Realignment talk: Here we go

[LPB'S37]

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

i agree the only people that can control this is the people from the activity's association so i dont see why everyones coming up with theory's and proposals on how it should be

[steve34]

First of all, the thread isn't going to get locked. And not everyone lives on a schedule that prevents them from arguing on a thread in the "wee hours of the morning". So, I think Playin and I will just continue with our debate.

Second, I'm well aware of what a debate is. I won a state championship in North Dakota doing it. But thanks for the clarification.

Third, Playin, you're now resorting to trap questions to make your point. The whole "Williston but not Dickinson" deal is just that. And, I guess that really answers your question, and I will grant you, a legit question, about why I chose to move Williston down. It's a round number thing.

So, here's my answer to your points in an overly-large nutshell:

The NDHSAA should aim for round numbers whenever it can for ease of scheduling. I admit that we can make any plan work, but for the continuity of the programs involved, and in the spirit of keeping everyone playing every week, the state should establish round numbers in the classes. Hard line enrollment numbers do not do that.

However, the spirit of local control of a program should not be taken away from a member school. If a member school chooses to opt up, the state should allow such action and adjust accordingly. It would be unfair to allow Harvey, Velva, Killdeer, and Stanley to opt up simply because you can send four other teams down, but deny Williston the right to opt up just because sending someone down doesn't the next level in the larger schools.

Example: Since Harvey, Velva, Stanley, and Killdeer opt up, four schools get moved down. They are Minnewauken-Leeds, Westhope-Newberg, Hillsboro, and Thompson. Under this plan, if Williston were to opt up, Dickinson would be pushed down. I"m acknowledging that there's not a lot of difference between regular nine-man schools and the four that get moved down. I"m also acknowledging that there is some difference between Dickinson and regular AA schools. So, IN THE INTEREST OF WHAT'S BEST FOR ALL THE STUDENT ATHLETES, I allow for all teams to opt up, if they choose, with an adjustment that is applicable for that particular classification. In one situation, some teams play down, and it works. In another case, we make an adjustment in the number of teams in that class.

I don't think this is out of whack. Your Lisbon example doesn't hold water. Valley City has been forced to play against West Fargo in everything, who has five times the kids. Is there any difference in Lisbon playing Williston. In fact, the numbers are a complete wash. Minot has 1031 boys, Williston has 400. Ratio: 2.5 to 1. Williston has 400 boys, Lisbon has 112. Ratio: 3.5 to one. I like that ratio more than a 5 to 1 we let fly in other sports.

[digger]

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

i agree the only people that can control this is the people from the activity's association so i dont see why everyones coming up with theory's and proposals on how it should be

If we only allowed posts on issues that our ND Preps brothers and sisters had "control" over or a "say in", this site would die a quick and painless death due to lack of interest. ND Preps is driven by opinions, I think the moderators do a good job of keeping folks in line, while allowing people to state their sometimes strongly held opinions, which keeps things interesting. I'm sure Steve34 and NDplayin and the others that have chimed in on this are having fun with the verbal jousting, I've enjoyed following it and have learned a bit as well.

[Hinsa]

You need to keep in mind that some coaches and administrators read this board. Some of those are on advisory boards at the NDHSAA. So what you post here can have an influence on what happens at the NDHSAA.

[steve34]

Counting on it.

[NDplayin]

I like this Steve, I feel like we are getting somewhere right now. I would like to present my take on a few of your points.

First, you said we “force” Valley City “to play against West Fargo in everything, who has five times the kids.” We do not force Valley City to play West Fargo in football, and football is the subject of the topic. I won’t say whether I feel it is right or wrong that Valley is classed with W.F. in basketball and volleyball because either way I don’t find it valid to the subject at hand. It has already been discussed that football requires double the number of players on the field of play than volleyball and basketball does. Therefore, depth becomes an entirely different issue when we are discussing football. Does that mean our current basketball volleyball systems are right or wrong? Another time, another forum and we can hash that out. Right now, we are talking football, football is a different animal, and we do not “force” Valley to play W.F. in football.

