Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah because colleges and the pros never play zone...I like the move it a step in the right direction. Now they need to ban zone defenses!!! Allow kids to play the game rather than a spot on the court
Another step in the right direction. Now let's get it for all classes.Some more notes from the meeting yesterday:
- Home field advantage for the high seed throughout the football playoffs has been added to Class C2
Is the current limit on track meets nine? That seems like a big jump. I know a lot of schools have a hard time fine subs, especially in the spring. Can’t imagine this would help that, assuming it gets approved by the NSAA and schools actually schedule that many meets.From the NSAA facebook page, highlights from the Representative Assembly
- The Representative Assembly voted 48-4 FOR adding a 7th quarter for basketball non-varsity and varsity competition days
- Voted 27-25 AGAINST allowing outside participation in boys and girls bowling
- Voted 51-1 FOR limiting softball dates to 18 dates
- Voted 35-17 FOR allowing triple entries in speech for Class A, B, C1 and C2
- Voted 49-3 FOR limiting participation in interschool track & field competitions by any school student to 12 total meets
Yes, the current limit is nine meets involving four or more teams, excluding district and state competition.Is the current limit on track meets nine? That seems like a big jump. I know a lot of schools have a hard time fine subs, especially in the spring. Can’t imagine this would help that, assuming it gets approved by the NSAA and schools actually schedule that many meets.
In discussing with an AD buddy:Yes, the current limit is nine meets involving four or more teams, excluding district and state competition.
Thanks for the explanationIn discussing with an AD buddy:
The Current Invite "major" limit is 9, and meet limit is 12. Meets with 3 or less teams are currently "minor" meets.
This change is being made to make things easier across the board. Right now teams have an invite canceled, and they may look to get into another meet. If that meet is is a triangular, there are times they can't get in because a 4th team makes it a "major" meet and one of the schools may not be able to allow the team trying to get in into the meet because it'd put them over the limit of 9 majors. This change will mean that all teams can be in 12 total meets regardless of size.
Just to throw another reminder out there, the Representative Assembly (and therefore all these logical decisions you’re in favor of) is made up of school personnel from NSAA member schools, not NSAA staff. It’s similar in some ways to our government set up. The legislative branch (member schools via Representative Assembly) make the rules, the executive branch (NSAA staff) enforce them.Seems like the NSAA actually made a bunch of logical decisions this cycle
Did not know that, thanks for the info. Some logical representatives on it right now thenJust to throw another reminder out there, the Representative Assembly (and therefore all these logical decisions you’re in favor of) is made up of school personnel from NSAA member schools, not NSAA staff. It’s similar in some ways to our government set up. The legislative branch (member schools via Representative Assembly) make the rules, the executive branch (NSAA staff) enforce them.
Rep assembly members also almost always vote as the member schools representatives did in the meetings where each member school in the NSAA district voted on the proposal.Did not know that, thanks for the info. Some logical representatives on it right now then
Won't work that way though. Many of the schools you list have a hard time seeing themselves as a Class B school...
- Football - 11-man classification numbers: Class A 500 and above, Class B 499-200, Class C1 and C2 199 and below divided equally. Motion Failed: 1-7 (For: Cerny)
- Football - 11-man classification numbers: Class A 450 and above, Class B 499-200, Class C1 and C2 199 and below divided equally Motion Failed: 1-7 (For: Unzicker)
Am I the only person who thinks Class A needs to smaller, not larger? Class A should be 590 and above. (Or cap it at 24 teams). Fremont, Bell East, Norfolk, Columbus, NP and South Sioux do not need to be in Class A.
- Football - 6-man highest seed hosts throughout the playoffs. Motion Failed: 4-4 (For: Graham, Cerny, Drews, Unzicker | Against: Wemhoff, Wiseman, Lee, Ruhl)
I wished this would have passed. Maybe the next go around. All high seeds should host in the playoffs.
