I saw this article today. It mainly discusses a proposal to let higher seeds in Class A to host all playoff games leading up to the championship game in Lincoln. However, there were a number of other proposals that were approved for second-round voting. Among them was raising the playoff eligibility cutoff in 8-man football from 83 to 98, which I know was discussed in another thread. Thoughts on these two potential changes?
Potential changes set for January voting
- Thread starter unavailableusername
- Start date
I think both of theses are great. In my mind the home game should go to higher seed in all classes, not just in A. I didn't fully understand from the article why all classes aren't included in the proposal. If I understand it correctly the other classes aren't included because of those three class A AD's didn't want it included. Why would it matter to them? Someone please explain this to me, I'm not always the brightest. 
my only thought is that maybe they felt it wouldn't pass if all classes were included.
I'm glad to see the proposal for the 8 man cutoff to be raised. Suprised though its so high at 98. Hope this doesn't stop it from passing. As I said in an earlier post, I hope they allow schools to opt up to 11man C2 if their below the cutoff and be eligible for the playoffs. This new cutoff should help a lot of schools field more competitive teams. Although 8 man will have a lot more schools I think we all realize that in 10 years or less we'll be back to the same number of schools in 8 man as we have now due to consolidations and coops.
Overall, two good moves if passed.
This post was edited on 11/13 7:38 PM by nenebskers
my only thought is that maybe they felt it wouldn't pass if all classes were included.I'm glad to see the proposal for the 8 man cutoff to be raised. Suprised though its so high at 98. Hope this doesn't stop it from passing. As I said in an earlier post, I hope they allow schools to opt up to 11man C2 if their below the cutoff and be eligible for the playoffs. This new cutoff should help a lot of schools field more competitive teams. Although 8 man will have a lot more schools I think we all realize that in 10 years or less we'll be back to the same number of schools in 8 man as we have now due to consolidations and coops.
Overall, two good moves if passed.
This post was edited on 11/13 7:38 PM by nenebskers
The way our state determines home field
advantage in the playoffs is ridiculous. The #1 seed has virtually a 50%
chance to play on the road in the second round every year because that 8 vs 9
game is typically a close pairing. This year 3 of the 8 #1 seeds were on
the road in round 2. Why doesn't the higher seed host, no matter what?
What would be the fault in that? If you want to play at home in the
playoffs, win in the regular season.
advantage in the playoffs is ridiculous. The #1 seed has virtually a 50%
chance to play on the road in the second round every year because that 8 vs 9
game is typically a close pairing. This year 3 of the 8 #1 seeds were on
the road in round 2. Why doesn't the higher seed host, no matter what?
What would be the fault in that? If you want to play at home in the
playoffs, win in the regular season.
Here's my take --
Class A AD's didn't want to include the smaller classes in their proposal, because they are unsure of how the vote would go in the smaller classes.
They know it will pass if it goes to just a Class A vote, and they don't want to chance it.
Class A AD's didn't want to include the smaller classes in their proposal, because they are unsure of how the vote would go in the smaller classes.
They know it will pass if it goes to just a Class A vote, and they don't want to chance it.
Here is why the NSAA currently has it's system. If a team WAS the #9 seed in the old C1 or C2 playoff, they would be on the road for the first game. I don't know if it ever happened that a #16 seed in a 32 team bracket ever beat a #1 seed so the #9 seed was almost guaranteed to travel the following week. I have seen the #1 fall in the second round (last year Syracuse in C1). So more than likely the #9 seeded team (if they didn't alternate) would travel for 4 games if they made it to the Semis.
The system was to protect, as much as possible, schools from having to spend a bunch of money on travel cost. I heard that some school like Skutt are spending the night for their trip out West (just a rumor, not sure if it's true). Bottom line, if a school had to do this 3-4 weeks in a row, the cost would be tough.
However, I think the rule needs to be changed now that A-C2 are in 16 team playoff system. There are only 3 games before the state game in Lincoln. All games are on Friday so they wouldn't have to worry about missing a bunch of school (compared to the Thursday-Wednesday-Monday schedule from years ago). Also, I think home field advantage is so much more important now. Elkhorn had to go to Gretna last week (15 minute drive).....no big deal. Now traveling 6 hours is a big deal. With the state getting ride of East/West brackets, that home field is much more important.
Just my thoughts.
