I just read Alumni's post that their game with Ponca is cancelled for this week. That really stinks for everyone involved. I know they don't have many numbers on their team so I'm sure it's a daily struggle trying to succeed. I feel bad for the kids from Ponca because of this because they are missing an opportunity to play a game they have worked hard to be a part of, and they have nothing to do with the fact that LCC has to forfeit. Hopefully LCC can play the rest of their games this year. It's just an unfortunate situation for everyone involved.
Laurel Concord Coleridge
- Thread starter Chidog31
- Start date
I know this they have 81 in enrollment for classification, so could have played 8-man the next two years, I would say someone gave them some bad advice
LCC has a smaller enrollment than a few eligible 8-man teams, so perhaps they chose to opt-up(?) Heck, Wakefield has 20 more students counting towards their NSAA enrollment, and THEY'RE playing 8-man football.
I am not entirely sure. I believe they have 25-30 players out, so the numbers seem to be alright for 11-man. Perhaps they're anticipating a future decline in numbers to the point that they will play 8-man. I know 'Bago has been 8-man for a while even though their numbers are a borderline C-1 school.
Edit: I found that Winnebago has ~40 players out for football this season.
This post was edited on 10/2 8:58 PM by unavailableusername
Edit: I found that Winnebago has ~40 players out for football this season.
This post was edited on 10/2 8:58 PM by unavailableusername
A lot of schools with C-2 Enrollment opt down, Plainview has 32 out and opts down. There are several D-1 schools that are not eligible for the 8 man playoffs because they are opting down. I think it is a school to school choice, the make-up of Wakefield schools student body could have perhaps played into their decision as well as participation, or possibly having a young team. Laurel made their decision, now they have to live with it, as have many other small schools struggling to stay afloat.
That's too bad about LCC. It hasn't been too long ago that they were a perennial powerhouse. Hopefully they can get back on the right track and get things ironed out.
Several C-2 size schools opt to play down in 8 man because they feel that is the only way they can be competitive. They know they are going to have to forfeit their eligibility for playoffs. But if they are going 1-8 or 0-9 and just getting blasted every year in C-2, then 3-5 or 4-4 without playoffs is still a boost to their school. Sometimes they may not have the makeup within their student body to be very competitive, and sometimes they just can't get any kids to go out. Other C-2 size schools opt to stay down in 8 man because they think their numbers will drop, and they will be 8-man the next cycle again. They don't want to spend a lot of money converting their field into an 11-man field, and then back again in 2 years.
Several C-2 size schools opt to play down in 8 man because they feel that is the only way they can be competitive. They know they are going to have to forfeit their eligibility for playoffs. But if they are going 1-8 or 0-9 and just getting blasted every year in C-2, then 3-5 or 4-4 without playoffs is still a boost to their school. Sometimes they may not have the makeup within their student body to be very competitive, and sometimes they just can't get any kids to go out. Other C-2 size schools opt to stay down in 8 man because they think their numbers will drop, and they will be 8-man the next cycle again. They don't want to spend a lot of money converting their field into an 11-man field, and then back again in 2 years.
I feel bad for LCC, Laurel had some good teams in the mid 2000's. I hope they get it turned around.
Less and less kids have been going out for football for years now, the NSAA should have changed cutoff levels years ago. South Dakota operates with a cut off line of 112.5 between 11 and 9 man classifications. It's sad yes but they should have played 8 man this cycle if safety is a concern now. Why wasn't safety a concern when they were preparing to declare? If they had declared 8 man and they got back up to the 11 man threshold by next cycle they still could play the next cycle on an exemption at 8 man and qualify for the playoffs.
The State of Nebraska has the lowest enrollment for 8-man eligibility, I believe the next closest is Kansas at 90. All a school has to do is submit a proposal to increase the enrollment for 8-man to 90 or 93 and it would probably pass. If you look at lthe classification numbers, 14 schools are currently above 83. That is 25% of the teams in D1. that number alone should show a change is needed.
story I heard was there was a very small handful of parents that refused to swallow their pride of not wanting to be an 8 man team. What they failed to do was look at what was best for the kids and the team. Some parents need to realize it's not about them anymore. That decision put their kids and team in a very bad position. You can't put those 19 kids in an 11 man season and think they were going to be successful. Other teams they're playing have 40 plus players. They're going to be playing mostly juniors and seniors against to many freshmen and sophomores for Laurel. Those parents didn't think of the safety factor for those kids at all. Now because of the size. speed and maturity (age) factors, they have sustained a number of injuries. 19 kids is a small number for an 8 man team even, not sure how they came to this conclusion in the first place. Now their kids and team are suffering physically and emotionally and nobody's benefitting from not playing. Not to mention what this is doing to the other teams on their schedule, by not getting to play a game that they've worked hard for all year. I heard it was supposed to be Oakland-Craig's homecoming this coming Friday against Laurel and now they don't even get to play a game on homecoming. What do you do without a game? Wow that stinks! Feel bad for their team and especially their seniors.
Shame that laurel has dropped this far. I heard the administration and parents are huge problem at this school, things do not look bright.