Second, I disagree that Minot being 2.5 times larger than Williston, and Williston being 3.5 times larger is a "wash". I think that there is a significant difference between being twice as big and being three times as big; however, I am going to take some responsibility here because pure ratio was not the best way I could have conveyed my point:

We must factor in the law of diminishing returns when we discuss enrolment ratios. The fact is that whether we are talking 112 athletes from Lisbon or 1031 athletes from Minot, there can still only be 11 athletes on the field at one time. Granted, ‘team’ goes beyond 11 players. After all, there are 22 positions to fill, and while one kid can play 2 positions (1-O, 1-D), he can’t play both against himself in practice, nor can he sub in for himself in a game to keep himself rested. Therefore, I am going to use 22 as the number of players in my math below. I hope we can agree that in high school football, if your best 22 players are reasonably equivalent to the other team’s best 22, that you have a reasonable opportunity to succeed against them.

This is where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. You see, the best 22 football players out of Williston’s 400 boys constitutes the top 5.5% of their available football players, and the top 22 of Minot’s 1031 boys constitutes 2.1% of their available players. Minot does have an advantage, but how big is it?? On the other hand, finding the top 22 players among Lisbon’s 112 boys requires 20% of all their available players.

Here’s my point: What is more reasonably fair to the student athletes? Is it more reasonable to think that Williston’s best 5.5% can be equal to Minot’s best 2.1%, or to think that Lisbon’s best 20% can be equal to Williston’s best 5.5%? Objectively, I think it is much more fair to ask Williston’s students to play Minot’s, than it is to ask Lisbon’s athletes to play Williston’s.

Finally, I have and will again admit that no plan is perfect, and the flaw of a hard-line plan is the possibility for uneven numbers. Ideally I would like scheduling to be easy for everyone, but in a world that isn’t idea it comes down to priorities. I would rather see scheduling be a little difficult if it meant that every student-athlete was playing in a fair and equitable division, than I would have scheduling be easy for divisions that have a team at an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

[steve34]

The theory of diminishing returns is a good point, but I will counter that by stating that the point addressed does not refer to every game on Lisbon's schedule. And, truth be told, the only way it would be on their schedule would be a playoff situation. But class is class, so we need address it the same.

In any event, Lisbon has plenty of competitive games on it's schedule. Should be disagree with Williston's move to AA over one theoretical game? Granted, more teams than just Lisbon would encounter this issue, but what about what Williston encounters right now? So, lets look at the average enrollment in the class, with Williston at AAA, then with Williston at AA.

At AAA: Average AAA enrollment: 698.33. Williston: 400. Ratio: 1.746 to 1
Average AA enrollment: 140.813 Lisbon: 112 Ratio: 1.257 to 1

At AA (for Williston) Average AAA enrollment: 665 (Fargo South=equals 2 in new plan) Dickinson (now new smallest) 426 Ratio: 1.561 to 1

Average AA enrollment: 182.94. Lisbon: 112 Ratio: 1.633 to 1

As you can see, with Williston at AA in the new plan, the ratio in an average game at each class is nearly equal, a difference of less than one-tenth of a kid from each level. I've run similar numbers for basketball, and the lower levels always have larger ratios than the larger ones, so this is particularly interesting to me.

There will always be big disparities in the largest to the smallest in any class. The question for me is what does an average game look like. The averages look pretty similar with Williston down. They are not with Williston up.

[Bisonguy06]

It's been fun guys, but this is me bowing out of the debate. I don't think people are seriously considering the 10 team AAA anymore, so I'm satisfied. Beyond that, I can't match the hours you guys put in to this.

Quite frankly, football will function just fine whether we have 12, 13, or 14 in AAA.

If the number is 12, Williston goes AA, and I don't see Williston dominating AA football.

If the number is 13, Williston is AAA, and I don't see scheduling being some huge nightmare with an odd number. Add a game or a bye week. Simple.

And if the number is 14, the 14th team will either be Devils Lake based on enrollment or Shanley in an opt-up move. Either one can compete in AAA. Shanley won AA this year and could've hung with most AAA teams. Devils Lake has finished 2nd, semifinalist, and 2nd in their three years in AA, and they had over twenty seniors on their roster this year. They're fine.

12, 13, or 14 are all better than 10. You guys can hash it out.

[NDplayin]

Alright Steve, I see what you are saying with this ratio thing based on the average. I am sure you aren’t going to be very surprised that I disagree in rationalizing classes this way. I have two scenarios, one completely hypothetical and one very real to demonstrate why I don’t think that is right type of math to use.

First the hypothetical, just because you average the numbers in the class, doesn’t at all mean that a majority of the teams will be close to that number. Here is a hypothetical 24 team class: 4 of the teams have a male enrollment of 1,000. The other 20 all have a male enrollment of 200. That makes the average male enrollment 333.33, and the ratio of the average to the smallest is 1.66 to 1. Very similar to the ratio of 1.63 which you liked for AA with Williston and Lisbon in the same class. Now just because we can create a ‘to average ratio’ like that, I think we know which four schools have an unfair advantage to dominate this hypothetical class.

Now while I admit this hypothetical class is rather radical, there is a valid point to be made by forming it. By moving Williston down to AA, all you did is raise the ‘to average ratio’ of one class, and lower the ratio of another. You really did nothing to improve the idea of a fair and equal opportunity to make yourself successful in either class. While it may change the ratio, moving Williston’s 400 boys down doesn’t improve the 426 boys from Dickinson’s opportunity against the 1031 boys of Minot, not does it improve the opportunity of the 600 boys from Red River to make themselves successful against the 994 from West Fargo. Nothing got more competitive, no team earned a more fair shot. The only thing that happened was a magic number was changed. On the flip side of the coin, you have now detracted from the fair opportunity of 112 boys from Lisbon, 114 from Kindred, 121 from Minot Ryan, etc. Nobody’s reasonable opportunity got better in AAA just because the average number moved, and except Williston, everyone’s reasonable opportunity went down in AA.

Now for a more close to home and real example. DISCLAIMER: I do not like, agree with, or recommend this plan, but it will look great using the idea of ‘to average numbers’. You already pointed out that if you average the top 12 enrollments in North Dakota and compare that to Dickinson’s 426, you get a ratio of 1.56 to 1. Interestingly enough, there are 18 programs in North Dakota with less than 60 boys. If you average those 18 enrollments and compare that to the smallest (28 from Strasburg/Zeeland) you get a ratio of 1.64 to 1, right in the ballpark. That leaves 74 schools left from 400 boys in Williston all the way down to 60 boys from Trenton/Trinity Christian and 60 from TGU. You average those 74 schools and compare it to the smallest of 60, and you get a ratio of 1.69 to 1. With this we would have a three class system with three very level ‘to average ratios’, and even more important even numbers in each class…. Scheduling should be a breeze. Shame, despite the good ‘to average ratio’, I don’t think anyone likes the idea of programs with 60 boys grouped in the same class as programs with 400, 311, 206, 205, etc….

My final point is that I disagree with the idea that we should only be concerned with what the average game within a class will look like. You’re right, there will always be a discrepancy from the top to bottom of a class, but like-wise the average games within a class will always be competitive. Again, a discrepancy will exist, but I still believe no school should begin preparing for a season feeling like the NDHSAA has put them at an unreasonable disadvantage even against the top of their class. I still feel like 400 has a more reasonable opportunity against 1031 than 112 has against 400.

[steve34]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I disagree on not moving a team simply because of the impact of the smallest team in that class. I know you've pointed out that basketball and football are different situations, but I don't think that small schools can "have it both ways". They can't decide that a team like Valley City should just deal with playing schools five times it's size, and at the same time, decide that Williston needs to play up to protect Lisbon.

Again, I see the difference between sports, but there needs to be some consistency in the general thought pattern. Your example of the hypothetical situation is just that, hypothetical. As far as your Dickinson point, this whole thread started with your displeasure of a 10 team AA class, which would have moved Dickinson and Jamestown along with Williston. I was okay with that, and that would have made the field more competitive for them, while still keeping the numbers fairly well in line. That plan did more for all student-athletes than any other plan. The main opposition to that plan was that 10 teams was not enough for a class. There was no mention of it's benefit or loss to the student-athletes. It was just about your (not you NDPlayin, just the group in general) discomfort with a 10 team class.

So, are we worried about doing whats best for student athletes, or are we worried about our own egos telling us that it's better to jam four teams into a 10 team class, making 14 total, so one of the 10 can be successful anyway? I'm just wondering.

[NDplayin]

There are some things that we may have to agree to disagree on, but maybe not as many as you think. I recognize that there is a lack of parity in the intents behind a four class football plan and a two class plan in everything else. No matter if I agree or disagree with two classes in other sports, you will get no argument from me that different philosophies seem to be being endorsed among the different sports. Maybe we should adopt a uniform plan for all sports across the board, maybe not… Open that topic up in General Discussion or somewhere else and we can discuss that. As for right now, we have a different plan for football, therefore I think it’s the responsibility of the NDHSAA to keep in mind the best interests of all North Dakota’s potential football players when creating a plan. Even more important, I don’t like the idea of justifying doing someone wrong in football, by explaining that someone is being done wrong in basketball. Saying that a two class system is unfair to Valley City doesn’t give us the right to treat anyone else unfairly in a 4 class football system. In short, two wrongs don’t make a right.

I also spot what I consider to be an inconsistency in you train of thought, Steve. You said that you “disagree on not moving a team simply because of the impact on the smallest team in that class.” However, you have strenuously objected to any plan that would put 311 boys from Devils Lake in AAA because you think 311 is too small to compete with 1031, 994, and 867, and I won’t argue with that objection. However, you refuse to move a class up because of the impact it would have on them as the smallest, but see no problem moving a school down regardless on the impact it would have on the smaller schools in that class. That is inconsistent. You don’t think it’s fair to ask 311 to play in a league with 1031, 994, and 867, but you think the most fair plan is to ask programs of 121 and 126 to play schools of 451, 426, and 400 and tell us that we shouldn’t consider the implications that has on the smallest schools? How can you say that a 10 team plan is most fair regardless of what it does to Minot Ryan and Bottineau, but say that a 14 team class is unfair because of what it would do to Devils Lake? I’m not saying DL should be up… but for the exact same reasons that I don’t think Williston should be down.

There are lots of ways to manipulate numbers with different math concepts to try to make one argument or another. However, it doesn’t matter what type of math you use. You can use a direct ratio, you can use a ratio to the average team, you can use my percentages based on diminishing returns… no matter what you do, the math tells you that Williston has a more reasonably fair opportunity against Minot than Lisbon does against Williston or than Minot Ryan does against Jamestown.

400 boys have a reasonable opportunity to make themselves successful in a league with 1031. 112 boys have a reasonable opportunity to make themselves successful in a league with 194, 205, 206…. and even though it’s a stretch, 311. 112 boys do NOT have that same reasonable opportunity against 400, and 121 most certainly don’t have that reasonable opportunity against 451, 426, and 400. That's why I favor a hard-line system. Put the teams that belong together, together and work out the scheduling. Set the inflexible number at a place where even though the smallest possible school would be at some disadvantage, it would not be an unreasonable disadvantage. Williston, Dickinson, and Jamestown all belong up with the other big boys. They do NOT belong with schools of barely over 100 boys.

If you honestly “disagree on not moving a team simply because of the impact on the smallest team in that class.” Then you would see no problem moving Devils Lake into a 14 team AAA, regardless on the impact on them as the smallest team.

[steve34]

Apples to oranges, my friend. In the Devils Lake scenario, you move them to a situation of few, if any, winable games. Williston is moved to a situation where they can compete, while Lisbon still has several winable games.

More teams look like Devils Lake at AA. More teams look like Williston at AA. Lisbon still has quite a few teams that look like them at AA. Even if Williston and Devils Lake move down, the majority of the class looks like Lisbon. The majority of the AAA class does not look like Devils Lake. That's as simple as identifying the difference between a blonde and a brunette. One look says it all.

[NDplayin]

I will agree with some points choose to disagree with others. I agree that more teams look like Devils Lake at the AA level. I have no objection to Devils Lake in AA, but stand by my view that asking Devils Lake to play Minot is no more unfair than asking Lisbon to play Williston. By the way, I think that 400 (williston), 426 (Dickinson), 451 (Jamestown), 583 (GFC), 591 (Mandan), 600 (Red River), and 615 (North) are all very winnable games for 311 (Devils Lake). Again, I am fine with Devils in AA, but I am fine with Devils Lake in AA for the same reasons that I am not fine with Williston in AA.

I disagree that Williston looks more like a AA team than AAA. I don't think they even closely resemble a AA team. Williston offers everything a AAA schools offer. Less than a year ago you yourself promoted a 12 team AAA by saying there were 12 teams (including Williston) that stood out from the others to look exactly like each other, and I don't think Williston looks any different now than they did then. Furthermore, how can you justify the implication that Williston at 400 looks more like a AA team, but Dickinson at 426 looks more like a AAA team? There are no apples nor oranges about that.

Also I notice that we are interpetting a competitive class two different ways. You choose to look at the average game and number of "winnable" games. I should clarify my viewpoint. When I say its important that every team has the opporunity to make themselves successful, I am not merely talking about winning more games than you lose. I am talking about a reasonable opportunity to compete for a State Championship. When schools start the season will every team have a realistic opportunity to do that? Never, but when we talk realistic we start talking strength of program, and even good programs have up years and down years, subjective things outside the NDHSAA's responsibility. Enrollment is our only obective way to divide teams, and while the opportunity will never be perfectly equal, I do not think it is too much to ask that the smallest team objectivly has a reasonable opportunity to compete for that state championship. In fact, I don't only think its not too much to ask of our NHDSAA, I think it's what we should be demanding.

[Indy5]

Anyone have an educated guess as to when Bismarck or West Fargo will be building a new school. I think it would perferably be Bismarck to have more of a east- west balance but if its West Fargo, what would the 14 team AAA look like?( That means including Williston)

[Bisonguy06]

Discussions are further along in West Fargo than they are in Bismarck, I would say. West Fargo's school facilities are plum full. I think Bismarck still has some room for growth.

[steve34]

If West Fargo builds:

AAA--EDC: Red River, Central, South, Davies, West Fargo, West Fargo 2, North
WDA: Bismarck, Century, Mandan, Minot, Williston, Dickinson, Jamestown

If Bismarck builds, add Bismarck 2 to the west, get rid of West Fargo 2, and move Jamestown to the EDC.

If both build, add Bismarck 2 to the west, and move..........Williston.........down..........to..............AA.

[Indy5]

Ok, if both build, do we move up Shanley to make 16? Do we play with 15? Or do we ultimately end up right where we are; moving down Williston.

[Run4Fun2009]

Ok, if both build, do we move up Shanley to make 16? Do we play with 15? Or do we ultimately end up right where we are; moving down Williston.

IMO, I don't think that moving Williston down will cause any issues. I think that Williston will be more competitive in AA (like St. Mary's was), they won't dominate but they will compete

[NDplayin]

Ok, if both build, do we move up Shanley to make 16? Do we play with 15? Or do we ultimately end up right where we are; moving down Williston.

OR... by that time do we have hard-line enrollment numbers set, and when a new school is built or an old schools enrollment changes, that enrollment objectively determines their class. I know that this discussion board is all about speculation, but when it comes to the what if this school builds then we will have even numbers idea all I have to say is that 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas.

I guess I just don't understand this marriage we have to even classes. Even though we may all disagree on what enrollments belong in what class, no one on here has disagreed with the over-all concept that we want schools whose objective enrollments naturally group them together to play each other. For as many years as there is an NDHSAA there will always be a new school on the hornizon eventually, always be a school shrinking, and always be a school growing. As long as we continue to try to force ourselves to group schools in numbers easy for scheduling instead of grouping them by where each one belongs, there will be times when we are forcing schools into classes where they are either too large or too small for their competition, which is the ultimate disservice to our North Dakota student-athletes.

[NDplayin]

IMO, I don't think that moving Williston down will cause any issues. I think that Williston will be more competitive in AA (like St. Mary's was), they won't dominate but they will compete

That arguement is the ultimate example of subjective thinking. Personally, I think that this paticular year there were four teams in AA that might have been better football teams than Williston. However, thats not because of Willistons enrollment but the strength of their program this particular year. Remember, Williston was a semi-final team in AAA recently. To compare the success Williston's 400 boys would have if moved to AA to the success St. Mary's 143 boys had when they moved to AA is all about program not numbers. What happens when Williston's program returns to the strength it very recently was, but they are playing against Lisbon in AA? St. Mary's enrollment naturally groups them in AA. Williston's does not.

[steve34]

Okay, Playin, I'm going to embrace your theory of "hard enrollment" numbers. But you won't be happy with it.

For football, the cutoff is 500 boys. It seems like a solid grouping, and every school in that division will look like every other school in that division. They will all offer similar activities all school-year long, and they all come from similar towns. So, in summation, schools look the same, offerings look the same, towns look the same.

AAA--Bismarck, Minot, Mandan, Century, Red River, Central, West Fargo, North, South, Davies. 10 teams.

The next cutoff will be 135 boys. These schools do not look as similar, but very close. The communities do not look as similar, but very close. The offerings are very close.

AA--Dickinson, Williston, Jamestown, Wahpeton, Valley City, Belcourt, Devils Lake, Beulah, Central Cass, Grafton, St. Marys, Carrington. 12 teams.

The next cutoff will be 80 boys. Obviously, by now, the offerings, communities (either by stand-alone or coop), and schools will be very similar.

A: Region 1: Kindred, Lisbon, Griggs County, Fargo Oak Grove, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, LaMoure, Northern Cass, Oakes. (10 teams)

Region 2: May-Port, Rugby, Park River-Fordville/Lankin, Langdon/Munich, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, North Prairie, Midway-Minto, Cavalier, Minnewauken-Leeds, (10 teams)

Region 3: Minot Ryan, Bottineau, Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, New Town-Mandaree, Garrison-Max, Williams County, Des Lacs-Burlington, Velva, Stanley, Harvey (final two opted up last time. Alternative below) (10 teams)

Region 4: Trinity, Beulah, Hazen, Watford City, Bowman, Belfield-South Heart, Standing Rock, Grant County-Flasher, New Salem-Glen Ullin, Killdeer. (10 teams)

9-man: The rest. Only change is Minnewauken-Leeds is out, someone from Region 5 moves to Region 4, and someone from Region 6 moves to Region 5, creating 6 seven-team districts.

If the four teams that opted up to A choose not to due to the new teams coming down, here's the breakdown:

A: Region 1: May-Port, Kindred, Lisbon, Fargo Oak Grove, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, LaMoure, Northern Cass, Oakes. (10 teams)

Region 2: Griggs-Barnes County, Rugby, Park River-Fordville/Lankin, Langdon/Munich, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, Midway-Minto, Cavalier, North Prairie, Minnewauken-Leeds. (10 teams)

Region 3: Minot Ryan, Bottineau, Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, New Town-Mandaree, Garrison-Max, Williams County, Des Lacs-Burlington, Velva, Watford City. (9 teams)

Region 4: Trinity, Beulah, Hazen, Bowman, Belfield-South Heart, Standing Rock, Grant County-Flasher, New Salem-Glen Ullin, Killdeer. (9 teams):

Rationale for placement: With 10 team regions, there will be no conference games. It makes more sense to keep the two regions with 10 teams in one side of the state. That way, the other side can form a scheduling alliance for the non-conference game they would have, or simply agree to play 8 games.

9-man: The rest. Harvey joins Region 4, Stanley joins Region 5.

