Why should 6-3 teams make the playoffs
- Thread starter atlanta_ace
- Start date
In my opinion, the best system in C-1 and C-2 would be to take the 8 district champions and give them all a bye. Then take 16 wildcards and have the top team in the wildcard standings that wasn't a district champion play the 16th team in the wildcard standings that wasn't a district champion.
The winner of the 8 wild card games get in along with the 8 district champions. Then we reseed 1-16 based on the power points at the end of the regular season (so the wildcard play in game would not be counted). This year in C-2 the "play in games" would have looked like this:
1- St Cecilia vs 16- Palmyra or Ravenna (Tie Breaker would be coin flip)
2- Bergan vs 15- Tri County
3- Malcolm vs 14- Hershey
4- Hartington CC vs 13- Arcadia/Loup City
5- Southern vs 12- Doniphan-Trumbull
6- Stanton vs 11- Kimball
7- Southern Valley vs 10- West Holt
8- LHNE vs 9- Yutan
The winner of the 8 wild card games get in along with the 8 district champions. Then we reseed 1-16 based on the power points at the end of the regular season (so the wildcard play in game would not be counted). This year in C-2 the "play in games" would have looked like this:
1- St Cecilia vs 16- Palmyra or Ravenna (Tie Breaker would be coin flip)
2- Bergan vs 15- Tri County
3- Malcolm vs 14- Hershey
4- Hartington CC vs 13- Arcadia/Loup City
5- Southern vs 12- Doniphan-Trumbull
6- Stanton vs 11- Kimball
7- Southern Valley vs 10- West Holt
8- LHNE vs 9- Yutan
The state doesn't care what the coaches want. Never have, never will. The state "back doored" their way into this 16 team playoff. The coaches were clear in saying they wanted a 16 team playoff IF[/B] a class C-3 was added. That didn't happen.
This post was edited on 10/31 11:45 AM by hailvictors2
This post was edited on 10/31 11:45 AM by hailvictors2
No, actually hailvictors is correct on the coaches wanting the 16 team playoff IF there were 3 divisions of class C. I can't remember what the exact numbers were, but I believe it was in the neighborhood of 70-80% of all class c coaches in favor of:
1. 3 Class C Divisions
2. 9 Game Regular Season Schedule
3. 16 Team Playoff Format.
Those 3 things were in the proposal, but somewhere along the line, the 1st component was lost.
1. 3 Class C Divisions
2. 9 Game Regular Season Schedule
3. 16 Team Playoff Format.
Those 3 things were in the proposal, but somewhere along the line, the 1st component was lost.
C-3? I do not think that is right. If anything Nebraska should reduce the number of classes not add more. In my opinion the mindset of let's add another class so we can have another champion is a sign of the times. Give everyone a medal, everyone is a winner, put more teams in the playoffs, create scenarios where more are rewarded for average. I do feel there is something wrong with a team or program being very proud/able to say we have qualified for the playoffs for 4 or 5 years and only had one winning season in that time span. And there are programs that do that. Good topic, good discussion, good debate I think the blowout theory that people are arguing on here is wrong. The blowouts in the finals are different in my opinion than a first round blowout. Blowouts tend to happen in the finals when one team turns it over, or does not play well, or in a rare occurrence there is just one team that is SO dominant they kill everyone. First round blowouts 9/10 times are one team physically manhandling an over matched opponent who has mailed it in because they know they have no chance and are satisfied with having been given their printed playoff shirt, and that would lose by 4 touchdowns even if the higher seed played awful. I would be interested to see stats but I would bet there has rarely ever been a 17-32 seeded team in C-1 or C-2 make it to the quarters or semis. I also like whoever posted about getting rid of the East West breakdown as a benefit of going to the 16 team format. Helps in distribution of top teams and better first round and quarter final games in my opinion. I know this is getting long winded and counter to what my point has been and I still believe that 16 is better but it will be interesting to see if they revert back to 32 teams if there is any blowback in this two year cycle. If you remember, and based on some of the posts it does not seem that many people do, but C-1 and C-2 tried 16 teams in the early 2000's and one of those years an 8-1 Cambridge team did not make the playoffs and their only loss was to a 9-0 team who won the district I believe. That was back when Cambridge was at the tail end of their amazing Dynasty run, but I think that was instrumental in reverting back to the 32. Will be interesting to see if something like that happens again. Thanks for the topic, always nice for spirited debates.
This is how it exactly went.
C3 was proposed in November District meetings and failed in all Districts The proposal was very poorly written, I actually read it.
Reducing to 16 teams in playoffs was a new proposal and passed in all but one district (District one) in the January meeting.
So they already knew that C3 was a no go and new proposal was written and stated that C-1 and C2 would go to 16 teams in the playoffs and the District ADs in all but one district voted it in Final % were 64% yes 36% No
THIS IS A FACT Not what I was told, Not I think this is what happened ,NOT I heard this ,Not I know thats not true but have no facts BUT. this is the FACT
This post was edited on 10/31 3:08 PM by highschoolfootballnut
This post was edited on 10/31 3:25 PM by highschoolfootballnut
C3 was proposed in November District meetings and failed in all Districts The proposal was very poorly written, I actually read it.
Reducing to 16 teams in playoffs was a new proposal and passed in all but one district (District one) in the January meeting.
So they already knew that C3 was a no go and new proposal was written and stated that C-1 and C2 would go to 16 teams in the playoffs and the District ADs in all but one district voted it in Final % were 64% yes 36% No
THIS IS A FACT Not what I was told, Not I think this is what happened ,NOT I heard this ,Not I know thats not true but have no facts BUT. this is the FACT
This post was edited on 10/31 3:08 PM by highschoolfootballnut
This post was edited on 10/31 3:25 PM by highschoolfootballnut
Sorry, if that was in reference to my post, I did not explain very well. I did not mean C-3 not right as in that was not proposed or was not discussed, I just meant I do not agree with creating a C-3 or adding additional classes. I was not disputing whether or not that was proposed, just saying I disagree with adding another class.
"A sign of the times" is to expand playoffs. College football finally has it. College basketball goes from 64 to 68. Would the Giants or Royals have even been in the playoffs without this expansion??? Yes, i guess they both would have. But you dont hear about too many teams here.
Wrong about the blowouts too. Nobody cares how teams get blown out. Hell, nobody even goes to the games where i live. But READING about blowouts in the first round drives them nuts. On Thursday, #15 Mullen should have beat #2 Garden County (from what i heard). And a few years ago, eventual state champion Norfolk Catholic should have been beat by the number #16 seed Battle Creek. Final score was 6-0. IF they win that game, kids remember that forever. I dont see anything wrong with that. Must just be a sign of the times. We need a 32 team bracket. Even if we call it a qualifing round.
P.S. Blowouts galore last night. Lets cut it down to a four team playoff........just because
This post was edited on 11/1 8:35 AM by srakinch
Wrong about the blowouts too. Nobody cares how teams get blown out. Hell, nobody even goes to the games where i live. But READING about blowouts in the first round drives them nuts. On Thursday, #15 Mullen should have beat #2 Garden County (from what i heard). And a few years ago, eventual state champion Norfolk Catholic should have been beat by the number #16 seed Battle Creek. Final score was 6-0. IF they win that game, kids remember that forever. I dont see anything wrong with that. Must just be a sign of the times. We need a 32 team bracket. Even if we call it a qualifing round.
P.S. Blowouts galore last night. Lets cut it down to a four team playoff........just because
This post was edited on 11/1 8:35 AM by srakinch
If the goal of the 16 team playoff in C1 and C2 was to make the first round games closer, the concept failed miserably. There was 1 game in C2 that was under double digits. The rest weren't even close. In C1 there were 3, the rest weren't close.
What was accomplished by going to 16? We are still in the same situation we were in with 32, a few close games and the rest are blowouts. Only way to solve that is to take 4 teams or less to the playoffs.
What was accomplished by going to 16? We are still in the same situation we were in with 32, a few close games and the rest are blowouts. Only way to solve that is to take 4 teams or less to the playoffs.
If you guys think that going to 32 team playoffs so every year we can reward 8-10 4-4 or 3-5 teams more power to you I guess. Heck lets play a regular season and then let everyone in the playoffs. Seed it one through whatever. Then nobodies feelings are hurt and every school can put a playoff qualifier banner up at school each year. So going to 16 did not solve the blowout theory because everyone mostly got blown out, so the solution is add 16 more teams so we can have another round of blowouts? Sounds counterintuitive to me but what the heck. Let's add an extra week of blowouts at the end, so instead of a lot of three touchdown blowouts we can have 8 or 9 49-7 games. We can also take away that extra football game that the 20 teams who don't make the playoffs get.
It's not about hurting peoples feelings. What it is about, is the fact that some districts are really weak. There are teams that qualified for the 16 team playoff that would not have made it to the round of 16 if they had to play in a qualifier round. I have said it before and I will say it again, West Holt at 6-3 is better than 2 or 3 teams that did make it into the playoffs this year.
Why does it matter if there are a 16 teams? Doesn't hurt anyone. I just don't see why anyone would get fired up over this.
In reality, it is almost impossible to make a perfect system. Omaha Central, Bellevue West, Omaha North and Prep all in the same district. The #1, #3, #4, and #6 teams all in the same district. So .... let more teams into the playoffs to help balance that out. Lincoln East losing to the 4th place team in this district is a perfect example of why 16 teams is an acceptable number. Papio South beating Bellevue West 42-21. Another example. And now.... one week later, we are down to 8 teams. Which is what was being proposed in the first place. No harm done.
RB43, every year there will be districts that are tougher than others. I have a hard time lobbying for West Holt when they have 1 win over a team with a record above .500 and there two losses are by 5 and 6 touchdowns. They may be better than 2 or 3 teams that did make it. At the end of the day most of us will probably have to respectfully agree to disagree. The last point I will throw in is from my perspective, going to 32 teams is only beneficial if we think that there are teams being left out who could legitimately make a run to the finals, which I would say there is not. Otherwise we are simply adding more teams for the sake of being able to make playoffs. While I understand especially for programs working to build, establish or change cultures in a program, saying we are a playoff team could be helpful, from my perspective putting too many in takes away from the specialness of saying we are a playoff team.
Good debate, appreciate everyone's perspective, never going to be perfect. Good luck to everyone's programs fortunate enough to still be playing!
Good debate, appreciate everyone's perspective, never going to be perfect. Good luck to everyone's programs fortunate enough to still be playing!
Who did Gibbon play that was better than anybody on West Holt's schedule? I don't want the 32 field to be called the playoffs. I would rather it go back to the way it was in the late 90's and have 32 teams play in a qualifier round. Re-seed after the qualifier round and have the 16 team playoff.
Who did Stanton beat that was credible? What about Malcolm? Who did Southern beat? There are tons of teams in class C-2 that have nice records, but their resume is pretty mediocre.
Stanton didn't beat anyone with a winning record. Stanton's best win is a 33-0 win over 4-5 Ponca.
Southern Valley beat 2 teams with a winning record. Their best win is a 20-17 win over 6-3 Kimball.
Lutheran High Northeast beat 1 team with a winning record. Their best win is a 29-19 win over 6-3 West Holt (whose 6 wins are against 6-3 Arcadia/Loup City and then 5 teams who are 8-37)
Gibbon beat 2 teams with a winning record. Their best win is a 20-14 win over 6-3 Arcadia-Loup City
Malcolm beat 1 team with a winning record. That was against 7-2 Southern and they won 22-7.
Fillmore Central beat 1 team with a winning record and that was Malcolm, whose 8 wins are against teams that are 22-50.
Southern beat 1 team with a winning record and that was 5-4 Palmyra, who they beat 16-6. For the record, Palmyra's 5 wins are against teams with a grand total of 5 wins between them (5-40).
The teams I listed above all lost in the first round. The average margin of defeat was just under 20 points. In my opinion, there are 4 or 5 legit contenders in C-2 this year and everyone else is just window dressing. Battle Creek, Aquinas, Hartington CC, Oakland-Craig, and possibly St Pats. Sutton was a contender, but obviously they are eliminated now.
On a side note.... anyone looking for evidence that shows the current system failed, look no further than this
St Cecilia goes 8-1 in the regular season and loses to Sutton, yet gets the 4 seed and easiest first round matchup in C2
Sutton goes 9-0 in the regular season and beats St Cecilia, yet gets the 6 seed and hardest first round game in C2.
The NSAA and system failed miserably.
This post was edited on 11/2 10:57 AM by hailvictors2
Stanton didn't beat anyone with a winning record. Stanton's best win is a 33-0 win over 4-5 Ponca.
Southern Valley beat 2 teams with a winning record. Their best win is a 20-17 win over 6-3 Kimball.
Lutheran High Northeast beat 1 team with a winning record. Their best win is a 29-19 win over 6-3 West Holt (whose 6 wins are against 6-3 Arcadia/Loup City and then 5 teams who are 8-37)
Gibbon beat 2 teams with a winning record. Their best win is a 20-14 win over 6-3 Arcadia-Loup City
Malcolm beat 1 team with a winning record. That was against 7-2 Southern and they won 22-7.
Fillmore Central beat 1 team with a winning record and that was Malcolm, whose 8 wins are against teams that are 22-50.
Southern beat 1 team with a winning record and that was 5-4 Palmyra, who they beat 16-6. For the record, Palmyra's 5 wins are against teams with a grand total of 5 wins between them (5-40).
The teams I listed above all lost in the first round. The average margin of defeat was just under 20 points. In my opinion, there are 4 or 5 legit contenders in C-2 this year and everyone else is just window dressing. Battle Creek, Aquinas, Hartington CC, Oakland-Craig, and possibly St Pats. Sutton was a contender, but obviously they are eliminated now.
On a side note.... anyone looking for evidence that shows the current system failed, look no further than this
St Cecilia goes 8-1 in the regular season and loses to Sutton, yet gets the 4 seed and easiest first round matchup in C2
Sutton goes 9-0 in the regular season and beats St Cecilia, yet gets the 6 seed and hardest first round game in C2.
The NSAA and system failed miserably.
This post was edited on 11/2 10:57 AM by hailvictors2
Here is what I think the State needs to look at.
If you win your district you should host a game, not have to travel. I don't have a dog in the fight but if you seed the district champs 1 through 8 and then the wildcards 9 through 16, you wouldn't see Boone Central playing Norfolk Catholic this coming weekend in the quarterfinals. NC would be on the other side.
In c2 specifically. Sutton wouldn't have been out seeded by Hastings SC despite beating them, AND being undefeated. Then obviously not playing HCC in the first round. I understand you have to beat the best to be the best but, in terms of that district. It doesn't make any sense. There is NO way that Sutton should have had a lower seed than HSC.
It's the concept of a JV kid can't out-seed the Varsity kid from the same school in wrestling seeding criteria.
Again, I don't have a dog in the fight, but it was something I didn't think was very fair.
If you win your district you should host a game, not have to travel. I don't have a dog in the fight but if you seed the district champs 1 through 8 and then the wildcards 9 through 16, you wouldn't see Boone Central playing Norfolk Catholic this coming weekend in the quarterfinals. NC would be on the other side.
In c2 specifically. Sutton wouldn't have been out seeded by Hastings SC despite beating them, AND being undefeated. Then obviously not playing HCC in the first round. I understand you have to beat the best to be the best but, in terms of that district. It doesn't make any sense. There is NO way that Sutton should have had a lower seed than HSC.
It's the concept of a JV kid can't out-seed the Varsity kid from the same school in wrestling seeding criteria.
Again, I don't have a dog in the fight, but it was something I didn't think was very fair.
I would like to see only 16 teams for all classes, win the games and your in, lose some and your out, 32 teams in D1 and D2 is horrible. who wants to see 87-14 scores and whatnot, who gains from getting beat by 50 in your final game of the year, somehow someway the nsaa can figure it out where the best teams make the playoffs, be it 16 or however you want to put it, but imo go with 16 in all classes then you have games that mean something. I could be wrong but I think you would have closer games and more meaningful games.
I'm guessing we will have some people posting about 8 teams to the playoffs because nobody wants to see blowouts in playoff football games, right??
8 D1 games last night - Average margin of victory - 21.5. 2 games decided by less than 10. The other 6 teams probably didn't deserve to be in, and the 2 that did make it close, well, they should have won more regular season games .... correct??
8 D2 games last night - Average margin of victory - 30.9. 1 game decided by less than 10. The other 7 teams probably didn't deserve to be in, and the 1 that did make it close, well, they should have won more regular season games .... correct??
Take care of business in the regular season, right??
8 D1 games last night - Average margin of victory - 21.5. 2 games decided by less than 10. The other 6 teams probably didn't deserve to be in, and the 2 that did make it close, well, they should have won more regular season games .... correct??
8 D2 games last night - Average margin of victory - 30.9. 1 game decided by less than 10. The other 7 teams probably didn't deserve to be in, and the 1 that did make it close, well, they should have won more regular season games .... correct??
Take care of business in the regular season, right??
It just needs to be 16 teams in all classes. Plain and simple.
Some of the lopsided scores from the first rounds of Classes D1 and D2.
Class D1:
#1 Creighton 56 #16 Twin Loup 7
#5 Elm Creek 67 #12 Arapahoe 22
#3 Hemingford 71 #14 Shelton 14
#2 Fullerton 72 #15 Sutherland 30
#1 Friend 62 #16 Cross County 8
#5 GACC 64 #12 Pawnee City 2
#4 Howells-Dodge 60 #13 Cedar Bluffs 14
#3 Heartland 74 #14 Lourdes Central Catholic 6
#2 BDS 50 #15 OCA 0
Class D2:
#1 Exeter-Milligan 56 #16 Red Cloud 6
#5 Giltner 74 #12 Lawrence-Nelson 36
#4 HSF 70 #13 St. Mary's 14
#6 Randolph 54 Bancroft-Rosalie 14
#7 FCSH 52 #10 Emerson-Hubbard 13
#2 Stuart 48 #15 Osceola 0
#1 Anselmo-Merna 76 Southwest 20
#5 Elwood 56 #12 Loomis 0
#4 Sandhills-Thedford 49 #13 Hitchcock County 0
Sorry, but these games are just unnecessary.
Some of the lopsided scores from the first rounds of Classes D1 and D2.
Class D1:
#1 Creighton 56 #16 Twin Loup 7
#5 Elm Creek 67 #12 Arapahoe 22
#3 Hemingford 71 #14 Shelton 14
#2 Fullerton 72 #15 Sutherland 30
#1 Friend 62 #16 Cross County 8
#5 GACC 64 #12 Pawnee City 2
#4 Howells-Dodge 60 #13 Cedar Bluffs 14
#3 Heartland 74 #14 Lourdes Central Catholic 6
#2 BDS 50 #15 OCA 0
Class D2:
#1 Exeter-Milligan 56 #16 Red Cloud 6
#5 Giltner 74 #12 Lawrence-Nelson 36
#4 HSF 70 #13 St. Mary's 14
#6 Randolph 54 Bancroft-Rosalie 14
#7 FCSH 52 #10 Emerson-Hubbard 13
#2 Stuart 48 #15 Osceola 0
#1 Anselmo-Merna 76 Southwest 20
#5 Elwood 56 #12 Loomis 0
#4 Sandhills-Thedford 49 #13 Hitchcock County 0
Sorry, but these games are just unnecessary.
I agree, and I really think it should be the same in every class and if thats 32 teams then call first round Sub State
Football2002 is spot on.... Why don't people call for an 8 team playoff now? Last night's round of 8 man games were a complete joke.
Northeast,
Why do you think last night's game were necessary?
I know it's just your opinion, but if you don't like the round of 32 blowouts, what makes you like the round of 16 blowouts?
Personally, I like the last few weeks of the 8 game schedule where there are a whole bunch of teams either fighting to get in, or fighting for a better seed. It keeps more teams involved. It keeps many of those game competitive.
I get that we shouldn't be handing out ribbons to every team just for participating, and I get we shouldn't turn off the scoreboard so kids' feeling don't get hurt, but this is high school football. I'm just of the opinion that the postseason can be a great experience and if that means some under .500 teams get in and get blown out, then so be it.
Why do you think last night's game were necessary?
I know it's just your opinion, but if you don't like the round of 32 blowouts, what makes you like the round of 16 blowouts?
Personally, I like the last few weeks of the 8 game schedule where there are a whole bunch of teams either fighting to get in, or fighting for a better seed. It keeps more teams involved. It keeps many of those game competitive.
I get that we shouldn't be handing out ribbons to every team just for participating, and I get we shouldn't turn off the scoreboard so kids' feeling don't get hurt, but this is high school football. I'm just of the opinion that the postseason can be a great experience and if that means some under .500 teams get in and get blown out, then so be it.
Shrinking from 32 to 16 teams did absolutely nothing for eliminating blowouts. The first round oc C-1/C-2 was still full of blowouts. Shrinking from 16 to 8 wouldn't help either. There are going to be a few woodshed beatings tomorrow night (HCC-Freeman, Bergan-Battle Creek). I don't think any of the C-2 games will be within 10 points.
Every year there are 4 teams or so in each class that are head and shoulders above the rest. In C-2 this year it is Battle Creek, Aquinas, and Hartington CC. No matter how many or how few teams you take to the post season, those teams are going to blow teams out until they run into each other. Either we take 4 teams to the post season each year or we aren't accomplishing the goal of eliminating blowouts and teams that have no chance to win it. I'd rather take 32 or 24 and reward the teams that aren't tryin to win a state title, but are trying to build a program (and maybe win a title down the road).
Every year there are 4 teams or so in each class that are head and shoulders above the rest. In C-2 this year it is Battle Creek, Aquinas, and Hartington CC. No matter how many or how few teams you take to the post season, those teams are going to blow teams out until they run into each other. Either we take 4 teams to the post season each year or we aren't accomplishing the goal of eliminating blowouts and teams that have no chance to win it. I'd rather take 32 or 24 and reward the teams that aren't tryin to win a state title, but are trying to build a program (and maybe win a title down the road).
I just think 16 is a good number. I think with 8 you could get into some tough calls (how would you go about the district champion ruling?) Not all the time, but most years a good team could get left out.
Now if you took the top 8 teams in power points lets say in D2
#1 Exter-Milligan (8-0)
#8 Sandhills-Thedford (6-2)
#4 Kenesaw (7-1)
#5 Garden County (8-0)
#2 Anselmo-Merna (8-0)
#7 HSF (8-0)
#3 Stuart (8-0)
#6 Maxwell (7-1)
Falls City Sacred Heart and Giltner (if you can argue them) would be left out.
In Class D1
#1 Friend (8-0)
#8 GACC (8-0)
#4 Fullerton (8-0)
#5 Heartland (8-0)
#3 BDS (7-1)
#6 Howells-Dodge (5-3)
#2 Creighton (8-0)
#7 Hemingford (8-0)
Elm Creek is left out at 7-1, in my opinion they have an argument.
But I see the point you are making and I wouldn't be totally against it, I just think 16 is a good amount of teams in my opinion. I'm tired of seeing 2-6, 3-5, 4-4 make the playoffs. Just ridiculous. It's not the elementary track meet, the first round of playoffs in Classes D1 and D2 have become like a participation trophy. But instead you get a shirt saying playoffs.
I still think they should leave it at 32 and call the first round a qualifying round. All 32 teams are not in the playoffs, the 16 teams that win will comprise the playoffs. After the qualifying round you can reseed the 16 teams that are left without using an east/west split. That way the teams that do go 3-5 or 2-6 that qualify as one of the 32 teams can not say they were in the playoffs and get shirts. Give plaques to only the 16 teams that remain after the qualifying round.
Sorry I missed this post.
"This is how it exactly went.[/B]
C3 was proposed in November District meetings and failed in all Districts The proposal was very poorly written, I actually read it.
Reducing to 16 teams in playoffs was a new proposal and passed in all but one district (District one) in the January meeting.
So they already knew that C3 was a no go and new proposal was written and stated that C-1 and C2 would go to 16 teams in the playoffs and the District ADs in all but one district voted it in Final % were 64% yes 36% No
THIS IS A FACT Not what I was told, Not I think this is what happened ,NOT I heard this ,Not I know thats not true but have no facts BUT.this is the FACT"[/B]
You missed the first step in your "EXACTLY WENT" part of your post.
The class C coaches/ad's had a specific meeting with only C involved. They went through the process and the coaches overwhelmingly passed the 3 class c divisions. This was done before the proposal was officially written and voted on at the NSAA November District meetings.
Granted, the coaches voting on it at a special caucus has no bearing on what the NSAA does. But, the coaches did want three classes - that is not in dispute.
AND you are correct from that point on. The 3 class proposal failed at the district levels and therefore did not pass the 3 classes.
I believe the AD's who actually vote on this stuff believed the coaches were just as in favor of the 16 team playoff as they were the 3 separate classes. That, I don't think is correct.
This post was edited on 11/6 4:44 PM by Football2002
"This is how it exactly went.[/B]
C3 was proposed in November District meetings and failed in all Districts The proposal was very poorly written, I actually read it.
Reducing to 16 teams in playoffs was a new proposal and passed in all but one district (District one) in the January meeting.
So they already knew that C3 was a no go and new proposal was written and stated that C-1 and C2 would go to 16 teams in the playoffs and the District ADs in all but one district voted it in Final % were 64% yes 36% No
THIS IS A FACT Not what I was told, Not I think this is what happened ,NOT I heard this ,Not I know thats not true but have no facts BUT.this is the FACT"[/B]
You missed the first step in your "EXACTLY WENT" part of your post.
The class C coaches/ad's had a specific meeting with only C involved. They went through the process and the coaches overwhelmingly passed the 3 class c divisions. This was done before the proposal was officially written and voted on at the NSAA November District meetings.
Granted, the coaches voting on it at a special caucus has no bearing on what the NSAA does. But, the coaches did want three classes - that is not in dispute.
AND you are correct from that point on. The 3 class proposal failed at the district levels and therefore did not pass the 3 classes.
I believe the AD's who actually vote on this stuff believed the coaches were just as in favor of the 16 team playoff as they were the 3 separate classes. That, I don't think is correct.
This post was edited on 11/6 4:44 PM by Football2002
You could be correct Football2002, But they should write another and try again if that is what they really want, but I am not seeing any new attempt, hard to believe they all wanted it and then just give up on it after first attempt. I guess what I am saying if it something that they(classC Coaches) really want and are in full support of, then why only one attempt.
Not this crap again. It will never happen in the state of Nebraska. We don't have the population to do it, plus the amount of miles North Platte, O'neill St. Mary's, Kearney Catholic, Falls City Sacred Heart, Hartington Cedar Catholic would have to travel would be ridiculous. Let it go.
This post was edited on 11/7 1:28 PM by northeastNebraska
footballnut,
ya, that's a very good question. i'm not sure why it hasn't been talked about much in the last year. My guess is that it went so poorly at the district meetings all the momentum had been lost. also, since football has a 2 year cycle the proposal may come up again.
i get the whole "watering down" by having more classes, but i think i like 5 11-man classes with about 32 teams per class and 16 to the playoffs. i think that would eliminate the 3-6 and 4-5 teams that get in, but would also allow for 6-3 to get in (ya, probably a few 5-4 teams could get in depending on the year).
ya, that's a very good question. i'm not sure why it hasn't been talked about much in the last year. My guess is that it went so poorly at the district meetings all the momentum had been lost. also, since football has a 2 year cycle the proposal may come up again.
i get the whole "watering down" by having more classes, but i think i like 5 11-man classes with about 32 teams per class and 16 to the playoffs. i think that would eliminate the 3-6 and 4-5 teams that get in, but would also allow for 6-3 to get in (ya, probably a few 5-4 teams could get in depending on the year).
I would like to see it come up again
on another note
I think the C+ hilarious but agree it will not happen and not because of anything but Public Schools must not see it as a problem or they would write a proposal and vote it in, that has not happened, so must be okay, end of story, its as simple as that.
on another note
I think the C+ hilarious but agree it will not happen and not because of anything but Public Schools must not see it as a problem or they would write a proposal and vote it in, that has not happened, so must be okay, end of story, its as simple as that.
Do we really need 3 11-man classes? I think the push should be the other way....up the D-1 cutoff to 90 or 95 and let schools elect to play 11 man if they wish. You can reorganize C-1 and C-2 from there.
I hate how their are so many schools that play in D-1 because that's where they truly fit but aren't eligible for the playoffs. Theoretically a school could miss the playoffs with all their losses to schools who aren't even eligible for the playoffs because their enrollments are too high by today's standards. Doesn't make sense to me. Also, why let some schools who have too high of enrollment competete in the playoffs with a 2 year exemption but not others. I understand why the rule is in place (for schools with spikes in enrollment) but if you really think about it does it make much sense? If one school with 90 kids cant make the playoffs why should another team be able to? So many schools are opting down to D1 you would think it has to have the attention of the NSAA.
By doing this D-1 and D-2 would expand thus there might be more schools that elect to go the 6-man route. Many 8 man schools could probably benefit from playing 6 man.
I think a big thing people want is competitive balance in each class. No one benefits from consistent 40 point beat dows. Personally i dont like 6-man football, doesnt seem like football to me, but at the same time there becomes a point that some schools just flat out can't compete due to depth issues.
I hate how their are so many schools that play in D-1 because that's where they truly fit but aren't eligible for the playoffs. Theoretically a school could miss the playoffs with all their losses to schools who aren't even eligible for the playoffs because their enrollments are too high by today's standards. Doesn't make sense to me. Also, why let some schools who have too high of enrollment competete in the playoffs with a 2 year exemption but not others. I understand why the rule is in place (for schools with spikes in enrollment) but if you really think about it does it make much sense? If one school with 90 kids cant make the playoffs why should another team be able to? So many schools are opting down to D1 you would think it has to have the attention of the NSAA.
By doing this D-1 and D-2 would expand thus there might be more schools that elect to go the 6-man route. Many 8 man schools could probably benefit from playing 6 man.
I think a big thing people want is competitive balance in each class. No one benefits from consistent 40 point beat dows. Personally i dont like 6-man football, doesnt seem like football to me, but at the same time there becomes a point that some schools just flat out can't compete due to depth issues.
Football2002, thank you for your response but respectfully disagree that I made a point for 3 11-man classifications within Class C. I think there are bigger issues that can be solved and options that need to be considered than adding a class and trophy. Let me take a stab at further explaining.
In my part of the woods, two years ago Homer fortified a good portion of their season. This year Laurel/Concord/Coleridge did the same thing. I'm guessing there were others that struggled with numbers but were able to continue but not at a competitive balance. For the schools that struggle with low numbers another classification of 11-man doesn't help them.
From a competitive balance stand point I feel that increasing the 8-man cutoff could help. Consider that 26% of D-1 schools this year were over the enrollment limit. If these schools all stayed in 11-man, C-1 would have had 54 schools and C-2 55 schools. 25% of these 55 C-2 schools elected to play 8-man and 15% of these elected to play 8-man knowing that they have no chance of playing in the postseason.
For the sake of argument let's use a cutoff of 94. (8 D-1 schools actually have an enrollment of 94 or higher this year, 17 C-2 schools have an enrollment of 94 or less). With this cutoff there would have been 39 schools in both C-1 and C-2 with an enrollment of 136 being the cutoff between the two. The current enrollment cutoff is 123. With 16 making the playoffs in each class 41% of the schools would get their t-shirts.
Now back to 8-man. With the 17 schools added from C-2, D-1 would have 62 schools and D-2 would have 63 schools which was pretty common just a few years ago. The enrollment cutoff would be 62 instead of the current 61, virtually unchanging the size of enrollments within D-1 and D-2. With 32 schools making the playoffs in each class just over 50% would get their t-shirts, less than the current 60%.
Doing this I think accomplishes a few things. First, it gives C1 and C2 a higher % of schools in the playoffs but not at an absurd amount that the current system would with 32 teams or a 3 system Class C would with 16 playoff teams in each of those 3 classes. This seems to be what you want to have accomplished Football2002. Second, it levels the field in D-1 to a degree. No schools added would have higher enrollments than schools that are currently competing. Third, the playoff situation in D1 and D2 gets a little more balanced out hopefully getting the schools with 2-6 and 3-5 records out. It can be debated if the 5-3 or even 4-4 schools should have a shot at the playoffs but I think most people agree that 2-6 or 3-5 is just not necessary.
Some of my other thoughts were; if a team wanted to elect up to play in C-2 then let them. This would be very important as I'm sure there would be a good amount that would. Giving them the ability to move up makes more sense than punishing a team that goes down, especially if that team, ala Laurel this year, really needs to be in D-1 anyway. Also, by expanding D1 and D2, some of the schools that have really struggled to compete may choose the 6-man route, which would strengthen their numbers. Again, I'm assuming here, but I'm guessing there are quite a few D-2 schools that had issues with having enough kids and could have benefited from playing with 2 less kids.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on "competitive balance". Feel free to dissect this and tell me why I'm right or wrong, just please provide your logic. That's what makes the board good. All right, time for bed!
In my part of the woods, two years ago Homer fortified a good portion of their season. This year Laurel/Concord/Coleridge did the same thing. I'm guessing there were others that struggled with numbers but were able to continue but not at a competitive balance. For the schools that struggle with low numbers another classification of 11-man doesn't help them.
From a competitive balance stand point I feel that increasing the 8-man cutoff could help. Consider that 26% of D-1 schools this year were over the enrollment limit. If these schools all stayed in 11-man, C-1 would have had 54 schools and C-2 55 schools. 25% of these 55 C-2 schools elected to play 8-man and 15% of these elected to play 8-man knowing that they have no chance of playing in the postseason.
For the sake of argument let's use a cutoff of 94. (8 D-1 schools actually have an enrollment of 94 or higher this year, 17 C-2 schools have an enrollment of 94 or less). With this cutoff there would have been 39 schools in both C-1 and C-2 with an enrollment of 136 being the cutoff between the two. The current enrollment cutoff is 123. With 16 making the playoffs in each class 41% of the schools would get their t-shirts.
Now back to 8-man. With the 17 schools added from C-2, D-1 would have 62 schools and D-2 would have 63 schools which was pretty common just a few years ago. The enrollment cutoff would be 62 instead of the current 61, virtually unchanging the size of enrollments within D-1 and D-2. With 32 schools making the playoffs in each class just over 50% would get their t-shirts, less than the current 60%.
Doing this I think accomplishes a few things. First, it gives C1 and C2 a higher % of schools in the playoffs but not at an absurd amount that the current system would with 32 teams or a 3 system Class C would with 16 playoff teams in each of those 3 classes. This seems to be what you want to have accomplished Football2002. Second, it levels the field in D-1 to a degree. No schools added would have higher enrollments than schools that are currently competing. Third, the playoff situation in D1 and D2 gets a little more balanced out hopefully getting the schools with 2-6 and 3-5 records out. It can be debated if the 5-3 or even 4-4 schools should have a shot at the playoffs but I think most people agree that 2-6 or 3-5 is just not necessary.
Some of my other thoughts were; if a team wanted to elect up to play in C-2 then let them. This would be very important as I'm sure there would be a good amount that would. Giving them the ability to move up makes more sense than punishing a team that goes down, especially if that team, ala Laurel this year, really needs to be in D-1 anyway. Also, by expanding D1 and D2, some of the schools that have really struggled to compete may choose the 6-man route, which would strengthen their numbers. Again, I'm assuming here, but I'm guessing there are quite a few D-2 schools that had issues with having enough kids and could have benefited from playing with 2 less kids.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on "competitive balance". Feel free to dissect this and tell me why I'm right or wrong, just please provide your logic. That's what makes the board good. All right, time for bed!
As expected, there wasn't a good game in C-2 last night. Aquinas-St Cecilia was the closest at 11 points and it had about as many turnovers as points.
People cried a river about blowouts in the first round of a 32 team playoff. Last night the average margin of victory in C2 was over 25 points. Cutting to 16 did nothing. There were beat downs in the round of 32 years back, there were beat downs in the round of 16 this year, and beat downs in the round of 8 this year.
I said it earlier, the only way to fix it is to take 4 teams or less to the playoffs. That, or take 32 and understand there will be blowouts. The issue that isn't getting discussed is simple in my opinion...the 3 or 4 best teams in C1 are consistently miles ahead of the next 3 or 4 teams. Same in C2. Those top teams will blow everyone out until they play each other (round of 4).
I'm for taking more teams. It doesn't hurt anything and the cream always rises to the top. I can't think of a time where a real state title contender lost in the first round of a 32 team playoff.
This post was edited on 11/8 9:37 AM by hailvictors2
People cried a river about blowouts in the first round of a 32 team playoff. Last night the average margin of victory in C2 was over 25 points. Cutting to 16 did nothing. There were beat downs in the round of 32 years back, there were beat downs in the round of 16 this year, and beat downs in the round of 8 this year.
I said it earlier, the only way to fix it is to take 4 teams or less to the playoffs. That, or take 32 and understand there will be blowouts. The issue that isn't getting discussed is simple in my opinion...the 3 or 4 best teams in C1 are consistently miles ahead of the next 3 or 4 teams. Same in C2. Those top teams will blow everyone out until they play each other (round of 4).
I'm for taking more teams. It doesn't hurt anything and the cream always rises to the top. I can't think of a time where a real state title contender lost in the first round of a 32 team playoff.
This post was edited on 11/8 9:37 AM by hailvictors2