They need to address the 8 man number, agreed. It's not popular, but I bet if there was a class of 9 man, you'd see some of the C2 schools drop down. Field stays the same. Gameplan doesn't change so drastically.Won't work that way though. Many of the schools you list have a hard time seeing themselves as a Class B school...
Really wish they'd address the 8 man number, everything keeps getting voted down, but we see more and more forfeits all the time in C2 and below. I would think addressing the number would maybe help schools become more comfortable with moving to 8 man.
Absolutely don't want another class in football, but 9 man is more and more intriguing to me all the time. I'm not sure how the member schools would work the numbers game to have an 8 man class, 9 man class, and then 11 man classes.45 and under should be class D. 46-60 should be 9 man. 61-90 should be C-2.
9 man would lead to a lot more sports co-ops I think
3-11 man classes, 1-9 man, 1-8 man, & 1-6 manAbsolutely don't want another class in football, but 9 man is more and more intriguing to me all the time. I'm not sure how the member schools would work the numbers game to have an 8 man class, 9 man class, and then 11 man classes.
This. Basically most of the current C2 and top half of D1 become 9 man. Probably helps with opting down issues as well.3-11 man classes, 1-9 man, 1-8 man, & 1-6 man
I think if you made three classes of 11 man, a class of 9, a class of 8 and a class of 6, opting down would not be allowed at the varsity level. I don't think it should be allowed now personally.I mean. I guess we can reignite this. But it's not going to stop schools like Wakefield opting down to kick the **** out of smaller schools (48-32 over the last 10 years, with a 7-0, 7-1, 6-2, 7-1, and 7-2 season in there, all opted down), and most other schools that opt down will still struggle immensely whether they are in class A or class D. So, problems will exist literally no matter what.
Disagree. This does not make football better. The number is high enough. Too many teams opting down that can easily play 11 man. If you cant field a team its not the other 40 schools’ problem.Won't work that way though. Many of the schools you list have a hard time seeing themselves as a Class B school...
Really wish they'd address the 8 man number, everything keeps getting voted down, but we see more and more forfeits all the time in C2 and below. I would think addressing the number would maybe help schools become more comfortable with moving to 8 man.
You can disagree all you want. Fact is Nebraska has the lowest 8 man number in the nation of states that support 8 man.Disagree. This does not make football better. The number is high enough. Too many teams opting down that can easily play 11 man. If you cant field a team its not the other 40 schools’ problem.
I can live with your argument on not having the option to opt down if you are above .500 in a 2 year cycle in which you just opted down. That makes a lot of sense to me in a way.Weird, it's almost like the team that opts down to beat up on smaller schools ruins the entire concept of opting down for a lot of people. Strange how that works, huh?
Personally, I think a simple solution is that if you opt down for a 2 year cycle and are above .500, you need to opt back to your original class the next cycle. That way most programs that decide to opt down are fine (since most struggle no matter what class they are in) and can continue to develop their program and provide opportunities to schools, and the offender in this situation is held accountable.
For example, if you tell me Wakefield can be a winning program and beat the snot out of many teams in D1, but would forfeit games in C2, I'm going to call you a liar. They just like to win, and don't want to consider themselves losers if they only win a few games. It's that kind of community.
I really think it needs enrollment moved to fifty and eliminate the opt down to 8-man option or at least give schools a choice to not play a team who opts down, and be sure you fill all teams schedule before you fill a team opting down BUT 50 is neededWeird, it's almost like the team that opts down to beat up on smaller schools ruins the entire concept of opting down for a lot of people. Strange how that works, huh?
Personally, I think a simple solution is that if you opt down for a 2 year cycle and are above .500, you need to opt back to your original class the next cycle. That way most programs that decide to opt down are fine (since most struggle no matter what class they are in) and can continue to develop their program and provide opportunities to schools, and the offender in this situation is held accountable.
For example, if you tell me Wakefield can be a winning program and beat the snot out of many teams in D1, but would forfeit games in C2, I'm going to call you a liar. They just like to win, and don't want to consider themselves losers if they only win a few games. It's that kind of community.