Injuries-Finishing Games

[nenebskers]

Last week Winside vs Hartington-Newcastle was called off at halftime due to injuries for Winside. Winside started the year with 11 players and were down to either 8 or 9 with an injury to their starting QB the second last play before the half. Winside is 0-2 with the next four games up against undefeateds Allen, Riverside, St Francis, and Osmond. Some of these schools may be looking at a second bye week this year.

Winside and Randolph had discussions this past spring about cooping sports. If they were cooped this fall the two D2 schools would be playoff eligible in D1.

Personally I'm getting tired of seeing this scenario play out each and every year. It's not good for the kids, opposing schools, or high school football in general. What can the NSAA and member schools do to decrease the likelihood of this happening? Apparently too many individual schools dont have the ability to look in the mirror. I was glad to see the cutoffs in 6 man and 8 man raised but more needs to be done. Other than scheduling on a one year basis is there anything else available?

Frankly much of this falls back on the schools. I would hate to see it but is force placing a coop necessary? Winside with any of the Norfolk schools or Wayne would not be a good idea. Of the 11 that went out far less would likely do so if cooped with one of them. But if they cooped with Randolph their participation numbers would probably stay close to the same. Require a school to play six man if roster size is below a certain number?

Any other schools around the state in similar situations?

 

[Artfour3]

This is especially frustrating at the start of a new two-year cycle. I can understand the second year running into issues fielding a team as demographics at a small school can change in a hurry, but Winside just declared last year to go alone in eight man. Having to forfeit isn't a Winside problem, it's a problem for everyone else on their schedule. Not conceding things to make a co-op work or not dropping to six-man is an incredibly selfish decision on their part, and the small towns on their schedule have to pay for it.

 

[Dawills12]

How many 6-man schools are around Winside? I have no idea but maybe that had something to do with. Was it Winside or Randolph that shot down the co-op? If it was Randolph that declined, then you can't hardly be mad at Winside. At least they were trying to co-op and do the right thing for their program.

 

[bgclub_rivals293120]

Humphrey – 45.8
Walthill – 49.6
St. Edward- 74.2
Santee- 87.7
Spalding – 91.4

These are all the six-man schools in the area for Winside. Two of which are towns they already travel to for 8-man. Doing what's best for their program was looking for a coop which didn't work. The next best thing for their program was going to six-man. The NSAA had special meetings with schools last year to help prevent forfeits. 1) Look to coop or 2) Drop down to a division that you'll have enough kids to participate in. Winside stayed in 8-man knowing there was a likely chance they wouldn't be able to play all of their games. They made the decision to not go six-man and instead take other schools down with them by stealing a game from them. It was a very selfish decision that is hurting more than just Winside.

 

[Dawills12]

With all of those towns being 6-man, then Winside should be playing 6-man.

 

[SPbObRT]

I think I heard thru the local watering hole that Winside-Randolph didn't coop because it would have made them C2 and probably playing the better C2 schools in the area, aka NC, not sure if i'm right on this or not. with that being said those 11 that are out I think half are sophs in school, not a smart decision for winside and with the schedule they play I doubt they even finish. sad situation for a school with lots of tradition in it.

 

[bruiser84]

I think I heard thru the local watering hole that Winside-Randolph didn't coop because it would have made them C2 and probably playing the better C2 schools in the area, aka NC, not sure if i'm right on this or not. with that being said those 11 that are out I think half are sophs in school, not a smart decision for winside and with the schedule they play I doubt they even finish. sad situation for a school with lots of tradition in it.

I don't understand this mentality. I hear it all the time when co-op talk starts. I am not talking about Winside and Randolph in particular. But the tired old excuses start. " If we join them our kids will never get to play." "If we have to play up in C-2 we will never be able compete with those "big" schools." To me it is like telling your kids they are only good enough to play 8 man or 6 man or whatever. Let me tell you something folks, there are big kids in every class. Some teams have more than others. And guess what? There are smaller kids in big schools too. And they seem to do just fine, some of them even excel. Yes a combined Winside and Randolph team would have combined boy enrollment of 47. And yes they might have to play Norfolk Catholic with a boy enrollment of 69. But they would also play Crofton (46) and HCC (49). Crofton and HCC seem to survive. It might take one year or so to make the mental transition, after that I don't think it would matter. Unless the coach or community keeps telling the players they can't compete.

 

[nenebskers]

I think I heard thru the local watering hole that Winside-Randolph didn't coop because it would have made them C2 and probably playing the better C2 schools in the area, aka NC, not sure if i'm right on this or not. with that being said those 11 that are out I think half are sophs in school, not a smart decision for winside and with the schedule they play I doubt they even finish. sad

Randolph's three year enrollment is 25, Winside's 22. Their 47 would have made them playoff eligible in D1, and one of the largest schools. In basketball they would have been C2.

 

[Coach Hix]

Last week Winside vs Hartington-Newcastle was called off at halftime due to injuries for Winside. Winside started the year with 11 players and were down to either 8 or 9 with an injury to their starting QB the second last play before the half. Winside is 0-2 with the next four games up against undefeateds Allen, Riverside, St Francis, and Osmond. Some of these schools may be looking at a second bye week this year.

Winside and Randolph had discussions this past spring about cooping sports. If they were cooped this fall the two D2 schools would be playoff eligible in D1.

Personally I'm getting tired of seeing this scenario play out each and every year. It's not good for the kids, opposing schools, or high school football in general. What can the NSAA and member schools do to decrease the likelihood of this happening? Apparently too many individual schools dont have the ability to look in the mirror. I was glad to see the cutoffs in 6 man and 8 man raised but more needs to be done. Other than scheduling on a one year basis is there anything else available?

Frankly much of this falls back on the schools. I would hate to see it but is force placing a coop necessary? Winside with any of the Norfolk schools or Wayne would not be a good idea. Of the 11 that went out far less would likely do so if cooped with one of them. But if they cooped with Randolph their participation numbers would probably stay close to the same. Require a school to play six man if roster size is below a certain number?

Any other schools around the state in similar situations?

At the time of the talks between Randolph and Winside it appeared that with the enrollments, that the COOP would have to play 11 man to be playoff eligible. The departure of some students after the fact would have allowed a COOP to be eligible in 8 man. The number is 47, the COOP number would have also been 47. It is hard to forecast arrivals and departures of students. At the time, with the information that was available, the discussion ended because of several reasons including logistical problems, but mostly because the forecast was to either play 11 man or be ineligible.

 

[Coach Hix]

I don't understand this mentality. I hear it all the time when co-op talk starts. I am not talking about Winside and Randolph in particular. But the tired old excuses start. " If we join them our kids will never get to play." "If we have to play up in C-2 we will never be able compete with those "big" schools." To me it is like telling your kids they are only good enough to play 8 man or 6 man or whatever. Let me tell you something folks, there are big kids in every class. Some teams have more than others. And guess what? There are smaller kids in big schools too. And they seem to do just fine, some of them even excel. Yes a combined Winside and Randolph team would have combined boy enrollment of 47. And yes they might have to play Norfolk Catholic with a boy enrollment of 69. But they would also play Crofton (46) and HCC (49). Crofton and HCC seem to survive. It might take one year or so to make the mental transition, after that I don't think it would matter. Unless the coach or community keeps telling the players they can't compete.

The problem with the Randolph/Winside coop was not to a large extent being able to compete with bigger schools. It was, if we do this we will have play 11 man, (playing 8 man and not being eligible was not ideal at all). Problems with reconfiguration of the fields, splitting home games, 2 homecomings, moving practices from one site to another, ect. If you were Randolph would you sign up for that if you have enough to play in 8 man?

 

[Alum-Ni]

Tough situation for Winside right now. Yes, they should have declared for 6-man for this cycle once the co-op became moot.

I do believe the two schools are co-oping jr. high football and some other junior high sports, maybe next time around the two will get together for varsity football.

If Randolph continues to decline, then I'm not sure what Winside does moving forward. Their enrollment certainly is not growing and the only other options would be Wayne, Pierce, Stanton and Norfolk.

Wayne won't take them, that'll push them into Class B in almost everything. I don't see Norfolk wanting to bring in a Class D2 school for anything.

That leaves Stanton and Pierce as the next closest options. Will be interesting to see what happens over the next several years.

 

[bruiser84]

I hear you gymmy. It is definitely a cultural change. The key here is the term co-op. Which is short for cooperation. And for co-ops to work that is exactly what it takes. Some give and take. All too often it is the bigger school saying you can come join us if you want to, but we sure aren't joining you. And if I was Randolph, if looking at future enrollment numbers looked promising, I probably would try to go it alone. But if the writing is on the wall, I'd rather join with someone pro-actively, rather than being left out in the cold

 

[Coach Hix]

I hear you gymmy. It is definitely a cultural change. The key here is the term co-op. Which is short for cooperation. And for co-ops to work that is exactly what it takes. Some give and take. All too often it is the bigger school saying you can come join us if you want to, but we sure aren't joining you. And if I was Randolph, if looking at future enrollment numbers looked promising, I probably would try to go it alone. But if the writing is on the wall, I'd rather join with someone pro-actively, rather than being left out in the cold

I agree

 

[Dawills12]

I hear you gymmy. It is definitely a cultural change. The key here is the term co-op. Which is short for cooperation. And for co-ops to work that is exactly what it takes. Some give and take. All too often it is the bigger school saying you can come join us if you want to, but we sure aren't joining you. And if I was Randolph, if looking at future enrollment numbers looked promising, I probably would try to go it alone. But if the writing is on the wall, I'd rather join with someone pro-actively, rather than being left out in the cold

Bruiser hit the head on the nail. I would be curious to know how Randolph's enrollment looks in the younger classes.

 

[Yossarian23]

At the time of the talks between Randolph and Winside it appeared that with the enrollments, that the COOP would have to play 11 man to be playoff eligible. The departure of some students after the fact would have allowed a COOP to be eligible in 8 man. The number is 47, the COOP number would have also been 47. It is hard to forecast arrivals and departures of students. At the time, with the information that was available, the discussion ended because of several reasons including logistical problems, but mostly because the forecast was to either play 11 man or be ineligible.

Unless they put a self-imposed deadline of getting it done before the 2017-18 school year started, I don't think the bold can be accurate. The 47 number was locked in the end of September in 2017. Any move ins or outs after that point wouldn't matter for a school's enrollment number. Coop declarations were not due until November of 2017.

The key would be when did the NSAA decide on 27 and 47 as the cut offs to be eligible for 6-man and 8-man playoffs? I don't remember when that was, but I believe it would have come out of the January 2017 NSAA District Meetings.

As long as they knew the cut off numbers, Winside and Randolph would have known what their eligibility number was from September, even if the full official statewide list wasn't publicized until December.

https://nsaa-static.s3.amazonaws.com/textfile/fbl/fbtimeline.pdf

 

[huskernation03]

Wallace is in the same boat. Started the season with 14 boys, 8 of which are freshmen or sophomores. Lost one of their top players during summer camp to a third concussion in 3 years. Lost quarterback in week 2 for the season with a concussion. Last night lost a third starter to a severely broken ankle. My guess is Wallace will forfeit the rest of the season and most of the freshmen will not play next year because they have been thrown to the wolves this year, thus jeopardizing next season. The sad fact is, the school board was told by several parents before the deadline that Wallace needed to drop down to six man to avoid having to play so many young kids at one time, but they felt “tradition” and travel distance were more important.

 

[nenebskers]

Wallace is in the same boat. Started the season with 14 boys, 8 of which are freshmen or sophomores. Lost one of their top players during summer camp to a third concussion in 3 years. Lost quarterback in week 2 for the season with a concussion. Last night lost a third starter to a severely broken ankle. My guess is Wallace will forfeit the rest of the season and most of the freshmen will not play next year because they have been thrown to the wolves this year, thus jeopardizing next season. The sad fact is, the school board was told by several parents before the deadline that Wallace needed to drop down to six man to avoid having to play so many young kids at one time, but they felt “tradition” and travel distance were more important.

Injuries happen, especially over the course of 8 game regular season when you continually play undersized underclassman. It's so frustrating to me that this happens each and every year.

Winside again had to stop their game this past Friday night due to injury concerns. The game was stopped in the 3rd quarter. Their next two games are against Riverside and St Francis that will be much more physical than anyone they've played yet. The majority of their kids should be playing junior varsity football not varsity ball. It literally is a safety concern at a certain point. St Francis and Riverside will get up big early then have their underclassmen finish the game out but in the roughly one quarter their starters do play it is a safety concern.

 

[SPbObRT]

they dug their own grave the administration and school board screwed the pooch on this one, look at the last 5-6 years, they should have seen this coming, no one's fault but their own.

 

[teachmehowtosnuggie]

I think we can all agree that a team forfeiting a game for injuries/low numbers is bad for football and forfeiting a season halfway in is unacceptable.

I think we’ve also heard time and time again about administrations being stubborn and unreasonable.

How about we just get tough and take a stand?

1) Everyone submit enrollments.

2) NSAA sets the cutoffs for the classes. I don’t think it is necessary to make them as mathematically equal as possible, we can come up with a solution for schedules. Use common sense and real life experience on setting the numbers. If that means there’s 25 schools in 6 man and 45 in D1, who cares. As long as we’re fielding competitive schools who won’t forfeit seasons we can work out schedules and playoffs.

2a) set a team minimum. This may be harsh but so is life. How many times has an 11 man school with 18 boys out ever been worth a crap? we set fairly arbitrary rules all the time, like an age minimum to be elected president. There’s no real reason for it other than someone at some point probably thought, “uhh that seems like a good age for someone to probably have attained reasonable maturity.” Same goes here, “uhh X amount of guys on a team seems like the right amount necessary to field a football team for a whole season.

3) Decide if you’re going to co-op. Because of #2, schools can know exactly where they’ll fall if they co-op. Will some some schools game the system and combine with a school just small enough to keep them in a class, maybe. And if football is that important to them, then so be it. Administrator and parents that would play that game are the type of people that will skirt the rules no matter what and they’ll get their comeuppance eventually.

4) Nobody is allowed to opt down. If you want to opt down you can go create a club league with other likeminded schools. I’m cool with schools opting up because generally from what I’ve seen over the years, you’re not gonna opt up unless you’re a solid program.

5) set the schedules for 1 year cycles.

6) Remember it’s just a game and life will go on. If you don’t want to see kids penalized because their parents and administrators are stubborn turds, then threaten to punish the stubborn turds by telling them if they can’t field a team or co-op with a school to make a team that meets these standards then you don’t get to have a team.

We can’t all have our cake and eat it too. Tough decisions have to be made and people just keep pushing them off. Force the hand. We will lose teams and kids will miss out on chances to play. But why should a team with 11 kids and forfeits the season wreck opportunities for schools who were supposed to play them?

*end random bedtime rant*

 

[nenebskers]

I think we can all agree that a team forfeiting a game for injuries/low numbers is bad for football and forfeiting a season halfway in is unacceptable.

I think we’ve also heard time and time again about administrations being stubborn and unreasonable.

How about we just get tough and take a stand?

1) Everyone submit enrollments.

2) NSAA sets the cutoffs for the classes. I don’t think it is necessary to make them as mathematically equal as possible, we can come up with a solution for schedules. Use common sense and real life experience on setting the numbers. If that means there’s 25 schools in 6 man and 45 in D1, who cares. As long as we’re fielding competitive schools who won’t forfeit seasons we can work out schedules and playoffs.

2a) set a team minimum. This may be harsh but so is life. How many times has an 11 man school with 18 boys out ever been worth a crap? we set fairly arbitrary rules all the time, like an age minimum to be elected president. There’s no real reason for it other than someone at some point probably thought, “uhh that seems like a good age for someone to probably have attained reasonable maturity.” Same goes here, “uhh X amount of guys on a team seems like the right amount necessary to field a football team for a whole season.

3) Decide if you’re going to co-op. Because of #2, schools can know exactly where they’ll fall if they co-op. Will some some schools game the system and combine with a school just small enough to keep them in a class, maybe. And if football is that important to them, then so be it. Administrator and parents that would play that game are the type of people that will skirt the rules no matter what and they’ll get their comeuppance eventually.

4) Nobody is allowed to opt down. If you want to opt down you can go create a club league with other likeminded schools. I’m cool with schools opting up because generally from what I’ve seen over the years, you’re not gonna opt up unless you’re a solid program.

5) set the schedules for 1 year cycles.

6) Remember it’s just a game and life will go on. If you don’t want to see kids penalized because their parents and administrators are stubborn turds, then threaten to punish the stubborn turds by telling them if they can’t field a team or co-op with a school to make a team that meets these standards then you don’t get to have a team.

We can’t all have our cake and eat it too. Tough decisions have to be made and people just keep pushing them off. Force the hand. We will lose teams and kids will miss out on chances to play. But why should a team with 11 kids and forfeits the season wreck opportunities for schools who were supposed to play them?

*end random bedtime rant*

Great points. Couple of other thoughts. I feel strongly that because of the number of classes we have, for all sports, schools are reluctant to coop. Everyone is so darn afraid of moving up a class. Make A 36 schools, B 36 schools, C the remaining 11 man schools, D the remaining 8 man schools, and the 6 man schools in a class or something similar. At minimum we should be able to eliminate D2. A large number of D2 schools would probably be better served in 6 man. The same goes for other sports as well, just no need for as many classes as we have. It often seems to be the end of the discussion when two schools are considering a coop.

Secondly, I dont know how, but there has to be a way to encourage coops.

I agree 100% on the one year scheduling cycle. Come on, if we can put a man on the moon we can set a new high school football schedule every year.

Lastly, great vocabulary word with comeuppance. I had to go to Google to find the definition of that one. It's only 9:20 am and I already learned something new!

 

[runningback43]

Honestly I'd like to see Nebraska go to a four class system in all sports. I like the idea of A at 36 teams and B at 36 teams. If there were only four classes then I believe you would see more co-oping. Nebraska doesn't have the population to have 6 classes, or in football 7 classes.

The other thing that needs to happen is that people in the community need to stop living in the past. I'm tired of hearing "we've always played 11 man football, no need to play 8 man".

 

[finch63]

One thing that I believe we are over looking is participation numbers. Regardless if you are in co-op or looking to co-op, you still need to look at the number of boys you will or could have out for football. I have been involved in a school that co-oped with another school as a teacher and coach. You are going to lose kids from both schools when this happens. We did lose kids from each school that year. A couple of years later kids starting to opt into other schools for whatever reason and now they are low on numbers with the co-op. They may have a boy enrollment that puts them into 11 man, but that does not guarantee they can still field an 11 man team for a season. I am not talking a competitive team just a team. Playing 11 man with with only 18 to 20 kids does not mean you won't have the same results that some of our schools are having now. We just went to 6 man this year. Looked at doing a co-op, but would have made us 11 man and looking at the number of kids each school would have had out, would have been difficult. Probably no j.v. and a lot of young kids trying to play varsity. Really nothing gained on either end. It is more than just saying you will co-op or not play. In parts of Nebraska you also have to look at travel to co-op with another school, something else that I have not seen mentioned. I have also read comments about only 4 classes. Class A , 11man, 8 man and 6 man. Again, looking at our current situation, had we co-oped and went 11 man and looking at the schools around us that are 11 man that we certainly would have been playing, you are once again looking at safety for your athletes. We would not have the number of upper classman and would be playing 9th and 10th graders against some very good varsity teams. Just my thoughts

 

[bruiser84]

I too like the idea of a 4 class system. Expanding A & B to 36 teams each will help the situation in the lower classes. Obviously asking some of the teams at the upper end of B to jump to A and C to jump to B will be unpopular with some. However, I believe it will be easier for a team with 400 Boy enrollment figure to field a team that is competitive with a team with a 900 Boy enrollment, or a 100 Boy enrollment to play up with a 300 enrollment, than it is for teams in a lower class with a 36 boy enrollment to play up against a team with an 89 enrollment. (which is what we have currently in C2). We also have to face the fact of the dwindling participation numbers in high school football nation wide. Whether because of concussions or just plain apathy, many kids are not encouraged to play football any more. It is a shame to go to some high school football games and see more boys on their I phones in the stands than on the field playing. And unfortunately if your son attends a school with low participation rates, he may miss out on the opportunity to play.

 

[nenebskers]

One thing that I believe we are over looking is participation numbers. Regardless if you are in co-op or looking to co-op, you still need to look at the number of boys you will or could have out for football. I have been involved in a school that co-oped with another school as a teacher and coach. You are going to lose kids from both schools when this happens. We did lose kids from each school that year. A couple of years later kids starting to opt into other schools for whatever reason and now they are low on numbers with the co-op. They may have a boy enrollment that puts them into 11 man, but that does not guarantee they can still field an 11 man team for a season. I am not talking a competitive team just a team. Playing 11 man with with only 18 to 20 kids does not mean you won't have the same results that some of our schools are having now. We just went to 6 man this year. Looked at doing a co-op, but would have made us 11 man and looking at the number of kids each school would have had out, would have been difficult. Probably no j.v. and a lot of young kids trying to play varsity. Really nothing gained on either end. It is more than just saying you will co-op or not play. In parts of Nebraska you also have to look at travel to co-op with another school, something else that I have not seen mentioned. I have also read comments about only 4 classes. Class A , 11man, 8 man and 6 man. Again, looking at our current situation, had we co-oped and went 11 man and looking at the schools around us that are 11 man that we certainly would have been playing, you are once again looking at safety for your athletes. We would not have the number of upper classman and would be playing 9th and 10th graders against some very good varsity teams. Just my thoughts

More than anything what most of us have in issue with, in my opinion, is the lack of proactiveness. Injuries happen, kids move, etc...that's life, but dont be caught off guard when there are only 11 kids on the team. If your relying on those low of numbers to complete an eight game schedule shame on you. Look, fight, and scrap for an alternative. If your looking to coop be prepared to bend over backwards to make it work; giving up all home games, traveling for all practices, etc...your at the disadvantage, dont expect for the terms to be mutually even! If your not willing to do that then play 6 man.

I agree 100% with your statement about particiapation numbers. If participation numbers are low, why? Dont just blame the kids. They are who they are because of their parents more so than any friend peer group. What does your junior high program look like? What does your youth program look like? Do you have any form of an actual "program"? Are you building excitement in the youth to be a part of this program? Or do you have a new high school coach every other year and no parents stepping up to help build a program? Do you have a "program" or a new "team" each year with no form of continuity from the last year. Basically what I'm saying is that if your a senior your success or lack there of didnt start August 1st of this year, it started back 6, 8, or 10 years ago. Schools, if your not proactive you'll be left in the dust!

 

[clktwr]

I understand the issue that many have. Here are some of my thoughts.

Participation is the issue in many of the schools. It is not enrollment, it is that football is losing popularity in general, and their students simply do not want to play.

Many times the school officials actually do have foresight, and see what direction the participation numbers are headed. This in and of itself doesn't help. Often times it is the community members or school boards that don't want to co-op, and sometimes the decision makers just give up the battle. Honestly, I don't blame them.

Low participation (generally speaking) creates even lower participation. Underclassmen playing in games they have no business playing in causes injuries, which causes fear in younger kids watching from the stands, which causes even lower participation numbers, and on and on and on. Junior Varsity football is the key. If your school doesn't have enough players to participate in a full JV schedule, your clock is ticking. It will be a short matter of time before your program is in trouble.

Opting down is an excellent option that I believe is in the best interest of the students.

Coaches (when playing teams that clearly have participation issues) need to recognize and respect the situation that their opponent is in. They need to call the type of game that will minimize risk to their opponent no matter how little time their playoff caliber starters get. Let's be honest here, these starters probably get more of a challenge in practice than they do in these games. Don't make your opponents problems worse. I realize that a coach can't be responsible for both teams, but they can absolutely call the type of game that minimizes risk.

These problems are going to get worse, not better. Sad to say, but participation numbers are just down in everything.

 

[bruiser84]

I understand the issue that many have. Here are some of my thoughts.

Participation is the issue in many of the schools. It is not enrollment, it is that football is losing popularity in general, and their students simply do not want to play.

Many times the school officials actually do have foresight, and see what direction the participation numbers are headed. This in and of itself doesn't help. Often times it is the community members or school boards that don't want to co-op, and sometimes the decision makers just give up the battle. Honestly, I don't blame them.

Low participation (generally speaking) creates even lower participation. Underclassmen playing in games they have no business playing in causes injuries, which causes fear in younger kids watching from the stands, which causes even lower participation numbers, and on and on and on. Junior Varsity football is the key. If your school doesn't have enough players to participate in a full JV schedule, your clock is ticking. It will be a short matter of time before your program is in trouble.

Opting down is an excellent option that I believe is in the best interest of the students.

Coaches (when playing teams that clearly have participation issues) need to recognize and respect the situation that their opponent is in. They need to call the type of game that will minimize risk to their opponent no matter how little time their playoff caliber starters get. Let's be honest here, these starters probably get more of a challenge in practice than they do in these games. Don't make your opponents problems worse. I realize that a coach can't be responsible for both teams, but they can absolutely call the type of game that minimizes risk.

These problems are going to get worse, not better. Sad to say, but participation numbers are just down in everything.

I agree with your premise that coaches have a responsibility in this issue. We have all seen coaches that have had their noses rubbed in it one year, will pay back that rival coach another year. Also, I do not like most freshman playing varsity. There are some that are quite capable but most simply are not. Coaches have a responsibility to protect those kids at the cost of a win /loss record. And I think we must also look at some of the Jr football program coaches' responsibilities. I know I have seen a small 4th or 5th grader get turned off by football in his early years, only to have a growth spurt and be one of those kids sitting in the stands in high school when he is 6' and 180 lbs with no desire to ever again be humiliated on the football field. Or the kid who is just plain tired of football after 6 years, so he quits as a junior when it is finally his time to shine. Yes some kids love the game, getting them out early and often is great. But is that junior league championship being paid for at the expense of the varsity high school participation? Sadly, in some cases yes.

 

[runningback43]

Another problem I see is that kids now days want that instant gratification. Some kids don't go out after their freshman or sophomore season because they stood on the sidelines on Friday night and don't go out when they are juniors and seniors. It's getting harder and harder to find players that are willing to put in the time and effort to be above average high school football players when they are juniors and seniors.

 

[Coach Hix]

Bruiser hit the head on the nail. I would be curious to know how Randolph's enrollment looks in the younger classes.

Randolph presently has 99 students in 7-12 and 150 in K-6.

 

[bruiser84]

Wow, a 50% increase in 6 years. That is impressive. Is there an especially small class or two in high school right now or is it evenly spread out over the 6 classes? I foresee a bump back into C-2 (or whatever the classification will be at that time.)

 

[nenebskers]

Wow, a 50% increase in 6 years. That is impressive. Is there an especially small class or two in high school right now or is it evenly spread out over the 6 classes? I foresee a bump back into C-2 (or whatever the classification will be at that time.)

They'll still be well under C2 limits. Keep in mind K-6 is 7 grades not 6. 150 gives them an average of just over 21 per class or a three year enrollment of 64 (boys and girls combined). Theyll solidly be in D1 but well short of C2.

 

[bruiser84]

I stand corrected. But still a 50% jump in 6 years points to better things to come, as far as danger of losing programs,

 

[BigBallerRed]

Another problem I see is that kids now days want that instant gratification. Some kids don't go out after their freshman or sophomore season because they stood on the sidelines on Friday night and don't go out when they are juniors and seniors. It's getting harder and harder to find players that are willing to put in the time and effort to be above average high school football players when they are juniors and seniors.

This right here is literally happening all the time right here in NE HS sports. See it all the time. If we cant play now... Not worth it. You can even explain it and tell them that its a process and they don't care or understand any of that. Its all about play now or Im out. Some even play but if they arent the focal point of the defense or offense, that is enough for them to hang it up. Attitudes are so different then they were 20 years ago.

 

[finch63]

A lot of this if I can't play now or I won't or if I can't start I won't play regardless of age or class is instilled by parents and everyone deserves a ribbon attitude. We even see this at the college level. If I am not the starter I will leave, look at the Nebraska QB situation.