steve34 wrote:Second, and really first, no one makes a 13 team class. The idea is rediculous. You're basically telling the whole state that you're just out to screw Williston. Round numbers people understand, but 13 basically tells the whole state what you're about.
NDplayin wrote:First of and foremost Steve, I am quoting your entire second point here… the fact that Im not quoting points #1 and #3 through whatever has nothing to do with this particular point. If you want to say that I take this out of context that would just be rIdiculous.steve34 wrote:Second, and really first, no one makes a 13 team class. The idea is rediculous. You're basically telling the whole state that you're just out to screw Williston. Round numbers people understand, but 13 basically tells the whole state what you're about.
Steve, I am going to take you down this road again. Many, MANY states of all different geographies and populations use enrollment cutoffs and form uneven numbered divisions. Montana, our neighbor, operates on an enrollment cutoff plan. Two years ago, Flathead High School split in two (exactly like South/Davies) creating a 14 team top class… Until two years ago, Montana had enjoyed a 13 team top class for decades. That’s right Steve, 13 teams on the dot, and guess what, it wasn’t rIdiculous, and no one was getting "screwed". In fact, Montana football flourished with that 13 team class leading the way. Montana didn’t go from 13 to 14 teams because they wanted to baby their athletic directors… they went from 13 to 14 because the Flathead split put 14 teams above the ridged number required. There are a few second class teams rapidly approaching that ridged cut off… not if, but when one of them crosses that line, they will have a 15 team top class. What does this mean they "are about"? They "are about" the student-athletes stepping onto a reasonably fair playing field. They are not about having a cute round number in a class creating easy scheduling for the athletic directors. How rIdiculous are they?
I’ve got more… like I said, many states use enrollment cutoffs, but I chose two of our neighbors to illustrate the point. These are facts Steve.
FACT: Montana HAD 13 (an odd number) teams in the top class for years… they currently have 14
FACT: Montana currently has 23 teams in the second class (gasp, not an odd number! And you mean that Big Sky hasn’t fallen down????)
FACT: South Dakota currently has 17 teams in their top class (another odd number- How dare they??).
FACT: South Dakota currently has 21 teams in their second class (odd number. those "darn apologists")
North Dakota’s landscape is volatile and ever changing… If we continue to use set even numbers of teams in classes simply because even numbers are cuter, it is inevitable that we will end up with classes that have an unfair enrollment range (that includes AAA Steve), even if they were originally fair when we set those numbers. Want to be fair and unbiased???? Set enrollment cutoffs where it is reasonably fair for the smallest possible to play the highest possible in all four classes and then stick by your guns as schools grow and shrink.
The families who move in and out of school districts don’t consider whether that school’s enrollment makes them even or odd on a list, why should we?? To think that we can always guarantee that an even numbers of schools will “fit together” is rIdiculous. To find and set enrollment ranges that present a reasonable opportunity to be competitive from the top to bottom in every class is very realistic.
steve34 wrote:The sky won't fall in North Dakota if Williston played AA. It also won't fall if we have 13 teams in the top class. I might add that my past posts have never denied Williston the right to opt up and play AAA. I have supported their right to do so, and I have supported the state following suit by making 13 teams work. What I don't support is changing the divisions for just one team. The number, as set by the NDHSAA, is 12 teams. With Davies coming in, somone goes down. That's Williston by the numbers. That knocks a team down to A, and that's Trinity. It's worked before, as seen in 2009. It will work again.
steve34 wrote:We're always trying to get 8 teams in a district for basketball. If we allow a higher number in one league for football, why wouldn't it be okay for some districts to have 6 teams and others 10. In fact, it's easier in basketball, with so many more days to play games. Why the difference?
scc wrote:If sticking with four divisions, I'd base everything on enrollment cutoffs, regardless of odd or even. If even is such a big deal, though, I'd set things up this way: 16/32/32/rest.
steve34 wrote:There is a delicate tapestry at work here.
steve34 wrote:BisonGuy, please try to understand the issue. It's not a 12 team problem. The plan is to increase to 14, and that has problems. Even if you're going to keep the class at 12, you have to move someone down, as Davies enters the mix. So Williston goes down. And you still can't fill schedules with 12 teams. Half the season is non-conference games. It doesn't work with 12 period.
14 is a stretch. You artifically inflate the class with a legitimate AA team moving to AAA, and scheduling is still an issue.
With 10, scheduling is not an issue, the class isn't artifically inflated, and there is room for natural growth.
steve34 wrote:North Dakota's system works, period. The evidence is on the field, period. 12 is 12, not 13. 16 is 16, not 17. I'm all about opting up, but not crafting a class to trap teams. 13 traps teams. 12 + 1 allows options. Getting you to realize that is the truly frustrating part.
steve34 wrote: The sky won't fall in North Dakota if Williston played AA. It also won't fall if we have 13 teams in the top class. I might add that my past posts have never denied Williston the right to opt up and play AAA. I have supported their right to do so, and I have supported the state following suit by making 13 teams work. What I don't support is changing the divisions for just one team. The number, as set by the NDHSAA, is 12 teams.. With Davies coming in, somone goes down. That's Williston by the numbers. That knocks a team down to A, and that's Trinity. It's worked before, as seen in 2009. It will work again.
ndlionsfan wrote:Steve, I used a lot of your same arguments for building my 4 class system. I grouped teams/towns that are similar in nature and belong together.
ndlionsfan wrote:Basically to sum it up, 18 didn't work, 16 is dumb because of how close the schools around the cutoff are, 14 is a stretch, 13 looks good but is an uneven number, 12 is dumb because of the same reason 16 is, and 10 would work but is really too small in my opinion.
Bisonguy06 wrote:Enrollment numbers may be the way to go, but the first steps in the process would be the toughest.
1) Setting the numbers - Just think about how much we could argue about what each cutoff should be.
2) Reevaluating co-ops - Some would form, some would dissolve. Always a heated discussion in the schools involved.
3) Setting the schedules - New regions, new numbers of teams per region and per class
Once your numbers are in place, things seem to go pretty smoothly in other states. Of course, once you set the numbers, you have to stick to your guns and not be tempted to adjust them! (see VCHS)
This could work. I just foresee even MORE heated discussion in the formation and the first years of this plan.
steve34 wrote:I'll embrace the enrollment theory only if you will accept that, upon evaluation, the top class, perhaps the top two, may still only have 10 teams. If you can't accept that, then enrollment fails.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests