Realignment talk: Here we go

[NDplayin]

This typical of the way you argue Steve. I can say you’re the kettle, you can say I’m the pot. The difference is that I can prove that you are the kettle; you cannot prove that I am the pot.

I say that you care only about the schools over 150. I can prove it. The following is what you consider “fair”:

We make the largest AAA Minot (1031) and the smallest GF Central (583). That puts CF Central at a disadvantage of 1.76 to 1. I acknowledge that 1.76 to 1 is reasonably fair to GFC, what you refuse to acknowledge is that in putting GFC is that at the sake of making the AAA ratio that low, you pit Jamestown (451) against Carrington (143) at a ratio of 3.15 to 1.

The following is what I consider fair:

We make the largest AAA Minot (1031) and the smallest Williston (400). That puts Williston at a disadvantage of 2.57 to 1. Therefore, The largest AA would be Devils Lake (311) and the smallest Lisbon (112). That puts Lisbon at a disadvantage of 2.77 to 1.

There is no equity in your plan. There is in mine. You see, I would LOVE it if we could give AAA a ratio of 1.76 to 1, but I refuse to do it at the expense of AA by giving it a 3.15 to 1 ratio. In my plan Williston is obviously at more of a disadvantage than they are in yours. But it is still a reasonable disadvantage. I would prefer Williston playing at 2.57 to 1 because it would also mean Lisbon is playing at 2.77 to 1. Technically, I could say that I care about Williston more than Lisbon because their ratio is technically better. However, we can’t work with perfect numbers and my two ratios are as close to equal as we can get. You see, I care about Williston and Lisbon equally. You certain care about Williston, and do so completely at the expense of Carrington.

I will throw you a bone Steve, it's a fact that a natural break in enrollment exists between Jamestown (451) and GFC (583). Unlike you, however, I don’t conveniently ignore the facts that there is also a natural break in enrollment between Williston (451) and Devils Lake (311) and another natural break between Devils Lake (311) and Wahpeton (206). You can pretend like only one break exists, but you can’t change the reality that there are three. I choose to use the natural break between Williston and Devils Lake because it is creates a situation equally reasonable for the smallest in each class. You choose to minimize the ratio of one class and ignore the fact that it balloons the ratio for the other. That, by definition, is bias.

I’m so happy that you have picked up on the reality of life that no matter how we divide up the classes, the top of one class in any given year could be competitive with the bottom of the higher class in that particular year, and that the bottom of a higher class wouldn’t necessarily be guaranteed any wins in the lower one. I guess from the beginning I took for granted that we all knew that gray area exists in the real world. Steve, you will get no argument from me that Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston could make a nice fit Devils Lake, Wahpeton, Shanley, and Valley. You will also get no argument from me that Wahpeton and Shanley make a nice fit with Carrington, Central Cass, Oak Grove, and Lisbon. You will get an argument from me that just because Carrington fits with Devils Lake and Devils Lake fits with Jamestown, that Jamestown and Carrington fit together. As long as you continue to use that argument I will continue to point out how tragically flawed that logic is.

I know that the facts are convenient for you to ignore Steve, but that doesn’t make them go away.
Fact there is a huge disparity between the ratios 1.76 to 1 and 3.15 to 1.
Fact there is wonderful parity between the ratios 2.57 to 1 and 2.77 to 1.
Fact With the line drawn between DL and Williston, both Williston and Lisbon have a more reasonable opportunity than Carrington would if the line were drawn between Jamestown and GFC.

Oh, I also love the way that you chastised Bisonguy06 for detailing just exactly what Dickinson looks like these days. It amazes me how easily you forget that comparing “community look” was your original idea in the first place.

You can call me a pot, you can call me John, you can call me Bill, you can call me an idiot, but you CAN’T make a 3.15 to 1 ratio smaller than a 2.57 to 1 ratio. I choose to call you Steve, and you have your head buried in the sand.

[Bisonguy06]

Steve, if we agree that 12 is better than 10 and agree to allow opt ups, you are a reasonable guy and my work here is done. Amen.

[steve34]

Again, all theory, all numbers, no realism. You can't explain away Lisbon being competitive with every former AAA school that moved down. You can't explain away the fact that those teams would have barely made the AAA playoffs, if that, this year.

Ratios are great, when the totals work with them. But a 3-1 ratio is much more fair if the total numbers are 60-20 then a 2-1 ratio if the numbers are 5000-2500. There are obviously higher odds at finding outstanding athletes in 2500 additional players than in an additional 40. Your ratios take no total numbers into play.

All theory, no realism.

[steve34]

Steve, if we agree that 12 is better than 10 and agree to allow opt ups, you are a reasonable guy and my work here is done. Amen.

We agree. Peace out.

[NDplayin]

Again, all theory, all numbers, no realism. You can't explain away Lisbon being competitive with every former AAA school that moved down. You can't explain away the fact that those teams would have barely made the AAA playoffs, if that, this year.

Steve, I don't need to explain away that Lisbon was competitive against every former AAA team; I didn't disagree with it, and it is irrelevent . I don't need to explain away that those former AAA teams would have barely made the AAA playoffs if at all; I didn't disagree with it, and it is irrelevent. In fact, as irrelevent as they are, i agree with both points. This argument is not about the former AAA teams it is about what to do with three current AAA teams.

I'm not saying it's unfair that Lisbon play Devils Lake, and I am not saying that Shanley and Wahpeton weren't at unreasonable disadvantages in AAA, so quit implying I am. What I am arguing with is your assertion that it's reasonable to ask Carrington to play Jamestown.

Analogy: We have three boys posting up in the game of basketball. James is 6'4" tall. Devon is 6'0" tall. Carlton is 5'9" tall. James has a height advantage over Devon in the post, but it is not an unreasonable advantage. We acknowledge James advantage, but we still consider it fair that Devon "match up" with James. Devon has a height advantage over Carlton in the post, but it is not an unreasonable advantage. We acknowledge Devon's advantage, but we still consider it fair that Carlton "match up" with Devon in the post. It is fair that Devon match up with James; it is fair that Carlton match up with Devon. Therefore, it is fair that Carlton (5'9") matches up with James (6'4") in the post, right?

[steve34]

Again, all theory.

Fact is that four teams moved down from 3A, and all were tested by 2A competition. That is not theory, that is fact, period. Your assertion that Carrington would not be competitive with Jamestown has no merit, because there were assertions that Lisbon, coming up from 1A would not be competitive with teams that were coming down from 3A. That assertion was proven incorrect on the field. Your claims that the ratios do not match up was proven wrong on the field. My assertions that the ratios were more destructive in the larger class was proven right on the field, both last year and this year.

Johnny versus Steve and Devin versus Johnny is not applicable. Lisbon vs. Shanley is. This year proved the ratios are more destructive in the top class than the next one or any after that.

[NDplayin]

Again, all theory.

Fact is that four teams moved down from 3A, and all were tested by 2A competition. That is not theory, that is fact, period. Your assertion that Carrington would not be competitive with Jamestown has no merit, because there were assertions that Lisbon, coming up from 1A would not be competitive with teams that were coming down from 3A. That assertion was proven incorrect on the field. Your claims that the ratios do not match up was proven wrong on the field. My assertions that the ratios were more destructive in the larger class was proven right on the field, both last year and this year.

Johnny versus Steve and Devin versus Johnny is not applicable. Lisbon vs. Shanley is. This year proved the ratios are more destructive in the top class than the next one or any after that.

Again Steve, I have tried several ways to explain this elementary concept to you.

I AGREE that the four teams (Shanley, Wahpeton, St. Mary's, and Belcourt) that moved down from AAA to AA last year were all tested by AA competition. You are correct, that is fact.

I AGREE that the assertions made by some that Lisbon couldn't be competitive against the four teams that moved down from AAA were wrong. That indeed was proven wrong on the field, it is fact.

Here is the very simple FACT that you continue to ignore for your own convenience: Just because Shanley, Wahpeton, St. Mary's, and Belcourt were all AAA last year does does not make them equal to Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston who were AAA this year.

Your entire faulty assumption that because Lisbon can compete with Shanley, Wahpeton, St. Mary’s and Belcourt is based on the ignorant notion that just because those four schools were at the bottom of AAA last year, that they are the same as the three schools at the bottom of AAA this year. W-R-O-N-G

FACT: You could DOUBLE Belcourt (164)) and they still would still fall 72 boys SHORTof the male enrollment of ONE Williston(400).

FACT: You could COMBINE Shanley(205) and Wahpeton (206) and they still wouldn’t equal the male enrollment of ONE Dickinson (426).

FACT: You could TRIPLE St. Mary’s (143) and they would still be 22 boys SHORT of the the male enrollment of ONE Jamestown (451).

Steven says, “Congratulations smaller AA schools, you have proven you can compete with Shanley and Wahpeton. Your reward? We are going to make you play schools OVER DOUBLE THE SIZE of Shanley and Wahpeton.”

The James to Devon to Carlton post player analogy is completely relevant because it is proof of just how asinine the logic you are trying to pull off is.

Your Shanley vs. Lisbon fact, while undisputable, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT because we aren’t talking about anyone playing Shanley, we are talking about someone playing Williston, and Shanley does not equal Williston.

Steven, you have reached the point of complete insanity. I once enjoyed debating the relevant facts of this debate. On the other hand, I have tired of trying to explain the fact that when x-y=4 and y-z=4 that x-z=8 NOT 4. The fact that you have tried to force 8 to equal 4 about three different times is evidence that you have no valid argument to prove your point.

Bring up Shanley vs. Lisbon all you want, it is not worthy of anyone's attention because it is completely irrelevant. You can get up here an point out all the irrelevancies you want, I will no longer reply to them. If, and only if, you ever actually do make a relevant argument on here again will I consider renewing the debate. I am finished leading the blind horse to water.

[steve34]

Boy, who's doing the name calling and the negative bashing now? Strike a nerve while defeating your argument, did I?

The Lisbon vs. Shanley argument is totally relevant, due to the fact that the history of the small AAA's moving down does not reflect a lack of the small AA's being able to compete with them. Your entire argument is based on the idea that the small AA's would not be able to compete with the AAA's that would be next to move down. Your argument is based totally on theory and numbers, with no basis in on-the-field play.

The evidence of on-the-field play suggests the opposite, as I've stated. This season proves it. Lisbon, the smallest AA, defeated one of the AAA's that moved down, and competed well with two others. The class shows no imbalance with AAA's moving down.

If the AAA class were to remain at 12 teams or reduce to 10, I would, as I suggested, support a move by the AA class to reduce it's membership to either 12 or 14, which would help. But even if that additional move didn't happen, there is no evidence that the AA world would have large competitive disadvantages between top to bottom.

Glad you're finished. People that lose are the first to quit.

[ndlionsfan]

FACT: You could DOUBLE Belcourt (164)) and they still would still fall 72 boys SHORTof the male enrollment of ONE Williston(400).

Belcourt's enrollment for classfication purposes is only taken at 60% of the actual. The NDHSAA came up with that formula after Belcourt refused to play the AAA schedule and Four Winds chose to go independent instead of playing 11man. Belcourt's actual enrollment is probably about even with DL (300-320)

[Indy5]

Steve, I get that small AA have always been able to compete with the AAA's that move down. History shows it. There is no way around that. BUT,that was when those teams deserved to move down. Now, we are trying to force Jamestown,Dickinson, and Williston to move down just because it will make things easier. You can't argue that those three have been competitive at AAA. The only reason we are moving them down is because now Davies gives us 10 really big schools in ND. These three, though not in that top ten group, can still be grouped with those bigger schools because they are not part of the next 16 schools in ND. They really are in a class of their own. Because we can't have a three team class, they have to go somewhere and they have always been, and still should be, with the top ten.

In just a few short years we want to go from a 16 team AAA to a 10 team AAA? I don't really remember there being much of a problem with the 16 team AAA, so why are we trying to shrink AAA every year even though there really isn't anything wrong with it.

Now, I'm not saying we should still have a 16 team but I certainly think that we still have 12 or 13 schools that can compete at AAA.

[NorthDakota11]

Again, all theory, all numbers, no realism. You can't explain away Lisbon being competitive with every former AAA school that moved down. You can't explain away the fact that those teams would have barely made the AAA playoffs, if that, this year.

Ratios are great, when the totals work with them. But a 3-1 ratio is much more fair if the total numbers are 60-20 then a 2-1 ratio if the numbers are 5000-2500. There are obviously higher odds at finding outstanding athletes in 2500 additional players than in an additional 40. Your ratios take no total numbers into play.

All theory, no realism.

I think there is plenty of realism in thinking that a team with 2500 boys should be able to compete with a team that has 5000... if a coach can't find 50-100 kids out of 2500 plus that can play at the highest level possible he shouldn't have a job... my mother could coach and field a competitive team with 2500 kids...

That's like saying a guy that makes $5 millions dollars a year has a higher standard of living then someone making $2.5 million... then lets compare the gap of someone that makes $60,000 a year to someone that makes $20,000 a year... the person making $60,000 is a lot more comfortable then the guy making $20,000... The gap between 60k and 20k and that standard of living is much bigger then the two millionaires and I believe that this comparison works with the number students you have available too...

For every 10-20 (the number it takes to effectively field another team for practice) additional male students a school has... the more ability a school has to compete at a higher class... there comes a point though where the Law of Diminishing returns has to come into play.... Only so many boys can be out for the team and only so many boys are capable of helping the team... I think once you get to the point where you should be able to get 50-60 able bodied boys out for a Varsity team you reach the point where if you can't get the best 50-60 out thats the coaches problem not the states "unfair" classes... and in North Dakota I would say that number is somewhere around 350-400 (the number I believe it takes to get 50-60 highly capable athletes to be competitive at AAA with good coaching)... A team like Dickinson has a much better chance to compete with a school like West Fargo/South Fargo/Bismarck High then a school like Bishop Ryan does with Dickinson High/Williston/Jamestown...

There will be exceptions to this of course in every class... but we have to at some point go with numbers... by your logic Steve... Fargo North should be fine in AAA with over 600 boys... they went 2-7 and I would say most teams in AAA and some in AA could have played with them... Steve will come back with... "they are upper tier, they made the playoffs didn't they?"... well if we are using that argument... so did Dickinson... one of the teams you'd like to move down to AA...

This rant is over... I hope i'm clear in the points I've been trying to make... spent the weekend deer hunting and making sausage... the brain is still not all there yet... I apologize if I rambled a bit!

I want to finish with that I am still way more comfortable with a 12 school AAA then a 10 School AAA but I also don't think that Williston should be moved down... leaving us with a 13 school AAA... that is the best situation I think... Also... I loved this years AA as I think most of us did... I wish Trinity would stay up... I think they belong there... people have complained of them being Goliath for years in sports like Basketball... It was nice to watch them play a bit of the David role this year against the big boys in AA... They proved smaller schools when coached properly can compete... as did Harvery

[steve34]

Again, I favor a 12 team AAA division, meaning Dickinson does NOT move down.

If we stay with a 12 team AAA division, I believe Williston should be moved down, unless they want to move up. We don't craft 12 team divisions just so we can have 13 teams up there. That really doesn't make any sense. If we're gonna start doing that, the whole thing will have nothing but chaos. Then every class would a "base number + this team or that team" scenario.

[NDplayin]

Again, I favor a 12 team AAA division, meaning Dickinson does NOT move down.

If we stay with a 12 team AAA division, I believe Williston should be moved down, unless they want to move up. We don't craft 12 team divisions just so we can have 13 teams up there. That really doesn't make any sense. If we're gonna start doing that, the whole thing will have nothing but chaos. Then every class would a "base number + this team or that team" scenario.

What a great point Steve. That is a very compelling arguement to set a firm cutoff number for each class (allowing opt ups into any class), rather than sliding a misfit team (Williston) into a division they don't belong (AA) to make scheduling easy for the ADs.

[steve34]

Playin, you have made no compelling argument that Williston should remain a AAA school. Your argument centers on the premise that the whole division will be destroyed if Williston joins AA. You've thrown out nothing but theories based on math without even considering the evidence on the field.

This is precisely why target numbers of teams is better than enrollment cutoffs. We shouldn't make 12 a 13 just because Williston scares someone. 12 is 12 unless Williston wants in.

Enrollment plus playing evidence equals Williston will not kill AA, nor make it hard for any team in AA to compete. The smallest had no problems competing with the biggest the past season. If you truly think that the teams on the small end of AA will have a problem competing, then why are you so against looking at it from the other end. As in, reduce the number of AA teams to 12 also. Move Lisbon, Kindred, et. al. down to A. Let the A teams deal with them, like perhaps they should. After all, Lisbon as 112, and Watford has 110. That's even steven. So, instead of putting the screws to Williston, lets put Lisbon and Kindred down a notch, and allow a AA class that is very even and very competitive.

