What are everyone's thoughts on a potential reclassification that helps to deal with issues of lower participation numbers mixed with enrollment numbers at our smaller schools with 120 or less students. I think a structure of A,B,C1,C2, a 9man and 6 man class make sense. It also makes sense to keep teams from having to play schools with triple the enrollment. I like the idea of using an 11 man field for playing 9 man to give opportunities for smaller schools to safely field a team that can compete without large facility changes.
Potential Classification Changes
- Thread starter hdendzonecam
- Start date
https://nsaahome.org/textfile/fbl/fbclass.pdf
Nothing will change this year I don't believe. It'll be in 2018. (I'm using the link above.)
I'd love to see Class A be 24 teams. Pretty much every school under 1,000 enrollment. That would put Fremont, Norfolk, Pius X and North Platte in Class B. In all sports I think it would benefit them.
Have B1 and B2. Take those top four and have B1 be 32. (So the bottom four of Class B would be the top of B2. That would be Aurora, Platteview, Omaha Gross and Holdrege.)
B2 can be 32 teams. Take those top four and add them to the top 28 in C1. (The remaining C1 schools would go down to the new C1. Bishop Neumann, Pierce, Conestoga, Ord, David City, North Bend Central, Chase County, Louisville, Mitchell, Aquinas, GICC, Lincoln Christian, Madison, Southern/Lewiston, Norfolk Catholic.)
Have a new C1 would add the above 15 teams and take the top 33 from the current C2 to make a 48 team class. (Which would put the lowest school at 100 kids.)
The new C2 would could be a 9 man class that adds the remaining 11 schools to the top of the current D1 and that makes a 48 team class. (Which puts the lowest enrollment at 70 kids.
Then you have Class D1 with enrollments under 70 to 50 that play 8 man football. (Would be like a 50 team class.)
The new Class D2 would have all enrollments under 50 play 6 man football. Which would be like 40 teams have the NSAA sanction it.
I really like the amount of thought and research that you put into this. There are a lot of things in here that make sense.
I believe that toward the bottom of the "proposed" C1 are a whole bunch of teams that would be in on the Opt Up and Opt Down situation. These are the teams that are already having trouble. As long as everyone involved understands that there will still be schools that will need or want to jump around, I like it.
That sounds great, right now the six man coaches association is a doing a good job running their season. You'd have to convince them that after getting dropped by the NSAA that welcoming them back would be in their best interest. Love the 9 man football and the breakup of the classes. How many teams would be playoff teams?
I'd say:
A: 24 teams, 16 in playoffs
B1: 32 teams, 16 in playoffs
B2: 32 teams, 16 in playoffs
C1: 48 teams, 24 in playoffs
C2: 48 teams, 24 in playoffs
D1: 50 teams, 24 in playoffs
D2: 40 teams, 24 in playoffs
Take away the huge discrepancy in playoff points that rewards beating bad teams in relation to losing to good teams.
WIN vs D1: 50 vs D2: 47 vs D3: 44 vs D4:41
LOSS vs D1: 36 vs D2: 33 vs D3: 30 vs D4: 27
That Loss row should be the same as basketball 39,36,33,30. Lets not reward weak schedules and penalize teams that play tough competition.
Easy peezy. 24 teams bracket rewards the top 4 seeds for a great season It would take an extra week, but that's okay. Sure some teams with weaker records get in, but everyone who has a legit team gets a shot at the title, similar to basketball. No one would be left out taking the top half of the class for postseason play.
Even though I'm a big proponent of replacing 8man with 9man completely, northeastnebraska needs to bend the ears of some folks at the NSAA, that is an awesome setup!
I'd say:
A: 24 teams, 16 in playoffs
B1: 32 teams, 16 in playoffs
B2: 32 teams, 16 in playoffs
C1: 48 teams, 24 in playoffs
C2: 48 teams, 24 in playoffs
D1: 50 teams, 24 in playoffs
D2: 40 teams, 24 in playoffs
Take away the huge discrepancy in playoff points that rewards beating bad teams in relation to losing to good teams.
WIN vs D1: 50 vs D2: 47 vs D3: 44 vs D4:41
LOSS vs D1: 36 vs D2: 33 vs D3: 30 vs D4: 27
That Loss row should be the same as basketball 39,36,33,30. Lets not reward weak schedules and penalize teams that play tough competition.
Easy peezy. 24 teams bracket rewards the top 4 seeds for a great season It would take an extra week, but that's okay. Sure some teams with weaker records get in, but everyone who has a legit team gets a shot at the title, similar to basketball. No one would be left out taking the top half of the class for postseason play.
Even though I'm a big proponent of replacing 8man with 9man completely, northeastnebraska needs to bend the ears of some folks at the NSAA, that is an awesome setup!
"That Loss row should be the same as basketball 39,36,33,30. Lets not reward weak schedules and penalize teams that play tough competition. "
I would agree with this if the NSAA kept their hands out of the scheduling process. That isn't the case. A team literally has 0 control over who they play. Yes, you turn in your request list, but you are lucky to get 2 of the 5 games you turn in.
I would agree with this if the NSAA kept their hands out of the scheduling process. That isn't the case. A team literally has 0 control over who they play. Yes, you turn in your request list, but you are lucky to get 2 of the 5 games you turn in.
I think this is exactly the wrong way to go. The playoffs are too watered down in the smaller classes now. All team sports should move to 4 classes(A, B, C, D) and individual sports should go to 3 classes. The small schools should start consolidating. Look at D1, this is a down year in this class. There will be a team in that class that is going to win state and will not be as good as the top 5 teams from previous years. We do not have the population to support a 7 class system.
I agree. I would be totally fine having one Class D no doubt.
9 man will never fly in Nebraska... too much tradition and history with 8 man. that said I'd rather see 9 man, it's more like 11 man. take out the tackles and play football. simple.
I agree. I am not sure that the answer is to make even more classes. Enrollment is certainly an issue in terms of leveling the playing field when it comes to competition. However, participation is likely more important than enrollment. I don't believe that splitting out into more classes will make a difference.
Again, I do respect the thought that went into this idea.
Appreciate your thought and time, but your B1/B2 idea makes the largest enrollment difference in Nebraska worse. The reason the NSAA is even talking is class B. You have Elk South at 886 and Holdrege at 283 . With your idea, the top of B1 would be Fremont at 1005 and bottom is Roncalli at 306 (Sidney & York at 309, smallest public schools). Your idea would increase the gap by 96 students (45ish boys).
Just make it A, B, C, D...elevate the largest four B's to make class A 32. Leave B alone at 28 and leave everything else alone. Current ratio is 1:3.1, your's makes it 1:3.3.
Just make it A, B, C, D...elevate the largest four B's to make class A 32. Leave B alone at 28 and leave everything else alone. Current ratio is 1:3.1, your's makes it 1:3.3.
Maybe Nebraska needs to join with South Dakota on their athletics and make it a dual state athletic association. Just want to know what peoples thoughts are? Would this work? It would give the association more teams to possible even out the classes.
Neat idea, but I fear the geographical challenges would be too great to overcome.
Agree but I think you could divide them up some how into regions somehow. Heck some teams out west are traveling what 4 hours to play maybe more?
Yea I agree but only if you quit giving teams bonus points for playing a school the next classification above. That's bogus getting winning points for a loss. I don't think those games should be scheduled anyway. I know travel is the issue but its not during the playoffs and schools out west already 2+ hours every away game anyway. It wouldn't hurt a Broken Bow to play a regular season game vs Chadron. IMO
All cross-class games and out of state games should be done away with until the NSAA gets all of the teams 9 games. Kearney Catholic wanted 9 games this year and had to drive to Garden Plain, Kansas to find the 9th game because the NSAA is completely inept. Meanwhile 3/4 of the western part of the state is playing teams from Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, etc...
I love this discussion! Wish we would see more stuff like this on the board!
Anyway, my two cents is that you're never going to get the perfect ratio between enrollments--especially at the Class B level. I remember when Scottsbluff moved down to B and we complained that they were 3+ times bigger than us. But the larger A schools were 3+ times larger than Scottsbluff!
I do agree that with co-ops and consolidations that fewer classes is the way to go. I loved it when Class B hoops was eight, 8-team districts. 64 schools, no wild cards, only district champs advance. Not a perfect system by any means, but I think players and coaches realized that "the state championships" started with the district tournament, not just when teams got to Lincoln.
Football...I've never seen a 9-man game, but it does intrigue me. But I don't think it will happen in my lifetime! However, the 8-man cut off number HAS to rise! Give schools a chance to "play up" if they want, but wouldn't we all love to see a Neligh-Oakdale vs. GACC ball game?
In addition, we have 11 schools that are ineligible for the 8-man playoffs, meaning we have 42 schools "fighting" for 32 playoff spots. Seems to water things down even more, doesn't it?
Anyway, my two cents is that you're never going to get the perfect ratio between enrollments--especially at the Class B level. I remember when Scottsbluff moved down to B and we complained that they were 3+ times bigger than us. But the larger A schools were 3+ times larger than Scottsbluff!
I do agree that with co-ops and consolidations that fewer classes is the way to go. I loved it when Class B hoops was eight, 8-team districts. 64 schools, no wild cards, only district champs advance. Not a perfect system by any means, but I think players and coaches realized that "the state championships" started with the district tournament, not just when teams got to Lincoln.
Football...I've never seen a 9-man game, but it does intrigue me. But I don't think it will happen in my lifetime! However, the 8-man cut off number HAS to rise! Give schools a chance to "play up" if they want, but wouldn't we all love to see a Neligh-Oakdale vs. GACC ball game?
In addition, we have 11 schools that are ineligible for the 8-man playoffs, meaning we have 42 schools "fighting" for 32 playoff spots. Seems to water things down even more, doesn't it?
The fact that the NSAA schedules teams is EXACTLY why the loss row should be the same as basketball. Teams have no control over their schedules, so when they get a tough schedule, they are fighting two fronts, the points system and the opponents. By rewarding teams with a weak schedule, the NSAA is influencing the playoff picture unfairly. When they went to a 9 game schedule, everyone assumed the 4 division setup from basketball would be the same for football. This new points system was slipped in without anyone knowing. It should be the same as basketball. Why on earth wouldn't it be the same? Don't penalize tough schedules you didn't even get a chance to make.
I agree, but you can't penalize a weak schedule that you didn't even get a chance to make either. The same logic you applied goes the other way.
I think that would be a great idea to look into. Teams would still play those closest to it first. The finals in the Dakota Dome would be a GREAT venue for it and and Extreme SE South Dakota wouldn't add anything to SoDak travel for finals and wouldn't add a lot to Nebraska travel. But, that would mean 1 executive and half the board would be out of power, prestige, authority, etc And the last 30 years have shown clearly that no bureaucrat or "government" entity would EVER willingly give up their place for the greater good. I think your idea has incredible merit, but...
Again I agree. You could do a 4 way quadrant, much like the lower classes do East/West. Somebody used to do a travel thing for each game, didn't they? That would be fun to see.
Absolutely, I agree it should be equitable both ways. I think the way that happens is the loss to a top team should not be so far apart from a win over a bottom division team. That keeps things on a more even keel between tough schedules and weak schedules. Beating a Div 4 team should be only a 41 pt win and losing to a Div 1 team should be a 39 pt loss. That keeps things equitable for both types of schedules. A team with a lot of lower division opponents should have to beat them to have a good point total and a team with a lot of Div 1 opponents should have to win a couple of those tough games to prove theirs. You can't lose to bad teams, but you shouldn't be able to skate by with a weak schedule either.