Saw the forfeit score for LCC again and checked their website and next weeks game is canceled as well already.
I won't mention the coach by name, but I know him very well. I can't say for certain how his current players feel about him, but I know that some of his former players don't think very highly of him at all. He has no integrity and really only cares about himself. I'm really surprised that LCC gave him a job. But, then again, he has always been pretty good at "snowin'" people. Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if the forfeits were his idea. He has alot of pride, and I think he would rather forfeit (and blame the numbers) than lose, and have to take responsibility for it. I might sound a little bitter; but I have a right to: I used to play for him.
what is the big deal if you mention his name? is this the same cat that coached the town team football team in Norfolk or whatever they called themselves lawndogs, thunderdogs, express I don't remember all the names but I do remember a coach who dressed up in a suit on 95 degree days, if this is the same guy then you hit the nail on the head. why would you hire a guy who as you put it 'snowin people', poor hire for LCC. nobody to fault but the administration. if this is the same fella I too have had experiences with him, not good ones either to say the least.
Yeah, you've got the right guy. I didn't want to name him because I didn't want the message to get lost in the attack: this guy does not belong being a "leader" of young men. I don't know what LCC was thinking when they hired him. But I do know this: whatever X's and O's he might know- it pales in comparison as to what he doesn't know about how to treat people. I can't blame the kids; I wouldn't play for this guy (again) either. Too bad for LCC; they were a pretty good program, not that long ago.
scotty irish SOUNDS like you have had some bad experiences with him, i don't get the hire either because how can you lead a group of 15-18 year olds when all your concerned about is yourself and self promotion. too bad for the kids of Laurel to have to endure this 'coach' on a daily basis. i wonder what the parents of these kids think about all this
The problem with coaching at Laurel is the parents always blame the coach, when in fact, it is the parents who cannot leave well enough alone. There was a coach there not so long ago, for basketball, named Clayton Steele. He won numerous games and state titles, but they ran him out because they feel they always have enough talent to win State Titles. Not going to happen every year. They have close to 50 boys in the High School and roughly 25 do anything, and that is because they are to lazy. Every 3 years they fire their football and or basketball coach and get a new one. Look at their girl's program. They are good almost every year because they have continuity. Coaches have been there awhile. But they also want to fire their volleyball coach this year, after how successful she has been because some parents don't like her. You couldn't pay me enough to want to deal with that community of parents, and there is one parent in particular who is fueling all this. Enough from me for now.
I'm guessing that he has some kids in the program both boys and girls. just a guess on my part. I do think the football hire was a poor choice or didn't they have anybody else in mind when they told the other coach he was done. they hired a new boys basketball coach too if I'm not mistaken, sometimes and I think this is the case, if you don't have enough eggs in the basket to get to a dozen well then you don't have enough eggs, ie athletes to compete. you get my drift
I assure you I do have kids in the program, I don't even live in the town, but I have been around this area my whole life. There is a problem with the way the town portrays themselves as they should be better than what they are. It is not the 90's anymore or early 2000's. It is a game of cycles, and sometimes your cycle is not good. They have enough boys in the school to be competitive, but they cannot get them out. Let the coach's coach and the players play and things will work out for itself.
"I assure you I do have kids in the program"
oops fearameer82014 looks like a freudian slip, you may be a little closer to the program than you are saying. The real mistake is why they didnt go 8-man and who made that choice, that person is not very realistic or smart, and hurt not just your school but other schools. That person should be the one who should be eliminated from the program and school.
oops fearameer82014 looks like a freudian slip, you may be a little closer to the program than you are saying. The real mistake is why they didnt go 8-man and who made that choice, that person is not very realistic or smart, and hurt not just your school but other schools. That person should be the one who should be eliminated from the program and school.
I do not have kids in the system. Either way, I agree. The person/persons who made the choice to not go 8 man should be let go of their duties. But what do I know, I am just on a message board writing away.
If they have 50-60 boys in the school and 17 kids go out for football, I think their may be some other issues with this situation. Doesn't sound good whatever is happening with that school.
Yeah, something isn't right there. Have heard many things, but there really isn't just one thing to put the finger on. Hope it gets turned around sometime. Until the parents stop intruding on the coaching/teaching staff, this problem will be there for years to come.
It's really too bad to see programs in Northeast Nebraska struggle like Laurel, Wayne and Wakefield. I really hope they get it turned around. It's so weird Wakefield is playing 8 man football.
At least some of these schools have options if they want to co-op, smaller schools like Allen, Emerson-Hubbard, Randolph, Winside all could co-op or consolidate with schools like Laurel, Wayne, and Wakefield which gives the kids a better chance to field competitive teams. Instead we see teams like LCC, Winside, and others struggle.
At least some of these schools have options if they want to co-op, smaller schools like Allen, Emerson-Hubbard, Randolph, Winside all could co-op or consolidate with schools like Laurel, Wayne, and Wakefield which gives the kids a better chance to field competitive teams. Instead we see teams like LCC, Winside, and others struggle.
Similar threads
