2025 Minnesota High School Football Thread

Donate To GopherHole


MaxyJR1 said:
View attachment 39538

From the League website for the next two years. I believe this is the goal and if teams petition up or down they may not meet the required number.

They can't bump up a team due to teams option down but can move a team down if a team options up would seem to be the theory.

Coon Rapids optioned up to 6A knocking Apple Valley down.
Guessing 3 5A schools optioned down to 4A. Austin, North St. Paul, and possibly a MPLS or ST. Paul school.
Click to expand...
You mean five opted down, to get from 48 to 43?

The enrollments are here, but naturally are not sorted in order: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default...lments-by-alpha_2025-2026-and-2026-2027_0.pdf

If I was less lazy I'm sure the numbers could be extracted and sorted by any number of programs, but alas I am too lazy.
 

The landmine teams are Moorhead and Edina. Forest Lake is great against the run and the only teams to pass much were East Ridge and Mounds View and both had a lot of success. East Ridge didn’t have the kids to matchup athletically with FL but Mounds View does. 6’8” Mason West with a cannon arm will be a tough out and I am sure they are hoping to see Farmington round 2.
 



I find it interesting that the MSHSL isn't trying to get the number teams per section in the lower classes more equal. Looking at both 9p and class A section tournaments there are several teams that have byes as the 2 seed in a section and others that the #1 seed has to play. Now I understand that an 8 vs a 1 is not a game that is usually close. But you are opening up a 1 seed to injury in one section while giving 2 teams a break in al the next.

The teams with no bye have 4 games in 15 days that get to round 2, while teams with the bye only have had a 10 day break. That's a huge difference come state tournament time when some teams have had rest and others haven't but could have due to being a #1 seed just because the state decided your section has 8 and the next has 6
 

Ranger692 said:
I find it interesting that the MSHSL isn't trying to get the number teams per section in the lower classes more equal. Looking at both 9p and class A section tournaments there are several teams that have byes as the 2 seed in a section and others that the #1 seed has to play. Now I understand that an 8 vs a 1 is not a game that is usually close. But you are opening up a 1 seed to injury in one section while giving 2 teams a break in al the next.

The teams with no bye have 4 games in 15 days that get to round 2, while teams with the bye only have had a 10 day break. That's a huge difference come state tournament time when some teams have had rest and others haven't but could have due to being a #1 seed just because the state decided your section has 8 and the next has 6
Click to expand...
I'd like the whole everyone makes it thing to be killed off.

Can do the top team from every section, so you get your statewide participation, then the next 4 or 8 are based on ranking, coaches vote, computer formula, whatever.

With an everyone in bracket, every team in the state in except one in each class is guaranteed to lose their final game of the year.
 

GopherGrit said:
I'd like the whole everyone makes it thing to be killed off.

Can do the top team from every section, so you get your statewide participation, then the next 4 or 8 are based on ranking, coaches vote, computer formula, whatever.

With an everyone in bracket, every team in the state in except one in each class is guaranteed to lose their final game of the year.
Click to expand...
Sections have the option to do that but nobody has

32 teams making the playoff per class and modeling it on the 6a tourney would be sweet.
 

Some sections have started to let the 7-8 seeds opt out and play a friendly to end the season.
 



Some guy said:
Sections have the option to do that but nobody has

32 teams making the playoff per class and modeling it on the 6a tourney would be sweet.
Click to expand...
I was saying just 12 or 16 bracket per class and that's it (ie. after regular season games, just skip to a 12 or 16 bracket).

But your thing is probably more realistic, if it was ever going to happen. Much smaller step
 

I can kind of understand this. For example, I watched my team play Montevideo this year, and I’m sure some of those kids would rather play their last game versus a team they might be able to compete with vs getting blown the eff out against the top team in their section. I mean heck, my last year we weren’t good, and I know I would have rather played a team on our level to end the year rather than traveling to Becker or Hutchinson about ten years ago and playing them in the first round of the playoffs.

I think top 32 could be good, have a 6x6 or 8x4 setup so that it’s still largely regional, but figure out the section after the season based on who actually qualified for the post season.
 

Ven said:
I can kind of understand this. For example, I watched my team play Montevideo this year, and I’m sure some of those kids would rather play their last game versus a team they might be able to compete with vs getting blown the eff out against the top team in their section. I mean heck, my last year we weren’t good, and I know I would have rather played a team on our level to end the year rather than traveling to Becker or Hutchinson about ten years ago and playing them in the first round of the playoffs.

I think top 32 could be good, have a 6x6 or 8x4 setup so that it’s still largely regional, but figure out the section after the season based on who actually qualified for the post season.
Click to expand...
Seed section 1-4
1 vs 4
2 vs 3

Two winners enter a pre seeded 16 team tourney
North 4 sections on half the bracket South 4 sections in other half

So it’s still somewhat geographic
 

GopherGrit said:
You mean five opted down, to get from 48 to 43?

The enrollments are here, but naturally are not sorted in order: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default...lments-by-alpha_2025-2026-and-2026-2027_0.pdf

If I was less lazy I'm sure the numbers could be extracted and sorted by any number of programs, but alas I am too lazy.
Click to expand...
This is what you are looking for.

 



Ranger692 said:
I

???
They are playing down during both regular season and playoffs

Pillager should be a AAA team, they are in class AA

Last year they should have been in AAA and they were in AA but they played almost an entire class A schedule They went 7-1 last year.

All I was saying is the MSHSL doesn't seem to care if you are good or bad to opt down.
Click to expand...
Pillager's adjusted enrollment is 322.
Here's who they played with their enrollments.


Park Rapids 350
Staples Motley 262
Hawley 259
Perham 473
DGF 409
Barnesville 232
Thief River Falls 453
Warroad 268

So they played four bigger schools, and four smaller schools. What seems to be the gripe here?
It does seem odd that they play all these schools that are a considerable distance north of them.
Sauk Center, Aitkin, and St. Cloud Cathedral seem like they would be closer, and are of similar size.

Looking at the playoff brackets, Pillager seems to be right on the line between AA and AAA.
The next largest school is Morris 324. They play AAA. The next one below is Luverne 317. They also do play AAA. But go down to the next school, Roseau 314 plays AA, Norwood-YA 313 plays AA, then Redwood Valley 310 and Holdingford 308, both play AA. This really doesn't seem as big a travesty as you seem to think. Unless there's some sort of personal vendetta or because they're good.

Pillager appears to be the largest AA school, and the slightly larger Luverne is the smallest in AAA. I guess you could switch the two, but we're talking a 5 student difference.
 
Last edited:

disco said:
This is what you are looking for.

Click to expand...
Thanks!

So #33 Burnsville through #80 Mpls Roosevelt would be in 5A, according to the table posted earlier (top 32 in 6A, next 48 in 5A, ...)

Right at that #80 line splits Mpls Roosevelt and Mpls South (which by the way, thought South had a huge enrollment not that long ago?) with Southwest at #74, but Washburn up at #54.

St Paul Harding was #70 and Highland Park #66


Would be curious to know which 5A schools opted down to 4A.
 

disco said:
Agree. Section play makes so much more sense. Why add a level of bureaucracy.

Randolph was 9 man? I'm honestly shocked there was a 9 man program in the 7 county metro area that recently, if ever.
Click to expand...
I knew some people from the area and from what I understand was the Randolph was 9-Man in the late 80s/early 90s but then made the decision to opt up to 1A until around 2010ish. In those 20 years fans didn't see many wins.

They played 9-Man from 2010ish-2020ish and had some good-not-great, but competitive teams, and it has carried over to 11 man. The school basically survives on kids from Cannon Falls and Hastings and to a lesser extent Farmington and Northfield. The town hasn't grown at all but the school has doubled.
 

GopherGrit said:
Thanks!

So #33 Burnsville through #80 Mpls Roosevelt would be in 5A, according to the table posted earlier (top 32 in 6A, next 48 in 5A, ...)

Right at that #80 line splits Mpls Roosevelt and Mpls South (which by the way, thought South had a huge enrollment not that long ago?) with Southwest at #74, but Washburn up at #54.

St Paul Harding was #70 and Highland Park #66


Would be curious to know which 5A schools opted down to 4A.
Click to expand...
Remember, these aren't actual enrollment. They are adjusted for free-reduced lunch, so South probably has a much larger actual enrollment. I know I have that PDF saved somewhere.
 

disco said:
Remember, these aren't actual enrollment. They are adjusted for free-reduced lunch, so South probably has a much larger actual enrollment. I know I have that PDF saved somewhere.
Click to expand...
Numbers from MDE have actual October enrollment
Numbers from MSHSL are pro rated to accommodate for socio economic factors
 

disco said:
Pillager's adjusted enrollment is 322.
Here's who they played with their enrollments.


Park Rapids 350
Staples Motley 262
Hawley 259
Perham 473
DGF 409
Barnesville 232
Thief River Falls 453
Warroad 268

So they played four bigger schools, and four smaller schools. What seems to be the gripe here?
It does seem odd that they play all these schools that are a considerable distance north of them.
Sauk Center, Aitkin, and St. Cloud Cathedral seem like they would be closer, and are of similar size.

Looking at the playoff brackets, Pillager seems to be right on the line between AA and AAA.
The next largest school is Morris 324. They play AAA. The next one below is Luverne 317. They also do play AAA. But go down to the next school, Roseau 314 plays AA, Norwood-YA 313 plays AA, then Redwood Valley 310 and Holdingford 308, both play AA. This really doesn't seem as big a travesty as you seem to think. Unless there's some sort of personal vendetta or because they're good.

Pillager appears to be the largest AA school, and the slightly larger Luverne is the smallest in AAA. I guess you could switch the two, but we're talking a 5 student difference.
Click to expand...
You actually made the point for me even though you are trying to make me sound like I have a vendetta... You listed 5 schools they have a fake enrollment number bigger than, and they are in the smaller class. They played all the bigger schools and beat them, yet still petitioned down... The fake enrollment number for 2A cutoff is 313. The point is why are we setting a number and then not following the guild lines, then letting some teams petition down and not others... I have it on good authority that a pair of 9P schools both got bumped to class A and both have same enrollment #s and both tried to stay at 9P and one was denied while the other was granted the petition down.

Adjusting schools enrollment is a joke. (How is the MSHSL getting these numbers now? Historical data?) The average according to national studies is that 62% of all students age 6-17 in MN play sports, why are we adjusting down in enrolments? If a team like Red Lake who hasn't won a football game in 20+ years wanted to petition down that makes sense, But not teams that just went 8-0 Special circumstances do and should exist.

There is not a single argument that makes sense to say kids don't count towards the enrollment. Kids play that really want to play and for the most part where they want to play these days. When you start looking at real enrolment numbers and the schools that have played each other the past couple years its astounding and pillager is right there in the middle of it.

2024 Schedule

Pillager 364

Osakis - 267
Wadena Deer Creek - 329
Breckenridge - 225
Staple-Motley - 262
Walker-Hackensack-Akeley - 197
Pine River Backus - 229
Parkers Prairie - 181
New York Mills - 206

Basically 100 students more per school, and in some case almost 200, and then the argument goes to equality. Seriously? You want to talk equality and then say kids that walk through the doors everyday, school gets state funding for, and that they then don't count towards sports?
 

Ranger692 said:
You actually made the point for me even though you are trying to make me sound like I have a vendetta... You listed 5 schools they have a fake enrollment number bigger than, and they are in the smaller class. They played all the bigger schools and beat them, yet still petitioned down... The fake enrollment number for 2A cutoff is 313. The point is why are we setting a number and then not following the guild lines, then letting some teams petition down and not others... I have it on good authority that a pair of 9P schools both got bumped to class A and both have same enrollment #s and both tried to stay at 9P and one was denied while the other was granted the petition down.

Adjusting schools enrollment is a joke. (How is the MSHSL getting these numbers now? Historical data?) The average according to national studies is that 62% of all students age 6-17 in MN play sports, why are we adjusting down in enrolments? If a team like Red Lake who hasn't won a football game in 20+ years wanted to petition down that makes sense, But not teams that just went 8-0 Special circumstances do and should exist.

There is not a single argument that makes sense to say kids don't count towards the enrollment. Kids play that really want to play and for the most part where they want to play these days. When you start looking at real enrolment numbers and the schools that have played each other the past couple years its astounding and pillager is right there in the middle of it.

2024 Schedule

Pillager 364

Osakis - 267
Wadena Deer Creek - 329
Breckenridge - 225
Staple-Motley - 262
Walker-Hackensack-Akeley - 197
Pine River Backus - 229
Parkers Prairie - 181
New York Mills - 206

Basically 100 students more per school, and in some case almost 200, and then the argument goes to equality. Seriously? You want to talk equality and then say kids that walk through the doors everyday, school gets state funding for, and that they then don't count towards sports?
Click to expand...
I believe PIllager's enrollment for 2024 was 298 and 322 for 2025, not 364.

I know that there has been an adjustment to that based on the number of kids that would receive free lunch due to income. So I'm assuming that's why they made it under the AA limit. And my understanding is that most smaller rural schools get some sort of adjustment for this as there tends to be a higher % of low income kids in some of these rural areas compared to the suburbs and bigger towns. There are probably other AA schools that should be in AAA too if you took that away.
 

mcrow47 said:
I believe PIllager's enrollment for 2024 was 298 and 322 for 2025, not 364.

I know that there has been an adjustment to that based on the number of kids that would receive free lunch due to income. So I'm assuming that's why they made it under the AA limit. And my understanding is that most smaller rural schools get some sort of adjustment for this as there tends to be a higher % of low income kids in some of these rural areas compared to the suburbs and bigger towns. There are probably other AA schools that should be in AAA too if you took that away.
Click to expand...
I used real enrolment numbers not the adjusted. The real number of students is easy to find... and they didn't make it under the AA line. 2025 AA line is 313 and their adjusted number is 322.
 

Ranger692 said:
I used real enrolment numbers not the adjusted. The real number of students is easy to find... and they didn't make it under the AA line. 2025 AA line is 313 and their adjusted number is 322.
Click to expand...
And where are these real numbers coming from? Only place that I have seen that says 364 or anything near that for 2025 when I look around is US News which is not really an accurate source for current enrollment data. Usually the MSHSL enrollment list is the raw enrollment then any adjustments are taken from that and the raw enrollment per MSHSL is 322. So seems perfectly within reason that with the adjustment that any school can get for low income kids that they could be well under 313.

But maybe there is different data that I can't seem to find. But data I found is from last year and shows they have nearly 1/3 of their kids qualify for free lunch and we know that lower income kids don't participate in sports at the same rate as middle or upper class kids.
 
Last edited:


MNVCGUY said:
Love how this thread goes back and forth between discussions about football and enrollment numbers :)
Click to expand...
Gotta kill he off days somehow.😂 Tomorrow and Wednesday we have 3/6 and 4/5 games to discuss.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Gotta kill he off days somehow.😂 Tomorrow and Wednesday we have 3/6 and 4/5 games to discuss.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. From my time around GH it seems like this is not the only thread that wanders around between games.:D
 

Screenshot 2025-10-20 124413.png
mcrow47 said:
And where are these real numbers coming from? Only place that I have seen that says 364 or anything near that for 2025 when I look around is US News which is not really an accurate source for current enrollment data. Usually the MSHSL enrollment list is the raw enrollment then any adjustments are taken from that and the raw enrollment per MSHSL is 322. So seems perfectly within reason that with the adjustment that any school can get for low income kids that they could be well under 313.

But maybe there is different data that I can't seem to find. But data I found is from last year and shows they have nearly 1/3 of their kids qualify for free lunch and we know that lower income kids don't participate in sports at the same rate as middle or upper class kids.
Click to expand...

Why do we know that, because the MNDE said so? Like my previous statement said the lower income families at the school I am at participate at a high level than that of the more well off families. That statement is completely false in non metro communities. If that its true in metro areas wouldn't more schools be in dire straights just to fill rosters at all? The MSHSL used to post the real # and the adjusted #. I see they stopped doing that because I assume they were getting some heat about it.

Their own district webpage is claiming an average of 100 kids per class K-12 TODAY... the 322 number is the MSHSL number which is adjusted. One could assume the actual number walking the has in Pillager is closer to 400 than 300 in 9-12



Screenshot 2025-10-20 124738.png
 


Ranger692 said:
I used real enrolment numbers not the adjusted. The real number of students is easy to find... and they didn't make it under the AA line. 2025 AA line is 313 and their adjusted number is 322.
Click to expand...
The real number doesn't matter though for classification. Pillager's number for 2023-2025 was indeed 298.

I agree with most of your opinions on adjusting enrollment numbers vs. using actual enrollment. I don't like it. But ultimately, it's the adjusted number that matters at this point for classification, and Pillager had under 300 for the previous period.
 

disco said:
The real number doesn't matter though for classification. Pillager's number for 2023-2025 was indeed 298.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he is arguing a null point. The MSHSL has rules for calculating what the enrollment is for purposes of trying to be fair. Like any system there may be cases where things don't work as intended but like I said above these same adjustments are given to many other schools as well, not just Pillager. As long as the numbers are being calculated fairly per the rules then there's really no complaining about it. There's always going to be a school at the top of the enrollment in every class and someone who's going to complain about it.
 

Also, if the cutoff is 313 adjusted, then Roseau and Norwood-YA should also be playing AAA and Redwood Valley should be the largest AA school. But both those schools are playing AA.

But I'm not seeing the same level of outrage there.

Why is Luverne playing AAA and Pillager AA when Pillager has five more students per the adjusted enrollment numbers? I don't know. Since this is only about football, maybe Pillager opted down because they have a class or two that is heavily female and so there are considerably fewer boys in that number? I don't know, but they are more or less the same size schools. A five student difference for two teams on the bubble between classes seems like a strange hill to die on.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom