Omaha Brownell-Talbot will forfeit 2017 season
- Thread starter Alum-Ni
- Start date
This is a sad sign of the times. High school football at all levels needs more players. What are the major road blocks to participation?
As Bob Dylan would say, "The times they are a changing". I don't think you can pinpoint one exact thing for participation. I think there are a lot of contributing factors. One being the growing awareness in concussions, which have scared some players and parents off. Another being the era of the "specialized" athlete, even in small schools. Parents are now spending big bucks on personal trainers, coaches, travel teams and having their child focus on one sport year round. I would also say the decline of Nebraska Cornhusker football over the last 20 years, but more importantly the decreased emphasis on the walk-on-program through some of those years, that has also had an impact. Kids no longer dream of getting on the field on Friday Nights in hopes of being one of those honored "walk-on" players. Throw in social media and technology and kids have more to do and keep them preoccupied, where as 20 years ago a lot of kids played sports simply because it was something to do. Spinning off that, kids sit more now and our physical fitness is declining. Kids, lets face it, are heavier and less inclined to be active.
So you could say it's a perfect storm of a lot of things, but it is obvious, numbers are down across the state. Speaking of numbers... Has an 8 man cut-off number been set by the NSAA for the next 2 year cycle? Hadn't seen anything on it...
So you could say it's a perfect storm of a lot of things, but it is obvious, numbers are down across the state. Speaking of numbers... Has an 8 man cut-off number been set by the NSAA for the next 2 year cycle? Hadn't seen anything on it...
football takes too much time and effort for many kids these days. go win a championship in madden, you don't even have to get off your couch for that. smh
It is a sad deal. Some kids want to focus on one sport, maybe basketball. Some kids don't want to risk injury with all of the news about concussions and CTE in football nowadays. And then you simply have shrinking school enrollments.
Will be real interesting to see what football numbers and the game in general looks like 15-20 years from now.
Thats is not correct, also numbers are rising in participation in other states, This is becoming a Nebraska problem. States that take football more serious like Nebraska used to will never stop playing the game in high school. I do not know what happen to this State but it has changed a lot in the past 10 years.
A lot of kids don't want to put in the work that it takes to play football or other sports right now. Schools that have had little to no success on the football field have a hard time getting kids to play.
http://journalstar.com/sports/high-...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC
http://www.omaha.com/neprepzone/bas...cle_b5f0c232-3c2b-11e7-9ae0-2346ffd836bd.html
Per Jim Tenopir, Creek Valley has also already forfeited the 2017 season due to low numbers and 9 or 10 other schools have indicated they will try to start the season next fall, but may also have to forfeit games
The schools who will start with very low numbers include:
Sumner-Eddyville-Miller
Homer
Elgin/Elgin Pope John
Omaha Nation
Leyton
Mead
Meridian
High Plains
Stuart
http://www.omaha.com/neprepzone/bas...cle_b5f0c232-3c2b-11e7-9ae0-2346ffd836bd.html
Per Jim Tenopir, Creek Valley has also already forfeited the 2017 season due to low numbers and 9 or 10 other schools have indicated they will try to start the season next fall, but may also have to forfeit games
The schools who will start with very low numbers include:
Sumner-Eddyville-Miller
Homer
Elgin/Elgin Pope John
Omaha Nation
Leyton
Mead
Meridian
High Plains
Stuart
My opinion and prediction are wrong? I'm sorry I don't have any facts to support my stance, since it's simply an opinion.
Perhaps you could provide a link to state by state participation trends to support your claim of rising participation. I'd be interested to see what areas are increasing in participation VS student population growth of the state.
I didn't say that HS kids wouldn't play football, I just think that high schools may distance themselves and get out of providing the sport due to liability issues. Whether good or bad, look at the NFL lawsuits. Sooner or later, there will be lawsuits against state associations, and I think they will end up getting out of the sport. Hopefully I'm wrong, because there's nothing better than a good high school football game. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, as it will become more expensive to play, which may ultimately take opportunities from a kid that may not be able to afford to play on a non-school team.
.
I think it is real important for kids to play at the Youth level in football. By doing so they create their own identity and successes vs. adopting the culture of a lackluster program.
Some kids would rather watch from the bleachers and wear goofy outfits than risk the chance of Failing in front of their peers.
As most of us know... football is a tough sport and some kids aren't willing to do what is required to build a successful program.
You can't beg someone to play the greatest lesson learning sport in the world. Man.. I would give anything to strap them on for one more game (there is the old guy coming out again).
While some states reported a decline in football participation in 2015, 24 states registered increases in boys participation in 11-player football. When combining boys and girls participation in 6-, 8-, 9- and 11-player football, the number of participants increased 138 – from 1,114,253 to 1,114,391.
No one wants to say it but the great state of Nebraska is not so great any more its youth has become soft and lazy, and we want to say its happening every where, but thats not true, Like I said its a Nebraska problem, sad but true
Creek Valley had an enrollment number of 57. Problem there is that they've went 4 years without a single win and I don't think the kids want to play football there and continue to get the crap kicked out of them. Pretty sad for the communities of Chappell and Lodgepole. Chappell always had good football teams back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's.
A couple teams there that have had recent success.
Sumner-Eddyville-Miller
Homer
Elgin/Elgin Pope John - Wow!
Omaha Nation
Leyton
Mead
Meridian
High Plains - Wow!
Stuart - WOW!
Might be time for some of these schools to look more seriously at consolidation. Stuart should go in with West Holt, and Elgin could very easily go with Neligh.
For some of these schools, its not exactly a surprise. I mean, look at Omaha Brownell-Talbot. That school is more focused on education than athletics, in any sport. Boys or girls. They just installed lights for their football field about 6 years ago I believe. When I would play them in high school, their home games would be in the afternoon because of the lack of lights.
Alright, jumping back on the saddle. Been a while since I've posted.
First off in regards to low participation numbers. I don't think Nebraska is necessarily becoming a "soft" state or at least anymore than other states. Over the past 20 years, and further back, our small towns are dwindling and our urban, mainly Omaha and Lincoln, are growing. Overall statewide participation rates are partly less because we have less small schools which tradionally have higher participation rates. Someone else earlier mentioned that concussion awareness, change in demographics (more hispanics, asian, etc) kids (and parents and coaches) choosing to be focused on one sport, technology, other interests, etc certainly have an effect on participation rates.
One of the main reason I believe rates are lower is the parents themselves and our society as a whole. Sure it's easy to blame kids for not being interested but who is raising these kids. For example, how many dads toss the ball around or shoot hoops with their sons? I think it's a safe bet a whole lot less than 20 years ago. Also family's are smaller thus less brothers that also fill that role. Parents are quick to send their kids to camps, little leagues, etc but I think these often hurt the kids more than help if done too early. As a parent I'm torn with these absurd youth leagues. For example in South Sioux City, like most cities, a parent can send their child to basketball league as young as 3 years old. What is the point of that? The city and league sell it as a great way to begin to learn teamwork, social skills, etc. I beg to differ. These kids are flipped 3 year olds! What I see happening is kids play at a young age then by 5th or 6th grade recognize they are not as good as their peers and have never been. All kids see the writing on the wall at some point but instead of happening in high school kids quit the game before they ever get there. Also, have you watched the way we as a society act at sporting events, even youth sporting events such as 3rd grade basketball? How about the car ride home with dad after the game? No wonder kids lose interests! As I said earlier I said I am torn on youth sports leagues. On the flip side if you don't put your son or daughter in youth sports and try to add them in at say 5th or 6th grade they may be likely to not start at all because they feel they are way behind the other kids. Another problem I have is that these kids play plenty of games but our never having their skills developed.
I think our society now days is creating better quality players but by no means a quantity of players because of the examples I listed above.
Also, I feel that the size of each classification hurts as well to some degree in the smaller classes. In all classes it seems to me that the gap from the best to worst school is growing. Class C1 and C2 have less then 48 schools. D1 and D2 barely more than that. Years ago there were more schools thus a schools schedule was more spread out. Now you may be a crap team and end up playing 3-4 great teams in a season where that might have used to be 1-3 great teams. That same school might have also played another crap team or two. Not saying it's right but it gave those kids a glimpse of hope when they may pick up a victory or two or at least had a close game or two. Now a school has a crap team for a couple of straight years and the interest in the lower grades begin to decline.
Secondly, I'm glad the state FINALLY adjusted the cutoffs for 8/11 man and will be using boys only enrollments. I still think though that they could have done more. The trend is for more school coops and consolidations and lower participation rates. Where they set it may work for today but they needed to consider the future more unless then plan on doing an overhaul again in a few years. I think A should have gone to 36 schools, B to 36 schools, C1 and C2 combine to include the remaining 11 man schools, then D1 and D2 combined, and 6 man making a total of 5 classes. I had heard a while back that Nebraska was averaging something like 4 less schools each year over the last 25 years. With this trend and participation rates trending down more coops are coming down. I mentioned this earlier, I think Scottsbluff, Ralston, SSC, Columbus, Hastings, Gretna, Elkhorn South are more of a Class A school then B. On the flip side Wayne, Fairbury, Gothenburg, Wahoo, Boystown, Lakeview, Scouts, etc could fit in McCook, Alliance, Gross, Gering, York, Nebraska City, Aurora, Blair, etc..with the larger schools in Class A. Knock those schools up to B and C2 could compete with C1. Also, this two year cycle needs to stop, at least for the time being. How many cycles now have we seen schools in tough spots in the second year. Each cycle it is happening to more and more schools too. But at the same time if it is a 2 year cycle the schools need to make more realistic observations and decisions about their second year. Why is it that some schools will coop all sports but football? How much sense does that make?
I don't know what the future holds but I don't think it's good. If I'm a school with 3 year enrollment at 100 or less I would be looking real close at my neighbors and developing a back up plan. Problem is most schools don't do anything until the problem has already hit, usually a couple of years late.
First off in regards to low participation numbers. I don't think Nebraska is necessarily becoming a "soft" state or at least anymore than other states. Over the past 20 years, and further back, our small towns are dwindling and our urban, mainly Omaha and Lincoln, are growing. Overall statewide participation rates are partly less because we have less small schools which tradionally have higher participation rates. Someone else earlier mentioned that concussion awareness, change in demographics (more hispanics, asian, etc) kids (and parents and coaches) choosing to be focused on one sport, technology, other interests, etc certainly have an effect on participation rates.
One of the main reason I believe rates are lower is the parents themselves and our society as a whole. Sure it's easy to blame kids for not being interested but who is raising these kids. For example, how many dads toss the ball around or shoot hoops with their sons? I think it's a safe bet a whole lot less than 20 years ago. Also family's are smaller thus less brothers that also fill that role. Parents are quick to send their kids to camps, little leagues, etc but I think these often hurt the kids more than help if done too early. As a parent I'm torn with these absurd youth leagues. For example in South Sioux City, like most cities, a parent can send their child to basketball league as young as 3 years old. What is the point of that? The city and league sell it as a great way to begin to learn teamwork, social skills, etc. I beg to differ. These kids are flipped 3 year olds! What I see happening is kids play at a young age then by 5th or 6th grade recognize they are not as good as their peers and have never been. All kids see the writing on the wall at some point but instead of happening in high school kids quit the game before they ever get there. Also, have you watched the way we as a society act at sporting events, even youth sporting events such as 3rd grade basketball? How about the car ride home with dad after the game? No wonder kids lose interests! As I said earlier I said I am torn on youth sports leagues. On the flip side if you don't put your son or daughter in youth sports and try to add them in at say 5th or 6th grade they may be likely to not start at all because they feel they are way behind the other kids. Another problem I have is that these kids play plenty of games but our never having their skills developed.
I think our society now days is creating better quality players but by no means a quantity of players because of the examples I listed above.
Also, I feel that the size of each classification hurts as well to some degree in the smaller classes. In all classes it seems to me that the gap from the best to worst school is growing. Class C1 and C2 have less then 48 schools. D1 and D2 barely more than that. Years ago there were more schools thus a schools schedule was more spread out. Now you may be a crap team and end up playing 3-4 great teams in a season where that might have used to be 1-3 great teams. That same school might have also played another crap team or two. Not saying it's right but it gave those kids a glimpse of hope when they may pick up a victory or two or at least had a close game or two. Now a school has a crap team for a couple of straight years and the interest in the lower grades begin to decline.
Secondly, I'm glad the state FINALLY adjusted the cutoffs for 8/11 man and will be using boys only enrollments. I still think though that they could have done more. The trend is for more school coops and consolidations and lower participation rates. Where they set it may work for today but they needed to consider the future more unless then plan on doing an overhaul again in a few years. I think A should have gone to 36 schools, B to 36 schools, C1 and C2 combine to include the remaining 11 man schools, then D1 and D2 combined, and 6 man making a total of 5 classes. I had heard a while back that Nebraska was averaging something like 4 less schools each year over the last 25 years. With this trend and participation rates trending down more coops are coming down. I mentioned this earlier, I think Scottsbluff, Ralston, SSC, Columbus, Hastings, Gretna, Elkhorn South are more of a Class A school then B. On the flip side Wayne, Fairbury, Gothenburg, Wahoo, Boystown, Lakeview, Scouts, etc could fit in McCook, Alliance, Gross, Gering, York, Nebraska City, Aurora, Blair, etc..with the larger schools in Class A. Knock those schools up to B and C2 could compete with C1. Also, this two year cycle needs to stop, at least for the time being. How many cycles now have we seen schools in tough spots in the second year. Each cycle it is happening to more and more schools too. But at the same time if it is a 2 year cycle the schools need to make more realistic observations and decisions about their second year. Why is it that some schools will coop all sports but football? How much sense does that make?
I don't know what the future holds but I don't think it's good. If I'm a school with 3 year enrollment at 100 or less I would be looking real close at my neighbors and developing a back up plan. Problem is most schools don't do anything until the problem has already hit, usually a couple of years late.
Welcome back, cateful of the saddle sores as that was a long ride.
No, seriously, your points are pretty spot on. Problem is in the fabric of this country: People in power have the money and they want more of it. Our kids are just pawns for the rich to make dollars off. Rules won't change to help the poor kids be more healthy & well off. Rules will only change if there is money to be made or pocketbooks are affected. Sick country the US is, really.
There is also a problem with small schools, in particular, school boards that are either a) too proud to coop, or too stubborn to coop and/or consolidate, hindering that school to compete, and in some cases, even field a team in multiple sports.
Agree 100% Doesn't make sense when a school coops in all sports but football. From what I've seen in times of need often times the kids are for the coops but it's the parents, administrators, boards, etc that get in the way and make illogical decisions.
This. Schools can eliminate participation numbers by consolidation, especially in eastern Nebraska. Parents need to get over grudges do what is best for for their kids.
A couple teams listed above
Sumner-Eddyville-Miller - 17 miles from Overton, 18 miles from Amherst.
Homer - (Homer is in a tough spot.) Emerson-Hubbard is 30 miles, Winnebago is closer but I don't think Homer could consolidate with them.
Elgin/Elgin Pope John - 11 miles from Neligh-Oakdale.
Omaha Nation - 8 miles from Walthill.
Leyton - 20 miles from Sidney and 20 miles from Bridgeport.
Mead - 8 miles from Wahoo, 6 miles from Yutan, hell even 18 miles to Cedar Bluffs. They have plenty of options.
Meridian - 13 miles from Bruning.
High Plains - 9 miles from Cross County.
Stuart - 10 miles from Atkinson.
Also the younger adults still living in small towns who played sports need to help get their kids or other kids involved.
I feel like when I was in elementary and junior high my parents and other parents were always pushing us to do every activity. Most dads helped coach little league baseball, flag football, basketball, etc.
Get parents to get involved with running camps or putting on 3 on 3 tournaments again.
I feel like when I was in elementary and junior high my parents and other parents were always pushing us to do every activity. Most dads helped coach little league baseball, flag football, basketball, etc.
Get parents to get involved with running camps or putting on 3 on 3 tournaments again.
I know what your saying but remember that just because the schools set 13 miles apart, it may be another 20 miles to the edge of some of these districts, and that would put a lot of kids 20 to 30+ miles from school, so thats why they vote in their communities to keep their school, and the State of Nebraska doesn't have the power that States like Iowa and Illinois have to force consolidation. Because the State of Nebraska supplies little to NO funding to its schools. Its all local tax, voted by the local communities. Other states support more State funding so they are able to cut funding to smaller schools and give incentive funding for consolidation and whole grade sharing. The State of Nebraska does little in funding for its school districts
I know and it sucks a lot. If Iowa does one thing right, it's state funding towards schools so they don't have one million school districts like Nebraska has.
To give an example how State funded schools can increase consolidation because the state has the power to force with funding
Iowa and Nebraska comparison
Nebraska 279 schools playing football
Iowa has 334 schools playing football 17% more schools
BUT
Nebraska has only has 1.9 million people in the state
Iowa has 3.1 million 39% more, almost double the population but only 17% more schools playing football
I know other factors are in play. like population density or lack of in western counties but with the the positives of area control over your children's education there are negatives and this is one of them.
I personally believe the biggest cause of football participation numbers declining revolve around enrollment numbers declining. It is plain and simple.
There are certainly other factors which will be all over the board from school district to school district. However, I would say that overall enrollment is at the top of the list.
To say that football participation is increasing is a little bit like peering into a tunnel that leads only to the bottom total. Someone above quoted a total national increase of 140 players. Chew on this for a second. When Lincoln Southwest was built a few years back, that single school would have had a participation number of about 100 players. How many Class A sized schools do you suppose were built that year, in the entire country? 100? 500? I have no idea, but every one of them would be good for about 100 "additional" players. Sure they count toward the total, but these type of schools don't represent a very big percentage of the total numbers of schools that play football. The metro areas are propping up the participation numbers due to added population base, while the rural areas are tugging the participation numbers down due to diminishing population base.
There are certainly other factors which will be all over the board from school district to school district. However, I would say that overall enrollment is at the top of the list.
To say that football participation is increasing is a little bit like peering into a tunnel that leads only to the bottom total. Someone above quoted a total national increase of 140 players. Chew on this for a second. When Lincoln Southwest was built a few years back, that single school would have had a participation number of about 100 players. How many Class A sized schools do you suppose were built that year, in the entire country? 100? 500? I have no idea, but every one of them would be good for about 100 "additional" players. Sure they count toward the total, but these type of schools don't represent a very big percentage of the total numbers of schools that play football. The metro areas are propping up the participation numbers due to added population base, while the rural areas are tugging the participation numbers down due to diminishing population base.
http://journalstar.com/sports/high-...cle_9c74aca4-e083-55b5-a826-c0575a8d9142.html
A recap:
Per Nate Neuhaus at the NSAA: Omaha Brownell-Talbot, Omaha Christian, Creek Valley and Stapleton have all forfeited their 2017 varsity seasons. Several other schools have said due to low participation numbers, there was a possibility of them not being able to finish a season, either.
A recap:
Per Nate Neuhaus at the NSAA: Omaha Brownell-Talbot, Omaha Christian, Creek Valley and Stapleton have all forfeited their 2017 varsity seasons. Several other schools have said due to low participation numbers, there was a possibility of them not being able to finish a season, either.
Kids front Stapleton, OCA, etc should be able to play football for another school without penalty IMO. It's not fair that their school administration and leadership can't figure things out.
Maybe they should have looked at their numbers a little better when making their declaration for which class they were going to play when this cycle started last year.
They should know their enrollment numbers and trends. They should be networking and staying in touch with other schools about possibly co-oping. The kids have to go by the decisions the people in leadership rolls make.
But you have to remember deadlines for schools are far in advance of deadlines for decisions for families. For one of the schools mentioned above, I was told that they lost 5 players this past spring. 3 to a move and 2 to optioning out.
In the case of a move to 6-man, 8-man or Co-op for 2016 and 2017, those decisions had to be made prior to December 2015.
We would all like schools to be proactive and look ahead, and I would have to say that all schools I've ever been associated with do just that. But projections are just that...projections of what might be.
Your projections might have you at 15 players for 2017, and while not ideal for 8-man, if you really believe it's going to be a one year blip, the Board may choose to stay and take lumps for that one year as opposed to yo-yoing between 6 and 8, or cooping for just two years...also, I don't know what schools would want to jump into a coop for that short of a term.
But I don't think you can know in the Fall of 2015, that 33% of your team will leave in the Spring of 2017 and put you in a week-to-week type of situation, or worse, for the Fall of 2017.
The NSAA moving to 1-year cycles for football would help with a lot of this, as it would give schools at least some margin of error for when the projections are off or bad decisions are made.
Kids moving out of district or opting out of the district are things that you can't predict. But when you know or at least have a good idea that in two years you will only have 25-30 kids out for football, you better not check the box for playing 11 man football. This year has been different, because it seems that more 8 man schools are forfeiting their season.
If you have 25 to 30 kids out, then you have more than enoughh to play C2 11man its when you get to below 20 things get bad
Not if the majority of those kids are less than a 150 pounds. Figure in defections and then that number starts to drop.
Well I can say this at least 20 of the C2 teams have less than 30 kids out
And most of the time those are the teams that are getting kicked around pretty good. Crofton 2016 might be the exception.
Well two of those teams I know well and they are not getting kicked around Both are playoff teams