Realignment talk: Here we go

[ndlionsfan]

The more I think about it, AAA needs to be at either 10, 13, or 14 teams. 12 is absolutely rediculous because there is no way to separate Williston from Jamestown and Dickinson. 10 would work because by dropping those 3 down, you also have to drop Lisbon, Kindred, and Trinity which evens out the enrollments a bit but I don't want to see a 10 team class. 14 is a stretch because of DL. They really don't fit with those other schools currently in AAA. you almost have to take the 60% of enrollment into account in DL because of the number of low income families in their district. If you bump it up to 16 teams in AAA how can you separate Shanley and Whap from VC which has only 10 fewer students or TMCHS which actually has 75 more students but with the 60% factor they drop down. If you go with 16 there's no reason not to just go back to the 18 teams originally.

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]

I agree that Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston should stick together in any plan. I know that at least one of the schools doesn't want to be AA, and when push comes to shove, I don't think any of them want to be AA.

We should be spending our time trying to figure out how 13 would work, because yes, it would be tricky.

Finally, Fargo Shanley could solve our problem of 13 if they opt up to be the 14th team. I could see that happening.

13 plus opt-ups has my vote.

[Indy5]

Steve, ease up on ndlionsfan. His idea of picking certain teams to move up is based on making them similar, which I think makes some sense. Hazen, Watford, Mayport, etc. are all one town( well one schools cause techniclly Mayport is two towns) where GBC is 10 towns even thought their enrollment numbers are similar. I think a reason for this could be that maybe if you tell GBC to move up, they split their co-op to stay down, which is not what we want.

[NDplayin]

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.

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.

[digger]

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.

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.

I've followed this from afar, learned a little, scratched my head a time or two, had a chuckle or two. NDplayin, this is the most succinct, cut to the chase, let's stop chasing our tails, post on the topic. I"ve liked your reasoning throughout, if you're an attorney arguing your case and I'm the impartial juror, you just sealed the deal.

[classB4ever]

100% agree. This has been very entertaining and definitely informative. You don't get this type of information from a newspaper article. Now, the prosecution has rested, but I have a feeling the defense's wheels are turning and we are going to get a barn burner.

[ndlionsfan]

I've had a couple slow days at work so I've had some time to think about this. If you went by enrollment cutoffs and not a certain number of teams per division (which is what I think the state needs to do anyway instead of having to revamp a brand new plan every two years), why not do something like this...

3A is every team with currently 300 boys in grades in 9-12 (not the 7-10 they use right now) which would be 14 total teams with in the inclusion of Davies

2A is every team between 100-299 which is currently 22 teams

1A is every team between 70-99 which is currently 32 teams

9man is every team 69 and under which is currently 34 teams

This way when schools look at co-ops they will know exactly where they fall. Maybe some co-ops will dissolve to keep them at a certain level which is fine. There could be a optional grace period of two years if a team goes above one of the cutoffs before they have to move into the new division because everyone knows how enrollments can fluctuate from year to year. Again, allow no opt-ups and you just play where your put. It would take a lot of guesswork and fingerpointing out of the equation.

[steve34]

Sorry, I was gone yesterday afternoon, and work had me out late last night. My reply has been delayed.

I have a classmate that coaches football in South Dakota. I talked to him last night. Their system will be changing. He's a coach "west river", and the system has been under intense pressure for years. One team in particular will be leaving the TOP CLASS and moving down. And they look a lot like Williston. HMMMMMM........

And, if we're going to let other states begin to dictate our class structure, then I expect your next post to endorse a more-than-two class system for basketball because NORTH DAKOTA IS THE ONLY STATE IN THE UNION WITH ONLY TWO CLASSES OF BASKETBALL. Now, the next response will be something along the line of "this isn't a basketball thread". But the point is valid. Many of you have always stated our two-class system is the best system FOR US, despite our singular nature of managing basketball. If you make room for that, then you have to make room that we're doing it BETTER than Montana, South Dakota, or anyone else.

And we are. I reference all of the previous facts about football's popluarity since our EVEN NUMBERED four class system went into place, the parity of AA, and so on.

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.

Again, your arguments are all based on theory, and now what other states are doing. My argument is based on tangible proof that has played out in OUR state. And, the other states obviously have it wrong, or we'd have three classes of basketball already, and would have had a long time ago.

[Bisonguy06]

My gosh this is frustrating. Steve, you said that no one plans a 13 team class or any class with an odd number of teams.. Combined, we came up with at least five examples of odd-numbered divisions in high school athletics. North Dakota has 11 in baseball. Montana had 13 in football. South Dakota has 17 in football. The second classes of football in MT and SD also have odd numbers.

The other frustrating thing is that Playin made the "Montana had 13 in their top football class" argument 100 posts ago, and we're still going 'round and 'round.

You were proven wrong with facts, so you changed the argument.
Is this what they taught you to do in high school debate?
You would make a great politician though, and that's a scary thought

The success of the four class football system has had absolutely nothing to do with odd or even numbers. It has worked because we have created groups of teams that belong together, and we've made the numbers work within those groups. Williston belongs with the AAA group based on enrollment numbers. It's time to figure out how to make the #13 work.

If you want to hash out a basketball plan, let's go over to a basketball thread and do that. It would be fun and it looks like we have an audience. You and I both know that basketball is a different game with different requirements for depth and numbers.

[ndlionsfan]

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.

This I do agree with you on Steve. If the NDHSAA wants to stick to their guns that two years ago decided it was best to have a 12 team AAA, then so be it. Davies moves in and the bottom enrollment team drops down, which I really don't think will be Williston anymore when the new enrollment figures come in. With the oil boom it wouldn't surprise me if they jump over Dickinson. But no matter what, I think they should allow for opt ups if that's what the schools want. I can't see any of the three we've talked about wanting to move down and I can even see Shanley wanting to opt up as well with the growth they'll see in the future and trying to keep boosters happy. That would give a 13-14 team division that every team chose to play in and every team would be happy.

[steve34]

The point is that just because other states do something, that doesn't mean North Dakota should. The example of which is basketball, and basically everything else. Just because Montana has an odd-numbered class, or South Dakota has an odd-numbered class doesn't mean it's a good system. That just means they have it.

As far as your North Dakota baseball reference, we all know that baseball has no background for classification at all the reference is completely irrelevant. It's just a bunch of guys sitting around till they figure something out.

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.

You have to understand that football is not completely detached from the other sports. There is a delicate tapestry at work here. If you say that football can have 13, the first thing Jamestown should do is get truly PO'd from what happened to them in their conference affiliation. They wanted to stay in the EDC, but the state HAD to have balance between the two leagues. So they FORCED them west.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 13 mean 7 in one conference and 6 in the other? If so, then why is it okay to have a higher number in one league in football, but not in another sport?

It happens at the Class B level for basketball also. 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?

You can't separate football and the other sports when it comes to conference affiliation. Philosophy is philosophy. If parity in numbers is what we're looking for, odd numbers are out.....period.

[ndlionsfan]

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?

Up until just a couple years ago, Dist 7 had 10 teams while a couple other districts had only 6. Dist 7 still has 9 teams and even more districts have 6-7 now.

[Bisonguy06]

Are we working in an ideal world or the real world here?

I would love it if we had 16 schools of the exact same size that could be divided neatly into two geographic regions of 8. I would love it if AA and A and 9 man and boys and girls basketball and volleyball and everything else just fell into place like that.

In reality, we currently have 12 and soon will have 13 big football schools in this state.

In reality, we have class B schools closing or co-oping with other schools, creating regions and districts with odd numbers.

In reality, all of these changes force some teams (I.E. Jamestown in football) to move to a different region to create more balance. Jamestown better get used to being in the west. With the population growth out east, they will have to shift west in everything to create competitive balance. In most cases, that has already happened.

How do we solve all of these problems? We work with the odd numbers. Basketball districts have byes in their tournaments, and others have play-in games. 9 man playoff teams have byes in the first round.

Notice I didn't say "force a team to play outside of their geographic region" or "force a team to play outside of where their enrollment says they should play."

I like the number 12. It's a nice, neat number. I also like the idea of Williston playing where they belong. It just defies all logic to look at the spectrum of North Dakota schools and drive a wedge between Dickinson and WIlliston and say that that is where the line belongs.

[ndlionsfan]

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.

I agree with the enrollment cutoffs 100%. If they didn't do it that way and continue to insist and placing a certain amount of teams in each division your 16/32/32/rest would only leave about 20-22 teams in 9man.

[Bisonguy06]

P.S. I actually support redistricting in basketball. The regions out west are down to 12 or 13 teams (6 or 7 per district).

There would be a domino effect of teams shifting to regions farther to the west, and there would be some resistance to this along the lines of "you're forcing us to travel farther" or "you're breaking up some long-standing regional rivalries."

Redistricting is messy, it's never ideal, but it would make things more fair and that's what we're shooting for. I won't go any further with this - this belongs in a basketball thread.

[ndlionsfan]

I'll say just one thing on your last post as well. The NDHSAA pushed the redistricting last year to go along with the flip-flop of bball seasons, and just like you said it was basically a domino effect moving teams to the west and met with a lot of resistance. I know in Dist 7 DP would have moved in and Harvey and Wells Co moved out west with Max, Underwood, Washburn, etc. Change is a part of life and people just need to realize that something is eventually going to happen with redistricting whether they like it or not.

[digger]

There is a delicate tapestry at work here.

I never envisioned the work of the NDHSAA in terms of weaving a delicate tapestry, always thought of it more like making deer sausage. A little of this, a little of that, some filler, put it all together in an edible casing and the end result is in most cases pretty darn good.

[NDplayin]

First of all, I didn’t illustrate what Montana and South Dakota do to suggest that we go around copy-catting other states… however, we shouldn’t pull the blinders over our eyes and ignore what has and hasn’t worked for other states either.

