3-class system - here we go again.

[bballfan7]

Right, and we should note that "Heart River" is the combined enrollment of South Heart and Belfield.

South Heart is smaller than Trinity. Belfield is smaller than Trinity. Combined, their athletic co-op is bigger.

We know that South Heart and Belfield are both smaller than Dickinson Trinity! However, they co-op to form Heart River..... do you think that their co-op will dissolve if the three class system goes through? I don't! So it doesn't really matter if they are smaller than Trinity when apart.

He was refering to Riders comment that said something about Heart River having half the enrolment of Dickinson Trininty. He wasnt saying that they would split up and go their own ways. You should read every other page in the subject before coming on here and commenting.

[tellmeaboutit]

Right, and we should note that "Heart River" is the combined enrollment of South Heart and Belfield.

South Heart is smaller than Trinity. Belfield is smaller than Trinity. Combined, their athletic co-op is bigger.

We know that South Heart and Belfield are both smaller than Dickinson Trinity! However, they co-op to form Heart River..... do you think that their co-op will dissolve if the three class system goes through? I don't! So it doesn't really matter if they are smaller than Trinity when apart.

He was refering to Riders comment that said something about Heart River having half the enrolment of Dickinson Trininty. He wasnt saying that they would split up and go their own ways. You should read every other page in the subject before coming on here and commenting.

You are getting a bit defensive there, big guy! Who's to say that I didn't read the other posts? I also never said he thought that they'd split. It was an honest question... wouldn't South Heart and Belfield be better off splitting and playing in the lower class? Its obvious they're not going to compete where they are at now!

[bballfan7]

Right, and we should note that "Heart River" is the combined enrollment of South Heart and Belfield.

South Heart is smaller than Trinity. Belfield is smaller than Trinity. Combined, their athletic co-op is bigger.

We know that South Heart and Belfield are both smaller than Dickinson Trinity! However, they co-op to form Heart River..... do you think that their co-op will dissolve if the three class system goes through? I don't! So it doesn't really matter if they are smaller than Trinity when apart.

He was refering to Riders comment that said something about Heart River having half the enrolment of Dickinson Trininty. He wasnt saying that they would split up and go their own ways. You should read every other page in the subject before coming on here and commenting.

You are getting a bit defensive there, big guy! Who's to say that I didn't read the other posts? I also never said he thought that they'd split. It was an honest question... wouldn't South Heart and Belfield be better off splitting and playing in the lower class? Its obvious they're not going to compete where they are at now!

The reason i said that is you stated the exact same thing as he did before, tell me what the point is to this. And no i dont think they will break up the co-op.

[larrybird33]

Chill out everybody...

I just wanted to make sure our friends outside of the SW corner knew that "Heart River" refers to a co-op that includes two schools.

[Mandan]

With this new three class plan, we've been told time and time again that the 32 largest class B schools are dominating and need to be placed in a new division.

On Monday night, we narrowed it down to the final 32 teams in class B girls basketball. If our smallest schools are truly at a competitive disadvantage, you'd expect the final 32 to be dominated by "big" class B schools, right?

Wrong.

TWENTY-TWO of the final 32 are "small" class B schools that would be placed in the smallest division under the three class plan.

Only TEN of the final 32 are the "big" class B schools that would be moved up under the three class plan.

Region 1: Central Cass and Northern Cass
Region 2: Grafton
Region 3: None (all 4 semi-finalists are small schools)
Region 4: Carrington
Region 5: Standing Rock
Region 6: Bottineau
Region 7: Hazen and Trinity
Region 8: Watford City and New Town

Ladies and gentlemen, we do NOT have a problem. Our smallest schools can compete under the current system. Just say no to this plan!

Back to the original topic.. While this is good way to analyze this issue, it needs to be taken farther. This should be done for both boys and girls state tournaments going back 5 years or so - how many participants would be in the middle class vs the lower class. Then a true pattern will emerge. I don't think you can use just one tournament to prove this argument, especially since the Boys B is the one people have tended to complain about with Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, etc getting in fairly often. The girls have not had those kinds of schools in the state tournament as often.

[ndlionsfan]

I saw some research a Supt. did going back each of the last 10 state tournaments in vball, boys bball, and girls bball. In almost every tournament, the split was fairly even between middle class and lowest class teams. More often there was more lower class teams in a tournament than middle class. Very rarely (I think maybe two-three times in 30 tournaments) were there more middle class than lower class teams.

[NDplayin]

Back to the original topic.. While this is good way to analyze this issue, it needs to be taken farther. This should be done for both boys and girls state tournaments going back 5 years or so - how many participants would be in the middle class vs the lower class. Then a true pattern will emerge. I don't think you can use just one tournament to prove this argument, especially since the Boys B is the one people have tended to complain about with Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, etc getting in fairly often. The girls have not had those kinds of schools in the state tournament as often.

Mandan, you bring up a true point. For a true analysis, more than one year should be considered. I don't know where to find all the history, but the harder part would be that their enrollment in the year they made the tourney should be considered, not their current enrollment. However, isn't it very interesting that in the year which the vocal minority is screaming "small schools can't compete", that 6 of 8 girls state teams are small? Also, I think boy's B, girl's B, and Volleyball history should all be considered EQUALLY. They are all impacted EQUALLY.

In making the point that the boy's B is the source of all the complaints, you also raise another interesting point. If "Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, etc" were really seeing their success because of their enrollment, wouldn't the girls have equal success?? After all, they 'benefit' from the exact same enrollment!

I don't think the answer is enrollment. I think those schools you mentioned have all built excellent programs! Other schools with the same or even bigger enrollment numbers aren't at state as often because they haven't built a program. It is only because people like to blame their losing on others (enrollment, refs, coaching, whatever) rather than focusing on their own short comings (lack of program) that we are even having this discussion.

[digger]

Could not agree more with your post NDplayin, well put.

[NDplayin]

Here is the next question: Where is this small but vocal minority which the NDHSAA seems so eager to bend backwards for???

As I just reread this thread, I realized there has been very minimal positive feedback to the three class system. It makes me wonder... Is the pro-three class argument so weak that those irrational, emotional voices fade in the face of the cold hard facts? Either that, or is there really no such small but vocal minority? Maybe this vocal minority has been manufactured by the NDHSAA in order to help them pull their cheap woolen fabric over our eyes.

[Mandan]

Back to the original topic.. While this is good way to analyze this issue, it needs to be taken farther. This should be done for both boys and girls state tournaments going back 5 years or so - how many participants would be in the middle class vs the lower class. Then a true pattern will emerge. I don't think you can use just one tournament to prove this argument, especially since the Boys B is the one people have tended to complain about with Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, etc getting in fairly often. The girls have not had those kinds of schools in the state tournament as often.

I don't think the answer is enrollment. I think those schools you mentioned have all built excellent programs! Other schools with the same or even bigger enrollment numbers aren't at state as often because they haven't built a program. It is only because people like to blame their losing on others (enrollment, refs, coaching, whatever) rather than focusing on their own short comings (lack of program) that we are even having this discussion.

This is a very good point. Trinity has benefitted from having coaches who are happy and content to be there. Guys like Randy Gordon and Greg Grinsteiner aren't looking to use Trinity as a springboard to a job at a larger school, like Kevin Feeney did with Shanley, or his dad Bob Feeney did to Trinity. They enjoy their work and also share the vision of the school that they work for. That longevity and consistant system makes a big difference. A School like Minot Ryan used to be strong in football every year, now they are up and down and seem to be changing coaches fairly often.

[baseball4life]

Back to the original topic.. While this is good way to analyze this issue, it needs to be taken farther. This should be done for both boys and girls state tournaments going back 5 years or so - how many participants would be in the middle class vs the lower class. Then a true pattern will emerge. I don't think you can use just one tournament to prove this argument, especially since the Boys B is the one people have tended to complain about with Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, etc getting in fairly often. The girls have not had those kinds of schools in the state tournament as often.

Mandan, you bring up a true point. For a true analysis, more than one year should be considered. I don't know where to find all the history, but the harder part would be that their enrollment in the year they made the tourney should be considered, not their current enrollment. However, isn't it very interesting that in the year which the vocal minority is screaming "small schools can't compete", that 6 of 8 girls state teams are small? Also, I think boy's B, girl's B, and Volleyball history should all be considered EQUALLY. They are all impacted EQUALLY.

In making the point that the boy's B is the source of all the complaints, you also raise another interesting point. If "Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, etc" were really seeing their success because of their enrollment, wouldn't the girls have equal success?? After all, they 'benefit' from the exact same enrollment!

I don't think the answer is enrollment. I think those schools you mentioned have all built excellent programs! Other schools with the same or even bigger enrollment numbers aren't at state as often because they haven't built a program. It is only because people like to blame their losing on others (enrollment, refs, coaching, whatever) rather than focusing on their own short comings (lack of program) that we are even having this discussion.

I have not seen anybody on this site put it better than this! Hats off to you my friend!

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

Here is the next question: Where is this small but vocal minority which the NDHSAA seems so eager to bend backwards for???

As I just reread this thread, I realized there has been very minimal positive feedback to the three class system. It makes me wonder... Is the pro-three class argument so weak that those irrational, emotional voices fade in the face of the cold hard facts? Either that, or is there really no such small but vocal minority? Maybe this vocal minority has been manufactured by the NDHSAA in order to help them pull their cheap woolen fabric over our eyes.

you might be surprised.........voicing a "pro" for this topic gets you ripped.....not worth arguing when the anti is just as fanatical as they claim the NDHSAA is.......From many a coach's prespective, three classes is more favorable. It's not about numbers of schools decreasing.....this is about distribution. Yes, numbers of schools are down but the distribution is polarized......Real big, middle of the road, and small. Grow, adapt, change, people. When the schools distribution changes, and it will, change back to a two class system. And here we go, "don't change the B, you're an idiot, what do you know"

[digger]

Story heading from 3 newspapers:

Dickinson Press: "Plan for 3 ND high school divisions lacks support."
Lead sentence: Opposition continues for a three class system.
Jamesown Sun: "Three class plan still lacking support."
Lead sentence: same as Dickinson Press
Fargo Fourm: "NDHSAA shows schools warming to 3-class system"
Lead sentence: A three class system for North Dakota basketball and volleyball appears to be gaining momentum.

Couldn't find an article in the web versions of the other state daily newspapers. Interesting how the same survey can lead to headlines that give a different sense of the issue.

[Deuce]

Story heading from 3 newspapers:

Dickinson Press: "Plan for 3 ND high school divisions lacks support."
Lead sentence: Opposition continues for a three class system.
Jamesown Sun: "Three class plan still lacking support."
Lead sentence: same as Dickinson Press
Fargo Fourm: "NDHSAA shows schools warming to 3-class system"
Lead sentence: A three class system for North Dakota basketball and volleyball appears to be gaining momentum.

Couldn't find an article in the web versions of the other state daily newspapers. Interesting how the same survey can lead to headlines that give a different sense of the issue.