Under this plan the classes have hard enrollment values, the schools are grouped with similar schools with similar offerings, the competitive field is very even, and even scheduling is eased. I don't see a problem for high school athletes. But the numbers are not your numbers, and the top class has only 10 teams. So, I'm guessing you will reject this plan on it's face because the top classes just "don't have enough teams", even though this plan meets every single one of your requirements.

The point is, mandating the number of teams in a class does more than just ease travel. First, it addresses the objection of small classes. We could set the enrollment value at 650 and have five teams, or 600 and have seven. Second, it takes out the politics of just exactly where the line should be drawn. Your 349.5 is my 500, and I believe my enrollment values are far superior to yours.

I'm not suggesting this plan is workable. I'm doing it to illustrate why your enrollment number idea is no better, and perhaps worse, than what we already have.

[Run4Fun2009]

Okay, Playin, I'm going to embrace your theory of "hard enrollment" numbers. But you won't be happy with it.

For football, the cutoff is 500 boys. It seems like a solid grouping, and every school in that division will look like every other school in that division. They will all offer similar activities all school-year long, and they all come from similar towns. So, in summation, schools look the same, offerings look the same, towns look the same.

AAA--Bismarck, Minot, Mandan, Century, Red River, Central, West Fargo, North, South, Davies. 10 teams.

The next cutoff will be 135 boys. These schools do not look as similar, but very close. The communities do not look as similar, but very close. The offerings are very close.

AA--Dickinson, Williston, Jamestown, Wahpeton, Valley City, Belcourt, Devils Lake, Beulah, Central Cass, Grafton, St. Marys, Carrington. 12 teams.

The next cutoff will be 80 boys. Obviously, by now, the offerings, communities (either by stand-alone or coop), and schools will be very similar.

A: Region 1: Kindred, Lisbon, Griggs County, Fargo Oak Grove, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, LaMoure, Northern Cass, Oakes. (10 teams)

Region 2: May-Port, Rugby, Park River-Fordville/Lankin, Langdon/Munich, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, North Prairie, Midway-Minto, Cavalier, Minnewauken-Leeds, (10 teams)

Region 3: Minot Ryan, Bottineau, Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, New Town-Mandaree, Garrison-Max, Williams County, Des Lacs-Burlington, Velva, Stanley, Harvey (final two opted up last time. Alternative below) (10 teams)

Region 4: Trinity, Beulah, Hazen, Watford City, Bowman, Belfield-South Heart, Standing Rock, Grant County-Flasher, New Salem-Glen Ullin, Killdeer. (10 teams)

9-man: The rest. Only change is Minnewauken-Leeds is out, someone from Region 5 moves to Region 4, and someone from Region 6 moves to Region 5, creating 6 seven-team districts.

If the four teams that opted up to A choose not to due to the new teams coming down, here's the breakdown:

A: Region 1: May-Port, Kindred, Lisbon, Fargo Oak Grove, Maple Valley-Enderlin, Milnor-North Sargent, Linton, LaMoure, Northern Cass, Oakes. (10 teams)

Region 2: Griggs-Barnes County, Rugby, Park River-Fordville/Lankin, Langdon/Munich, Hatton-Northwood, Larimore, Midway-Minto, Cavalier, North Prairie, Minnewauken-Leeds. (10 teams)

Region 3: Minot Ryan, Bottineau, Lewis and Clark-Our Redeemers, New Town-Mandaree, Garrison-Max, Williams County, Des Lacs-Burlington, Velva, Watford City. (9 teams)

Region 4: Trinity, Beulah, Hazen, Bowman, Belfield-South Heart, Standing Rock, Grant County-Flasher, New Salem-Glen Ullin, Killdeer. (9 teams):

Rationale for placement: With 10 team regions, there will be no conference games. It makes more sense to keep the two regions with 10 teams in one side of the state. That way, the other side can form a scheduling alliance for the non-conference game they would have, or simply agree to play 8 games.

9-man: The rest. Harvey joins Region 4, Stanley joins Region 5.

Under this plan the classes have hard enrollment values, the schools are grouped with similar schools with similar offerings, the competitive field is very even, and even scheduling is eased. I don't see a problem for high school athletes. But the numbers are not your numbers, and the top class has only 10 teams. So, I'm guessing you will reject this plan on it's face because the top classes just "don't have enough teams", even though this plan meets every single one of your requirements.

The point is, mandating the number of teams in a class does more than just ease travel. First, it addresses the objection of small classes. We could set the enrollment value at 650 and have five teams, or 600 and have seven. Second, it takes out the politics of just exactly where the line should be drawn. Your 349.5 is my 500, and I believe my enrollment values are far superior to yours.

I'm not suggesting this plan is workable. I'm doing it to illustrate why your enrollment number idea is no better, and perhaps worse, than what we already have.

FYI: Just going to throw this out there Oak Grove coops with Park Christian (Moorhead)...so their numbers of boys are combined. The numbers will be a little bit different from what you have...but I think with the coop they would have to stay AA.

[steve34]

The co-op is counted together on the HSAA website. Their total number of boys is 133. Under this plan, they would be A.

[Run4Fun2009]

The co-op is counted together on the HSAA website. Their total number of boys is 133. Under this plan, they would be A.

oh alright...thought that they had more...thx for the clarification

[NDplayin]

Steve, first of all, for a former state champion in debate that was a pretty weak tactic you just employed. You used the ideology of my idea to create a different idea of your own… and then tore your own idea down, blaming my ideology for it. Not a bad tactic by any means, but a weak one, and you aren’t going to fool me with it.

Second, while you created that plan under the assumption that I would think it’s no good, I don’t. You already knew that those aren’t the number lines I would choose to draw, but that doesn’t mean I think they are terrible lines. I appreciate that you got the idea that if you are going to raise the number to be AAA, you should also raise the number to be AA. Sadly, while I don’t think it’s the best possible plan, I think I approve of your idea even more than you do. For the record, even though I know others did, I never objected to ten teams in a class as being too few to be legitimate… its close, but not there yet. Either way, I would rather debate what the most fair hard numbers are for our student-athletes than I would debate about how to make scheduling easier for our administrators.

Even though it seems unlikely that we will never see eye to eye, I do enjoy the sometimes friendly, sometimes not banter that you and I have been engaging in on here. However there is one thing that absolutely drives me nuts………

Your 349.5 is my 500, and I believe my enrollment values are far superior to yours

Not all the time, but enough, you make claims like that and don’t back them up. You are entitled to believe whatever you want and if I disagree I will debate it with you. However, don’t just claim to have superior enrollment values, tell me why you believe yours are better.

I will use what you said we should use to compare schools, even though you never actually did the comparing. You mentioned three factors; school size, activities offered, and community comparison. Myself I don’t like the community comparison, if we start doing that we will start hearing arguments that 60 boys from Trinity Christian belong with 400 from Williston and that 39 boys from Shiloh Christian belong with 865 from Bismarck High… but since you used it, so will I.

First, however, is pure enrollment. You can keep saying that Jamestown vs. Beulah is more fair than Minot vs. Williston, but why? In all three of the ratio’s you and I have used to discuss this topic, Williston has more opportunity against Minot than Beulah does against Jamestown. Yet you continue to insist differently.

Second, activities offered by the school. Well, Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston each offer ALL of these activities: Gymnastics, Swimming, Hockey, and Tennis. So do the ten teams above them. Carrington and Central Cass offer none of those activities. Bottineau, Beulah and Grafton only offer Hockey (Grafton and Beulah have to Co-op to do it), Valley City only offers gymnastics, Minot Ryan only offers tennis. Activities wise, I think Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston look a lot more AAA than they do AA.

Finally, community. I guess I am a little fuzzy on what makes one community look like another. Is it solely population, what is it? Anyway, even though I don’t like the community factor I gave it a whack. A quick internet search verified that Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston each have both a McDonalds and a Wal-Mart! So do all the cities of the ten teams above them. Grafton, Beulah, Carrington, Central Cass, and Valley City have neither a McDonalds nor a Wal-Mart.

Using your three criterion, I just cannot find a reason that Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston belong in AA instead of AAA.