ADVERTISEMENT

Another week, another school forfeiting....

Alum-Ni

All-State
Gold Member
Aug 29, 2004
50,065
1,664
113
This week Laurel-Concord-Coleridge is forfeiting its game against Oakland-Craig due to a shortage of players
 
Sadly I'm not surprised. Equal blame goes to LLC and the NSAA for them being in this position.
 
Sad. LCC dealt with this crap last year I remember hearing about it. I hope they try and co-op next year with someone or play 8 man.
 
I think the enrollment limit is a huge issue that has been known by the NSAA for a few years now and just continues to get worse. Schools shouldn't be forced to make a decision to stay 11 man and possibly forfeit games or go 8 man and tell their kids they are only playing for pride with no chance for postseason. Not an easy choice by any means. Nebraska's limit is way lower, almost by 20%, than any other state in the Midwest and very likely the entire country. With that said LLC should also have forecasted their numbers better. Don't get me wrong, I know this is not easy or simple but at the same time schools have to be thinking ahead.

Just my opinion, doesn't make me right or you if you disagree with my logic. Bottom line is we have a big issue that many small schools in the state face. I think we can all agree on that. Whatever the solution is I just hope it improves. It sucks to see schools canceling their seasons and single games each week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: northeastNebraska
I think the enrollment limit is a huge issue that has been known by the NSAA for a few years now and just continues to get worse. Schools shouldn't be forced to make a decision to stay 11 man and possibly forfeit games or go 8 man and tell their kids they are only playing for pride with no chance for postseason. Not an easy choice by any means. Nebraska's limit is way lower, almost by 20%, than any other state in the Midwest and very likely the entire country. With that said LLC should also have forecasted their numbers better. Don't get me wrong, I know this is not easy or simple but at the same time schools have to be thinking ahead.

Just my opinion, doesn't make me right or you if you disagree with my logic. Bottom line is we have a big issue that many small schools in the state face. I think we can all agree on that. Whatever the solution is I just hope it improves. It sucks to see schools canceling their seasons and single games each week.
agree
 
Laurel's enrollment was below the 8 man limit when the NSAA classified for this cycle. I think their number was 81. They would have been eligible for the playoffs in 8 man the last two seasons with that number. The Laurel school board decided that they would still play 11 man, because they thought they would have enough boys out to play 11 man football. Don't blame the NSAA enrollment number for this.
 
Laurel's enrollment was below the 8 man limit when the NSAA classified for this cycle. I think their number was 81. They would have been eligible for the playoffs in 8 man the last two seasons with that number. The Laurel school board decided that they would still play 11 man, because they thought they would have enough boys out to play 11 man football. Don't blame the NSAA enrollment number for this.
Heard that same thing. It's sad the parents did that. Especially if you don't have enough kids to even play. If the Laurel parents want to play 11 man, they are going to have to co-op.

But I bet they are 8 man next year, this is one school I can't believe how much they have dropped off enrollment wise.
 
Sounds they have all sorts of issues at this school. Did they get many kids from Colerdige? Seems like their enrollment should be bigger.

On another note, how much does a hosting school make on a given Friday night on the gate concessions etc.? I feel bad for the teams that have to miss a high school game because another school made a poor decision.
 
On another note, how much does a hosting school make on a given Friday night on the gate concessions etc.? I feel bad for the teams that have to miss a high school game because another school made a poor decision.

I've wondered this too before. I may be wrong but I thought that the home school got the gate during the regular season and the state gets it for playoffs. Profit margin on $2 sodas and $1 popcorn probably adds up fast though. Seems unfair to do that to a school and then host them the next year.

We don't know what the season holds yet at this point for LCC, but this late in the year I'm going to assume they played their last game which would mean in a two year cycle they did not complete a season and forfeited near a whole year.
 
Sounds they have all sorts of issues at this school. Did they get many kids from Colerdige? Seems like their enrollment should be bigger.

On another note, how much does a hosting school make on a given Friday night on the gate concessions etc.? I feel bad for the teams that have to miss a high school game because another school made a poor decision.
I know Coleridge wasn't a metropolis, but I wonder if some of their kids went/go to Hartington?
 
Sounds they have all sorts of issues at this school. Did they get many kids from Colerdige? Seems like their enrollment should be bigger.

On another note, how much does a hosting school make on a given Friday night on the gate concessions etc.? I feel bad for the teams that have to miss a high school game because another school made a poor decision.
Most of your hosting teams break even during the regular season but lose money during the playoffs due to NSAA requirements. Even with the higher ticket prices. As far as I know, all concession proceeds go to clubs for fundraising.
 
