I would say something has changed. They changed to the sub state format! I bet all the teams that make it to the state tournament will have winning records. The old way Creek Valley would have been playing Crawford to go to Lincoln and now they play Osmond.
District Basketball Finals
- Thread starter hoops103165
- Start date
I agree, in some cases. but St. Paul would not be C1 for long. Why would parents send their kids to Elba? They are so small. They have to be struggling to keep teachers/coaches/administration.
To me Bertrand and Loomis could be that much better together. Utilize the resources and join up. Why not have more kids out on rosters?
Elm Creek and Overton could be competitive at the 11 man level in football and C2 in hoops. They could be like BRLD in Central Nebraska. I know they would be C1 for hoops this year, but they would drop to C2 in a few years.
I don't look at consolidation as a last resort. To me it's trying to stay ahead of the game and not be left out. Especially if it's not going to push your enrollment up very much. Think about the consolidation as a 5 year plan to the future.
I'm a huge fan of substate. It's just amazing to me how poor D2 hoops has become. Too many schools or have one Class D in my opinion.
You are absolutely right. There are too many D2 schools. So let's start closing schools and make kids drive 50 miles a day so the quality of basketball is better. It doesnt matter if there are 10 teams with winning records or 30 as long as the best teams make it to the state tournament.
I know most of the teams in class D-2 aren’t very good but the top of the class is really strong. I could understand people being concerned if the top 5 teams were like 14-10 but they’re not. This actually should be a pretty good D2 field so I’m not sure why anything needs to change
Last edited:
Let alone saving millions in administration, salary, and building maintenance. That would just be stupid.
That's easy to say if there is another town that's 10 miles away but that's not always the case. Just because it makes sense in some areas doesnt mean that's how it is state wide.
Financially speaking, consolidation is an intelligent decision because it reduces daily operating costs significantly. There are less buildings and less employees. If a school is struggling financially it makes a lot of sense to look at consolidation. That isn't always the case. Some of the districts with the lowest enrollments are very stable financially.
Consolidation has to be something that jointly benefits the enrollments and tax payers of both school districts. I don't think athletics should be a factor at all. That is why co-ops exist. A complete consolidation should be based on projected enrollments, student achievement, and sustainability of the school district(s) as a whole.
A few examples of schools with lower enrollments that rank towards the top of the state academically....
Leigh High School (Link)
Fullerton High School (Link)
Arapahoe High School (Link)
Osceola High School (Link)
I think Clarkson and Leigh coop for several sports. Even with that, there is no need to consolidate. Both schools are doing well (at least at the HS level) academically. Clarkson scored a "Great" (Link)
Bancroft-Rosalie scored a "needs improvement". (Link)
Lyons Decatur-NE scored an "excellent" (Link)
These two districts combine to make up the BRLD co-op. If I am Lyons Decatur I am sticking to the coop and not going near a consolidation.
Each scenario is different. I am sure there are examples where both school districts have similar achievement scores and would mutually benefit. "NortheastNebraska" suggested a Wausa-Bloomfield coop. Wausa HS was an excellent and Bloomfield was a great. That might be an example where a consolidation works academically. Overton scored a "Great" and Elm Creek scored a "Good". Those two are fairly similar academically, but neither are "in need" or under performing. Loomis was a great, Bertrand was a good. Again, neither are in need, but it could work academically.
Top of the class maybe as good as it ever has
On a side note the wheels of consolidation are slow but in 10 years at least 20 districts will consolidate if not more. Its been happening for 70 plus years now and will continue
My point is taken the wrong way, that’s my fault. I’m excited for the Class D2 State field. But it’s just fascinating to me how poor the records are from the rest of the class. Compared to Classes D1, C2 and C1.
Has anyone lived in a town that had a school close? I have and it literally kills the town. Let these towns have a school for as long as possible..... consolate sports if needed.
Also, it’ll be a cold day in hell that St. Fran and Lindsay consolidate schools. I think Lindsay asked St. Francis if they’ll consolidate sports.... and they were told to go pound sand. That’s why it’s Humphrey High with them.
Also, Humphrey is a growing town, so I don’t see a scenario where St. Francis will need to close its doors.
Also, it’ll be a cold day in hell that St. Fran and Lindsay consolidate schools. I think Lindsay asked St. Francis if they’ll consolidate sports.... and they were told to go pound sand. That’s why it’s Humphrey High with them.
Also, Humphrey is a growing town, so I don’t see a scenario where St. Francis will need to close its doors.
I have never lived in a town that had a school close. My mom grew up in Palisade, and they consolidated with Wauneta a long time ago. Palisade didn't have much back in the 80's when I was growing up and they still had a high school. The town still has approximately 300 residents like it did back in the mid 80's. In my opinion the community is already starting die which is the cause for the consolidation.
I do agree with you that St. Francis and Holy Family will never go together. Their co-op with Humphrey High has been very successful though.
Humphrey is a growing town, well I guess your right, it grows about 1 person every year
Pop. %±
1890 691 —
1900 869 25.8%
1910 868 −0.1%
1920 835 −3.8%
1930 854 2.3%
1940 841 −1.5%
1950 761 −9.5%
1960 801 5.3%
1970 862 7.6%
1980 799 −7.3%
1990 741 −7.3%
2000 786 6.1%
2010 760 −3.3%
Est. 2017 806 [3] 6.1%
Sounds like a bunch of good Catholics!
The reason to be pro-active in coop and consolidation talks is so that you have some bargaining power. Waiting until a school is desperate is a bad way to negotiate. Emerson-Hubbard waited until the very last second to talk to Pender last year about girls athletics. This was also a few months after they turned down Pender's inquiry about coping football. Pender's response was a big No Thanks! Since then both schools and towns left with a bad taste and I'm not sure if it will ever work out for them now. EH recently had a coop meeting with Wakefield and Allen.
The growth of Humphrey is outside of city limits..... Or maybe I should say that there are many new houses being built, but I suppose they could have less population due to people not having as many children anymore.
I am completely against going to 4 classes. The entire point of high school athletics is for the kids. Subtracting 2 classes takes, 4 teams (56 kids), 4 schools, and 4 communities (more if they are consolidated), out of the spotlight. It takes away those cherished moments of making it to a state championship and the opportunity to compete for a state championship is also taken away from the kids, schools, and communities.
If you really want to dig down into it, eliminating 2 classes eliminates 224 student athletes from competition, usually relatives follow kids and attend games. You also subtract 16 schools, and 16 communities (again, more if they are consolidated).
While there have been very good points made about the disparity is a few of the classes. And I don't want to watch another finals game end with one team in the 30s and one team in the 20s. But why take that away from the kids, schools, and communities? I say let them play for it! If you aren't happy about the product being put on the floor, then don't watch.
If you really want to dig down into it, eliminating 2 classes eliminates 224 student athletes from competition, usually relatives follow kids and attend games. You also subtract 16 schools, and 16 communities (again, more if they are consolidated).
While there have been very good points made about the disparity is a few of the classes. And I don't want to watch another finals game end with one team in the 30s and one team in the 20s. But why take that away from the kids, schools, and communities? I say let them play for it! If you aren't happy about the product being put on the floor, then don't watch.
Average class size in Missouri is 140 schools in each class and enrollment is low to high at least 3 times the low in each class
Do you feel as if there be more clasifications? If there were more than even more kids could be in the spotlight.
I try to look at things in this manner. Take away the aspect of change. Because with change people feel like something is being taken away. Disregard the current classification setup as if no classification setup has ever been in place. If the NSAA and member schools started with a blank canvas and no prior history with the current schools and enrollments, would they come up with the current setup?
Four classes would make winning a state championship even more special. Right now we have 7 classes in football, 6 in volleyball and basketball. Four classes in wrestling, track, and golf. If four classes are good enough for wrestling, track and golf, then four classes should be good enough in the other sports.
Colorado has 5 classes for basketball and 7 classes for football. They also have a population of over 5 million people compared to Nebraska at 1.8 million.
I do not feel there should be more classifications. I'm not saying "add more" i'm saying leave it as is.
You're asking an impossible question to answer in regards to your blank canvas question. I stated my opinion on the matter.
So what is your stance on the situation? That Nebraska needs to follow suit with Colorado?
I stated my opinion on the topic. Your opinion that if four classes works for wrestling, track and golf, so it should work for basketball. I completely disagree with. How many schools can't field a high school basketball team? There were a few forfeits this year that I saw. But, there are several schools that don't have a full wrestling, track and golf team. Usually wrestling and golf in my experience. Without having done any research I am assuming there are more basketball teams than wrestling teams in the state? Why do you want sports to follow suit? And if that is your stance, I'm assuming you only want 4 classes of football? Which would kill some already struggling football programs, look at how many schools already opt down a class due to lack of participation. Then you make the classes bigger, the small become smaller until they don't exist anymore.
We can agree to disagree.
I'm not saying Nebraska needs to follow suit with Colorado. I just think that 6 classes for basketball is more than Nebraska needs. Maybe the answer is five classes and maybe it's four classes. Football is a different animal, but we could probably get by with three classes of 11 man, 1 class of 8 man and one class of 6 man.
The problem with reducing classes is that nobody wants to be at the bottom of their class in enrollment.
The problem with reducing classes is that nobody wants to be at the bottom of their class in enrollment.
