Another week, another school forfeiting....
- Thread starter Alum-Ni
- Start date
Wow...just wow. That story is so bad it's almost unreal. And this is why some coaches get a bad name because of idiots like this. I'm at a loss of words for how pathetic this was handled. Anyone know why those teachers are resigning?
This is tremendously unfortunate for Stanton, especially their seniors. Most of the playoff projections that I have seen (including my own) have Stanton on the outside looking in. They can still get in, but need some help. Those poor seniors were planning on playing at least 1 more game. My opinion, Laurel-Concord-Coleridge should be punished severely by the NSAA for forfeiting the amount of games they have in the last 2 years. Those are games that seniors from opposing teams never get back.
Absolutely agree with you hailvictors2!! They should have to pay out any losses in gate and concessions to the teams that they forfeited to that were home games for the other team, at the minimum! This could have all been avoided if the administration and school board had just done their job in the appropriate way for the student-athletes and not for themselves!!
What makes it worse is that LCC opted up to 11 man. Their enrollment for this scheduling cycle was 81. They should have been playing 8 man.
Thats what makes this worse, who was the idiots on that decision, not only did they hurt LLC but a ton of other teams, schools and Seniors The entire school seems to be a Joke right now.
I have a question on this. I know that coaches from all classes vote but if the 8-man cut line is changed, will it have a domino effect all the way up to C1 or B for those schools on the very bottom or very top of each class? Just curious.
It will only effect C-1 and C-2. Class A is set at 28 and Class B is set at 32. If the line was raised it could also make only a difference of a couple teams. The "line" is really only a guideline for playoff eligibility and may be a factor in the decision but any school is free to declare 8 or 11 man there's really nothing in the guidebook that says one way or the other what you have to play. I would say with a raised playoff cutoff line, there will still be quite a few teams below that line playing 11 man.
But I do think that some schools at the bottom of C-1 would go to C-2. Say 13 schools in C-2 decide to go 8-man. So that cuts all of Class C to 80 schools. So if the NSAA wants to keep half in C-1 and half in C-2, that means a few of those small C-1s--North Bend, Chase County, Wilber-Clatonia, Johnson County, Norfolk Catholic--might get dumped into C-2.
I wish that there was a way to use some common sense when it comes to these classifications. Some "C-1" teams are clearly not C-1 programs. Some of these teams you listed as being dropped down to C-2 are clearly able to compete (and win) at the C-1 level. There are other states that take success (or lack thereof) into account when putting teams into a class. There is no way Norfolk Catholic (for example) should be a C-2 program when they are contenders to win the state title in C-1 every year. There's no way a team like Conestoga (who just lost to a Tecumseh team- that finished their game with 14 players) should be in C-1 (at least not until they have demonstrated some measure of success at the C-2 level). Who cares how many students attend a school, when only 20 of them go out for football? I realize that the state can't predict how many kids are going to go out for a sport in any given year... but if there is an established pattern (like there is at the 2 schools listed above), there ought to be a way of injecting some common sense into these classification decisions.
Look there is no perfect way, that allows everyone to have chance to win, some will win, some will lose and some will always get there ass kicked
We are always trying to change everything for a hand full of teams that always play that cry me a river song.
If you have a kid at one of those schools move or open enroll into a good district
There is a great message, quit and go somewhere else, where they are already winners. This has to be a school by school decision. Name the teams that are playing the "cry me a river song"? Do you have examples, do you really even truly know the situation at those schools. What a blanket statement for schools that struggle. There is no quick fix, the system will never be perfect. I will just say with the biggest number of schools I've seen in years forfeiting games there is something broken in the system. I would say "opt down" and don't be eligible for the play-offs, but that is frowned upon by a majority of you on here as well.
I'm not really sure about this and might be making some of it up, but I think the major soccer league in Europe, where Manchester United plays, has a couple divisions and in order to play in the top division, you have to win the lower division. Likewise, you have to keep winning once you're there in order to stay in the top division or else you drop down. It's silly to think that would apply to high school sports, but it would be awesome to have a loaded class in C and D and it would allow some of the other schools that are hurting to be competitive. Not so much based off of enrollment, but instead success (or failure). If you're competitive at the lower levels, you win the right to play with the big dogs.
You're mostly referring to the English Premier League as well as the general pyramid organization in just about every soccer league in the world except in the US. Promotion and relegation is what it is called though and generally the top two teams in each level go up and the bottom two go down. I think it could be a great idea as in other sports C and D schools frequently play each other and are competitive. The only issue I see in football is that small towns across the state are always on the brink. A school like Crofton or West Holt that is quite competitive this year and near the bottom in student population graduates a lot and then because of their success moves up to C-1. The next cycle they may have a small collection of upperclassmen and a lot of freshman. They get beat up bad and often, players quit because its not fun anymore. I just don't see it being good for the players or the program in the long run.
I really don't understand your problem (or your juvenile responses) here. It sounds like you would be happier if half the schools in Nebraska just quit having football. Is that what you want? Or are you one of the "haves", who is more than happy to continue competing in an un-level playing field, just so that your team can keep piling up those all-important "W's"?
Not even close to practical when dealing with student sports. Why would a current group of kids be subject to competition based on the performance of prior years' kids. Professional teams where the same players play for a lengthy time period is a bit different than 14-18 year olds.
This entire conversation is to liberal for me Good luck
The way that other states do it, there has to be sustained success (minimum of three years... maybe more) to get moved up. I don't think that what I'm suggestings would affect Crofton or West Holt (both of which I'm pretty familiar with), since they don't have a record of being consistently dominant (or doomats).
Not saying it would directly apply to them, just think they are a good example of teams that are on that low end of student population of C-2 that are competitive. What states do this? I wouldn't mind diving in and reading up on it.
Exactly...you make up crap. Can't name a school that is "crying a river". So you don't really care about the schools that struggle to maintain programs, we get it. Most of the rest of the people on here are about solving a problem...you just want to complain about the teams in the towns that are struggling and forfeiting games. Ponca's senior class has lost half a season in their 4 year varsity careers because of Homer and Laurel. It's time to look at this as an issue and address it, just not continue doing the same busted thing. Maybe we should just cancel all football from C-2 down...that work for you "nut", or is that to "liberal"?
Why not hold those who are causing the problem accountable, instead of changing for those few, why not some accountability, that may be a new concept to some, but it use to work pretty darn good. Instead we find ways to bring the undeserving to the top and water the system down. Fare for all, white ribbons for everyone, dont keep score and all that other BS
You sound like a kid who is afraid of having to compete on a more level playing field. And who are you going to hold accountable for situations in small towns where the immigrant population (legal or otherwise) has swelled the numbers of their school... while the number of students out for sports (male and female) goes down?
Like I stated earlier, I don't know what the answers are I just know that forfeits suck for everyone all around...wait. I have an idea. Do you know how in motor sports when guys do really well and are winning others can come in and claim his motor? (Or something along those lines) Why don't we do that with coaches who have successful programs? After too much success, whatever that means, another school can come in and "claim" their head coach. Really, I'm just kidding. This is getting too heated. I do have a question though. Wasn't there a time when schools did their own scheduling?
I'm all about keeping score....I agree let's get this fixed. Maybe the schools that forfeit should be forced to opt down...No choice. Not being able to make the play-offs could be the penalty for forfeiting games during a season.
Ahhh...so it's the coaching. This isn't always a coaching issue (though sometimes it is). I would like to take some of the top coach's (gonna take a shot monarchmom and maybe say DC Aquinas' Head and send him to South Sioux City in Class A to compete. My gut says he doesn't get that program turned around, but would love to see.
Afraid, I am not the one who wants to change the competition down to the level you can compete at. STEP UP. Oh and who ever wanted me to name a school that is playing they cry me a river song, the school HuskerMadder is from or a least he is playing it right now.
Okay --- Truth you cant fix it unless you raise your expectations and get in the weight room and the hardest truth you can't fix every school, some just have kids that are lazy and go out for nothing, they leave at 3:30 from school and dont do a thing. The State of Nebraska has some of the fairest enrollment numbers in the USA, most states have numbers that are similar to class B where teams may have double or triple the enrollment from top to bottom. Some schools just are not going to get there no matter what rule or enrollment number you change. If I was going to start or try something, I would start with raising the 8-man number. It will not fix everyone because that is not going to happen but It may give a chance to a few.
Holy crap...that's all! Just lift weights and want to be better and everything will be all peachy! You truly have no clue what is going on do you? Go tell that to Schylur, Lexington, Madison, Wakefield, and South Sioux City to name a few schools that probably are dealing with just a few more issues than your ignorant simplified statement. But I'll get on the horn tomorrow and share your "secrets" to success nut. I bet they'll be slapping their foreheads thinking "WOW...why didn't we think of that!".
