C1 & C2 Playoff Projections
- Thread starter huskers_2001
- Start date
Something seems odd Rumor is they played an ineligible player one game and this late in the season . Nsaa should look more info into this
Total guesses on seeding by the way
1 Norfolk Catholic
16 Amherst
8 Battle Creek
9 Yutan
5 Malcolm
12 Wilber Clatonia
4 Mitchell
13 Bishop Neumann
3 Oakland Craig
14 Hartington Cc
6 Ord
11Chase County
7 HSC
10 Kearney Catholic
2 Filmore Central
15 Amherst
Total guesses on seeding by the way
1 Norfolk Catholic
16 Amherst
8 Battle Creek
9 Yutan
5 Malcolm
12 Wilber Clatonia
4 Mitchell
13 Bishop Neumann
3 Oakland Craig
14 Hartington Cc
6 Ord
11Chase County
7 HSC
10 Kearney Catholic
2 Filmore Central
15 Amherst
Question is will BN be eligible for post season play? There is language in the NSAA by-laws that state that forfeiting a game equals ineligibility for post season play!
Yeah, Neumann can't go to the postseason. It is spelled out in the Football Handbook
Page 37 of 72 on this PDF document, highlighted in yellow (letter f).
Page 37 of 72 on this PDF document, highlighted in yellow (letter f).
Last edited:
This is not accurate at all. Schools were absolutely eligible for postseason if they forfeited during Covid. This rule was put in place this season. As a matter of fact, the "forfeits" during Covid weren't even classified as forfeits. They were called no-contest and the game was marked "cancelled".
Further clarification on the forfeiture rules with playoff ineligibility-
3.3.1.2 If a school fails to honor the assigned games, that school shall be excluded from participation in the state qualifying contest and/or the state contest for that particular sport.
The forfeiture clauses that are added are in reference to advanced forfeits. When looking at the NSAA by-laws, playing an ineligible player may result in forfeiture of the game they participated in. I'm just relaying what was told to the school by nsaa and relayed to the community.
3.3.1.2 If a school fails to honor the assigned games, that school shall be excluded from participation in the state qualifying contest and/or the state contest for that particular sport.
The forfeiture clauses that are added are in reference to advanced forfeits. When looking at the NSAA by-laws, playing an ineligible player may result in forfeiture of the game they participated in. I'm just relaying what was told to the school by nsaa and relayed to the community.
I think that is the right thing to do by the NSAA. Don't make a team miss the playoffs because they subbed a kid in at the end of the game. That said, they need to clean their football handbook up. The way the football handbook is written gives team #17 a BIG gripe. The handbook clearly states that if you forfeit you don't go to the playoffs. It doesn't specify any exception. Having additional information somewhere else that DOES specify an exception is not a good look, and really poor management by the folks at the NSAA.
I thought in the handbook it states that it is up to the board to decide if a team is ineligible for playoffs based off the forfeit? I could have misread that! But on the other hand - why is the ineligible kid even suited up for a game?
The FB manual says 2 different things. on page 36/37 it says a forfeit is a forfeit and you are ineligible for postseason if that occurs. Page 14/15 go into failure to honor assigned games and it leading to exclusion for participation in the playoffs. Page 14/15 do not say anything about forfeiture for use of ineligible players, and they don't say anything about maintaining eligibility for post season if that is the reason you forfeit. Sub point 1 of the approved rulings (bottom portion of this post) says the NSAA can make more stringent penalties, but it doesn't say anything about making lighter penalties.
Taken directly from page 36 of the FB manual (page 37 of the PDF document).
f. Any school that forfeits a regular season contest will be ineligible for the post season.
g. Any school that forfeits a regular season or post season contest will be fined $1000 with the money going to the opponent if the game was to be the opponent’s home game. The fine will be waived if the NSAA is able to replace the opponent’s home game.
h. Any school that forfeits a regular season or post season contest will be responsible for paying the officials.
Also taken directly from page 14 of the FB manual (page 15 of the PDF document)
3.3.1.2 If a school fails to honor the assigned games, that school shall be excluded from participation in the state qualifying contest and/or the state contest for that particular sport.
APPROVED RULINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FOR 3.3.1.2
(1) At the discretion of the Board of Directors, more stringent penalties may be assessed if a school fails to honor the assigned contests. The Board of Directors may impose, but not be limited to, one or more of the penalties outlined in Bylaws 2.11.1 through 2.11.1.10.
Oh man....so now it has to go to 18.
The easy fix is the NSAA makes the fb manual more clear.
This game was actually played though, right? It seems as if most of that is focused on the teams that were forfeiting the games because of low numbers and injuries. I'm surprised there is nothing in the handbook about having to forfeit games for ineligible players. Very odd.
Exactly, I guess that is my point. The reasonable and logical thing to do in this situation is to realize the manual isn't 100% clear on this matter, allow Bishop Neumann to participate in the post-season, and make the corrections going forward. That said, logic and reasoning are pretty subjective. Easy for me to say that is reasonable because it has no impact on me. Team #17 or #18 might think it is logical/reasonable to abide by the literal letter of the law and not allow them in.
Bottom line, and something that I think gets forgotten a lot....does the punishment fit the crime? If I understand the context of this situation correctly, an ineligible player was subbed into the game late as Neumann was subbing down. You have a team trying to do the right thing by subbing down, and in the process a kid gets into the game that shouldn't have. I don't think that should cost them their dreams of a state title.
One clarification, and I don't know if anyone will know the answer. Did Neumann self-report this infraction? If so, that solidifies my stance even more. They made a mistake, then did what they could to get right immediately afterwards. Just my $.02
Have heard it was a self report - albeit via 3rd party.
Have also heard that it wasn't the coaches fault because they weren't relayed information about eligibility of said player. In my opinion it's an honest mistake in a game that got out of hand. This should not have any bearing on eligibility of playoffs. This mistake was not a situation where the player was key to the success. Most of us coaches know how it is getting kids in late in games and there's a lot of "getting lost in the shuffle" of things as the running clock is happening and you're trying to get kids on the field because it's the right thing to do.
Regardless. In my opinion the only community/school this could end up making me feel bad for is whoever now has to host BN.
Likely the #8 seed whoever that is, will get BN.
Have also heard that it wasn't the coaches fault because they weren't relayed information about eligibility of said player. In my opinion it's an honest mistake in a game that got out of hand. This should not have any bearing on eligibility of playoffs. This mistake was not a situation where the player was key to the success. Most of us coaches know how it is getting kids in late in games and there's a lot of "getting lost in the shuffle" of things as the running clock is happening and you're trying to get kids on the field because it's the right thing to do.
Regardless. In my opinion the only community/school this could end up making me feel bad for is whoever now has to host BN.
Likely the #8 seed whoever that is, will get BN.
Neumann gets punished enough by having to forfeit and having their seed drop pretty significantly.
An ineligible player, transfer, home school kid, etc should not be suited up if they are varsity ineligible. Wear the jersey, stand on the sideline, but why suit up? Sometimes its hard because you have a reserve, jv and varsity game in the same week and the kids only get so many quarters. Regardless, the kid is going to go in if asked, and it gets hectic on the sideline, especially when its the end of a blowout and you want kids to get some field time. The manual needs clarification, but that shouldn't disqualify a team from postseason play. Fix the manual, make it clear that the rule applies to canceling upcoming games, not games already played. You also need to clarify a team forfeiting a game in the middle, not finishing, etc because that happened this year as well in a C2 game.
They should still get in. Honest mistake. The bigger question is has this kid gotten into other games throughout the year. They have played a handful of blow out games. If so then what. I still think if that’s the case they shouldn’t b punished Honest mistake move on.
Couldn't this same logic be applied to teams that forfeit for lack of player availability? They take the forfeit loss and it lowers their points. Shouldn't that be enough of a consequence, too? I say just get rid of the disqualification from postseason rule all together. I can't remember the year or team, but several years ago a team had to forfeit a game because they had an outbreak of staph and couldn't put enough bodies out on the upcoming Friday night. According to the new rule, that team would be ineligible for post-season now. I don't agree with that at all.
Last edited:
I don't think you can just "forget" about other games this player has played IF ineligible. The same consequence would have to be taken if playing an ineligible player. The most concerning thing to me in this situation is the lack of communication from the admin to the coaching staff about said player being ineligible - if that is the case.
I would be very curious to know the reason why this kid has been ruled ineligible for this game. If it was self-reported, would it have something to do with being ineligible from a school's standpoint? I have no idea - just thinking out loud.
The ineligible boy moved to Nebraska in July. I don't think they live in the Wahoo district. The parents were going to home school him until they decided to enroll him at BN 2 weeks after school started. This was the only game he got in.
I can see both sides of this...... What sticks out to me is the obvious red flag overlooked by the staff, if what's been said ITT is true.
The kid shows up 2 weeks late to school? Obviously practices had been going on, games coming up or already being played, and the coaches get a new player and don't make 150% sure that he's eligible? Or am I missing something? Especially for a team that has the capability of a deep post-season run.
As already said, if deemed ineligible, you make sure that he's not suited up on varsity gamedays! I'm sure they have numerous coaches that could/should be watching out for this.
The kid shows up 2 weeks late to school? Obviously practices had been going on, games coming up or already being played, and the coaches get a new player and don't make 150% sure that he's eligible? Or am I missing something? Especially for a team that has the capability of a deep post-season run.
As already said, if deemed ineligible, you make sure that he's not suited up on varsity gamedays! I'm sure they have numerous coaches that could/should be watching out for this.
Ya, I understand you. I also understand that it is a previously home schooled kid, coaches want him to feel as a part of the team and school. I'd guess that Bishop Neumann suits up all players for Varsity. Coaches are trying to get kids to letter and whatever else goes on in the last few minutes of a game. 2 plays, blowout game, honest mistake.
But there have been multiple blowout games this season and this game is the only one where they decide to play said player? If what’s being stated is true and this kid was with the team since 2 weeks into the season - knowing this kid could only play jv - and you suit him up for varsity? Then you make sure that at least 1 coach is watching and making sure this kid never plays a down. Especially if you have a top tier team.
Classify it as a misunderstanding/miscommunication between the administration and a coaching staff in which only one coach is in the school system. Perfect storm and an honest mistake that made that game the first opportunity for that kid to have a chance to go in without the realization that he's ineligible.
But just bc numerous coaches aren't in the school system doesn't give them free reign to break the rules either. In that case, even more communication is needed, and sounds like this could be on administration instead of coaches.....
To respond to the lettering comment a little earlier, coaches can make a discretionary decision to give a kid a letter if he absolutely cannot play in games, and has done everything else necessary to letter.
And don't get me wrong, I can see why they may allow WN to be eligible for playoffs, but I can also see how it could open up a huge can of worms as well.
All good responses. Coaches making discretionary decisions for lettering (as an example) are likely on a school by school basis. Some schools may say...no. The criteria is is spelled out. If it says they must play in 7 varsity games, then they must play in 7 varsity games.
Suiting up all players for Friday Night football games is standard practice in the lower classes for sure. There are no roster limits, and Friday Nights are a great way to keep the younger players engaged.
The very fact that the school in question self reported this should be evidence enough that this was not a case of a rule being abused but rather a legitimate oversight. This is what I call an administrative infraction and was also inconsequential in terms of the impact on the safety and well being of participants as well as the integrity of the contest.
However, if the rule in enforced to the maximum extent, coaches get fired, kid gets expelled from school, and the team is disqualified from all athletic events for the next 5 years...I really don't care one way or another. I simply do not feel that the spirit of this rule was violated even though the letter of the law was violated. Whatever is decided is fine with me.
Suiting up all players for Friday Night football games is standard practice in the lower classes for sure. There are no roster limits, and Friday Nights are a great way to keep the younger players engaged.
The very fact that the school in question self reported this should be evidence enough that this was not a case of a rule being abused but rather a legitimate oversight. This is what I call an administrative infraction and was also inconsequential in terms of the impact on the safety and well being of participants as well as the integrity of the contest.
However, if the rule in enforced to the maximum extent, coaches get fired, kid gets expelled from school, and the team is disqualified from all athletic events for the next 5 years...I really don't care one way or another. I simply do not feel that the spirit of this rule was violated even though the letter of the law was violated. Whatever is decided is fine with me.