I agree 100%. No one would want to be at the bottom their class. You bring up interesting points. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't like the idea of "taking away" classes and opportunities.
I pose the question in that manner because your mainly looking at it from the stand point of "taking away" from kids. In reality since the state went to the 6 class format, I think in 1983, schools/kids have a much better chance of winning a state title now compared to then due to less schools in each classification. In the past 35 years kids have had nothing taken away, only added.
Me and others bring up other neighboring states for comparison because often people who want to keep a 6 class system view a 4 or 5 class system as too extreme due to enrollment differences. We try to make the point that a 4 or 5 class system isn't extreme, it's just differant and change and many have trouble with that. For example, in Iowa Class 1A is the smallest of their four classes. I would consider Iowa a fairly close comparison to Nebraska. Class 1A boys basketball this year has 151 schools. The largest 3 year enrollment in 159 (boys & girls combined). For comparison that would be equivalent to Minden for Nebraska (80 this year). 151 schools would be similar to combining C2, D1, and D2 into one class. I'm not advocating for that but do feel that a 4 class system would be fine. I realize 4 is not is not likely because of opposition such as yours but would be fine with 5 as it's a happy medium that both sides could hopefully agree on. From an enrollment standpoint there is not much difference in many of these schools. The top schools in D2 can compete just fine with D1. Same for, but probably to a slightly lesser degree, the same for C2 and C1. The bad teams will be bad regardless of the setup. Most of the schools already schedule almost half their games if not more against schools in a differant classification already.
You validate your points well. However, you only validate to change it to fewer classes. You don't happen to reference Kansas, a state that does have 6 classes. We can go rounds on supporting either side of this, and maybe that's what the message board is for.
Forgive me because I was not around in 1983, and to me it's always been 6 classes, and that is why I see it as "taking away."
And, if it has been this way for 35 years, why now? What pressing issue has suddenly come up to spark this?
The NSAA is studying classifications. Kansas also has 2.9 million residents, roughly 1.1 million more residents than Nebraska. At one time 6 classes made sense, I'm just not sure that it still makes sense. I'm not advocating change just for the sake of making changes, but we also don't need to keep things the same just because it's been that way for 35 years.
This is from the March newsletter from the NSAA.
https://nsaa-static.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/march.pdf
3. Number of classifications in each activity. Rationale being, we have four classes in wrestling and track, while we have six classes in the majority of the other activities. Does this need to change because of the coops and the lesser number of schools that we have today? In some activities, we are really struggling to get host sites for districts. If more discussion is created from our membership, it too will be addressed at this meeting. The agenda will not be fully developed until the day of the meeting. If you haven’t heard from one of the committee members, please feel free to contact our office with your recommendations. The meeting in February will not be the last on this topic as I realize that you will read this article after the meeting takes place, and I’m sure there will be another meeting coming. The NSAA is committed to our member schools and truly believes that this ongoing dialog on how to improve our organization will be good for all of us.
Your right, Kansas is a pretty good comparison as well. Kansas has 6 classes, 6A being largest down to 1A the smallest. While Nebraska has around 280 schools Kansas isn't that far off at around 330. The biggest difference between the two is that Kansas is a lot more balanced in the enrollments due to more metro areas. For example they have roughly 115 schools that would be considered A or B in Nebraska. Thats basically a third of their member schools. Looking at their enrollments it's actually pretty amazing how evenly spread out they are. For boys basketball their classifications are as follows (girls and boys combined enrollments); 6A, 5A, and 4A have 36 schools, 3A and 2A have 64 schools, and 1A has 108 schools. 1A consists of schools with a 3 year boys and girls combined enrollments of about 100 and less. That would be very similar to the number of schools in Nebraska if D2, D1, and half of C2 were combined.
I think Kansas supports both of our points well. Yours in the case that 6 classes for a similar sized membership base. Mine in the fact that it's not crazy to think that with the small difference in enrollments that the lower classes couldn't be combined and still have competitive balance.
I wasnt around in 1983 either, like literally not around in any form
! What has changed is less member schools and smaller enrollments for the majority of those schools that are still around. At one point Nebraska resembled more similar to the current Kansas setup. B used to be 64 schools before getting cut down to 32 (I think in early 80's??).Very true, if change is needed and the time is right, then a change should be made.
Thank you for sharing the NSAA News!
