You Don't Walk My Halls
- Thread starter Buff-alo
- Start date
Two reasons, to ask to raise the enrollment number for 8-man proposal by my school, would get a no vote cause people thinking I would be doing it so we could go 8-man and with our success they would vote no. Second, It will have to come from a 8-man school or one of the 7 to 10 teams that are ineligible every year to pass. I just find it interesting that a possible solution is right in front of them but they have never written one, they are happy with the bandage, cause its easier
Not that easy Nut......I wrote a proposal in 2014 to raise the number for 8 man football. At that time, I did extensive research on the classification number for states bordering Nebraska.
I found that the number at the time should have been around 110 (boy & girl) to be on par with neighboring states. At the time, I believe the 8-man eligible number was 83. Our administration felt asking 8-man to go from 83 to 110 would be too drastic, so we settled for a number that was less. I think we may have only proposed 92-94 at that time.
It failed miserably. We found that a number of the smallest 8-man schools didn't want more teams coming into 8-man because they thought it would be harder to compete. We also found that a number of 11-man schools voted against the proposal (as opposed to just abstaining), which we never understood.
So, I've been there and tried that. I think the common sense answer is to have 11-man, 9-man, 8-man, and 6-man. The smallest schools can play 6-man. The schools that fluctuate between low C2 and middle to big D1 can play 9-man.
That's just my two cents on the matter.
I found that the number at the time should have been around 110 (boy & girl) to be on par with neighboring states. At the time, I believe the 8-man eligible number was 83. Our administration felt asking 8-man to go from 83 to 110 would be too drastic, so we settled for a number that was less. I think we may have only proposed 92-94 at that time.
It failed miserably. We found that a number of the smallest 8-man schools didn't want more teams coming into 8-man because they thought it would be harder to compete. We also found that a number of 11-man schools voted against the proposal (as opposed to just abstaining), which we never understood.
So, I've been there and tried that. I think the common sense answer is to have 11-man, 9-man, 8-man, and 6-man. The smallest schools can play 6-man. The schools that fluctuate between low C2 and middle to big D1 can play 9-man.
That's just my two cents on the matter.
Last edited:
I remember that one, I think things have changed and yes your right other 8-man schools dont want more, but I think 50 or 52 would pass, and I would keep trying. Second 9-man is a huge change and Nebraska is a very slow to change state, it will not fly , I wish it would but way to many would not. 50 is a great start point and yes we are still one of the very lowest in the USA in 8-man classification numbers to qualify
Thanks for the information ACICOD. Just amazes me that schools would vote no on proposal that wouldn't even be affected.
Kinda crazy that Nebraska wont take 50 for cutoff in 8-man and Texas cutoff for 6-man is 55
The number needs to be closer to 55... I don't think bumping it up 3 will make much of a difference. I do understand that you probably have a better chance of getting 50 passed though. I really think you'll see a big move to change something after the 2020-2021 cycle. It's going to take another 2 years of schools canceling games (or seasons) or even worse, a catastrophic injury to a player that doesn't belong on a varsity football field before NSAA member schools start coming to their senses and realize that the classification numbers of 20 years ago no longer work.
I agree I just think 50 will pass this year, if proposed and in future 55
D1- 55- 39
D2-38-- down
D6 --27 down
I like that breakdown for class size. What do people think about reducing the number of classes? There are only 4 classes in track. Why have 6 classes in volleyball, and basketball?
I dont mine 7 because 6-man is a new add, before it was 6 and I am okay with 4 classes 11-man 2 classes 8-man and 1 6-man, I think this will change in 10 to 15 years and we will lose one class
Great post. I haven’t posted on this site in years but felt compelled enough to reply to an excellent well-thought out post that addresses the concerns that high schools that are right on that line face, especially when you factor in changing demographics and student participation in the sport. Anyone that is arguing with you is doing so just for the sake of it, so disregard the people acting stubborn and ignorant that have their minds made up on the subject despite any logical evidence presented to them that is contrary to their beliefs. Best of luck to you and your team this season.
Last edited:
I will say I went to a school where we had no more than 25 kids out for football and we had to play 11 man. This was back in the late 90s but there was not an option of opting down. We got our butts kicked all 4 years of high school but I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. My last high school game we had 15 suited up and played the game.
Mike Hassler wrote this initial post, his antics/behavior on the sidelines of games is beyond ridiculous. Then they opt down for years and leave the starters in for full games up 30 or more. It is beyond enjoyable watching him lose this year. He needs to tone it down quite a bit.
People in Nebraska need to get over their ego and give sub 11 man schools their due. We have more schools playing 8 and 6 man than we do 11 man. Its our demographics, our population base is rural with a few metros. This state is stuck in the mud, we need 9 man football and high school softball in the spring for starters. We have no need for 8 man. I coached it, but we could easily go 11, 9, 6 and be just fine. Play 9 man on a 100 yd field with no modifications so teams don't have to worry about the change. Why make things harder than they need to be?
thats your opinion, I would disagree, softball should be a summer sport only same for baseball, 8-man has rich tradition in Nebraska and is much more wildly played from state to state than 9-man
| State | 8-man | 6-man | 9-man |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 19 | 8 | 0 |
| Alaska | 4 | 8 | 0 |
| Arizona | 31 | 0 | 0 |
| Arkansas | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| California | 108 | 0 | 0 |
| Colorado | 40 | 30 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Delaware | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 15 | 32 | 0 |
| Georgia | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 45 | 2 | 0 |
| Illinois | 24 | 1 | 0 |
| Indiana | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 61 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 100 | 15 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Maine | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Maryland | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 64 | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 0 | 0 | 70 |
| Mississippi | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | 26 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 41 | 37 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 113 | 25 | 0 |
| Nevada | 77 | 0 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 18 | 11 | 0 |
| New York | 29 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 0 | 7 | 42 |
| Ohio | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 88 | 0 | 0 |
| Oregon | 41 | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 19 | 0 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 | 0 | 79 |
| Tennessee | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| Texas | 0 | 234 | 0 |
| Utah | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vermont | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 34 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington, D.C. | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 47 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 0 | 13 | 0 |
I'd run through a brick wall for a Coach like Hassler, you can't teach passion for winning, it's innate. I can understand someone who has been on the other side of the wall being upset at getting pounded by a Mike Hassler team, I think we know which side of the wall you've been on.
Agree...I knew 6 man was a big deal in Texas but never gave it a thought they didn't even play 8 man there. I'm always interested to see how our 8 and 6 man in Nebraska stacks up to other states. Love seeing the games like DCS vs Sedwick County and the Nebraska/Wyoming 6 man game.
I (personally) don't understand the obsession with 9 man. Is it because a neighboring South Dakota has it so it is familiar?
Field size on an artificial surface may be a big deal, but I don't know if any 8 man schools have that? Field size on natural surfaces are handled by a lawn mower and paint. Goal posts are sleeved pipes poured in the ground (the ones that I have payed attention to). Goal posts can literally be moved in about 4 man hours.
To me, the difference between 11 and 9 is too little. 11 to 8 is about a 30% difference which is huge when teams don't have enough players to practice if they are playing 11 man. I understand that it can work no matter what the number is.
Field size on an artificial surface may be a big deal, but I don't know if any 8 man schools have that? Field size on natural surfaces are handled by a lawn mower and paint. Goal posts are sleeved pipes poured in the ground (the ones that I have payed attention to). Goal posts can literally be moved in about 4 man hours.
To me, the difference between 11 and 9 is too little. 11 to 8 is about a 30% difference which is huge when teams don't have enough players to practice if they are playing 11 man. I understand that it can work no matter what the number is.
I 100% agree with highschoolfootballnut. The problem with participation in lower classes is that we now have to compete with much larger schools because they are allowed to opt down when they can’t compete at their own level. Now schools with 60 plus boys can get 22 athletic boys out for football and compete against schools with 28 total boys, 18 of which play football and only 5 of which are athletic and talented enough to compete with the bigger school. The trickle down affect is that now fewer and fewer marginal kids and some athletic kids don’t play at smaller schools because there is no way they can compete.
I don’t agree that kids should have to opt into another school district to play football.
My solution would be for the NSAA to actually lower the number that makes a school ineligible for the playoffs. If your school still elects to play down, your schedule will only consist of other teams that are ineligible. That would make each class more competitive size wise. Ineligible teams would not affect wildcard points of eligible teams that way either.
I don’t agree that kids should have to opt into another school district to play football.
My solution would be for the NSAA to actually lower the number that makes a school ineligible for the playoffs. If your school still elects to play down, your schedule will only consist of other teams that are ineligible. That would make each class more competitive size wise. Ineligible teams would not affect wildcard points of eligible teams that way either.
Last edited:
Why dont they put schools that are above the enrollment line together, I know it would be travel, but that at least makes thier problem their problem and doesnt share with a team that may be struggling but now has to play a school twice their size And if a school doesnt mind playing those schools they can declare they will play them
This seems like a really logical idea. Anybody got a count on ineligible D1 schools?
Exactly. There should be NO opting down in 11 man. If you can field an 11 man team it has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with wanting to beat up on little schools. If an 11 opts to play 8, put them in their own Chicken League. No state rankings, no all- state, no nothing. We'd quickly see how much of it is "we just want to play"!
The Opt down teams in D1 this year (4 of them) have a combined 6-14 record.
Last year they were 10-19, and that includes Wakefield's 7-0 season. I really think this is being made an issue, when it's really not.
IMO Wakefield going 7-0 should be a testament to the staff on motivating their kids when they really had nothing to play for. Just my .02.
Last year they were 10-19, and that includes Wakefield's 7-0 season. I really think this is being made an issue, when it's really not.
IMO Wakefield going 7-0 should be a testament to the staff on motivating their kids when they really had nothing to play for. Just my .02.
Also, Ravenna opted down last year, but are mid-cycle eligible this year. They went 4-4 in '20 and are 1-4 so far this year.
Sometimes opting down is the best thing for a school and the KIDS. Isn't that what it is about, the kids? Kids want to win, kids want to have success; coaches want to build culture and a winning program. Can you do that going 2-7 every year? It is hard enough getting kids out on a consistent basis now add losing seasons every year, good luck. They take the punishment of not being eligible for playoffs, IMO that's enough.
I am ok with teams opting down a class and being ineligible. That said, if a team has an enrollment number that should put them in C1 and they opt down to C2, I think all of the teams in C2 that play them should still get the 2 bonus points for playing up a class. I can't see any argument against that. Unfortunately, a proposal has to be written/presented/voted on. I think that has been done and failed.
Why can't the kids of a C2 school who opt down and are ineligible for 8 man playoffs anyway just play a JV schedule in 11 man and gain their success and grow their program that way? Either way they aren't making playoffs, but by dropping down they now can impact the points of every team on their schedule that is eligible for playoffs. Culture doesn't need to be built by dropping down a class when your enrollment dictates that you should be in C2 playing 11man or D1 playing 8 man instead of 6.
Interesting thought. Wouldn't be opposed to it if they would be able to schedule a full 8 or 9 game season.
There would be a majority of Monday night games but if they scheduled other schools that were doing the same thing they would be able to have a fair number of Friday night games. Example Wakefield vs Madison on a Friday night. Playing a combo of Friday and Monday contests would be challenging to have a full schedule but would the NSAA allow them to play during the playoffs against other varsity teams to help with scheduling. Again example would be Wakefield vs Madison after the regular season was over. This would obviously give those schools a longer season with multiple byes. Or maybe they just play strictly a Monday night schedule?
Last edited:
So, "success" only comes from winning? A culture build requires that you beat up on schools smaller than yourself? I think I understand. If winning is the only way to make kids happy, to give them what they want, everyone needs to win. And if winning is good, winning BIG is better, right? And if winning is the only way to make kids happy, think how exciting it will be if they can just score 100! Or 150!!!! So it has nothing to do with player "safety"? Why is this "We'll only play if we win" attitude not present in any other sports. Opting down is wrong. If you CANNOT field an 11 man team, you play only other bullies. IF a team in the lower class chooses to play you, it never affects them negatively in any way, shape, or form in terms of playoffs. They are mere exhibitions. And if they don't choose to play, they don't play. No team should be allowed to opt down to a lower class of the same variety of football. Period.
So a team like Kimball who has a 3 year enrollment boy count of 43 becomes a "Bully" if they opt down to 6 man just to field a team? They only had 10 out, woof. Yes, it's 8 man going down to 6 man, but what is different? How could the NSAA justify your logic in one class but not others? Are they a "Bully" heavens no, it would be in the best interest of THEIR KIDS.