No, I'm sure that won't make you happy. After all, every class needs four teams to get kicked around every year so that you can feel like the class was legitimate, even though it would have been much more competitive without them, and they would have been more competitive down a level. That, and we have to protect the rights of every small football team, meaning that it's just too hard to ask a team with 80 kids to play a team with 112, but its just fine to make a team with 400 kids play one with over 1000. So, we'll implement the "Williston" rule:

"When in doubt in realignment, always favor small teams over big ones. Justice for the small is better than justice overall."

[NDplayin]

Steve, you are the classic case of a guy who knows a lot but understands very little.

Playin, you have made no compelling argument that Williston should remain a AAA school. Your argument centers on the premise that the whole division will be destroyed if Williston joins AA. You've thrown out nothing but theories based on math without even considering the evidence on the field.....

Enrollment plus playing evidence equals Williston will not kill AA, nor make it hard for any team in AA to compete. The smallest had no problems competing with the biggest the past season.

I have two points to make about these two parts of your last post. First, I want to clarify something you don’t seem to understand about my particular line of thinking. I really don’t give the hair off a squirrel’s tail if Williston would dominate AA competition or not, and I could care even less what the “evidence on the field” tells us. Every school from top to bottom is going to have up years and down years as the pendulum swings, and success is not completely contingent upon enrollment. Just ask Velva and Harvey what strong programs can accomplish with low enrollment. Just ask Belcourt how little high enrollment means with a weak program.

Once you start talking about whose won or lost the past couple years, I quit listening because it is not objective. If you want to talk about evidence on the playing field we might as well move Mandan and Grand Forks Central down while we are at it; they didn’t make the playoffs either. Come to think about it, hasn’t Velva proven that they should be forced up to AA? You’re darn right that all my opinions are based on the math and not playing field evidence. It wouldn’t be right to force Velva up a class for the for the reason they been winning. It wouldn’t be right to bail out Williston by moving them down just because they haven’t won much the last couple years. I prefer to use my math to determine what a fair range is and then sit back and watch the cream rise to the top without prejudice; thank you very much.

This is what I care about: When is it reasonably fair to ask a small school to compete for a title against a bigger school and when is it unreasonable , and when a school of 426 makes the playoffs, I find it hard for a school of 400 to play the enrollment card. Which brings me to my next point; how long are we going to have to listen to your logic that just because it was fair to ask 112 to play with 205 and 206 makes it fair to ask 112 to play with 400. I you haven’t noticed Steve, 200 is half the size of 400. You keep saying that they moved down from AAA, well whooopiidieeedooo. The schools that moved down last year were already SMALLER (by over 100 boys) than the largest school in AA, 311. 400 is 89 student LARGER than that top AA school. Honestly, if you want to continue to make the argument that it is fair to ask 112 to play 400 that is your prerogative, but you really need to find new justification and quit using the fact that 112 can play 206. 400 is nearly double 206. To argue that because 112 competed with a school close to twice its size means that 112 can compete with a school close to quadruple its size just doesn’t cut the mustard. You were very quick to point out the difference between 200 and 400 when you wanted to move 200 down (good move), but now that you want to move 400 down they are suddenly the same?? It doesn’t work that way.

This is precisely why target numbers of teams is better than enrollment cutoffs. We shouldn't make 12 a 13 just because Williston scares someone. 12 is 12 unless Williston wants in.

This one really boggles my mind, Steve. I can’t wait to hear you explain this one. “12 is 12” and you think I am trying to make 12 a 13?????? Steve there is a 26 boy difference between Williston and the next higher team Dickinson. 26!!!!!!!!! There is a 51 boy difference between Williston and the second next higher team Jamestown. Now look at it from the other way. There is a 89 boy difference between Williston and the next smallest team Devils Lake. There is a 194 boy difference between Williston and the second next smallest team Whapeton. 194! That is an entire Valey City!!!!!! And you accuse me of trying to turn 12 into 13?? How absurd is that? How can you justify including Dickinson in that 12 but not Williston? Please share, I can’t wait to hear it.

This is precisely why enrollment cutoff is better than target numbers of teams. We shouldn’t make 13 a 12 just because some AD wants his scheduling life to be easy. And we shouldn’t make 13 a 12 just because Williston is scared of someone. 13 is 13 period.

[steve34]

Your bias is showing Playin, and I'm happy for it. Under your logic, it's wrong to say that Williston is in a different group with 26 fewer boys, but it's totally fine to say a team with two fewer boys is in a different group (Watford City is A with 110, but Lisbon is AA with 112). Apparantly, you're okay with small schools being able to play down, but not big ones.

When you can justify Watford and Lisbon not being in the same class, you let me know. Not even your theory of enrollment cutoffs will fix that problem. There will always be someone within a few kids of being in the next class, no matter the system. You can't argue with groups, as long as you have them. If the group is twelve, the 12th can't complain about it. They're 12th. But if they're two kids from the enrollment cutoff, they can argue that.

Groups are way better, odd numbers don't work, and you are a small school apologist.

[steve34]

Chalk up two for the small school apologists.

[NDplayin]

Nice, albeit feeble, attempt to twist my words, Steve. My point about Williston being 26 and 51 fewer than Dickinson and Jamestown but 89 and 194 larger than DL and Wahpeton was done to point out the flaw in your statement that “12 is 12”…. You were the one wanting to talk “natural groups”, so I responded to it. I never did endorse natural groups, but pointed out that if you want to look at it that way 12 is not 12, 13 is 13. You already knew that was my point Steve, but taking my words out of context was about the only straw you had left to grasp.

Steve, if we went to the enrollment cutoff system and the cutoff was somewhere between 400 and 426 you wouldn’t hear a complaint from me as long as the bottom number was also set accordingly. That’s the beauty of the enrollment cutoff… you belong where you belong, even if it is only by one student, and it is reasonably fair to ask the lowest possible number to play the highest possible number. If the cutoff was 414.5 Williston would be in the second class and rightfully. If Dickinson’s number dropped below that for two straight years they would move down… if Williston’s number went above that for two straight years… they would move up.

Personally, I don’t think that is where the number should be drawn, nor do I find it likely that is where the NDHSAA would put the line there if they ever exercised the smarts to go to this system. I suggested 349.5; however, I said from the very first time I introduced the idea that I am open to discussion about what the particular numbers would be... I am much more concerned with championing the concept than the specific numbers. If you are going to continue to discuss natural groups, I will continue to insist that 13 is the number, even though I still won’t endorse the natural group idea. But I will make you a deal, if you want to endorse the enrollment cutoff idea but claim that the AAA/AA cutoff should be between 400 and 426, I won’t publicly question your motives for doing so. I will, however, question and possibly debate with you what a proportionately appropriate AA/A cutoff would be.

Furthermore Steve, this "small school apologist" stuff isn't getting you anywhere. If you want to start playing that kind of game we can go back to the old mudslinging that nobody beniefited from. After all, it would be even easier to call you a "Valley City to Jamestown school apologist". SCC and I are advocating a system we believe to be reasonably equitable and objective for every school in North Dakota, from top to bottom.

[Bisonguy06]

Playin, you have made no compelling argument that Williston should remain a AAA school.

I have returned to point out that is just absolutely backwards. Let's use an example:

The NFL currently has 32 teams. Los Angeles is on the horizon as a city that has been home to multiple NFL teams and could certainly handle one more. Green Bay has been in the league virtually since its inception, but they are the smallest market. Would the NFL dump Green Bay and force them to play in a lower league? Is there anything about the addition of a team in LA that makes it impossible for Green Bay to compete? Would Green Bay have to make a "compelling argument" to stay in the NFL? Of course not, that's absurd. The NFL would make a 33 team league work, even though 32 is a more convenient number.

AAA football currently has 12 teams. Fargo is on the horizon as a city that is home to multiple AAA schools and will certainly have one more (Fargo Davies). Williston has been a AAA school since the beginning of the 4 class football system and has played in the top class for generations, but they are the smallest school. Should AAA football dump Williston and force them to play in a lower league? NO! The addition of Fargo Davies has absolutely no effect on the product on the field in Williston. The burden is not on Williston to make a "compelling argument" to stay in AAA. The NDHSAA should make a 13 team league work, even though 12 is a more convenient number.

The burden of proof is on you to make a compelling case that something about the North Dakota landscape and something about Williston has changed that prevents them from competing in AAA football.

You've argued that 12 is more convenient than 13, but you haven't done a thing to explain why Williston can't compete. They can compete. If they wanted out of AAA, they would've drawn up this plan themselves!

There are a couple "natural breaks" between North Dakota high schools. Drawing a line between Dickinson and Williston is not a natural break. Those are rival schools that are nearly identical in size.

We're nearly 200 posts and 5500 views deep, and there isn't a single person from Jamestown, Dickinson, or Williston who has logged on to speak in favor of moving to AA or to indicate that their schools are interested. The best you can do is to cite a Williston radio guy who hinted that the move might be a good idea during a blowout loss to Bismarck High. Hmm. Bismarck High blew out everyone except Fargo South. Maybe we should have a 2 team AAA!

People aren't buying this. The burden of proof is on you my friend.

[Bisonguy06]

I'm not done, and I have some math for you:

Williston has roughly 400 boys. The majority of the schools in AAA football are no more than 1.5 times as big as Williston.

Dickinson (426), Jamestown (451), Grand Forks Central (583), Mandan (591), Grand Forks Red River (600), and Fargo South (roughly 550 after the split) and Davies (550) are all just 1.5 times the size of Williston. Fargo North is just above that threshold (currently 615).

I've listed EIGHT of the other twelve AAA schools here! You're telling me that Williston can't compete with this group?

Now let's go the other direction and look at what happens if you drop Williston to AA.
Devils Lake is the next biggest with 89 fewer boys. After that, Williston is twice as big as Shanley and Wahpeton and over 2x the size of every other school in the division! They are at least twice the size of every school but one!

Should we put them where they are just a little smaller than most of their opponents, or should we put them where they are significantly bigger than every single one of their opponents? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[steve34]

I cant cure blindness on this thread.

You can talk all about how Williston is more comparable with AAA than AA by the "1.5 or 2 times bigger/smaller" ratio. You fail to mention that there is a much better chance of finding substantial athletes in an extra 500 or 600 than there is in an extra 200. This is exactly why Carrington can compete with Devils Lake but Williston can't compete with Minot.

Fact: The smallest AA schools are competitive with the biggest AA schools.
Fact: The smallest AAA schools are not competitive with the largest AAA schools.
Fact: Moving highly competitive teams down to AA in no way changed the landscape of AA.

These facts are undisputed, based on actual evidence on the field.

In the long run, you're choosing to keep AAA a level that has teams that cannot compete top to bottom, but protect every other school. You're choosing to screw Williston over, and use them to balance the needs of the state. That's a terrible decision. All the evidence shows that Williston moving to AA would not change AA, but would give them a chance to compete with everyone in their division.

I'm sure Williston, Jamestown, and Dickinson won't weigh in on this. They don't want to be blamed for wanting a system that "just benefits them" as you would accuse them of immediately. Every time a schools writes a plan for the state, they are blamed for being compelled to just help themselves instead of coming up with something that could actually be good for the state in general. You already did it by crucifying Devils Lake for writing this plan.

Plus, you're now accusing me of something that isn't even true. If you'd take the small school car key out of your ear, you might understand that I have been saying that Williston has their choice. Put in a 12 team top class and allow them up if they want to come up. They don't have be "forced down" as you think I'm doing. I"m not forcing them down. 12 is 12, it is not 13. There is no good reason to make a 13 team class at any level. The number makes no sense. I've already illustrated that enrollment values can be manipulated to do basically anything. The best thing to do is group teams like we're doing right now. The four-class system has been the best thing for football in the state. If Williston is 13, they are not 12.

[NDplayin]

Steve, your "evidence on the playing field" suggests that Dickinson can compete in AAA but that Williston cannot. How can you possibly attribute that fact to enrollment (400 vs. 426) and not to strength of program?

Again, you were the first person to point out that the NDHSAA can not pick and choose teams to move up and down because of their competitive history, which is exactly what you are doing now. The fact that Williston is getting kicked in AAA with the lowest enrollment is no different than how Velva and Harvey can succeed in A even though the opt up from 9-man.

It would not be fair to force Velva and Harzey to AA just because they have strong programs. It is not fair to put Williston in AA just because they have a weak one.

[Bisonguy06]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Williston made the AAA semifinals in 2008 and I don't understand why we are conveniently ignoring that.

Steve, Williston is a better fit in AAA than in AA based on the numbers and I'll give you two reasons. You won't buy the first one, but you won't have much ammo against the second one.

1) Diminishing returns. Yeah it's great if your school gets another 200 boys to choose from, but at least 189 of them will be standing on the sidelines or sitting in the bleachers at any given time. If you're Williston and you have 400 boys, chances are pretty good that you can find 5 hogs, an RB, a guy who can throw a forward pass, and a couple guys who can catch it. It's up to you to coach 'em up.

2) Let's say you don't buy diminishing returns and you don't buy percentages. You want to ignore percentages and look at raw enrollment numbers? Fine. 200 boys are 200 boys, right? Grand Forks Red River's 200 boy advantage on Williston is no better than Williston's 200 boy advantage on Wahpeton, right?

Well, 7 of the other 12 AAA teams are within 200 boys of Williston. = 58.3% of the division
3 out of the other 15 AA teams are within 200 boys of Williston. = 20% of the division.

200 is a nice round number, but if I had picked 193 boys as my magic number...
6 of 12 AAA teams are within 193 boys of Williston, and 1 of 15 AA teams are within 193 boys of Williston.

Let's stick with 200, for your sake.

[NDplayin]

Wow, I love this.

Bisonguy got me curious, so I went to google, and I can't believe none of us looked this up before. He is correct. On Novermber 8th, 2008 (That is merely last season Steve), Williston lost in the AAA SEMIFINALS to Bismarck High by a score of 35-14. Not only does that mean that Williston was competitive with Bismarck High and the rest of AAA, not only does it mean that Williston made the playoffs in AAA last year, not only does it mean that Williston WON a AAA playoff game just last season (over Fargo North), but it also means that Williston was one of the four best AAA teams last year. Where, oh where, has your playing field evidence gone now Steve? Or, will you conveniently choose to continue to be "blind" to Williston's recent success? It sounds much more like Williston suffered from a down year, a rebuilding year, this season... and doesn't have a history of getting "kicked around" as you would like us to believe.

You can talk all about how Williston is more comparable with AAA than AA by the "1.5 or 2 times bigger/smaller" ratio. You fail to mention that there is a much better chance of finding substantial athletes in an extra 500 or 600 than there is in an extra 200.

Since Bisonguy already showed that even if you abandon ratios and go with raw numbers that Williston is a much closer fit with the 12 teams above them than the 15 below, I will point this out: Where was the last "blue chip" football player to come out of North Dakota from? I seem to remember a Brent Quale from North Dakota who is now playing for Nebraska..... where was he from again? Certainly those types of athletes can pop up anywhere (Don't worry, I havent forgotten that guy from Carrington), but whether you call that type of athlete 1 in a 1000, 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 1,000,000, the odds of finding him will always be closer between 1031 boys and 400 boys than they will be from 400 boys to 120 boys. The same is true for "substantial athletes"... last year, Williston's quarterback led the West Region in Passing Yards, Touchtown Passes, and Total Yards. They had a 861 yard and 13 touchdown receiver, They had a 700 yrd and 11 touchdown runningback, they had a future Cornhusker in the trenches (all evidence from the field).... that doesn't sound too unsubstantial to me Steve.

Couple that with Williston's EXTREMELY recent semi-final appearance and your arguement is now dependent on..... ya know, Im not sure what your arguement can depend on anymore.

[steve34]

I can depend on the argument of common sense, evidence on the field in AA football, and the last two years of football.

I love how I'm the one that stands alone on my arguments, while you take one small portion of my posts and then pick it apart, completely ignoring the context of the entire post. I love your speeches. Hitler gave some good speeches picking on one idea without context also. And it was usually for the small person, protecting one small segment of the population, instead of the greater good.

Now, obviously you're nothing like Hitler. But see how easy it is to take one little portion of your argument and turn it into something it's not.

So, what argument will I depend on:

FACT: Every AA team can currently compete with every AA team, as referenced ON THE FIELD.
FACT: This continued even after Wahpeton, a team with RECENT PLAYOFF SUCCESS AT AAA, moved down.
FACT: The maximum difference between Williston and the bottom of the AA class is 300. The maximum difference between Williston and the top is over 600. There will be way more athletes in the 600 than there are in the 300.
FACT: North Dakota football has enjoyed a growth in overall success, from the fan base, to the competitive level of play, since adopting the four-class system that established GROUPS OF TEAMS as classification, not enrollments.
FACT: 12 is 12, it is not 13. If the top group is 12, Williston is 13, and should be moved to AA
FACT: The system has allowed for opt-ups at other levels, and it is not fair to deny someone a chance to opt up. Should Williston choose to opt up, they should be allowed to do so.
FACT: This arrangement allows Williston to make the decision.

You can stand by your arguments of hypotheticals. I'll stand by the FACTS.