when the writing is on the wall.
Also, always been a proponent for consoldiation and/or cooping and unfortunately most schools limp to the finish instead of being proactive when the writing is on the wall.
Agree 100% with limp to the finish and proactive part
No question. Two schools who did it right recently are Dodge-Howells and Clarkson/Leigh. Dodge-Howells is a full consolidation and sure it detractors right away, what towns wouldn't? But after the first two years, mostly everyone got over it. They are succeeding and doing great at the D1 level.
Clarkson/Leigh is just co-oping sports for now and they have benefited as well, having a 15 win basketball season last winter and are currently 4-0 on the football field. I wouldn't be shocked if they consolidated in the next 3-5 years.
More schools should look at those four towns as an example of not sitting on their butts and waiting for something to happen, because guess what? Consolidation is the future, why be late to the table when you might not get a seat at it?
Oh yeah, and raise the 8 man limit as well. 90 and call it good, if you want to play 8 man with 11 man numbers, play a JV schedule, if you want to be competitive at 11 man co-op.
lol...love all you saying co-op and consolidation is such a "simple" solution and thing to do. A lot goes into co-oping or consolidating. Maybe schools are in the process of exploring that avenue, but that process can take years sometimes. In the meantime give them options until the process is completed. You can't always be "proactive". What about the teams that project good numbers and all of sudden have two kids move away, lose a couple more to season ending injuries, and have 1 or 2 more quit or not go out that they planned on going out. Not to mention dealing with academically ineligible students as the season goes on. Up until all those things happened everything looked fine. Now they are in trouble and have to cancel their season or limp through a year with kids that aren't prepared to play varsity football. Just "cancel the season and play out your J.V. schedule", that sucks for all the other teams on their schedule who just lost a game, especially those seniors that cherish every game their last year. Quit acting like this is such a "simple" solution. Until consolidation happens there will be this discussion and nothing will change. As for being "pro-active", that is exactly what the teams are doing that are choosing to opt down. They are doing their research and making a decision based on what is best for their school. Let's not give every single team a bad name that does it because 2 teams in the last 15 years opted down and ran the table. How many schools have opted down and still struggled to win games? What is that number? If you haven't had to make that decision then you don't know what these schools struggle with? Raise your number and no opting down? Consolidate and Co-op? You think it's that simple? You'll still have a laundry list of struggles and problems, I promise.
Last edited:
One thing still not looked at with the numbers that I think needs to be mentioned is "the number of boys in the classes" I have seen schools, as a teacher/coach/A.D. where the schools numbers are on that bubble D1/C2 but the number of boys are very low and therefore you don't have the number of boys to play 11 man football even if you get every boy in the school out. In a couple of years the school I am at and our neighboring school will both probably struggle to field 8-man teams, however if were to co-op and looking at numbers which we have done, we would be a C2 school with probably not enough kids out to even scrimmage at practice, not what I would call a good situation and you are saying don't opt down if we were to co-op just suck it up and play a j.v. schedule or not play at all, don't agree. You say co-op, if we do this and play 11 man like you say, we probably would have a hard time finishing the season given an injury or two and you throw in eligibility factors. Then what keep co-oping with more and more schools, before long you have kids driving what 30-40-50 miles one way to school. One issue we have now is the 2 year grace period, schools that co-op currently are not given that option, where other schools are, if we were to co-op now we would be C2 with maybe 20 to 22 kids out next year, 2 years down the road probably back down to D1 then back up to C2 my point is not at any time would our football numbers ever get above 20 we just don't have the boys between these schools for an extended period of time. So co-op is not a real option in all cases.
Unfortunately this is a Pandora's Box that probably needs to be opened in regards to co-ops, consolidation, and classification. All of you on here that think it's as simple as raising a number just wait. When all of the above mentioned finally happen it's going to get a whole hell of a lot worse before it gets better. Then it'll just open up more threads to complain about how inept the classification system/NSAA are, or how damn far my kid has to drive to go to school. Definitely a discussion that needs to happen, but it'll be ugly.
I really believe that nothing will be done this cycle but everyone will be amazed of the shift of teams 6-man will grow to 24 plus and D-1 will have 10+ that are not eligible for playoffs
There has to be a certain mile limit on consolidation/co-oping. Especially out in Western Ne, but on the east side of Nebraska when you have towns 7 Miles apart and the schools are struggling to field a team. To me that is a no brainer coop, in fact consolidate. The problem is the adults most of the time is the issue. I have been part of consolidation and the kids get along its the adults. I do agree with above statement that six man is going to grow. In fact I think the numbers should go up and there should only be one division of 8 man and one 6 man division.
I agree with this, especially east of Kearney, there are towns 7-15 miles apart that could co-op if the are struggling. The parents need to let go of their pride.
A few Examples of co-ops I would love to see at least attempted:
Overton and Elm Creek
Shelton and Gibbon
Ravenna and Pleasanton
St. Edward and Albion
Ewing and Clearwater/Orchard
Plainview and Creighton
Osmond and Randolph
Wausa and Bloomfield
Wynot and Hartington or Crofton
Allen and Wakefield
Pender and Bancroft-Rosalie
I also agree with the amount of 6 man teams rising, Class D2 should be 6 man and Class D1 should be 8 man.
Last edited:
Northeast I'm confused by your agenda. Why does it bother u so much that smaller schools want to preserve the sports. Who cares if 8 extra schools get a playoff shirt. Who is getting hurt? Why can't there be a 3-5 make the playoffs. Alleged top teams are always getting "blown out". Look at Aquinas vs yutan. How about Clarkson-Leigh vs Howells dodge. Have you ever talked to a coach/ player from these teams that u deem as unfit to play in the playoffs?
I don't understand why those that aren't directly involved are so concerned about those that are experiencing this it.
