Realignment talk: Here we go

The teams in Class AA.

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby eagle101 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:15 pm

I hate to stop this fascinating debate, but this will start a new one. The NDHSAA website has the following on their football page

2011-12 Football Plan
On December 10, 2009, Class A ADs and Class B Superintendents received a survey concerning options for football divisions as recommended by the football committee for the 2011 and 2012 football plan. Survey completion deadline is December 17, 2009. Below are the football committee recommendations.

16 AAA, 16 AA, 32 A, the remainder 9 Man
14 AAA, 16 AA, 32 A, the remainder 9-man
16 AAA, 32 A, Large 9-Man, Small 9-Man or 6-Man
14 AAA, 32 A, Large 9-Man, Small 9-Man or 6-Man
eagle101
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:36 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:35 pm

That should put a nice turn in this debate. Personally, as I've said before, I would like to see the last option with a 6man division but only on one condition. The NDHSAA has to put some type of restrictions on when a school can co-op. Right now there a some 11man teams that could easily be two separate 9man teams and I'm sure there are some 9man teams right now that could easily be two separate 6man teams. I would love to see 6man football in ND to keep some tradition and school spirit in some of the smaller communities/schools. At the very least I think two 9man divisions in class B makes more sense than two 11man divisions for class B.
"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 Indy5 » Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:13 am

Thats true but some teams don't want to play 9-man. I went to a school that played 11-man and I would have never wanted to play 9-man. To me its not football its a schoolyard pick up game. But thats just my opinion.
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 Dec 14, 2009 2:42 pm

With the suggestion of 6-man football, I am out of this debate. I don't care if the other states do it. 6-man football is nothing more than pickup football on a playground. It's not even close to the intention of what football is supposed to be.

Bisonguy, Playin, it's been fun sparring with you on this debate. I'm sorry, but if the state is honestly going to consider 6-man, then football is broken beyond repair. There's no need to go further. The NDHSAA is destined to take a great sport and destroy it for no reason.

It's been a great ride guys. I'll check back when we have 16 AAA teams, one nine-man division, and two divisions of 6-man.

See ya.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:30 pm

Okay, I couldn't stay away after digging into these numbers.

I have analyzed all four scenarios presented on the survey. I also talked to someone who has talked to a member of the football realignment committee that has sent out th surveys. According to that person, the committee expects more plans to be submitted.

I have been attempting to protect Jamestown, Williston, and Dickinson, particulary Williston on this thread. I have to abandon that theory. The HSAA has tried to entice the gutting of AA football with the idea of six-man being introduced. If we use the old numbers, any plan that includes six-man would force 17-19 teams to move up to AA. Here's the math:

Option 3=16 AAA, 32 AA, one group of large 9-man (A), and one group of small 9-man or 6-man (B).

Under this plan, Devils Lake, Shanley and Wahpeton move up to AAA, which would appear to be fine for most on this thread. It's not to me, but that's not the point. The next 32 would be AA. That would require 19 teams to move up a level from their current level, including:

Griggs-Barnes County, May-Port, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, Northern Cass, Rugby, Park River-Fordville-Lankin-Edinburg, Langdon, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, North Prairie, Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, New Town, Watford City, Hazen, Bowman Co., Belfield-South Heart, and Standing Rock.

Option 4=14 AAA, 32 AA, one group of large 9-man (A), and one group of small 9-man or 6-man (B).

The changes from the plan above: Keep Shanley and Wahpeton at AA, and keep Linton and Northern Cass a A, which would be 9-man.

It seems the only thing the committee has agreed on is to move Devils Lake to AAA. They have addressed nothing about any of the issues that really confront football in the state, the issues that all of us have brought up, from one angle or another.

I think these plans are all horrible. Therefore, I've decided that, in order to actually make progress in football in the state, I'm going to (sigh) go back on my word and endorse two things I said I wouldn't.

1. Odd-numbered classes
2. Enrollment cutoffs.

I went back to formula, and tried to find a new way, something that we haven't brought up yet, something new. There are several breaks in the numbers that are interesting, and we've referenced many of those. I decided to pick up on a new one:

Devils Lake 311
Wahpeton--206
Shanley--205
Valley City--194, a number right around 200

Then:
Turtle Mountain 164 (adjusted)
Central Cass and Grafton 153
Carrington and St. Marys 143

Okay, so here's my plan. And again, I'm prepared to swallow my pride completely on this one and admit I'm going against what I've said before. I'm doing it because I cannot force a system that makes Griggs-Barnes County to play AA, or completely gut the lower classes of football:

1. All schools with a male enrollment above 160 will fill the top two classes.
2. The total number of these schools will be divided in half, with the top half in AAA and the bottom half in AA.
3. In case of an odd-numbered total of teams, the "plus 1" class is AAA
4. Opt-ups are allowed, but no school will be moved down due to an opt-up.
5. 159-90 is "A"
6. The rest 9-man
7. 5 year plan, then up for review.

Now under this plan:

AAA=Minot, Bismarck, Century, West Fargo, Fargo North, Red River, Central, Mandan, South

AA=Davies, Jamestown, Dickinson, Williston, Devils Lake, Belcourt, Shanley, Wahpeton, Valley City

A=Add, Carrington, St. Mary's, Beulah, Bottineau, Minot Ryan, Trinity, Central Cass, Grafton, Oak Grove, Kindred, Lisbon. Move down Cavalier, Oakes, Garrison, Williams County, Des Lacs, Velva, Harvey, Stanley, Grant County-Flasher, New Salem, Killdeer, Linton, and LaMoue

Okay, I know this is completely screwed up. But there's some rationale here.
1. Allows for some growth. With West Fargo and Bismarck potentially looking at new schools, they would add two more teams up top, without sending anyone down to the next level. Each top class, at that point, would have 10 teams. Those two towns adding teams have the best ligitimate chance of adding schools.

2. Just looking at the plan, I'm assuming Davies would choose to opt-up to AAA, creating a 10-team league. I'm assuming St. Mary's would opt-up to AA, creating a nine-team middle class. I know it's not great, but maybe we could get Minot Ryan to opt-up or something. I don't know.

3. The "A" class, I think, has good enrollment comparisons.

Go ahead and pick this thing apart. I'm just trying something new. I hate the four plans circulated so far, so I'm trying anything I can to keep us from six-man football and just balancing things on the back of Devils Lake without any actual thought.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Indy5 » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:25 pm

I agree that it is definately screwed up but I kinda like it. Top two classes are kinda short on teams but like you said, there will be growth. We'd have to see what opt-ups do to add some teams but I think it would work.
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 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:21 am

I can’t speak for others, but I am not going to completely rip this plan apart Steve. It isn’t exactly what I would draw up; however, I think it does represent a relatively unbiased way to split the teams and places the student-athlete’s interests first. In my opinion, you are so much closer to “reasonably fair” than you have ever been. I applaud you for drawing enrollment lines, so even if I don’t think they are the best lines, there is relatively very little to disagree with. I am sure you know I am grinning for ear to ear to read you are endorsing enrollment cutoffs and odd number classes.

One and only one thing I don’t like: lack of an enrollment cutoff between AAA and AA. Reason I don’t like it: even though it currently works out to be fair in your plan, the ‘half and half’ groups are not guaranteed to stay that way as the landscape of North Dakota changes. In the future, it could be possible for the “half line” among teams over 159.5 to represent an unfair split in competitive level (maybe even one that puts Devils Lake in AAA ;-) ). I love that you have enrollment cutoffs between A and 9-man, and between AA and A… why not between AA and AAA? I have a feeling you did it that way to protect Jamestown, Dickinson and especially Williston (your words), and of course Devils Lake, but if that is what you view as fair… why not just draw a hard line above that number?
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:36 am

To be fair, Playin, it would have been very easy for me to "protect" those three schools with an enrollment cutoff. I'd just make the cutoff 500, and we'd be good.

I didn't do that because we don't yet know what the official headcount will be between Davies and South. If we went with a hard enrollment number around that level, and then saw, for example, Davies get a flood of boys, South could conceivably drop below the number. I don't think anyone would enjoy the idea of South at AA. Sure, they'd opt up, but it's the principle of the thing.

The other reason, really, is that I believe in groups in the upper classes. I'm actually trying to plan for the future. Right now, there are 18 of those teams, counting Davies. If we see West Fargo and Bismarck build, we will be at 20. That's 10 a class, if you divide it by 2. I still think there's a good case for grouping at the top level. And, like I said, if teams want to opt up and upset the apple cart a little bit, I think it's right to let them do so, and figure it out somehow.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:33 am

Steven, let's start with where we agree:

1) Good for you for embracing odd numbers and enrollment cutoffs (or at least leaving those options on the table).

2) I don't want 6 man football, either. 6 man is barely football.

3) I want a 4 class football system. The best thing about your newest plan is that it would preserve the 4 class system for a long, long time.

Now,

My biggest complaint with your new plan is that you got away from the concept of a "natural cutoff" between AAA and AA. In your plan, the AAA and AA cutoff is between Fargo South and Fargo Davies, schools that are expected to be identical in size. I know that your purpose was to find a natural cutoff between AA and A, but you forged an unnatural division between AAA and AA to do it.

Also, it's a dangerous game to draw up a plan and expect at least 2-3 teams to opt up to make it feasible. To me, this indicates that the plan cannot stand on its own. Fargo Davies would be under no obligation to opt up in your plan, even though they clearly fit better in AAA and that's where you'd want them to be. Knowing a little bit about Minot Ryan, I don't think they'll be in any position to opt up a division in the future, no matter what plan is drawn up.

What do I support? I look at the numbers and see 13 AAA teams in the top class (Williston and up). My plan would have 13 in AAA.

Of the four plans to be voted on by the NDHSAA member schools, I'd support option 2 (14 in AAA, 16 in AA, 32 in A, the rest 9 man). I can support this one based on these numbers: 1) I see a natural gap of 105 boys between Devils Lake and the next school, and 2) Devils Lake had AAA-sized participation in football this year. The numbers on their sideline were huge compared to most AA schools.

I'd propose 13, but I could live with and vote for 14 in AAA. We've all run away from the idea that Devils Lake could compete in AAA football and I'm not sure why.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:27 am

The point is NOT to accept ANY plan from the HSAA. If they are truly open-minded on new ideas, as they CLAIM to be, we don't need to accept ANYTHING they have sent us.

I'm not criticizing you for choosing, but I'm asking you not to choose. Pull a Richard Pryor and vote for "none of the above".

Bisonguy, there is no need for a 13 team top class, when 10 would do nicely. I'll go ahead and draw the line at 450 if that helps you, because at that point, we will have 12 permanently in that class, once West Fargo and Bismarck build their new schools, which we're all speculating they will. The claim has been made here that Jamestown and the others have never considered themselves a second-tier town. That's not true. I talked to people from Jamestown (in the high school system) about this idea, and they embrace it.

We all have to accept that, due to their growth, Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks are all different than any other towns in the state. With this plan, all of the AAA schools come from these four towns. The AA teams come from Williston, Dickinson, privates from Fargo and Bismarck, Devils Lake, Belcourt, Valley City, Jamestown, and Wahpeton. These towns look the same. There are natural breaks in enrollment numbers and town size to mirror the class system here. We don't need to show half of these teams up just to make us feel good about the number of teams in a class. If the class is 10 teams, and they all look relatively the same, then that's the class. College conferences make 8-10 work, and their conference titles mean as much as if they were in a 12-14 team conference. Why can't a 10 team class work in high school, when all the information supports it?
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:06 pm

Ok Steve, I'll agree to toss around other ideas. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to draw up a new plan that the NDHSAA will consider.

10 is better than 9 or 8. You can't separate South from Davies in any plan. I'm glad you came around on that.

A "natural" AAA has to be 10, 13, or 14. Agree, Steve?

I am not surprised that there is some interest in Jamestown in playing AA football. I have not heard anything from Williston, I think Dickinson is against the idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if all of these schools showed interest in the idea. They'd all be twice the size of most of their competition, and they'd have a better chance to add some banners to the rafters. Who in their right might wouldn't want that?

Even if they'd rather win at AA, I think Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston fit better in AAA.

Would it be more convenient to put those three in AA? Yes
Would it lead to more success in those schools? Yes
Do I understand why they'd prefer AA? Yes

But is it more fair and equitable to put them in AA? NO. We've been through the numbers many times.
Williston, Dickinson, and Jamestown are all between 400 and 450 boys. Six AAA schools are under 625. Only 1 other AA school is above 225.

10 is more convenient. 13 is more fair.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:47 pm

steve34 wrote:We all have to accept that, due to their growth, Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks are all different than any other towns in the state. With this plan, all of the AAA schools come from these four towns. The AA teams come from Williston, Dickinson, privates from Fargo and Bismarck, Devils Lake, Belcourt, Valley City, Jamestown, and Wahpeton. These towns look the same. There are natural breaks in enrollment numbers and town size to mirror the class system here. We don't need to show half of these teams up just to make us feel good about the number of teams in a class. If the class is 10 teams, and they all look relatively the same, then that's the class. College conferences make 8-10 work, and their conference titles mean as much as if they were in a 12-14 team conference. Why can't a 10 team class work in high school, when all the information supports it?

1. I agree that a ten team class can work

2. I highly disagree that all the information supports a ten team class is what ND needs right now.

3. I agree that the towns of Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks all look different than the towns of Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston.

4. I don’t give a hobo’s shoe lace that the towns look different, I am only concerned with what the schools look like. With the exception of Minot, the other three schools are all split into multiple large public schools. Fargo is splitting again.
steve34 wrote:I'm actually trying to plan for the future. Right now, there are 18 of those teams, counting Davies. If we see West Fargo and Bismarck build, we will be at 20. That's 10 a class, if you divide it by 2. I still think there's a good case for grouping at the top level. And, like I said, if teams want to opt up and upset the apple cart a little bit, I think it's right to let them do so, and figure it out somehow.

5. You already know that I support enrollment cutoffs because it allows the future to take care of itself… but since you want to plan for it, I will play along. Fargo South is splitting, and your plan for the future includes West Fargo and Bismarck each adding another school. If those two towns do that, the enrollment of each of the other schools decreases as the new ones open. That would leave Minot in an enrollment by themselves, with the next largest schools most likely being Fargo North (615) and Red River (600).

You are the one who wants to plan for the future, you’re plan shows me that there is no reason for Jamestown (451), Dickinson (426), and Williston (400) to run scared from schools with barely 600.
steve34 wrote:The claim has been made here that Jamestown and the others have never considered themselves a second-tier town. That's not true. I talked to people from Jamestown (in the high school system) about this idea, and they embrace it.

Have you ever noticed how many people Steve talks to? For a Hope-Page guy he sure does get around the state a lot and spends endless energy examining the best interests of Valley City and Devils Lake.

I recently talked to a guy from Dickinson (in the high school system) about this idea, and they do not embrace it. I don’t believe any of them do. I believe the NDHSAA left it off their survey for a reason.

Question for you Steve: You said that you still "believe in groups for the upper classes.” Considering that enrollment is the only objective way to divide teams, how can you stay that groups are more equitable for the student-athletes than enrollment cutoffs? Or are you using groups because they protect a certain school(s)? After all, 14 is a nice "group" so is 16.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:27 pm

Enrollment is not the only objective way to realign. Enrollment + demographics is the way to do it. That's where groups come in for the upper classes.

Also, make no mistake about this: Valley City has NOTHING to lose in football. Even if you expand AAA to 16, they do not make the cut. You were probably referring to the basketball posts on this thread, and if you were, I feel ya. I just want to make sure that I'm clear on that for football. No one is crafting football plans for Valley City. If I were, I'd be singing the praises of a 16 team AAA.

Also, you can make references to where I live all you want. You don't know where I work, or what I do. But I do not say that I talk to people when I don't.

I'm just going to leave it at that. You obviously see Williston, Dickinson, and Jamestown in the same group with the top 10. I don't. If it were up to me, I'd have those 10 top schools in their own class for everything. Smarter men then all of us have that agenda, and sooner or later, as the bigs get bigger and everyone else gets smaller, we'll get there. I got nothing but time, and time is on my side.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:42 pm

What do demographics have to do with a level field of play in football?
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:28 pm

steve34 wrote:Smarter men then all of us have that agenda, and sooner or later, as the bigs get bigger and everyone else gets smaller, we'll get there. I got nothing but time, and time is on my side.


Ok Steve, you go ahead and craft a plan that you think will fit North Dakota in ten years. I'm going to try to craft one that fits us now.

P.S. Future high schools in West Fargo and Bismarck don't help your case.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:39 am

They absolutely help my case. You don't build a new high school because you're losing kids. If West Fargo and Bismarck build, it's because they are getting bigger.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:23 pm

Come on now... we've been through this already... they are getting bigger... and splitting one more time... keeping enrollments within a range where Williston, Dix, Jamestown can compete.

West Fargo, Bismarck High, and Century are three of the four largest schools in the state, and they are headed for splits. It looks like West Fargo will happen first.

Fargo is the largest town in the state by far. In a year, they won't have a school bigger than Fargo North at 615 boys.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:01 pm

And in five years, they will all have 700. And in 10 years, they will all have 800. And in 5 years, Jamestown will have 350, and in 10 years, Jamestown will have 300, and lower, and lower, and lower.

Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks, and Minot are in a class by themselves. Get used to it.
Last edited by steve34 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:12 pm

Uh, I'm used to it, friend... these towns have been the four largest in North Dakota for my whole life and for your whole life, and we have never excluded the next towns from the top class.

When the Fargo schools grow to 700 and 800, they still won't be as big as Minot High, and Minot High really has not been dominant in football or any other sport.

In fact... I can't believe it took us 270 posts to mention this, but if football is such a numbers game, why haven't we seen more success from Minot High? Shouldn't they be the perennial power in the west and in the state with their 1031 boys? Minot has 631 more boys than Williston... shouldn't we be seeing a bigger gap between the two school in the product on the field? And if we're not seeing a gap, why are we forcing them out of AAA football?

The fact is that the talent gap between Minot and Williston has been quite small for a decade (and Williston loves it when they beat Minot, by the way), so why are we so quick to bump them down?
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:39 pm

steve34 wrote:And in five years, they will all have 700. And in 10 years, they will all have 800. And in 5 years, Jamestown will have 350, and in 10 years, Jamestown will have 300, and lower, and lower, and lower.


Steven, if most of the bigs have 800 in 10 years, and if Jamestown/Dickinson/Williston are down to 300, let's shrink AAA at that time. We're not at that point. Right now, most of the bigs have 600 and those schools are all 400+.

I doubt anyone in Jamestown would like your prediction that their community and high school will shrink by 1/3rd in a decade.

P.S. FACT - the largest grade in the Dickinson Public School system k-12 is its kindergarten class. They will be enrolled in high school in 10 years.
Last edited by Bisonguy06 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:41 pm

Bisonguy06 wrote:When the Fargo schools grow to 700 and 800, they still won't be as big as Minot High, and Minot High really has not been dominant in football or any other sport.

You are wasting your breath Bisonguy. Steve only loves certain facts, and this is one of those undisputable facts he will forever ignore out of convenience. Just like he conveniently ignores Williston's 2008 appearance in the AAA semi-finals.
steve34 wrote:And in five years, they will all have 700. And in 10 years, they will all have 800. And in 5 years, Jamestown will have 350, and in 10 years, Jamestown will have 300, and lower, and lower, and lower.

Steve, if I were to recommend a plan that would have been fair for North Dakota's student athletes in 1999, you would jump all over me and point out that the landscape of ND has since changed and the system is no longer fair in 2009. Are you seriously going to suggest they we adopt a plan in 2009 that might be fair for the North Dakota student-athletes of 2019?

Right now in 2009, Jamestown and Fargo North are less than 215 boys apart but your argument for separating them in 2009 is that they might be 500 students apart by 2019?? I vote no to that line of justification just like I have voted no to the fifty other lines of justification you have thrown against the wall and then abandoned because they failed to stick.

My justifications for enrollment cutoffs have never changed, nor have they ever been challenged in terms of what is fair for student-athletes… They have been challenged, but never in terms of fairness… interesting how priorities work.

In other-words, let’s open our eyes. This conversation has now come around to projecting the future… enrollments are constantly changing… but fair enrollment cutoffs are constant. Set them in a fair spot, and let the schools go where they belong as their enrollments rise and fall.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:53 pm

350, in my mind, is the perfect spot for a AAA enrollment cutoff if you want to do it Playin's way. 350 is right in that natural gap between Williston and Devils Lake.

Steve, if these 3 schools fall below 350, you can have your 10 team AAA.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:51 pm

Playin, right now, Lisbon and Watford City are less than 3 boys apart. How can you justify different classes for those schools?
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:47 pm

There is no easy natural cutoff between AA and A, I will give you that Steve.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:24 pm

Okay. I am going to put this as plainly as I can. If you disagree with me, I am perfectly fine with that. In fact, I have come to expect it. All I ask is that by the end of this post you at least understand my mindset more fully, even if you disagree.

I H-A-T-E talking about natural breaks. There are too many of them to use them as an argument for a class system. I only talk about them when responding to points about the “set group” plans. The reason I have to bring them up is because set group plans completely depend on natural breaks. 10 is a set group, so is 12, so is 14, so is 16… so which is best among those numbers all depends on natural breaks. I still think it’s the wrong way to divide teams, but if I am going to discuss those plans I have to use the language of those plans.

Why do I hate them? They are loaded with bias. One guy is going to choose to focus on the natural break between Grand Forks Central and Jamestown (difference of 132). The next guy would prefer to focus on the natural break between Williston and Devils Lake (difference of 89). Guy #3 thinks that everyone should recognize the natural break between Devils Lake and Wahpeton (difference of 105). Furthermore, all three of those guys haven’t even noticed that there is a natural break between West Fargo and Bismarck High (difference of 129), nor do they realize that the largest natural break exists between Bismarck Century and Fargo North (difference of 172 boys).

All five of those natural breaks exist with no team in-between, so which is the best natural break to use? All answers to that question will be loaded with bias. Furthermore, in fairness, why should we recognize one natural break and not all five? None of the answers to that question will have the best interests of the student-athlete in mind. What’s even worse is that when you focus on the “difference” between the bottom of one class and the top of a different class, you end up over-looking the “difference” between the top of one class and the bottom of that same class… which is a much more important number.

If you see me reference a natural break it is in response to someone else’s plan. Natural breaks are completely irrelevant in an enrollment cutoff plan

In an enrollment cutoff plan the focus is on setting a number, drawing a line in the sand right in the general area of what makes it reasonably fair for the smallest possible to play the largest possible within the same class. It is very possible that two teams in two different classes might only be one or two boys apart. Who cares? After all, the focus should be on what class you belong in, not the class you don’t belong in. If the cutoff is 349.5 and Williston has 349 and Dickinson has 350, they are in different classes- unless they opt up which is always allowed. If they are both above the set cutoff they are both up. If they are both below the set cutoff they are both down- unless one or both opt up. This is unbiased, unwavering, and evenhanded amongst all four classes.

You don’t have to agree with my plan, but please stop using the flaws created by natural groups to attack my plan. It is your plan that depends on natural groups, not mine. My plan ignores them because of their flaws.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to AA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests