I agree with both, the reason for not taking 32 because of blow outs is not holding water at all, and C3 will not help but strongly agree with raising 8-man to some where in the 90s, with 25% of the class already above that I believe that only 46 teams could make playoffs and 32 got in, something needs to be done. I also think that more and more teams will elect to go to 8-man and be above 83 making districts a mess, you already have 5 team districts with two team that can not go to playoffs
Why should 6-3 teams make the playoffs
- Thread starter atlanta_ace
- Start date
Why does it really matter? If it's because you don't want to see it, then there's really no reason except for you're being selfish. So what if there are blowouts? Giltner blew out everyone the year that they won it, do you want just them in the playoffs? The teams that should win win and occasionally there are a few upsets. That same year #16 york beat #1 Scottsbluff. I really just ddon't understand where all these sour grapes come from
nenebskers,
Couple of thoughts on your plan:
1. I do like the basis of your plan. I am very much against a 6-3 team not getting in, but also don't much really like seeing 2-6 or 3-5 teams getting in either.
2. Your plan assumes all 17 teams that are at 94 or below would opt to play 8 man:
ELMWOOD-MURDOCK 94
THAYER CENTRAL 94
FREEMAN 92
PONCA 92
SOUTHERN 92
WEEPING WATER 92
OAKLAND CRAIG 91
HTRS 89
SHELBY - RISING CITY 89
HASTINGS ST CECILIA 89
WEST HOLT 89
ARCHBISHOP BERGAN 87
PALMYRA 87
CAMBRIDGE 86
NORTH PLATTE ST PATRICK'S 85
LAUREL-CONCORD / COLERIDGE (56 / 25) 81
From this list my guess is no more than 6 or 7 would opt to play 8 man. A 16 team playoff would still be 16 out of 44-45 for both c1 and c2. It would better the chances for 6 win teams, but by how much?? I don't know. That would still probably keep at least one 6 win team out of the playoffs (in some years).
Couple of thoughts on your plan:
1. I do like the basis of your plan. I am very much against a 6-3 team not getting in, but also don't much really like seeing 2-6 or 3-5 teams getting in either.
2. Your plan assumes all 17 teams that are at 94 or below would opt to play 8 man:
ELMWOOD-MURDOCK 94
THAYER CENTRAL 94
FREEMAN 92
PONCA 92
SOUTHERN 92
WEEPING WATER 92
OAKLAND CRAIG 91
HTRS 89
SHELBY - RISING CITY 89
HASTINGS ST CECILIA 89
WEST HOLT 89
ARCHBISHOP BERGAN 87
PALMYRA 87
CAMBRIDGE 86
NORTH PLATTE ST PATRICK'S 85
LAUREL-CONCORD / COLERIDGE (56 / 25) 81
From this list my guess is no more than 6 or 7 would opt to play 8 man. A 16 team playoff would still be 16 out of 44-45 for both c1 and c2. It would better the chances for 6 win teams, but by how much?? I don't know. That would still probably keep at least one 6 win team out of the playoffs (in some years).
I agree. I'm sure there would be about half that would elect to go up to 11 man which would be perfectly fine in my eyes. If they want to, have the numbers, and can compete than kudos to them. My thought is that D-1 has an issue bigger than class C and its getting more prevelant each year. If the NSAA gives some attention to it, class C may straighten out a little bit itself as a result in terms of what many don't like now.....the % of teams that qualify for the postseason.
My biggest issue is with D-1. Again I don't like having some schools eligible for the playoffs and others not when they have the same enrollment. Also, someone else mentioned the issue with some districts having only 3 playoff eligible teams. I believe it makes most sense to the up entollment cutoff and allow schools to option up and be eligible for the playoffs instead of option down and not be eligible.
Its a shame that kids and schools are put in a position to either play 8 man with no playoff opportunity from the first day of practice for two straight seasons or play 11 man and hope that enough kids participate and injuries don't pile up just so you can finish your season.
My biggest issue is with D-1. Again I don't like having some schools eligible for the playoffs and others not when they have the same enrollment. Also, someone else mentioned the issue with some districts having only 3 playoff eligible teams. I believe it makes most sense to the up entollment cutoff and allow schools to option up and be eligible for the playoffs instead of option down and not be eligible.
Its a shame that kids and schools are put in a position to either play 8 man with no playoff opportunity from the first day of practice for two straight seasons or play 11 man and hope that enough kids participate and injuries don't pile up just so you can finish your season.
I've read the posts here with interest, agreeing with some points and disagreeing with others. One issue that hasn't come up while discussing enrollment in smaller schools, and I'm surprised it hasn't, is the number of boys in the classes. This isn't something that is as big an issue in basketball, but in football when you have the kids lining up and slamming their bodies into one another it's an issue in my opinion.
With a son playing traveling 6th grade basketball last year I was told Hartington/Newcastle had two fifth grade boys playing on the 6th grade team because there were only two boys in the fifth grade class. Lots of girls but not many boys. I saw one Laurel/Concord/Coleridge game this year and they had 19 boys on the roster with about 14 of them being sophomores or freshman. I don't anything about older kids not playing but watching the sophomores and freshman going up against seniors and juniors was brutal. They were so overmatched if I was a parent of one of the Laurel kids I would have been worried.
In a small C2 school with around 30 kids in a class if you have two classes in a row with a low number of boys it puts kids at risk when those are your upper classmen. I would like to see the NSAA take a look at male enrollment in the smaller classes when talking about football.
With a son playing traveling 6th grade basketball last year I was told Hartington/Newcastle had two fifth grade boys playing on the 6th grade team because there were only two boys in the fifth grade class. Lots of girls but not many boys. I saw one Laurel/Concord/Coleridge game this year and they had 19 boys on the roster with about 14 of them being sophomores or freshman. I don't anything about older kids not playing but watching the sophomores and freshman going up against seniors and juniors was brutal. They were so overmatched if I was a parent of one of the Laurel kids I would have been worried.
In a small C2 school with around 30 kids in a class if you have two classes in a row with a low number of boys it puts kids at risk when those are your upper classmen. I would like to see the NSAA take a look at male enrollment in the smaller classes when talking about football.