The system was to protect, as much as possible, schools from having to spend a bunch of money on travel cost. I heard that some school like Skutt are spending the night for their trip out West (just a rumor, not sure if it's true). Bottom line, if a school had to do this 3-4 weeks in a row, the cost would be tough.
However, I think the rule needs to be changed now that A-C2 are in 16 team playoff system. There are only 3 games before the state game in Lincoln. All games are on Friday so they wouldn't have to worry about missing a bunch of school (compared to the Thursday-Wednesday-Monday schedule from years ago). Also, I think home field advantage is so much more important now. Elkhorn had to go to Gretna last week (15 minute drive).....no big deal. Now traveling 6 hours is a big deal. With the state getting ride of East/West brackets, that home field is much more important.
Just my thoughts.
With all due respect, the NSAA doesn't care about making teams travel and spend money. I coach in Gibbon and the state sent us to Bayard, Bridgeport, Genoa, and Arcadia this year during the regular season. That is 1,350 miles. We didn't request any of those teams on our wish list. We did request St Pats and Hershey and didnt get those games...instead we drove through those towns 2 times on our way 5 hours west to Bayard and Bridgeport.
The NSAA does not care about travel and the financial burden it puts on schools. Not at all.
This post was edited on 11/14 9:45 AM by GibbonBuffs
The NSAA does not care about travel and the financial burden it puts on schools. Not at all.
This post was edited on 11/14 9:45 AM by GibbonBuffs
Personally I like the way the home games are decided now. Doesn't need to be changed.
This post was edited on 11/14 12:58 PM by runningback43
This post was edited on 11/14 12:58 PM by runningback43
"the NSAA doesn't care about making teams travel and spend money. "
But GibbonBuffs, don't the athletic directors do the primary voting on things like this? The ADs of the schools can put together a proposal and change things if they wanted. This is what the Class A guys are doing. Isn't this what the caucus is for. Right?
Then by that rational, I think it's the ADs that have been pushing for alternation, not necessarily the NSAA.
But GibbonBuffs, don't the athletic directors do the primary voting on things like this? The ADs of the schools can put together a proposal and change things if they wanted. This is what the Class A guys are doing. Isn't this what the caucus is for. Right?
Then by that rational, I think it's the ADs that have been pushing for alternation, not necessarily the NSAA.
I am not positive how that voting process goes, but I think you are correct.
One thing worth noting is that no school pays anything for travel in the playoffs. The NSAA and host school reimburse the away school for their full travel costs using the gate money for that game. There are forms that the traveling school fills out and files with the NSAA, they are then compensated on a per mile basis.
My point in bringing up our regular season travel was to show that the NSAA made us travel 1,350 miles in 1 season. Not a dime of that was reimbursed. That makes me believe that the NSAA doesn't worry too much about the financial burden teams face when forced to travel repeatedly.
On top of that, there is a possibility that McCook-Scottsbluff will play in the class B finals, North-Prep in A finals, and Battle Creek/Hartington CC in C2 finals. If the NSAA was concerned about travel costs, they would give those teams the option to play the C2 finals in the northeast, the B finals out west and the A finals in Omaha somewhere. Obviously those schools would likely decline and opt to play in Memorial Stadium....but if keeping travel costs down was a true concern for the NSAA, they would at least make it an option.
One thing worth noting is that no school pays anything for travel in the playoffs. The NSAA and host school reimburse the away school for their full travel costs using the gate money for that game. There are forms that the traveling school fills out and files with the NSAA, they are then compensated on a per mile basis.
My point in bringing up our regular season travel was to show that the NSAA made us travel 1,350 miles in 1 season. Not a dime of that was reimbursed. That makes me believe that the NSAA doesn't worry too much about the financial burden teams face when forced to travel repeatedly.
On top of that, there is a possibility that McCook-Scottsbluff will play in the class B finals, North-Prep in A finals, and Battle Creek/Hartington CC in C2 finals. If the NSAA was concerned about travel costs, they would give those teams the option to play the C2 finals in the northeast, the B finals out west and the A finals in Omaha somewhere. Obviously those schools would likely decline and opt to play in Memorial Stadium....but if keeping travel costs down was a true concern for the NSAA, they would at least make it an option.
@GibbonBuffs Arcadia-Loup City was in your district. I don't think you get to wish list your district?