I'm sure a few kids probably went to Hartington, but Coleridge had a pretty tiny enrollment when it closed its doors.
 
Who is LCC'S coach, he should be pounding the school hallway talking kids into going out and the players should help also, or maybe the coach already did that.
 
Laurel's enrollment was below the 8 man limit when the NSAA classified for this cycle. I think their number was 81. They would have been eligible for the playoffs in 8 man the last two seasons with that number. The Laurel school board decided that they would still play 11 man, because they thought they would have enough boys out to play 11 man football. Don't blame the NSAA enrollment number for this.
81 for laurel +36 for coleridge
 
LCC's coach is Jordan Taylor. Not a school employee. He coached the semi-pro team that used to play in Norfolk.
 
Everybody does understand that the 8/11 man enrolment number issue is in NO way an NSAA issue don’t they?? By this thread and the 2 pager I read the other day I don’t think people understand this issue very well. I keep reading about how ashamed the NSAA should be and how this HAS to change.... Just last year there were proposals in front of every district to move the 8 man number it FAILED in all but one district. The NSAA is a member-based organization, they will never vote directly against the membership in such a unanimous fashion. The membership spoke and the board followed suite. I think it ABSOLUTLY needs to be changed, but the blame lye’s with the membership; If we make a proposal and ALL back it they will make the change.
 
This was voted on in the April 9th Board Meeting. The first proposal to raise the cut line from 83 to 98 failed 0-8. The 2nd proposal to raise the cut line from 83 to 92 failed 1-7 with Bellar the only yes vote. It made it to the state level and didn't pass.

Also, the district votes are ridiculous. They include all coaches from every class. Class A, B, and C1 have nothing to do with the 8-man cut line, so they should have no say so. But, they vote anyways with no knowledge of the situation and change the outcome.
 
It did not make it through any of the districts with 8 man enrolment. The state voted the way the districts voted.
 
District votes don't involve any coaches, unless the coach is the AD like Ron M. at Aquinas, where he is also the AD. I also know for a fact that many ADs opt not to vote when something doesn't impact their schools, so many class A schools probably didn't even vote on the issue. Yes they have the option to vote, but they abstain from voting if it doesn't affect their schools.
 
Last edited:
It did not make it through any of the districts with 8 man enrolment. The state voted the way the districts voted.
This had nothing to do with the NSAA at all, but everything to do with to much, so called "pride" by a handful of parents that weren't going to allow their kid to play 8 Man football. Just don't understand how they came to the conclusion of deciding to punish their own kids by making this decision! Take the blinders off, you were never going to be competitive in 11 man with that few of kids on the team, playing so many underclassmen against mostly upperclassmen. Swallow your pride, do your kids a favor and quit living in the past. Look what they've done to ALL their kids now, no one gets to play football, including the other teams on their schedule. This wasn't a permanent decision, it only needed to be a two year decision. If your enrollment goes back up, then you can go back to 11 man. The field is temporary also. A number of fields play host to 11 man and 8 man games in the same season, including Memorial Stadium in Lincoln! Just baffling how they allowed this to happen for two years. Just imagine if you really loved football and this is how your junior and senior seasons played out because of a few parents!
 
Laurel was a heck of a Baseball School once. Bob Wiesenberg coached up there once upon a time
 
Well that is a interesting twist to the plot . I wonder if they will even play another game this year?
 
District votes don't involve any coaches, unless the coach is the AD like Ron M. at Aquinas, where he is also the AD. I also know for a fact that many ADs opt not to vote when something doesn't impact their schools, so many class A schools probably didn't even vote on the issue. Yes they have the option to vote, but they abstain from voting if it doesn't affect their schools.
You are 100% correct , except many coaches are ADs but that doesnt really matter
 
Nothing that Coach Taylor does surprises me. I'm surprised that someone offered him a job coaching high school players, though.
That being said... as I mentioned before... there's a team with 17 guys, playing a C-1 schedule. And they haven't forfeited any games yet (although maybe they should have, since they're getting mercy-ruled pretty much every week).
 
Laurel's coach has been removed from his duties. Details at the link below

http://mywaynenews.com/articles/2015/10/10/sports/doc561909851d185615954535.txt
Seriously? Where was the school board in this process? Excellent background check. Wow! So they're not sure who they're hiring, I mean the guy has been there for almost two years, for all they know they could hire a coach that was on the sex offender list the way this sounds. It goes from bad to worse Feel bad for the kids in this whole nightmare.
 
I'm surprised he was hired in the first place, how could someone not know this? Maybe he can go and restart his adult tackle football program!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT