Realignment talk: Here we go

The teams in Class AA.

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Coach Rerick » Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:35 pm

Bisonguy06 wrote:That is all very reasonable.

I cannot separate Williston from Dickinson and Jamestown. There is a natural rivalry between WHS and DHS and those two schools are too similar in size to be split up.

That is why I am inclined to say we will have 13 big schools with Davies and we need to find that 14th.


Eventually that will be the new WF high school. Bismarck could use a second public school with their growth, and Minot should have built a second building years ago. That would be a clean 16 team division...what a happy world that would be.
Coach Rerick
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:24 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:08 pm

That's right....too bad the NDHSAA can't force those districts to build new schools! All of this stuff would just work itself out then.
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 4088
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:38 pm

I'm wondering if there's any way that the NDHSAA can survey all of these schools we're talking about to see: "Given plan X with the option to petition up a level, would you want to opt up a level or would you play where the NDHSAA puts you?"

Examples:
Given a 10 team AAA, would WIlliston, Jamestown, and Dickinson create a fuss and want to opt up?

Given a 12 team AAA, would Williston want to opt up or would they be willing to go AA?

Given a 14 team AAA, would Shanley or St. Mary's opt up and become that #14 team, allowing Devils Lake to be AA?

If somehow you could survey all these schools before you implement your football plan, you might just find out that you have an even number of teams (12 or 14) who would be content in AAA. This could help dictate which plan gets implemented.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:57 am

I say this knowing full well that I was one of the major contributors to the negative banter that had taken place on this post; however, now that the focus is back on a civilized discussion of ideas, I realize that I have not yet shared my own personal idea on what would be the best classification move for North Dakota football. Before I do so, I would like to reiterate two points that others have already made on this post.

*** Note: My reference for all male enrollment numbers is http://www.ndhsaa.org/files/0910_FB_Divisions.pdf

Point #1: Enrollment does not equal success. Program success does not hinge upon being the largest enrollment; strength of program is also great contributor. Harvey, opting up to be the smallest school in A, proved that this year with a playoff win over Hazen, tied for 4th highest enrollment in A. Velva, opting up to be the 3rd smallest school in A, is still proving it this year by beating the largest school in A, Watford, to earn another trip to the Dakota Bowl. Dickinson Trinity, the smallest school in AA, proved it this year by qualifying for the semi-finals with nearly half the enrollment of the other three semi teams.

Point #2: It is not the job of the NDHSAA to create equal success. That is an impossible task. Instead, it is the job of the NDHSAA to create a reasonable opportunity to make yourself successful. I struggle with the thought that Williston, Dickinson, and Jamestown (3 smallest AAA schools) can’t compete with Fargo South and Bismarck High. Certainly South and High have an enrollment advantage over WHS, DHS, and JHS, but is it an unreasonable advantage? I agree that those three smallest can’t compete with South and High, but neither can Minot. This begs the question, do South and High win because of their enrollment, or do they win because of the successful program they have built?

Similarly, when we were discussing the move to 12 last year, I struggled listening to the rationale that Devils Lake would have been sacrificial lambs in AAA while Wahpeton, with over 100 less boys, had still been perennial playoff contenders in AAA. I am not saying that either DL or Wahp don’t belong in AA, they seem to fit alright, but would DL have been sacrificial lambs because of their enrollment or because of their program? Would the NDHSAA have been denying DL a reasonable chance to make themselves successful considering that Wahpeton was successful? I guess that is all water under the bridge, but it does illustrate the point. Before you complain that you are losing because your opponent has a higher enrollment ask yourself these questions. Is there another program in your division experiencing more success with a lower enrollment? Is there a lower enrollment school in your class with higher participation numbers? If the answer is yes, maybe the problem is to be found in your own backyard and it is not the responsibility of the NDHSAA to make you win.

Now that I feel I have already written a book, here is my own personal idea.

I am very frustrated that we are trying to force even numbers of teams into the upper-divisions and in doing so, forcing either an unreasonably low enrollment in one division, or an unreasonably high enrollment in another. Even worse, the whole argument for doing so is scheduling. That sounds like administrators and athletic directors trying to justify making their life easier rather than doing what is best for the athletes of North Dakota. If our true interest is what was best for our high school athletes, we would be ensuring that they are on a level playing field, not ensuring that scheduling was ‘convenient’ for our athletic directors.

I think the NDHSAA needs to set firm minimum enrollment numbers for each division. Opting up would be allowed for anybody in any division. Opting down would never be allowed. If your enrollment puts you in a division that you aren’t having success in, tough cookies, go home and build a program. If we wind up with odd numbers of schools in one division and it makes scheduling ‘uncomfortable’ for our Ads, tough cookies. It is more important that ALL our teams are on a reasonably level playing field.
Until last year when Kalispell built a second high school, the largest class in Montana had 13 schools in it for decades. There were 7 in one region and 6 in another. Those schools played non-conference games against the other region, against schools from the next highest class, against schools from another state, and some schools even took a bye week. The sky did not fall down. The world did not end. Nothing was unfair.

Here is what I envision for the ridged numbers the NDHSAA could set. I am open to discussion over the exact numbers.

AAA- 349.5 male students- If you are above this number you are AAA, no exceptions.
AA- 99.5 male students- If you are above this number you are AA unless you choose to opt to AAA.
A- 69.5 male students- you’re above this you’re A with the option to opt up to AA or even AAA.
9-man- anything below 69.5 can play 9-man, they can opt up to anything they want.

Rule #1: Once you are established in a division, before you can be moved either up or down your enrollment must cross the minimum barrier for two consecutive years and your next year’s enrollment must also cross that number.

Rule #2: No whining. This goes for both the unsuccessful schools and the administrators working hard to find a game (take a bye week already!). With these numbers we are ensuring as equitable playing field as possible, that’s what is most important.

Is this idea the perfect plan? Most certainly not, such a plan doesn’t exist. However, what I think this plan offers that others don’t is the idea that is what is absolutely equal for the athletes is the priority. All other plans had individual school’s interests in mind.

These are my feelings, love ‘em or hate ‘em.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:08 pm

You make some very good points. Maybe instead of trying to have a certain number of teams in each division to make scheduling easier they should just set enrollment cutoffs and stick with them. It would make things a lot easier instead of having to spend countless hours redoing a plan every 2 years. There would be clear cut lines for which division teams would go and I like your idea of giving a two year period to force a move if a school's enrollment is above the cutoff for the next division. This type of provision is in place for other sports (Beulah was the last to be forced to move) so why not make it across the board? Your ideas make the most sense of anything I've heard before....maybe you should get on the NDHSAA board!
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 4088
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:25 am

Playin,

First, kudos to you for suggesting a new system. Good take on the ND/MT comparison. I personally would disagree with you on the scheduling thing, but for the sake of argument (and my personal curiousity on where your enrollment plan will go), I'll bit and operate on the odd-number-division-can-work theory.

With the numbers you suggest, your original argument about Devils Lake or Wahpeton does not match up. Devils Lake is at 311, and Wahpeton is less. So, there would be no change to the current AAA system, with the exception of a new school in Fargo joining the mix. Perhaps you're okay with keeping DL down, even though you question their program.

AA would add Griggs-Barnes County, Maple Valley-Enderlin, May-Port-C-G, Watford City, Hazen, Park River-Fordville/Lankin-Edinburg, and Rugby. There are problems here. Rugby, Watford City, Hazen, and May-Port-C-G wouldn't really be a problem. But the Griggs-Barnes coop would never have formed, and both programs would have likely died. Maple Valley-Enderlin would not have consolidated. Now this is just a guess, but half of each of those coops likely would have went to Valley City, and that would force them up to AAA (again a guess, maybe not). I'm guessing Park River et. al. would collapse.

I'm not sure what to suggest about the numbers.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:07 am

Steve,

First, even though you would personally disagree, thanks for playing along for argument sake. Second, I stand by my ‘theory’ that odd numbers work for scheduling simply because it has been in practice all over the nation for ages. Is scheduling always conveinent, of course not; is there always a way to make it work, of course.

Third, I know what you are getting at about Devils Lake and Wahpeton, but that was never an ‘argument’ for or against a certain system. It was an illustration against the misconception that if a lower enrollment school is losing, it “must” be because of their numbers.

Fourth, I am not only presenting a different plan, but a different way of arranging the plan, and you broke the cardinal rule when you started bring up problems about particular schools. I have no problem with us listing whichever schools would be in what division for clarification, but not to present problems. Since enrollment is the only objective way we have to divide schools it must be the only thing we look at.

Here is what I mean: For you to say that there is NO problem with programs of enrollments 110, 109, 103, and 101 (Watford, Rugby, Hazen, MPCG) being AA… but there IS a problem with programs of enrollments 106, 103, and 100 (Griggs Co, Park River, and Maple Valley) being AA completely flies in the face of Point #2: It’s not the NDHSAA’s job to create equal success, but instead an equal opportunity to make yourself successful. If you say that Hazen can make themselves successful with 103 boys, then you have to objectively say that Park River can make themselves successful with 103 boys. To say anything else would be to subjectively examine their strength of program, and to use any subjective mindset is not fair to North Dakota’s student- athletes.