I believe these are all 3 newspapers are owned by Forum Communications

[NDplayin]

you might be surprised.........voicing a "pro" for this topic gets you ripped.....not worth arguing when the anti is just as fanatical as they claim the NDHSAA is.......From many a coach's prespective, three classes is more favorable. It's not about numbers of schools decreasing.....this is about distribution. Yes, numbers of schools are down but the distribution is polarized......Real big, middle of the road, and small. Grow, adapt, change, people. When the schools distribution changes, and it will, change back to a two class system. And here we go, "don't change the B, you're an idiot, what do you know"

On the contrary, you presented an interesting and fresh angle on the subject. With a subject this sensitive, I think it is important for us to try and keep our emotions out of it and consider every angle of both the pro and con arguements. Your distribution point aroused my curiousity. Is there really a sharp division in the number of small schools and number of middle of the road schools? If there is, does that "polorarized distribution" indeep warrant a three class system? I decided to look it up. Of the current class B teams, here is their breakdown by enrollment grouped in 25s.

enroll. = # of schools
200+ =11
175-199 = 8
150-174 =11
125-149 =12
100-124 =13
75 - 99 =25
50 - 74 =24
under 50= 6

Interpret these numbers how you will. I myself see a pretty even spread, without one incredibly high or overly low number seperating our schools into polarized groups. In fact, if you do the math you will notice an even spread around the number 100. There are 55 schools above 100, 55 schools under 100 (by the way, under the new plan the split between A and B would be roughly 150, not 100).

I guess the next logical question in my mind was; can those lower 55 schools compete or are they being overpowered by the top 55? We have already determined that of 6 of the 8 girls teams at state right now would remain class B if the new plan went through. Of those six, three have enrollment 100 or below (Kenmare, Hankinson, and Stanley). That seems about as competitively fair as you could ever hope to get no matter how many classes you have.

But is this year in girls the exception to the rule? Last year at the State Boys B three schools with enrollment 100 or under made the tournament (Mott/Regent, LaMoure, TLM). TLM even made the championship game last year. The year before, Parshall (current enrollment 71) not only made the tournament, but won the championship. Not so long ago, Richland (current enrollment 99) made state atleast a couple years in a row. I am sure there are many more examples, if necessary I can look them up when I have a little more time and energy.

In short, the distribution seems to be as close to even as you could expect of any class system, in my eyes anyway. In the last two B state bball tourneaments, 3 of the 8 teams were from the lower half of that distribution. Again, in my eyes thats about as fair as you can ever hope for, even if you go to 5 classes. In the last two boys state tournaments, a school from the bottom half played in each championship game.

I don't know what more to say about this right now. I do have a strong opinion, but I feel good that I have tried to back it up with numbers and facts. I am very interested to read everything that luvmy3gbb1wr and everyone else has to say... and so far I haven't seen anyone called an "idiot".

[steve34]

Nonetheless, Luv has a great point that has nothing to do with enrollments. There is a tremendous lack of openmindedness on the part of many when it comes to a three division system.

I, personally, am not in favor of the current proposal for a three division system for two main reasons.

1. Lack of credible bottom class. With the current 16, 32, and the rest plan, the 32 middle gouges the current class "B", leaving a bottom-tier tournament that really would lack some credibility. True, you would see some good teams remain, but each year, the state tourney of this class would contain a team or two that obviously doesn't belong.

2. Lack of sustainability. With consolidations and closures, we would eventually revert to two classes, since we would be locked into a 32 team middle.

That being said, some of the arguments that are being thrown around by superintentants are rediculous.

1. Travel. Not a concern. I see teams play each other in big cities on Saturdays just to get their crowds to Fargo, Bismarck, or whatever, and then travel 90+miles on a weekday to play someone else. By using weekend days for their real use, to allow further travel, the issue of travel would be easily dealt with.

2. Lack of a District tournament costing money. Any district that plays loser-out in the first round (reference District 1) cannot make the argument that they need to preserve their gate. They basically tell half of their teams to not come back the next day. The format that uses the regional qualifiers (2, 5, 6, 7 did this, among others) is a great format. It adds 0 additional days, only three more games, and those three games add a total of six more fan bases to the party buying tickets that normally wouldn't be there. Until every district does things that maximize their gate, B administrators can't throw the gate around.

This thread has advocated looking back for historical direction on three classes. Again, I repeat, I am not a fan of the current plan, but I will suggest that we really need to look forward, not backward. it's easy to see that, over the next 10-15 years, it will become tougher and tougher for small B's to defeat big B's, and, thus, advance to the next level. The three division idea has merit, even if the current plan, for lack of better terms, not cool.

Alternatives: Expand A in a creative way to return A to the North Star days. The idea is to keep two classes, with the top 28 teams A, the rest B. The 28 are split into two divisions of 14, top and bottom. Each division gets four spots in the state tourney. Since each division would have 2 regions, all the teams in the state tournament would have to advance to a regional title game to advance to state. No more 9-13 teams that are lucky enough to win a couple of consolation games going to the state A tournament. If B teams have to win a regional title to go, wouldn't it make sense to force A teams to at least play for a regional title to advance.

(To explain: The top division of 14 would have a 7 team east and 7 team west division. The regional champ and runner up from each advance. The bottom division would be the same)

This is the first time that any idea has come about that makes the Class "A" teams play along with the rest of the state. They all get to live in their own world of having a whole state tournament, with television coverage and everything, for a class that has 18 frickin schools. Somehow, it just doesn't seem right. And if the B teams that move up have a chance to go to state without having to beat the biggest of the big, I don't think they'd mind playing them once they get there. If it's fair to make Richland play Central Cass to go to state, it would be just as fair to make Central Cass play Bismarck to win state. The second option might actually be more equitable, considering that Central Cass would still be playing teams of their size to go to state.

No additional tournaments, no dragging out the seasons. No re-inventing the wheel. Its the same two-class system we've all enjoyed forever, just improved to make a trip to state more meaningful for everyone involved, both A and B. Sure, the biggest schools will be upset that they get less opportunities to go to state, but, since everyone on this thread is all about ratios, check this out:

Class "A": 18 teams, 8 state tourney spots=44.4% of teams advance to state
Class "B": 128 (est) teams (based on 8 per district), 8 state tourney spots=6.25% of teams advance to state

Under this idea:

Class "A" 28 teams, 8 spots, 28.6%
Class "B" 118 teams, 8 spots, 6.78%

Still pretty inequitable, but it would preserve the idea of "B" being the big dance in the state, while A becomes more exclusive and gives us the "David vs. Goliath" matchup we all love about basketball.

The other idea would be use our football template for basketball. 16-16 and the rest would at least not gouge the bottom class, allowing for it to be around for a lot longer.

[larrybird33]

Nonetheless, Luv has a great point that has nothing to do with enrollments. There is a tremendous lack of openmindedness on the part of many when it comes to a three division system.

I, personally, am not in favor of the current proposal for a three division system for two main reasons.

1. Lack of credible bottom class. With the current 16, 32, and the rest plan, the 32 middle gouges the current class "B", leaving a bottom-tier tournament that really would lack some credibility. True, you would see some good teams remain, but each year, the state tourney of this class would contain a team or two that obviously doesn't belong.

2. Lack of sustainability. With consolidations and closures, we would eventually revert to two classes, since we would be locked into a 32 team middle.

That being said, some of the arguments that are being thrown around by superintentants are rediculous.

1. Travel. Not a concern. I see teams play each other in big cities on Saturdays just to get their crowds to Fargo, Bismarck, or whatever, and then travel 90+miles on a weekday to play someone else. By using weekend days for their real use, to allow further travel, the issue of travel would be easily dealt with.

2. Lack of a District tournament costing money. Any district that plays loser-out in the first round (reference District 1) cannot make the argument that they need to preserve their gate. They basically tell half of their teams to not come back the next day. The format that uses the regional qualifiers (2, 5, 6, 7 did this, among others) is a great format. It adds 0 additional days, only three more games, and those three games add a total of six more fan bases to the party buying tickets that normally wouldn't be there. Until every district does things that maximize their gate, B administrators can't throw the gate around.

This thread has advocated looking back for historical direction on three classes. Again, I repeat, I am not a fan of the current plan, but I will suggest that we really need to look forward, not backward. it's easy to see that, over the next 10-15 years, it will become tougher and tougher for small B's to defeat big B's, and, thus, advance to the next level. The three division idea has merit, even if the current plan, for lack of better terms, not cool.

Alternatives: Expand A in a creative way to return A to the North Star days. The idea is to keep two classes, with the top 28 teams A, the rest B. The 28 are split into two divisions of 14, top and bottom. Each division gets four spots in the state tourney. Since each division would have 2 regions, all the teams in the state tournament would have to advance to a regional title game to advance to state. No more 9-13 teams that are lucky enough to win a couple of consolation games going to the state A tournament. If B teams have to win a regional title to go, wouldn't it make sense to force A teams to at least play for a regional title to advance.

(To explain: The top division of 14 would have a 7 team east and 7 team west division. The regional champ and runner up from each advance. The bottom division would be the same)

This is the first time that any idea has come about that makes the Class "A" teams play along with the rest of the state. They all get to live in their own world of having a whole state tournament, with television coverage and everything, for a class that has 18 frickin schools. Somehow, it just doesn't seem right. And if the B teams that move up have a chance to go to state without having to beat the biggest of the big, I don't think they'd mind playing them once they get there. If it's fair to make Richland play Central Cass to go to state, it would be just as fair to make Central Cass play Bismarck to win state. The second option might actually be more equitable, considering that Central Cass would still be playing teams of their size to go to state.

No additional tournaments, no dragging out the seasons. No re-inventing the wheel. Its the same two-class system we've all enjoyed forever, just improved to make a trip to state more meaningful for everyone involved, both A and B. Sure, the biggest schools will be upset that they get less opportunities to go to state, but, since everyone on this thread is all about ratios, check this out:

Class "A": 18 teams, 8 state tourney spots=44.4% of teams advance to state
Class "B": 128 (est) teams (based on 8 per district), 8 state tourney spots=6.25% of teams advance to state

Under this idea:

Class "A" 28 teams, 8 spots, 28.6%
Class "B" 118 teams, 8 spots, 6.78%

Still pretty inequitable, but it would preserve the idea of "B" being the big dance in the state, while A becomes more exclusive and gives us the "David vs. Goliath" matchup we all love about basketball.

The other idea would be use our football template for basketball. 16-16 and the rest would at least not gouge the bottom class, allowing for it to be around for a lot longer.

Interesting idea with the expansion of Class A.

I guess I'm hoping that a guy like you will prefer the two class system as it is, instead of supporting the 3 class plan. I think a lot of people are jumping on the 3 class bandwagon just because they see things in our current system that aren't perfect. I don't hear a lot of people out there saying, "That 3 class plan is great, I love it!" I think people are supporting this plan very reluctantly, in the same way that a parent sometimes gives in to a whiny little kid who is persistent.

I will repeat that I see travel as a concern. Put yourself in the position of a Linton, Beach, Bowman, Watford City, or any other team that is at the outskirts of their new region. Every added mile results in more class time missed and a higher bill at the gas pump. Travel is also a concern because scheduling is a big concern, especially in the middle class. Schools will want to play within their own class, and to do so, you'll have to travel more miles. And if the solution is for the middle class and bottom class schools to continue playing each other, why are we dividing into 3 divisions in the first place?

I also have a lot of trouble with your claim that you can predict the future of the current class B. We have seen some of North Dakota's smallest schools having success at the B tournament in each of the last three years. Turtle Lake-Mercer is one of our state's smallest schools. TL-M vs. Grafton wasn't quite Epping vs. Hillsboro, but it was close. Can't we at least wait until we have some kind of trend forming before we predict that the B is doomed?

I'll reserve judgment on your "expand the current class A" plan for now. The plan before us at the moment is the 3 division plan. I'm dead set against it and it's not that I'm opposed to any new ideas. I've laid out my reasons.

[coachh]

For those who argue that 3 classes will kill the B tourney, consider these numbers:

2008 South Dakota Boy’s “B” Basketball Tournament attendance (all three days) – 25,615 – Held in Aberdeen SD

2008 North Dakota Boy’s “B” Basketball Tournament attendance (all three days) – 16,251 – Held in Fargo ND


Hmmm. Wonder how that happens? Those attendance numbers from the SD "B" are roughly equal to the population of Aberdeen. Posts elsewhere have complained about a lack of rooms in GF this weekend. GF is about 2x the size of Aberdeen. Wonder how that crowd found accomodations?

Hey LarryBird33, these numbers just don't seem to match argument 3 of your top 10.

[larrybird33]

Coachh,

Interesting numbers. I've heard some South Dakotans speak very negatively of the 3 class system and others who think it's great. How long ago did SD go to the 3 class system?

[ndlionsfan]

For those who argue that 3 classes will kill the B tourney, consider these numbers:

2008 South Dakota Boy’s “B” Basketball Tournament attendance (all three days) – 25,615 – Held in Aberdeen SD

2008 North Dakota Boy’s “B” Basketball Tournament attendance (all three days) – 16,251 – Held in Fargo ND


Hmmm. Wonder how that happens? Those attendance numbers from the SD "B" are roughly equal to the population of Aberdeen. Posts elsewhere have complained about a lack of rooms in GF this weekend. GF is about 2x the size of Aberdeen. Wonder how that crowd found accomodations?

Hey LarryBird33, these numbers just don't seem to match argument 3 of your top 10.

Are you sure on that attendance number for the ND state B last year? That seems awfully low for a total for all three days. Heck, when I played in the state champ game about 10 years ago now, we had almost 11,000 in attendance that night alone. I thought the tourney usually averaged about 3,000 for the 3 afternoon sessions, then about 7-8000 for the night sessions giving you a total of around 30-35000 for the three days.

[scruffy]

If those numbers are correct then we should NEVER have state tournaments in Grand Forks or Fargo. The atmosphere in those buildings is terrible, it creates to much travel for the fans and the climate out their is brutal...

[steve34]

Yay!!! Another B fan that wants to alienate the RRV. The atmosphere at the dome and the alerus is just fine. It's the product. It's tough to draw out the regular fan to the state B because the state B is SMALL POTATOES when you get to watch the calibre of A and college ball in those markets. Last night, Fordville-Lankin-Park River, right next door to GF, played the final game of the night in the state B, and no one was there. Did you see all the empty seats? Sorry B fans, but after watching A ball with a shot clock and defense, and the college product in Fargo, Grand Forks, Valley City, Mayville, and Jamestown, few are interested in taking a step back for their ticket dollar.

[larrybird33]

I agree that the product isn't top notch, which hurts attendance. The class B girls tourney is a mid-sized tourney that should be held in a mid-sized arena. I don't know the capacity of a couple of these buildings, but how about the Bison Sports Arena, the Betty Englestad Arena, the Ralph, the Fargo Civic Auditorium, or the new Urban Plains Center in Fargo?

I'm ok with keeping Fargo and Grand Forks in the rotation for the basketball tournaments. I'd just rather see the tournaments, especially the Class B girls, played in front of a near-capacity crowd at a smaller arena instead of playing it in a half-empty dome.

[steve34]

If it wasn't for the lodging concerns, the Jamestown Civic Center would be the perfect place. If someone was smart, they'd put together a shuttle bus schedule between Jamestown and Valley City to allow Jamestown into the rotation. The spillover lodging could go to VC, and the shuttles would make sure that fans who "hit the town" after the games have good rides home.

Problem is, Jamestown and Valley City working together is less likely than a Bush/Gore presidential ticket in 2012.

[larrybird33]

Agreed! I was going to include the Jamestown Civic Center in the previous post, but people were talking about Red River Valley towns. The Jamestown Civic Center is the right size in a good geographical location in the state.

We don't normally agree on much, Steve. Can we also agree that the B girls shouldn't play in a dome?