I believe all schools must certify their enrollment by the end of this month for next years beds including whether they plan on playing 8 man or 11 man football next fall. Just curious as to if anyone has heard of any A schools going up or going down or 8 man schools that must come up as I believe the cutoff is 120 maybe 118. Quite a few solid A schools right now fall below that so it will be interesting to see what happens.
What A schools are going 8 man next year???
- Thread starter troutstamp1
- Start date
I have looked at BEDS most of the schools that qualify below 120 have had recent success and rather good numbers, the interesting part is that there are about 5 schools who are currently 8 man that will be above the 120 number, and the state said that there would not be any waivers for any school above 120 I wonder if they will stick to that?
Piggybacking off your question, what schools are likely to go up to Class 1A and are there any 1A schools likely to drop?
I believe the cutoff from Class A to Class 1A was a BEDS number of around 156 last cycle.
I was told by a friend that Postville will be in the 170's, so they are almost a guarantee to go up to 1A.
I believe the cutoff from Class A to Class 1A was a BEDS number of around 156 last cycle.
I was told by a friend that Postville will be in the 170's, so they are almost a guarantee to go up to 1A.
I believe Hudson and Durant will go back up to 1A. Be curious to see if Newman and Lynville Sully stay at 105 and 106 on enrollments and if so what they decide to do. Will definitely be some changes.
If my math is correct Saint Albert will drop below the cutoff line but petition to stay in class A
Iowa Valley to A. Cardinal to 1A. Regina is at 163 so could possibly see a drop to A for them. New London is exactly at 120, so if they go up by one person they will be forced back into A where they belong.
Why would SA petition to stay in Class A?
If a school's enrollment drops, they arent obligated to play 8 man, but are given the choice to do so. No petition needed.
QUOTE="falconfanx3, post: 173530, member: 5752"]If my math is correct Saint Albert will drop below the cutoff line but petition to stay in class A[/QUOTE]
If a school's enrollment drops, they arent obligated to play 8 man, but are given the choice to do so. No petition needed.
QUOTE="falconfanx3, post: 173530, member: 5752"]If my math is correct Saint Albert will drop below the cutoff line but petition to stay in class A[/QUOTE]
So is it finally the year Sidney comes up to 11 man? Lol..... sure seems like they have been above the 120 forever. Last year was 154 this year 131. How have they got to stay down in 8 man so long anyone know?
Madrid and Mount Ayr look like close to a lock at moving down and then a bunch of just where the line is. I see Pekin and a few other right around it (the class 1a line)
[/QUOTE]
An enrollment automatically puts you in that specific class. for this case 8 man. In order to play A they simply just have to put out a 'petition' to the state. which is a letter stating they'd like to stay class A.
An enrollment automatically puts you in that specific class. for this case 8 man. In order to play A they simply just have to put out a 'petition' to the state. which is a letter stating they'd like to stay class A.[/QUOTE]
Like every other school that falls below the 8-man threshold (120 this coming cycle) they have to declare their intent to play 11-man or 8-man.
Will be interesting to see what Lynnville-Sully does. Enrollment at just above 100, but a very proud school with a solid history. At 0-7 this year it would be hard to see them in A next year unless they feel like they got talent coming up
I’d assume they play 11 man. I’m pretty sure they have been under the breaker line for 8 man for awhile now
What I saw was was 18-19 they were 117 and 19-20 108 so was below last 2 seasons no?
Lynnville-Sully shouldn't go to 8 man. Why? They still have very good numbers.
Per Quikstats, here is where they are per class this year.
SR - 8
Jr - 12
SO - 8
FR - 15
Those make me think LS will be back next year. Maybe not a playoff team, but not worthy of dropping to 8 man.
Per Quikstats, here is where they are per class this year.
SR - 8
Jr - 12
SO - 8
FR - 15
Those make me think LS will be back next year. Maybe not a playoff team, but not worthy of dropping to 8 man.
Those are very good numbers for Class A team. There are lots of Class A programs that would love to have over 40 players. No need to go 8 man with that many kids
I agree they shouldn’t go 8 man I was just responding to it being said they are above the breaker line to be 8 man. Definitely a team that should stay up even if below the line as they hve been doing for a few years
Yeah with 12 juniors and 15 freshman I’m sure they won’t drop, just made a point to say it because I didn’t realize how low they actually were
I guess what a lot of schools will have to look at is not just what is in the HS 9-11 enrollment wise but more important what is coming up numbers wise in the MS or even younger that will determine the future of their program. The other thing teams will look at is travel and how many other teams in their area are going 8 man or staying 11 man and who can we compete with not only in HS but also MS competition. Numbers might be great for one year but maybe small class sizes coming up will have a factor as to what they do. The bottom line is teams want to be competitive and yes some will have a hard time dropping to 8 man thinking its not as good but at the end of the day they want to win and that may be the way to go. It will be interesting to say the least as schools have to certify this month for next years beds .
Garrigan from what I understand will not be going to 8 man... that could change but dont think it will happen.
As long as Parkinson is at Lynnville-Sully they will never go 8-man.
Any given team has to do what they have to do. However 8 man FB is valid, GOOD FB in Iron Doc's opinion. Nothing "2nd rate" about it. Iron Doc was on staff the last years of CWL's existence. They had some QUALITY 8 man teams. The games were COOL, like Kurt Warner Arenaball days!!!
Not sure if that is true, granted I am looking at BEDS from last year and people move in and out, but next year BGM would be over 120 and the next cycle and would be for the next 4 cycles.
Also they consistently have 40 kids out for football, I just don't see it, but I could be wrong.
Also they consistently have 40 kids out for football, I just don't see it, but I could be wrong.
It a 2 year cycle not 4 years of grades 9-11. Any team now with an enrollment of above 120 must play 11 man football where before they had a waiver if you projected to fall below that in year 2 you could play 8 man but that waiver no longer exists. What I hope doesnt happen is class A having way more teams than the rest as the state has already put out that class 4A will have 41 teams and 3A - 1A will have 54 teams and the rest above 120 will be in class A. Class A could again have well over 60 teams and if they stick to the 16 team playoff format how is that fair to have more teams but still only get the same amount of qualifiers. I know the 16 team playoff thing is definatley not set in stone yet as their is a huge push not only by the coaches association but the ADs association to increase that number and make it happen as soon as next year.
32 teams is too many for the playoffs in my opinion. If anything, you implement a play-in game (sub-state) that includes the top 32 RPI teams and the winners of each game are in the playoffs. But 16 teams is a good playoff number. A play in game would allow for teams from a tougher district a chance to get in the playoff.
I guess that's where we will agree to disagree on 16 teams. It kills me when people make football totally different than any other sport for post season. I never hear anyone say that 5-23 basketball or baseball team shouldn't be in the postseason or that wrestler that's 7 - 34 shouldn't be allowed to participate at sectionals on down the line for every other sport. Football you already have to be perfect because just 1 or 2 loses and you could be knocked out of the postseason because every single game counts as you have no room for error like all other sports. The people that are against the 32 always forget we have never had a 32 team field with the best 32 teams only a 32 team field that automatically took 4 teams from each district and yes that was a mistake. When you take the district champions only then the rest at large you get the best teams and helps districts that may be loaded compared to others. When the coaches and AD association sent out a survey to all coaches and schools from 4A on down they got 98% response from the schools witch was huge in itself. Out of that survey 93% of the schools wanted to go back to 32 teams and force the state to do so. Do I think 4A should have 32 teams, no because they only have 41 total but who says every class has to be the same. I think 4A should stick to the 16 teams and the rest 32.
I agree Doc it is good football options for many schools, I just hate when schools with 40+ kids out are playing 8 man, that is not why it was brought back
The problem with 32 teams is that one of several things has to happen:
There would be a 5th playoff game with 32 teams (currently 4 games) so either:
A. the season has to start earlier in August
B. the season would go 1 week longer (into Thanksgiving)
C. teams would only play an 8 game reg season schedule
D. go back to playing 5 games in 4 weeks (including Wed & Mon night playoff games)
I'm personally not a fan of any of these so I'd like to see it stay at 16 schools. The argument when we had 32 teams was that teams that were 3-6 and 4-5 were making the playoffs and paired up against a 9-0 or 8-1 team. I have no data on how many of those #4 seeds won against the #1's, but I'd bet that 99+% of the time the #4 teams got smashed. Also many coaches didn't like subjecting their players to 5 games in 4 weeks, more injuries and that doesn't make for good football. Where is this data about 93% of coaches wanting to go back to 32 teams, not calling you a liar I've just never seen it and I try to stay caught up on prep sports.
Last edited:
There were a lot of bad 1 vs 4 games, but there were also a few #4 seeds that made the finals, and probably about 5 #4 teams a year that won the first round. I think the real benefit was all of the #3s from stronger districts that beat #2s. Personally I would go back to a more condensed schedule maybe try to have the title games the Tuesday and Wednesday before Thanksgiving to spread it out, I know a few states that do this. Having been a coach on a state title team that played 5 playoff games this way, I will tell you that it isn't the big deal that so many made it out to be, if coaches are smart about it.
The survey was sent out at the end of last season knowing this was the last year before the rotation. Since I'm not tec savvy and a cut and paste guy here is the results from the survey. This was in the IFCA winter newsletter.
4A 40 of the 42 schools responded, 30 favor 24 teams 10 favor 16 teams
3A thru 8man 281 schools responded
3A 88% favor 32 teams
2A 85% favor 32 teams
1A 90% favor 32 teams
A 90% favor 32 teams
8M 88% favor 32 teams
The proposal is not to go back to the wed - Monday format but yet keep it how it is with all games on Friday nights.They would either do one of 2 things, everyone starts the season week 0 or we play an 8 game sched. Not sure why people would be opposed to starting 1 week earlier since a lot of teams play a scrimmage anyway on week 0. Also for those worried about records keep in mind right now their are about 4 or so teams in various classes who will probably win their district at 5-4 but yet were worried about that same team getting pummeled by a 1 seed. My 93% i stated earlier was based on memory until I went back and found the newsletter where it is between 85 and 91% for 32 teams. But most impressive was the 98% of all the schools responded.
I hope the state never considers the condensed weeks again.
To steal from a post I made earlier today - I'm absolutely a supporter of 32 playoff teams. I think there are enough variables in high school football that make it very valuable. If you truly have a "strong" district, it gives the 3 & 4 seeds an opportunity to prove it on the field. If you're a *great* 1 seed, you should be able to handle any 4 seed that can be thrown at you, so it gives you a quasi-bye week to "reward" you for a great regular season. If you had injuries that cost you a couple of close games or you are the type of team that improves through the year, you have a chance to prove on the field by upsetting a higher seeded team.
I haven't given it much critical thought, but what if we accommodated the 32 team field by making 16 districts of 4 teams each, then taking the top 2 from each district, and scheduling 4-5 non district games?
I think it would allow for a lot more of those lost conference/regional rivalries that get lost due to constantly changing districts & classifications. I would imagine it would allow for more logical regional districts, and if for some reason you have a rival (regional or not) that's not in your district, you can schedule them with one of your 5 non-district games.
It would provide more flexibility in non district scheduling for these smaller schools where you see more forfeits, especially if you only scheduled 4 non-district games. If school XYZ decides to forfeit due to low numbers or cancel their season in year 2, you have a better chance of finding another team with a bye that week to schedule them.
I strongly dislike the RPI system. I think allowing more non district games & not including them in the playoff calculations would help bring back some of the rivalry spirit that we've lost with district football.
If a Class A team wants to play 4 other Class A teams because that's what makes sense geographically, or that's their historic rivals, more power to them. If a historically 1A school drops to A, then they could continue playing those old rivals. If you want a challenging schedule, play up a couple of classes.
Giving the teams the opportunity to customize their schedule more (whether your want tune-ups/cupcakes or challenges or a combination) would allow programs to get a schedule that fits their team.
Want to rebuild? Maybe schedule easier schools. Want to ramp up? Maybe schedule progressively more difficult schools. Want to hit the ground running? Go try to schedule 4 3A teams or something. Whatever you want to accomplish with your program, for your kids & your community. If that means historically bad teams schedule games each other to be mode competitive & to give them a taste of winning, great. If that means put them through the grinder because you want to be battle tested for the playoffs, also great.
The more i think about it, the more I think it makes way more sense than the current structure.
Why would it not be treated different? At every level football is treated different. Look at college, 4 teams make the playoffs and 68 make it in basketball and in college football you lose and that’s it where at in college basketball u win you conference tourney you can make the tourney. So why change football now? Seems like no matter the level it’s harder to make the playoffs or postseason in football than other sports. 16 is just fine and I’m saying that coming from a team that would make the top 32 literally every season. You take the exclusiveness of making the playoffs out. Before long it will not be a big deal making state If you keep watering down the accomplishment of it
What about when a 1 seed gets pointless injuries playing in a game against a 3-6 4 seed and costs them a deep run in the playoffs? Nothing said about that. Also like said previously when you let 32 teams in it will water down the accomplishment of even making the playoffs. Soon won’t even matter to kids making that a goal.
Similar threads