Therefore, for the record, I am not saying I am ok with Devils Lake playing down. I am saying that I am ok with a program of 311 boys playing smaller schools, AS LONG AS those schools were no smaller than a predetermined set limit which the NDHSAA has decided creates a reasonably level playing field. The original number I used for that scenario was 100, is it a good one?… I am open to discussion.

Fifth, I do acknowledge that part of your ‘comparison’ was to make a point about co-ops, and it’s a point I am glad you brought up. With a plan like this on the table, every AD of a co-oped school would have the opportunity to sit down and examine what is best for their student-athletes. Some may decide to stay the same, some may decide it is in their athlete’s best interest to dissolve a larger co-op and form two 9 man teams. We may see new co-ops develop. The good news, in my mind, is that with firm set numbers all these decisions are now being made with the student-athlete’s best interest in mind. No guessing games about other schools, no using co-ops to try and manipulate the system. They can take a look at the schools involved, and either the numbers put them in this division or that division. Now they make their decision.

Sixth, I am very open to all discussion from everyone on what the “set numbers” could be… earlier I brought up 349.5, 99.5, and 69.5… the discussion should not be about what particular schools it’s fair to have play other particular schools… but what particular numbers match up fairly with each other. This might be another sound suggestion: 349.5, 124.5, and 74.5. Feel free to discuss.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:28 am

I like the thought process here, other than it being extremely long-winded. It's hard to believe it took us this long to come up with the idea of drawing lines and letting enrollment dictate where you play. After all, this is exactly what we do with North Dakota high school basketball! And in basketball, we have class B districts and class A regions with odd numbers, and we make it work.

Steve does bring up a fair point - it's tough to tell an existing co-op that we're now throwing a new plan at them and they have to play up a level.

We also do not want co-ops dissolving if it leaves schools on an island with no place for their athletes to compete. Hypothetical: If school A drops their co-op with school B to play at a lower level, nearby school C doesn't want team B's kids for the same reason, and school D is 50 miles away, our system has done a disservice to the student-athletes at school B.

Solution: draw the first lines in a way that doesn't ruffle too many feathers. Draw up a 13 team AAA (yes, I am OK with Devils Lake being AA), and draw the other lines in a way that keeps almost all of the same core of teams in AA, A, and 9 man.

And when enrollments change down the road, the pressure's on the schools to decide how to adjust. It's not on the NDHSAA to draw them a new plan.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:45 am

That was my point with coops. The ones mentioned may leave schools on an island with nowhere to go.

Example: Let's say we put this plan to work tomorrow. Griggs/Barnes, a first-year coop, would find it difficult to stay together at AA. They would dissolve. Maple Valley-Enderlin would do the same. Problem is, finding these schools a new home would be tremendously difficult.

We would see a situation where Valley City would probably be asked to take on coops with Barnes County North and Maple Valley. I'm guessing they would reject the coops, as it would likely push their enrollment past the AAA minimum. Now where do they go? Griggs might ask to join FSHP, and get rejected as well. Next stop, Dakota Prairie. Rejected. VC? Rejected. Carrington? Rejected.

This plan could work if there was a formula put in place to allow coops to exist on a "need-based" situation. Count the host school's enrollment, and some percentage of the "need-based" schools. 65%, 70%, something like that. Problem is, that was the old system, and it was ended, which led to the four-class system we currently have. We used to have a system where you only had to count the participants that came from the satellite schools in a coop. Someone got mad about it, and the system was changed to a true headcount. That's why we ended up counting only males, instead of the overall enrollments.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:03 pm

Point taken Bisonguy, I will try to keep my long-windedness in check. Thanks for forgiving the last two posts.

Also, thanks for forgiving my current stubbornness, because I still don’t see what the issue is with these co-ops. We must remain objective, and if we say that 103 boys from Hazen have a reasonable opportunity against 311 from Devils Lake, then certainly 103 combined boys from Park River, Fordville-Lankin, and Edinburg have just as reasonable of opportunity. They may not currently have as strong of program as Hazen has but that isn’t the NDHSAA’s responsibility, the Park River co-op has every opportunity to create the same type of program Hazen has. If you are worried about them the only argument is that 103 boys aren’t enough to reasonably compete with 311… if that’s your argument than we raise that AA number to something like 124.5. I’ve already said I am open to discussion on the exact numbers.

Next, if existing co-ops decide to dissolve, I really don’t see any problems with someone being left on an island. I will use the same three co-ops Steve did to illustrate my point.

We will hypothetically say the AA number is 99.5 and that all three of those co-ops decide it is in their best interests to avoid being in AA. Park River could choose to take its 60 boys and be an independent 9-man team, Fordville-Lankin and Edinburg could continue their co-op and together would have 43 boys, 43 would be toward the bottom of the division but there are already smaller teams in 9-man, and 43 is certainly enough to field a respectable team. Maple Valley has 53 boys and Enderlin has 47, if that co-op chose to dissolve you have two independent 9-man teams right there. Griggs Co. has 49 boys they can be independent. Midkota and BCN can continue to co-op with their combined 57 students. There you go, no one is left on an island.

Center-Stanton fields a team with 37 boys, Hettinger with 47, Mott-Regent with 48, Divide Co. 45, St. John 37…. I could go on and on……….
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:21 pm

I get it... draw the lines and let schools dictate what their co-ops look like. If they dissolve, fine, if they co-op with someone else, fine. I get the point.

The problem is that schools have invested a lot of time, money, and emotions in their existing co-ops. Think of all the meetings that have to take place for two schools to agree to combine, abandon their old nicknames, history, and identity..., choose a new team name, choose a mascot, choose a coaching staff, design and pay for uniforms, ect.

I'm saying if you draw the enrollment lines, don't radically shake up the current makeup of AAA, AA, A, and 9-man. I would not support a plan where 40 schools will have to re-evaluate their current co-ops in an effort to move up or down.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:47 pm

That, and these coops were formed due to participation. If they could have remained viable 9 man teams, they would have. GBC cooped because they couldn't field 9-man teams. So, in essence, we tell them, "Play 2A with barely 1A numbers, or play 9 man with 12 guys.

Not encouraging.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Indy5 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:21 pm

Steve, I agree with you on a lot of subjects but I'm going to save NDplayin the trouble and note that participation is not the NDHSAA's job. That is the programs responsiblity to get kids to come out.
User avatar
Indy5
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Northwest ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:29 am

Thanks Indy5.... I can see it now, due to any number of factors like a difficult coach, a school with 500 boys only has the most athletic, most dedicated, most talened, most committed 15 players in the whole school come out... they should be able to play 9-man right?? :?

The ironic thing to me is that there are so many ways to fix this and still have a great objective system. Of all the "bubble" co-op teams, the largest is 106. If you are really so worried about them, set the number at 109.5, or even 124.5 like I mentioned earlier. However, where ever you set the initial number, keep it there. Moreover, this issue may resolve itself anyway. Those numbers are from the DPI's list of 7-10th grade male enrollments in 2008... Whatever the next plan is, it will use the 7-10th grade male enrollments from 2010... If depopulation is really the problem in North Dakota we make it to be, that 106 co-op may very easily be under 100 by then.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:30 pm

Good theory, but the issue right now is that we will not see a system like this in the next plan. Don't mean to burst the bubble, but we all the the wheels of change roll slowly in the NDHSAA. So, for now, we're stuck with the system we have, which is even numbers of teams in each of the top three classes.

So, being completely objective, here are the changes about to arise (teams in new classes in bold, teams in new regions in italics. And let me qualify this with the following:

South and Davies are estimated to each be about half of what South is now.
Dickinson Trinity has indicated that they will no longer opt up (A to AA).
Harvey, Stanley, Velva, and Killdeer all opted up last time (9-man to A), and would probably choose to. The following breakdown is not an indication that I feel they should, only that it's what they have done till now.

1. AAA will either go to 10, 12, or 14 teams, with Davies coming into the picture. Here are the changes per class, based on the three options (based on the last go-arounds numbers):

AAA-10 teams (in order of male enrollment): Minot, West Fargo, Bismarck, Century, North, Red River, Mandan, Central, South (est.), Davies (est.). One conference statewide.

AA-16 teams. Region I (east) (in order of male enrollment): Jamestown, Wahpeton, Shanley, Valley City, Central Cass, Grafton, Fargo Oak Grove, Carrington. Region II (west): Dickinson, Williston, Devils Lake, TMCHS, St. Marys, Beulah, Bottineau, Minot Ryan.

A--32 teams. Region 1 (SE) (in order of male enrollment): Kindred, Lisbon, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, LaMoure, Northern Cass, Oakes.

Region 2 (NE): Griggs-Barnes Co., Park River-Fordville/Lankin-Edinburg, May-Port, Langdon, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, Midway-Minto, Cavalier.

Region 3 (NW): Rugby, Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, North Prairie, New Town, Garrison-Max, Velva, Stanley, Harvey (final 3 choosing to stay up, as they did this time).

Region 4 (SW): Watford City, Dickinson Trinity, Hazen, Bowman, Belfield-South Heart, SRCHS, Grant County-Flasher, Killdeer (last one choosing to stay up, as they did this time).

9-man: The rest, with New Salem-Glen Ullin joining Region 1 (SC, east river), Des Lacs-Burlington and Williams County added to Regions 4 and 5.

2. AAA with 12 teams: EDC: West Fargo, North, Red River, Central, South, Davies.
WDA--Mandan, Bismarck, Century, Mandan, Dickinson, Jamestown.

AA--16 teams. AA-16 teams. Region I (east) Wahpeton, Shanley, Valley City, Central Cass, Grafton, Fargo Oak Grove, Kindred, Lisbon. Region II (west): Williston, Devils Lake, TMCHS, Carrington, St. Marys, Beulah, Bottineau, Minot Ryan.

A--32 teams. Region 1 (SE): Griggs-Barnes Co., May-Port, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, LaMoure, Northern Cass, Oakes. (no changes)

Region 2 (NE): Rugby, Park River-Fordville/Lankin-Edinburg, Langdon, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, North Prairie, Midway-Minto, Cavalier. (no changes)

Region 3 (NW): Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, New Town, Garrison-Max, Williams County, DLB, Velva, Stanley, Harvey (final 3 choosing to stay up, as they did this time). (no changes)

Region 4 (SW): Watford City, Dickinson Trinity, Hazen, Bowman, Belfield-South Heart, SRCHS, Grant County-Flasher, Killdeer (last one choosing to stay up, as they did this time).

9-man--the rest with New Salem-Glen Ullin joining Region 1 (SC-east river)

AAA with 14 teams: EDC--West Fargo, North, Red River, Central, South, Davies, Devils Lake. WDA--Minot, Bismarck, Century, Mandan, Dickinson, Williston, Jamestown.

AA--16 teams. Region I (east) Wahpeton, Shanley, Valley City, Central Cass, Grafton, Fargo Oak Grove, Kindred, Lisbon. (no changes) Region II (west): TMCHS, Carrington, St. Marys, Beulah, Bottineau, Minot Ryan, Watford City, Rugby.

A--32 teams. Region 1 (SE): Griggs-Barnes Co., May-Port, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, LaMoure, Northern Cass, Oakes. (no changes)

Region 2 (NE): Park River-Fordville/Lankin-Edinburg, Langdon, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, North Prairie, Midway-Minto, Cavalier, Minnewauken-Leeds.

Region 3 (NW): Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, New Town, Garrison-Max, Williams County, DLB, Velva, Stanley, Harvey (final 3 choosing to stay up, as they did this time). (no changes)

Region 4 (SW): Dickinson Trinity, Hazen, Bowman, Belfield-South Heart, SRCHS, Grant County-Flasher, New Salem-Glen Ullin, Killdeer (last one choosing to stay up, as they did this time).

9-man: the rest, with Mohall-Sherwood moving to Region 4, Washburn moving to Region 5, and Region 6 being reduced to seven teams, creating 6 seven-team regions.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:23 pm

steve34 wrote:Good theory, but the issue right now is that we will not see a system like this in the next plan. Don't mean to burst the bubble, but we all the the wheels of change roll slowly in the NDHSAA. So, for now, we're stuck with the system we have, which is even numbers of teams in each of the top three classes.


Don't worry Steve, no bubble burst... I assume the whole point of this thread is to exchange and discuss ideas, which we are doing. And thank you for the detailed look on what we would face if the NDHAA chose to go with either of those three plans.

However, I must take exception to the thought that "the wheels of change roll slowly in the NDHSAA." Now, I certainly don't have the inside track to the inner-workings (or in some cases, non-workings) of the NDHSAA, but it seems to me that when the ideas of a 12 team AAA in football and of moving the Class B line to allow Valley City down that the wheels of change suddenly moved very quickly. All it took was a quick proposal and wham done...... perhaps the speed of the NDHSAA's wheels depends more on who has proposed the plan and which school stands to benefit the most than it does on the quality of the plan. :?

Therefore, I don't see why we must be "stuck with the system we have." Unless the NDHSAA board members are as narrow minded as you have so often claimed the "B-shots" and "one room school houses" of North Dakota are, you would think they would at the very least give a plan like this their consideration if someone were to propose it. If fact, as far as the wheels of change are concerned, when you compare the amount of changes that would be made in a "solid numbers propsoal" to any of the proposals you went through above, there would actually be LESS change in a solid numbers proposal than going to a 16 or 10 AAA would cause, or than a 12 team AAA has already caused.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:09 pm

Playin, you know, I'm really trying to bleed out the old stuff between us and keep the discussion civil. If you want to keep bringing it up, fine. I think it's rediculous, but fine.

As far as the change goes, you need a better idea of the history of where we've been before. The football wheels of change move extremely slowly.

1990: North Dakota has three conferences of A everything: football, basketball, track, wrestling, all of it. The third class was the North Star, containing most of the small A's, that then, included the likes of Rugby, Bottineau, VC, Carrington, Devils Lake, Belcourt, Grafton, others. This conference got automatic representation in the post-season, giving a number of small A schools a shot at the post-season, instead of their larger counterparts.

1991: A number of A's slip below 325. They go B. The rest are forced to play independent, or find conference homes, particularly football. Belcourt, Devils Lake, and VC languish as indepentents, with a computer determining the playoffs for one of these teams.

1998 (7 years later): This problem is fixed with a four-class proposal. Although the problem is never really fixed. St. Mary's and Shanley save Belcourt and Valley City from further pummelings by opting up. Devils Lake takes a pummeling, with the excpetion of a couple of years between 1998 and 2007. (10 years)

Now, as for the rapid change you refer to in football, here are the circumstances:

2007: Devils Lake threatens a reverse-discrimination lawsuit against the HSAA, stating that their policy of automatically classing down native-american schools is unfair. Devils Lake moves to AA, Belcourt to AAA.

2008: Through the spring, Belcourt assures the AAA schools that, after being mercilessly destroyed for a season, that they will remain AAA. During the summer, they decide they can find enough games to play independent. Everyone in the EDC loses a game. South ends up going to Minneapolis. Shanley finds Detroit Lakes. Teams go without filling dates. After the season the AAA coaches step in, and state they will not support a system that allows teams to play independent at their expense. They recognize the depth problem between their schools and the small AAAs. They cap the number at 12. The HSAA did not propose or make the change. They didn't do it to ensure competition. They did it to keep kids on the field for the games they should get.

2009: Here we are.

Its funny, everyone always thinks these decisions are easy. It took threatened litigation to force a change after 10 years. Everyone thinks a school can just play independent to solve their problems. Belcourt did it, and the state has now suffered, according to you and others, anyway. As far as your basketball reference, the latest on that is interesting. The EDC coaches have said they will protest to the state if Valley City is moved to A next year, and chooses to play independent. The reason: If you play independent, you get the automatic bottom seed to your region. Next year's team, according to the other coaches, is supposed to be pretty good. Should they play independent, they would have a chance at upsetting someone in the EDC tournament. So, the coaches are already planning on going to the state to FORCE VALLEY CITY TO PLAY IN THE EDC. If these situations are so easy to fix, just what the h e double-hockey-sticks are they supposed to do?

Anyway, your basketbal reference is awesome.....at illustrating my point. The North Star collapsed in 1991. Its 2009. Still no answer, no matter what option you consider. Everyone hates three classes. No one wants Valley City in B, and when Valley City considers options that you and others like you say is workable (play independent until you're small enough to go B), the A coaches threaten to force a schedule on them. 18 years and here's where we're at. Yep, change in this state is rapid indeed.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Indy5 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:05 pm

Well Steve, as far as your illustrating of the classes goes, I think the 12 team AAA is the best solution. As long as Williston is willing to move down. Sure its gonna be one heck of a challange for AA west but hey, like they say, a little competition only makes you better.
This system causes the least amount of damage state- wide. Jamestown moves to WDA( Where they are in every other sport) and the EDC becomes what it should be( only Fargo and Grand Forks). For AA, Williston replaces Trinity( who was moving down anyway). Williston will obviously be the favorite, but Trinity was already a top team every year anyway. The east isn't touched and A has very little effect.
User avatar
Indy5
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Northwest ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:44 pm

I agree Indy. I think it's the best plan, but I think the AAA coaches should be committed to making a 13 team class work if Williston wants to stay up. Go to 12, and if Williston wants to stay up, figure it out. I don't think we should put the brakes on teams wanting to stay up.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:11 am

I am interested in what Shanley will do a year from now. They are the AA champs and early favorites to repeat.

Unlike most schools, they are holding steady or growing. Enrollment is up in their JH. Their school building is new, their football field is new, the church there is being renovated, and they are right in the middle of the fastest -growing part of town. Heck, Wal-Mart put a store down on 52nd avenue in the middle of nowhere because they know everything around it will develop within 10 years.

Just one year ago, they were content to opt up to AAA. In 2011, do they opt up again to give us an even 14 teams? Will they be given a choice? Do they stay put? Do they then become a AA powerhouse?
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:18 am

Steve, I will be the first to tell you that I couldn't have listed and dated the history of the North Dakota football classes with the detail you did. And you are certainly right when you imply that we don't see eye to eye on this subject (by the way, I have NEVER advocated anyone going independent... nor would I). Whats probably come to be expected is that no matter what either one of us uses to support our arguement, the other seems to see it through a very different set of eyes.

Case in point: You just detailed the 'slow' evolution of North Dakota football from 1990 to 2008 eight to further illustrate your point that the wheels of change move slowly in the NDHSAA. Heres what I saw through my different eyes. You described exactly 4 changes in the 18 years between 1900 and 2008 (1991, 1998, 2007, 2008). For those of you keeping score at home, that averages out to a new plan every four and a half years! Since Fargo Davies will force another change for 2010, that will mean 5 plans in 20 years... or a new plan every 4 years! In my mind, changing a plan every 4 years on average is ridiculously speedy change. Just because the NDHSAA has yet to change to a plan that actually works doesnt mean that they havent been changing plans!

Im also confused Steve... you have shot down plural ideas over the last couple years because AAA just "couldnt" make scheduling work with an odd number of teams. Suddenly you would be in favor of allowing Williston to opt-up if they wish (hence creating a 13 team AAA) and insisting that we make scheduling work? If we can make scheduling work with 13, Steve, why not draw a hardline number placing Williston as the 13th team in AAA (where they belong), and doing the same for every other class? Again, you have yet to point out how this system would not be the most objective and fair for our students-athletes.... who if you remember.... are supposed to be who we are concerned about .
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:58 am

How is allowing Williston do move down not fair to the student athletes?

Playin, the purpose of exchanges like this, or at least one purpose, is to allow for the exchange to have an impact. Someone on this thread (maybe you, I don't know), commented about Montana making it work with 13. I was unaware of that till that comment was made. I've simply combined that idea with the current structure. My point is that 12 seems to work. Let's keep the number at 12, but if Williston is opposed to moving down, allow them to become the 13th team.

Sorry if I'm being open-minded enough to allow for a modification of my opinion. I still think 10 is workable. I have listened to the arguments against it, and have accepted it's not the best solution. 12 seems to be workable. I still believe Devils Lake belongs in AA, not AAA, so I don't see 14 as workable. I have learned that Montana makes it work with 13. So, I'll be open to having 13 if Williston wants to stay up.

If you want to attack me for being open-minded, guilty as charged. Probaby can't accuse you of the same charges.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:36 am

Really Steve, again? I attacked you? In my past couple posts I have thanked you for providing the thorough breakdown of what all a 10, 12, and 16 team AAA would involve and I have given you credit for knowing more of the long-term history than I do. I have acknowledged that we don't see eye to eye and are bound to interpret facts in different ways. In my last few posts, I have not ridiculed any of your ideas/options as bad plans... but supported my own as the better possible plan and explained why I believed so.

I didn't like your assertion that we should ignore what might possibly be a very good plan just because you say the NDHSAA has a history of acting slowly which makes us "stuck" with a certain way. I thought those were very poor reasons for dismissing a plan and explained why I thought so.

Was I perhaps a little harsh when I told you I was "confused" about you changing your mind with the 13 team class? Perhaps, if you choose to think so I won't fight you on it. You are more than welcome to change your mind, I was simply asking if you were now open to 13, what is preventin you from being open to the hardline number idea. Could I have worded it in a brighter tone? Yes I could have. Could you have answered the question? Yes you could have. Would I consider anything I said an "attack"? I would not... you and I have both been plenty guilty of attacking each other on here in the past... me as much as you... but in light of the personal nature of some of your past comments, I wouldn't think you would be so quick to label a disagreement as an attack. Or is it only an attack if the person is disagreeing with you?
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:04 am

Alright, rather than edit my last post I am going to leave it up as a reminder to myself never to do that again. That was a terrible post. Steve told me I was “attacking” him and I tried to smooth it over the politically correct way. That’s a mistake I need to rectify right now.

Steve, I did not attack you for being “open minded” and I believe you already knew that as you were typing that last post. In fact after all the personal bashes and cheap shots you have taken on people in this thread and others (don’t make me quote them again Steve), the fact that you even had the audacity to tell me I was “attacking” you for anything was not only ludicrous, but all too indicative of your mode of operation.

You see Steve, as people debate ideas, they use things called points and counter points. I make a point, you counter, I consider your counter and respond with a counter of my own. We may never completely agree, but as long as we both have the best interests of ALL North Dakota’s student-athletes in mind we would be making progress. However, when anyone on here (this is you Steve) begins debating with a personal interest in mind or the interests of only a small group of North Dakota’s student-athletes, counter-points become lost and the debate begins to resemble a train-wreck.

Now I’m always one to give credit where credit is due. You are an intelligent guy Steven and you have learned to play your game very well. You choose a plan that suits the needs of your personal interest and with the aid of your intelligence play the point-counter point game quite well, provided you can create ways to support the plan that benefits your interest. However, the longer the debate lasts, it only becomes a matter of time before someone presents you with a point you are unable to counter and still pretend to have the best interests of ALL North Dakota’s student athletes in mind. That’s when it really hits the fan.

Even then, you are still rather crafty in the way you make it hit the fan. Rather than trying to argue a point you know you can’t win, you create a diversion. Historically you have done this in many ways, from ranting about “B-shots” and “one room school houses”, to claiming some unspecified position supposedly making you more knowledgeable than we, but never using that knowledge in the context of the original point. You don’t stop there, you have danced around points before by criticizing very simple typographical errors and spelling mistakes (of which you have made your own), and even just simply told one poster that he was “smoking something,” all in order to cover up the inadequacy in your own argument. My personal favorite was more recent, when you acknowledged that a plan was “good in theory”, but then immediately dismissed it as something the NDHSAA would never consider and then drawing attention back to the plans that benefit your interest.

If the plan really is “good in theory” Steve, what makes you so sure the NDHSAA would never consider it? Perhaps that unspecified position you are always referencing makes you so certain. I myself couldn’t give two-bits what the NDHSAA has done in the past… If they have the best interests of ALL the student-athletes in mind, they would give any plan that’s “good in theory” their consideration in the present. And if they wouldn’t, that is to say if they don’t have an open mind and the best interests of ALL student-athletes in mind, then the NDHSAA needs to find new Board Members quickly.

These types of diversionary tactics are exactly what your last post was all about. I asked you a very good question about the difference between a 12 team class with a 13th team opting up, and a hard-line drawing a 13 team class. It was a question you knew you couldn’t answer, so instead you became the “boy who cried attack”.

So here are some questions for you Steve, to answer for all the other posters and readers here… and remember, you are supposed to have the best interests of ALL North Dakota’s student-athletes in mind when you answer them.

Explain your justification for the 12 team AAA that you now say you favor (I’m giving you credit for being open minded here since you started this thread to support the 10 team AAA)

Either A: You don’t think Williston should have to play Minot who has 2.6 times as many boys, but you think that Lisbon should have to Williston who has 3.6 times as many boys.

Or B: Your only reason to move Williston down is to create an even number 12 team AAA

If A: Where is the equity? Williston can’t play Minot but Lisbon can play Williston? Furthermore, how do you justify moving Williston down with 400, but keeping Dickinson up with 426??

If B: If the purpose of moving Williston down is only for even numbers, doesn’t allowing them to opt up completely ruin the entire purpose for which you drew the plan?

If you acknowledge that Williston should be allowed to opt up to make 13, then obviously you acknowledge that 13 can work. That being said, Williston has a much better opportunity to make themselves successful against Minot than Lisbon has opportunity to make themselves successful against Williston. So if the best interests of ALL North Dakota student-athletes are taken into account, why even give Williston the opportunity to be AA? If 13 can work why not draw a hard-line at 349.5 to make that 13 team AAA? Please tell us, how does it make more sense to force an even 12, but allow an opt up, when you could draw a line which places the 13 teams that belong together, together??

Remember, I’m not interested in what you think the odds are the NDHSAA will approve anything, I am not interested in what the NDHSAA has done in the past. I’m not interested in what words I misspelled, what you think I’m smoking, nor the size of my elementary. I am interested in your answer to those questions with the best interests of ALL North Dakota student-athletes in mind.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Run4Fun2009 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:59 am

wow you guys need to get a life...to be arguing through posts on a thread in the wee hours of the morning over something that you have no say in when the time comes. I think that we need to re-direct this topic some other way really soon or this is going to get out of hand and get locked
Run4Fun2009
NDPreps The King
 
Posts: 15876
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to AA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests