I don't see the point of ranking teams that are ineligible for the playoffs in D1(either for media rankings or the NSAA wildcard standings). This is like saying Danny Almonte was the best little league pitcher ever(Who cares if he was 2 years older than the others). Thoughts.....?
Ranking Ineligible teams
- Thread starter oldnewballcoach
- Start date
I tend to agree with Big Red Thoughts. Many (if not all) of these teams have opted down due to a lack of participation. By recognizing these teams, their participation may improve and allow them to move back into the group that they should be in.
I personally have no problem with it. Post season eligibility and the independent rankings are independent of one another.
I personally have no problem with it. Post season eligibility and the independent rankings are independent of one another.
I have no problem with schools playing down, in some cases significantly, to find easier competition if that is what they are about, but please don't reward them for it. I'd go further and say that games against the ineligible schools, if they must be scheduled, shouldn't affect the playoffs at all. Why not through them into their own league, much like 6 man does? It would be like allowing a 119 lb wrestler to affect the 106 seedings.
I wonder if the school actually in that class that isn't ranked would agree with the not "hurting anyone" part of your statement.
It is not the kids fault that they are playing down, you have to consider that, if u are a senior and have to play down u would like to have the ability to be recognized in some way, what schools are playing significantly down? teams that are not currently ranked have the ability to make the playoffs and earn a ranking and/or championship.
Big Red, you're right that teams that are not currently ranked have the ability to make the playoffs and earn a ranking and/or a championship, but a team that is eligible playing one of those ineligible teams is playing at a disadvantage. A school that has more students has the ability to have more upper classmen on the field. Look at Neligh, the game I went they started 7 seniors, a team that loses to them suffers in power points. As example look at a school that it won't affect, Creighton. They lost to Neligh-Oakdale in the opening game. For that loss they pick up 38 power points, if they had beat a division 4 eligible team they would have earned 40 power points. Creighton will bet into the playoffs but it my opinion schools with a larger enrollment have too big an advantage. I know they have participation issues, but again using Neligh-Oakdale as an example seniors playing against freshmen and sophomores is my opinion a safety issue.
Creighton will make playoffs and have the chance to win a championship, they have plenty of good upper classmen players. again, not the Neligh-Oakdale players fault that they play down, should they just not play football?
Very solid point!! most teams that play down can't compete at the upper levels, i saw Homer and LCC play 11 man the last 2 two years, not a pretty sight, i guess some would argue those teams should play 11 man and get hurt??
In todays world they should get what ever they want or they will just change the rule so they can. Truth--- it is those players fault they are not eligible because they have to play down a class, they are part of that school that kids dont do anything. Just like a team sport it is a team school. In all other States in this great USA, they play in the class they fall in, or dont play. Hard to believe that Nebraska is the soft state, oh well maybe the great State of Nebraska is the only one doing it correct. Often you find this true, when you are the only one doing something everyone else must be wrong. INSERT Sarcasm emoji here
We don't know but Creighton could actually have more kids if you factor in the freshman class and/or if you factor only boys enrollment.
D1 has been a mess for a couple of years now and will continue to be until the NSAA makes some common sense changes. Stop the two year cycle, start using boy enrollment only, and raise the cutoff limit to somewhere around 100 and let teams below 100 option up to 11 man if they choose.
All these ideas are great ideas and have been submitted to the NSAA and voted down by the coaches and ADs in D-1 Its is a mess and a joke but it is the joke they deserve
The NSAA probably needs to step in and just make some of these changes happen. I think most of us agree that we should raise that cutoff, but if you ask the small schools that are already playing 8-man if they would like to allow schools with more kids to play at their level, of course they will vote no. Why would schools in D1 vote yes to letting in schools with enrollments of 100?
But thats not how the NSAA works, they work for the schools and the schools are the only ones that can make the change
So you want the NSAA to count only boys and allow schools that report 100 or less play 8 man? Are you crazy? You can't do both. If you did that there would be C-1 teams playing 8 man.
And it isn't just D1 schools that vote on this, it's all schools that vote on this.
No, obviously not 100 for boys only. 100 for the current system. Your correct that would make me crazy.
In D-1 there is only 2 or maybe 3 teams that would make the playoffs and the only one that has a chance would be N-O to win it all. Now rankings are done during the season and has no bearing on state championships so papers, people or whoever can rank teams where ever they want because it is there opinion. I agree NSAA should move to count boys only in boys sports and girls only in girls sports. As far as adjusting the line between 8 and 11 man; no matter where you put it teams will opt down. Now it may no be as many but they will still opt down.
Personally I love it. South Dakota has it and it more resembles 11 man, essentially just removing the offensive guards. You can be more creative on offense, frankly passing in 8 man can be tough. Also the games aren't as wild as 8 man because you still play on a smaller field but have an extra player that clogs things up.
Will it ever happen in Nebraksa? Never. I wonder if you could take the half, or whatever makes sense, of the C2 schools and throw them with C1 and make a lone class C. Take the bottom half of C2 and most of D1 and have 9 man. Issue is the state has a need for 8 man as most of the D2 schools wouldn't be able to do 9 man and don't want to do 6 man. I think it would make the transition of dropping down from 11 to 8/9 easier for kids and coaches and then reverse when going back up. If more schools did 6 man this would make more sense.
The state doesn't schedule out of state much but there are a handful of KS, CO, and WY games each year that we would lose.
Again never going to happen, too much change involved. First priority is fix the problem that is D1.
Honestly, I don't care who's "fault" it is. It simply makes no sense to rank teams that have no business playing smaller schools over those schools. Should historically awful class A basketball teams be able to compete in C-1? Or what about a Class A school that gets less kids out than C-1 or even C-2 schools? Should they be able to play, ineligible, in C-1 or C-2? If so, should THEY be ranked? We've decided to allow teams to play down. I'm personally against it, but we've, collectively, said that it's ok for Class C schools to play 8 man. If more people thought as I do, we wouldn't. I can live with that. But as for ranking them, and giving them "recognition", personally, I'd take as much pride in that as setting a JH track record as a Junior. And I still insist that they should in no way affect, whatsoever the playoff picture. Period.
My first instinct is they ought to play in the classification their size requires. If they were 11 man, this wouldn't be a discussion. How many boys do they have out for football?
Figuring a 50/50 split and a 100 kid cutoff that would, generally give you about 67 boys in high school. If 1/3 to 1/2 go out, why not play 11 man football? A team size of 23-34...
23 kids is not enough for 11 man football. I am sure that Creighton has nearly the most kids out for football in 8 man. The rules allow them to drop down, so they did, if the rule wasnt in place they wouldnt drop down. There are plenty of examples where it makes perfect sense, Homer, LCC, Ravenna, Thayer Central etc... are not competitive in 11 man and those kids would be in harms way in a larger classification. Player safety should be the way the decision is made. I have seen some of theses teams play 11 man in recent years and it was not a pretty sight. I guess I dont care as much as others that Creighton lost a game.
Again most of this discussion results from Neligh-Oakdale ( Big Class C2 School with 87 enrollment number) beating Creighton (small School with an enrollment number of 83), Lets move on from this and just give NO credit for winning a game and having some good players in a very similar size school.
So, since it's for competitive advantage there's really no reason to rank the schools too large who OPT to play down, in my opinion. The "player safety" thing, again, imo, is incredibly overblown. And generally a smoke screen for "we're tired of losing". I've seen a lot of blowouts where the losing team keeps starters in for a series or two (or more) and I'd be amazed if the winning teams freshmen and sophomores had any disproportionate amount of injuries. If they have, I haven't seen it. I get that it's no fun to lose, lose, and lose some more, I really do. But please don't expect me to buy into somehow your school should be rewarded for winning against smaller competition. If kids are so needy for recognition they've chosen the wrong sport, and emphatically, the wrong school for it. Saying 23 isn't enough for an 11 man teams is like saying 10 isn't enough for basketball to me.