While this is true, I think the NSAA could have alleviated some of the travel they had by making that a home game for Gibbon this season.
The schedule switches next year and you get them all at home anyways so does it not balance out?
Absolutely. I was just pointing out that the NSAA doesn't have a problem making teams travel. As a head coach, I actually enjoy the travel. Both Bayard and Bridfeport were more than hospitable to us. Both schools fed us afterwards, were class operations, and had great facilities. We are excited to return the favor next year.
My point was simply that we didn't ask to go out there. The NSAA sent us 1,350 miles in 4 games this year. Next year we travel 350 miles round trip and that includes an extra away game.
If the NSAA cared about travel, we would have played Kearney Catholic (13 miles), Minden (20 miles), Hershey (who was on our list), St Pats (on our list), or Southern Valley (an hour or so).
I don't envy the job of the NSAA making schedules. I know I couldn't do a better job. Don't mean to degrade them. Just wanted to share our experiences here in Gibbon regarding travel.
In years past we have been sent to Ogallala, Fillmore Central, and Lincoln Lutheran. None of which were on our "wish list". All great communities and great experiences.
This post was edited on 11/14 11:21 PM by GibbonBuffs
My point was simply that we didn't ask to go out there. The NSAA sent us 1,350 miles in 4 games this year. Next year we travel 350 miles round trip and that includes an extra away game.
If the NSAA cared about travel, we would have played Kearney Catholic (13 miles), Minden (20 miles), Hershey (who was on our list), St Pats (on our list), or Southern Valley (an hour or so).
I don't envy the job of the NSAA making schedules. I know I couldn't do a better job. Don't mean to degrade them. Just wanted to share our experiences here in Gibbon regarding travel.
In years past we have been sent to Ogallala, Fillmore Central, and Lincoln Lutheran. None of which were on our "wish list". All great communities and great experiences.
This post was edited on 11/14 11:21 PM by GibbonBuffs
I think the weird NSAA home-field system has been in place since the playoffs originated in 1975. There were only 8 teams in all brackets then, so the final round at Memorial has no part in the discussion. I've always believed that the people who invented this imperfect system understood how imperfect it was, especially the playoff points. That system is not the Sagerin Computer. It's a pretty simple math formula that only goes one level deep. I think they came up with the weird home field pattern to avoid the number one seed always getting home games (which they knew were very valuable) based only on a goofy playoff point system they probably drew up on a bar napkin. I think that was smart. If a top-seed is a top-seed for real, they will hit the road and win. If it's close, well, luck plays into sports. I've been a one-seed and I've played one-seeds in football and basketball, both. Sometimes they are the real deal; sometimes they aren't. I totally agree with not giving a one seed all the home field power. The playoff formula is not good enough to justify that.
It bothers me that Class A and B have moved to giving the playoff point system (designed for a nine-game football season) so much power in determining state qualifiers, district hosts and district composition. The formula is not near good enough to rely on for that stuff.
It bothers me that Class A and B have moved to giving the playoff point system (designed for a nine-game football season) so much power in determining state qualifiers, district hosts and district composition. The formula is not near good enough to rely on for that stuff.
I understand getting teams home games in the playoffs and spreading the wealth so to speak. I also think it would please more of us if it would only guarantee every team to host at least one game.
The first round stays the same, second round stays as well. Beyond the second round if each team has hosted, the higher seed hosts. If one team hasn't hosted, they would host a third round game.
Example 9 beats an 8 and the 16 beats the 1. The 9 hosts the second round game and gets beat by the 16. The 16 would host the semifinal against the 4seed quadrant since they have played 2 games and not hosted.
The first round stays the same, second round stays as well. Beyond the second round if each team has hosted, the higher seed hosts. If one team hasn't hosted, they would host a third round game.
Example 9 beats an 8 and the 16 beats the 1. The 9 hosts the second round game and gets beat by the 16. The 16 would host the semifinal against the 4seed quadrant since they have played 2 games and not hosted.
I am looking forward to the outcome as well but I hope that it fails. Do we really want fewer 11 man teams? Do we want fewer kids on the field playing football? I hope not. Our team played 8- man FB this year and at least 6 of the 9 teams that we played had over 35 players on the roster and only one had fewer that 24. I would think that raising the limit to 90 + students would just make larger 8 man rosters with more kids standing on the sidelines.