Glad to hear i'm not the only one that missed out on 1983! I found Kansas' system very intriguing. You are absolutely right that the balance Kansas has is almost uncomfortable! In Nebraska your biggest discrepancy is with class A.Your right, Kansas is a pretty good comparison as well. Kansas has 6 classes, 6A being largest down to 1A the smallest. While Nebraska has around 280 schools Kansas isn't that far off at around 330. The biggest difference between the two is that Kansas is a lot more balanced in the enrollments due to more metro areas. For example they have roughly 115 schools that would be considered A or B in Nebraska. Thats basically a third of their member schools. Looking at their enrollments it's actually pretty amazing how evenly spread out they are. For boys basketball their classifications are as follows (girls and boys combined enrollments); 6A, 5A, and 4A have 36 schools, 3A and 2A have 64 schools, and 1A has 108 schools. 1A consists of schools with a 3 year boys and girls combined enrollments of about 100 and less. That would be very similar to the number of schools in Nebraska if D2, D1, and half of C2 were combined.
I think Kansas supports both of our points well. Yours in the case that 6 classes for a similar sized membership base. Mine in the fact that it's not crazy to think that with the small difference in enrollments that the lower classes couldn't be combined and still have competitive balance.
I wasnt around in 1983 either, like literally not around in any form
Just for fun based on the Kansas System, if you used the boys basketball classification numbers for this year and put 36 teams in A, B, and C1 it creates a bigger difference in class A, but actually makes class B more balanced and the remaining classes are extremely similar.
Based off the following Numbers:
https://nsaa-static.s3.amazonaws.com/textfile/bask/bbbclass.pdf
Using 36 in the first 3 Classes and then roughly 57 Teams in the bottom 3:
A. Grand Island(1049)-Scottsbluff(387) 682 Student Difference.
B. Lexington(360)-Ashland-Greenwood(101) 259 Student Difference.
C1. Ogallala(101)-North Bend(67) 34 Student Difference
C2. David City(66)-Creighton(42) 24 Student Difference
D1. Southern 42-McCool Junction(27) 15 Student Difference
D2. Minatare(27)-Sioux County(8) 19 Student Difference
Compared to how the classifications were broke down this year:
A. Grand Island(1049)-Gretna(487) 582 Student Difference
B. Elkhorn(471)-Holdrege(138) 333 Student Difference
C1. Wahoo(136)-Gibbon(63) 73 Student Difference
C2. Tekamah-Herman(63)-Alma(42) 21 Student Difference
D1. Heartland(42)-Wauneta-Palisade(27) 15 Student Difference
D2. Blue Hill(26)-Sioux County(8) 18 Student Difference
Not saying that is the right thing to do for Nebraska, especially for class A, but interesting to look at!
Thank you for your insight! And no, your idea is not crazy, just a change I wouldn't want to see.
Just curious, how do the classifications in Kansas work? There are 6 classes, but up until this year 4A and 1A each had 2 sub-divisions. So there were actually 8 state tournament classifications. This year, there is only 6. Did they downsize?
Also, I hate to be cynical, but as long as people come to Lincoln to watch D2 basketball, there is going to be 6 classes in Nebraska. Economics plays a large role in how many classes there are. The Nebraska State tournaments are well attended events. I’m not sure if that’s the case with the different classes in different communities format that many of our surrounding states use.
Also, I hate to be cynical, but as long as people come to Lincoln to watch D2 basketball, there is going to be 6 classes in Nebraska. Economics plays a large role in how many classes there are. The Nebraska State tournaments are well attended events. I’m not sure if that’s the case with the different classes in different communities format that many of our surrounding states use.
Last edited:
I like your idea of 36 schools in Class A, B and C1.
Speedy66, you also made a very valid point on the economics of the state tournament.
I am saying we have it real good and way more easier than most states, and if your digging at Missouri basketball, that would be a mistake in comparison
Colorado was brought up earlier in this thread....I learned something new today about Colorado and classifications.
The CHSAA (Colorado equivalent to NSAA) now uses other factors besides just enrollment to classify schools, such as socio-economics, demographics, safety, competitive success (or lack thereof), geography, enrollment trends and participation rates.
Classifications are overseen by each sport individually, providing greater flexibility. Teams can request to opt down, or be opted down by a CHSAA committee, and still be eligible for the postseason.
I haven't looked at the details, but it is an interesting concept.
The CHSAA (Colorado equivalent to NSAA) now uses other factors besides just enrollment to classify schools, such as socio-economics, demographics, safety, competitive success (or lack thereof), geography, enrollment trends and participation rates.
Classifications are overseen by each sport individually, providing greater flexibility. Teams can request to opt down, or be opted down by a CHSAA committee, and still be eligible for the postseason.
I haven't looked at the details, but it is an interesting concept.
Better watch yourself, Alum-ni. You’re gonna trigger someone with that opt up and down talk. According to someone on here, there are no circumstances ever where that would be warranted, and if you can’t play in your class, you shouldn’t play at all!
None of this has been about comparing the quality of basketball to surrounding states. Just they way they conduct their state tournaments. And you're correct that would be a mistake in doing so.