The true problem is letting team opt to a class down, NO other State allows this for many good reasons. If player saftey is the reason, you dont play that is 100% safer, you play games against teams that have no playoff implications to them but all risk of losing and player injury for your team. You have districts where 25% of the teams in the district can not even make playoffs, This is a product of our new America, my team and school isnt good enough but I should still get to play down so I can compete, even if it has a chance to negatively effect a team that is right where they should be, screw them its what I want, A perfect example of the needs of the few out way the needs of the many, sad it is happening in Nebraska
"Twenty-three is not enough to play 11 man football." "Twenty -three is enough to play 11 man football." There is truth in each opinion. At one time it was common to find 11 man teams with rosters of 20-30 players. That was in the days before the playoffs and before the playoffs expanded beyond 8 teams. In those days teams were more concerned about beating a rival or winning a conference title. There were more schools and most teams didn't have a realistic chance to qualify for postseason. Now more teams make the playoffs and there are less teams in most of the classes. Making the playoffs has become one of main objectives of most teams . I don't know how many kids Neligh has out for football but my guess would be somewhere in the 20's. Theoretically they could still play 11 man but it would probably mean starting some young kids and having to play against bigger schools that probably didn't have to start young kids. It also seems like there are more injuries these days. Neligh is in a tough situation this year. The have a fine team but are just a little too big to be eligible for the 8 man post season. However, playing C-2 might well create a different set of problems for them.
I don't think the question was about this year and 11 man football for Neligh, it was after this year when they graduated 7 seniors on a team that might have 20 out (know they only had 19 last year). They could have probably survived 11 man this year in the murderers row that is 11 man football in Northeast Nebraska, but what about next year when those very valuable 7 seniors graduated? It would not have been pretty. I think Neligh made the right, though very tough choice by doing what they did. Maybe it is time for the state to do away with the 2 year cycle and schedule on a year to year basis.
I can see not ranking ineligible teams, but in the end the rankings don't mean much.... I am a proponent of upping the 8 man limit with options to move up but not down. In the meantime maybe they could adjust power-points for wins and losses, kind of like if you play a bigger school in basketball and win/lose you get more power-points if you play up a class or two....
People have made a number of good points on this topic. Maybe wsc made said it best: The ratings really don't mean that much, at least until the end of the season. Does anyone know if there is a major poll in the state that does not rate teams that are ineligible for the playoffs?
Just food for thought. Doesn't necessarily have to do with ratings but the districts themselves. District 2 and 3 are both essentially only 3 team districts, although record vs non eligible teams matter.
Why didn't the state take the 11 ineligible teams and form two districts with them. One would have Neligh-Oakdale, Wakefield, Laurel, Homer, Bago, and Plainview. Nebraska Christian, Thayer Central, Superior, Ravenna, and Aisnworth in the other district. Besides Ainsworth travel wouldn't be too bad.
Not a fix for the main issue but think this would make for a more fair and balanced district system.
Why didn't the state take the 11 ineligible teams and form two districts with them. One would have Neligh-Oakdale, Wakefield, Laurel, Homer, Bago, and Plainview. Nebraska Christian, Thayer Central, Superior, Ravenna, and Aisnworth in the other district. Besides Ainsworth travel wouldn't be too bad.
Not a fix for the main issue but think this would make for a more fair and balanced district system.
This thread (as many do) has gotten way off topic. In the spirit of the direction the thread has seemed to go, I shall follow along as well.
Teams (Fans, coaches, administrators) that don't have participation problems don't like the fact that our schools have chosen to allow teams to opt down. Teams (Fans, coaches, administrators) that DO have participation and numbers problems favor this rule that our schools have adopted.
In my opinion, there is so much information in this thread that it is hard to pick what to respond to. I will take a stab at it.
The problem with the entire playoff system is the fact that there are WAY too many teams that qualify. This thread talks about the teams that are not eligible and how they effect teams that are eligible. I really don't think that Creighton is going to suffer much considering the unnecessary number of teams that are considered playoff worthy. 32 Teams in Class D, and 16 in C is really a little excessive in my opinion. I personally believe there should be 6 Districts, and 2 wild cards in all classes. If there was an 8 team playoff, I would absolutely agree that games against teams that have opted down should not be factored into playoff seeding or qualification.
Safety is absolutely a consideration that should be given during the analysis of teams that are opting down. Case in point, Twin River vs Central City. Twin River is a team that has no business playing 11 man football. 24 players is not enough to be playing 11 man. 3 Quarters into the game, 6 Twin River injuries, 3 players taking ambulance rides to the hospital, and the end result...officials and administrators stop the game.
I agree with whomever made the comment that it is not the players' fault that they have participation issues in their school. Some say that it indeed is their fault. I just don't agree. Some communities just don't have an engaged student body that chooses to embrace certain sports. This is just the way it is. Some of these schools are terrible in Softball, but great in Volleyball from a participation perspective. Some are terrible with football, but are extremely competitive in basketball 6 weeks later. I don't feel that the lack of enthusiasm for a given sport should be grounds for simply eliminating the sport altogether. I think it is wonderful that our schools have chosen to allow teams to opt down to give the limited number of students that do in fact want to participate in these activities the opportunity to do so.
Rankings done by an organization that is completely independent of the NSAA is really of no consequence. If the OWH or LJS chooses to consider opt down teams into their rankings, that is their right to do so. It really bears no weight in the grand scheme of things.
I personally believe the ultimate goal is to offer students the safe opportunity to participate if they so desire. If that means teams dropping down, then so be it. Given all of the variables and factors that must be considered, I believe that our schools are doing a pretty good job of granting these opportunities. Like so many things in life, there is a lot more to it than appears on the surface. The complexity of the task at hand is much more involved than could be imagined.
Teams (Fans, coaches, administrators) that don't have participation problems don't like the fact that our schools have chosen to allow teams to opt down. Teams (Fans, coaches, administrators) that DO have participation and numbers problems favor this rule that our schools have adopted.
In my opinion, there is so much information in this thread that it is hard to pick what to respond to. I will take a stab at it.
The problem with the entire playoff system is the fact that there are WAY too many teams that qualify. This thread talks about the teams that are not eligible and how they effect teams that are eligible. I really don't think that Creighton is going to suffer much considering the unnecessary number of teams that are considered playoff worthy. 32 Teams in Class D, and 16 in C is really a little excessive in my opinion. I personally believe there should be 6 Districts, and 2 wild cards in all classes. If there was an 8 team playoff, I would absolutely agree that games against teams that have opted down should not be factored into playoff seeding or qualification.
Safety is absolutely a consideration that should be given during the analysis of teams that are opting down. Case in point, Twin River vs Central City. Twin River is a team that has no business playing 11 man football. 24 players is not enough to be playing 11 man. 3 Quarters into the game, 6 Twin River injuries, 3 players taking ambulance rides to the hospital, and the end result...officials and administrators stop the game.
I agree with whomever made the comment that it is not the players' fault that they have participation issues in their school. Some say that it indeed is their fault. I just don't agree. Some communities just don't have an engaged student body that chooses to embrace certain sports. This is just the way it is. Some of these schools are terrible in Softball, but great in Volleyball from a participation perspective. Some are terrible with football, but are extremely competitive in basketball 6 weeks later. I don't feel that the lack of enthusiasm for a given sport should be grounds for simply eliminating the sport altogether. I think it is wonderful that our schools have chosen to allow teams to opt down to give the limited number of students that do in fact want to participate in these activities the opportunity to do so.
Rankings done by an organization that is completely independent of the NSAA is really of no consequence. If the OWH or LJS chooses to consider opt down teams into their rankings, that is their right to do so. It really bears no weight in the grand scheme of things.
I personally believe the ultimate goal is to offer students the safe opportunity to participate if they so desire. If that means teams dropping down, then so be it. Given all of the variables and factors that must be considered, I believe that our schools are doing a pretty good job of granting these opportunities. Like so many things in life, there is a lot more to it than appears on the surface. The complexity of the task at hand is much more involved than could be imagined.
And your troubles become a trouble for all, with messed up districts, good teams risking injuries against teams that have no chance of even making playoffs, oh yeah sounds correct to me, once again the needs of the few out way the needs of the many. I also wonder how in the world does every other state manage not allow opting down, amazing those others states must just be amazing
If the ONLY goal of high school football is winning (games, districts, making the playoffs etc.) then your observations are spot on! However, if the goal is to safely allow as many kids as possible to participate then that logic doesn't really hold water.
As I said in my previous post, teams and fans that don't have participation problems oppose opting down while teams and fans that HAVE participation problems are just happy to be able to play in a competition pool that keeps kids safe.
If a team that opts down with 20 players (give or take) is going to ruin the season of a competitive team then that competitive team is probably not all that good to begin with. If our football playoff structure was 8 teams instead of 4 times that number I would venture to say that NO opt down team would ever effect the playoff picture.