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's right, and I believe that is where you have gotten to.
I don't understand why those that aren't directly involved are so concerned about those that are experiencing this it.
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's right, and I believe that is where you have gotten to.
It doesn't bother me if the schools have the numbers to have competitive teams and can actually practice. That's what bothers me the most about small schools. Parents say they are keeping their "pride", but it's not fair to their kids when they play 8 man football and have 14 kids out.
As for the playoffs, I just feel like the format needs less teams. I just don't feel like 3-5 teams deserve to make the playoffs. That's like handing out a participation trophy. Postseason should be for the best, and 16 is the perfect number. 50% of a Class doesn't need to make the playoffs.
You don't think a 3-5 team should get in to the playoffs, but what about those years when the state gives you a loaded schedule and your district has 4 or 5 of the top teams in the state. All you do is beat each other and you end up with a very good team with 3,4, or even 5 losses, all to quality teams when if they had any other schedule they would have been 6-2, 7-1 or even 8-0. I completely disagree with you on this. Football is the only sport where not every team does not have a chance to make the state finals after regular season. You can lose each and every basketball or volleyball game, wrestling match, track event the entire season and still get the chance to go to the state tournament. Football cut it to 16 and lose the first 2 games because you have a quality player hurt or what ever and your playing for nothing more than pride. Not right as far as I am concerned.
I agree with lusciousdelfonte. Last year for example West Holt was better than at least two of the teams that did make the playoffs. They were 6-3. I am willing to bet that West Holt could have beaten Freeman and Stanton. West Holt did not make the playoffs.
I am for consolidation but western Nebraska is a heck of a lot different than Iowa. Who is Banner County going t consolidate with? You see in Iowa you might have a 3 town coop and they are all within 15 miles of each other. In western Nebraska they might 45 to 60 miles apart.
Great point skers09 on what it means to be proactive as opposed to just praying and hoping that things work out.
Increase the limit to 100, 105, 110, 115 or whatever the number and allow schools to opt up instead and don't allow to opt down. Personally I think 105 or 110 is where it should be. Again, most importantly, allow schools to opt up. By no means am I recommending every school below 105 or 110 must play 8-man.
If the NSAA increases the limit it needs to be higher than 90 otherwise I'm afraid the same problems will still exist. The difference from 83 to 90 is only 7 students, or rounded up to 10 students for four year enrollments. Assuming a 50/50 girl/boy split that's only an increase of 5 boys, not near enough to fix the current issue. If it was currently at 90, 9 of the 14 schools that opted down would still be over the limit. In another post on this site a few have mentioned a few schools that are rumored to be opting down to either 8 or 6 man next year. Look at their current enrollments, pretty telling sign of what many individual schools are thinking. (Granted next years enrollment may be less than this years)
Tonight I went to the Ponca vs Laurel game. Laurel had to forfeit there season two years ago but now again have a varsity team. They had 25 kids on the roster with 8 kids weighing 125 or less. Although they had 25 on the roster it didn't appear they had 14 suited up on the sideline (probably injuries, grades, whatever it may be). They had a 5'3 98lb freshman playing consistently on defense. They also started a 116 pounder. Wow! I'm sure if anything their size was fudged a bit for the program. Keep in mind that their 3 year enrollment is 81, smallest in C-2. As bad as they were, and outsized they were, I couldn't help but think that if they took 3 kids off the field and competed on an 8 man field how much more competitive they would be and how much more the kids would enjoy the season. I'm sorry parents, but just because your child is playing varsity ball doesn't mean that it is in his best interest.
Increase the limit to 100, 105, 110, 115 or whatever the number and allow schools to opt up instead and don't allow to opt down. Personally I think 105 or 110 is where it should be. Again, most importantly, allow schools to opt up. By no means am I recommending every school below 105 or 110 must play 8-man.
If the NSAA increases the limit it needs to be higher than 90 otherwise I'm afraid the same problems will still exist. The difference from 83 to 90 is only 7 students, or rounded up to 10 students for four year enrollments. Assuming a 50/50 girl/boy split that's only an increase of 5 boys, not near enough to fix the current issue. If it was currently at 90, 9 of the 14 schools that opted down would still be over the limit. In another post on this site a few have mentioned a few schools that are rumored to be opting down to either 8 or 6 man next year. Look at their current enrollments, pretty telling sign of what many individual schools are thinking. (Granted next years enrollment may be less than this years)
Tonight I went to the Ponca vs Laurel game. Laurel had to forfeit there season two years ago but now again have a varsity team. They had 25 kids on the roster with 8 kids weighing 125 or less. Although they had 25 on the roster it didn't appear they had 14 suited up on the sideline (probably injuries, grades, whatever it may be). They had a 5'3 98lb freshman playing consistently on defense. They also started a 116 pounder. Wow! I'm sure if anything their size was fudged a bit for the program. Keep in mind that their 3 year enrollment is 81, smallest in C-2. As bad as they were, and outsized they were, I couldn't help but think that if they took 3 kids off the field and competed on an 8 man field how much more competitive they would be and how much more the kids would enjoy the season. I'm sorry parents, but just because your child is playing varsity ball doesn't mean that it is in his best interest.
This was mentioned in earlier posts. I agree when you get out in western Nebraska it is almost impossible. As someone mentioned earlier anything east of Kearney this would work.
Allen and Wakefield would not be a good Coop...Both are struggling for numbers and Wakefield student population would push the Allen/Wakefield Coop to C1. Not a good place for that Coop to be. Again you guys just throw 2 names out there like its a "no brainer"...if these 2 towns would just coop it would be all "sunshine and rainbows" on the football front. Some of the comments on here are just laughable. You move Wakefield/Allen up to C1 you have not solved their problem...you just made it worse two fold.