Steve said that no one makes a 13 team class, that it was ridiculous, that it would never work. First of all, Montana and South Dakota don’t "make" odd numbered classes… the enrollments of the schools do. Montana and South Dakota made enrollment cutoff numbers… then the rising and falling of school enrollments determines how many teams are in each class. When odd numbers of teams go above the line- there is an odd numbered class. When even numbers of teams go above the line- there is an even numbered class. When they end up with odd numbers, they make it work and work well. It never has been ridiculous.

Steve, since you were the one touting your debate skills… I must call you out on this. You can’t continue to stand on one side of a fence when it supports your argument and then jump to the other side of the same fence when it doesn’t support your argument. Example: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:50 pm on this very exact same thread you wrote this (quoted in its contextual entirety):

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.

49 days later, you just wrote this:

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.

Here is the deal Steve, usually when people say “period” they are speaking in absolutes… and your two ‘absolutes' completely contradict each other. You can’t claim a 12 team division doesn’t work when supporting a 10 team class… and then claim that a 12 team division works when advocating against enrollment cutoffs. Which is it? On the exact same side of the coin, you can’t favor avoiding artificially inflating one class with a low enrollment team that doesn’t fit… but like the idea of artificially inflating a different class with a high enrollment team that doesn’t fit (not if you want to be fair).

I know even numbers make scheduling easy, but they don’t always match up with fair play… you advocated moving from 16 to 12 because 12 teams "naturally fit" together and you didn’t want to artificially inflate AAA with Devils Lake and others. However, now that 13 teams naturally fit together, you love the idea of artificially inflating AA with Williston just to keep AAA at 12. If all you wanted was even classes there would have been no reason to move from 16 to 12. You wanted the groups to "naturally fit" so we went to 12.

Problem is the world isn’t perfect and the numbers of teams that “fit together” will occasionally be odd. Under your system that forces at least one of the classes to be artificially inflated… I don’t care which class it ends up being, it is wrong either way. However, if the number of teams that fall over a fair enrollment line line is odd like 13 or 15 or 17... then all those teams have an enrollment making it fair for them to play each other... to say that someone is "trapped" just because they draw an odd number is inadequate.

Steve, I am not “singling out” Williston as the 13th team, nor am I suggesting that we “create an odd numbered class”. I am suggesting we draw enrollment lines that make it reasonably fair for the smallest possible team in any of the four classes play the largest possible team in that same class… and then let the enrollments determine how many teams go in each class. If you think Williston vs. Minot is unreasonably unfair… I have already invited you to suggest a AAA/AA enrollment cutoff that puts Williston in AA, but when doing so put equal consideration into what the proportionate AA/A cutoff should be. You have conveniently ignored that invitation.

No matter how hard you try to accuse me of bias… enrollment cutoff’s are the only way not to single someone out, artificially inflate a class with teams that don’t belong, or “craft a system to trap teams”. Everyone goes with the teams that their enrollment fairly matches them with. Period.

[Bisonguy06]

I just love how Steve is so adamently opposed to a 13 team AAA, but he has no beef with a 12 + 1 opt up. I'm not much of a math guy, but ...

*That was my original post, and I'm editing it so that it's not pure sarcasm. Obviously my point is that if we draw up AAA with 12 teams and we allow Williston to opt up, we are at the same number of 13 that we tried so hard to avoid in the first place.

[Bisonguy06]

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.

At this point I would like to point out that Steve supports Valley City's move to class B basketball. The enrollment cutoff number for basketball, as set by the NDHSAA, was 325 students. Steve was in favor of changing the number previously set by the NDHSAA (to 400). This move changed the basketball divisions for just one team.

We can change 325 to 400 for Valley City, but we can't change 12 to 13 for Williston?

Steve, you are consistently inconsistent. And that is why we love you.

[NDplayin]

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.

Get used to it ndlionsfan... Steve loves any arguement or logic when used to support his system... use the exact same arguements and logic to support a different system and he will find them invalid in an instant. Period.

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.

This is exactly why I support enrollent cutoffs. Landscapes and populations are not fixed numbers, they are constantly shifting, and the lines of "natural breaks" are always blurry. Even when you find an even number that corresponds with a natural break, it will only be a matter of time before a new school, or declining enrollment, or increasing enrollment upsets the natural break at that enven number. There was a time in North Dakota sports that the top 16 football teams did fit together... that time has come and gone, so we went to 12. 12 worked this year, but with the addition of Davies, 12's time has also come and gone. You could make a case to try and stretch it to 14, but even if you do, odds are that it won't stay at 14 very long... then we will be right back into this viscious cycle.

Draw set enrollment lines. Make those lines reasonably fair for the smallest and biggest possible of all four classes. Eliminate the blurry lines of "natural breaks", eliminate the bias opinions of "who fits together". Prioritize what is fair over what is easy and convenient.

[Bisonguy06]

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.

[NDplayin]

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.

I agree Bisonguy... initiation of a pure enrollment plan create a little hard work and cause for some adjustments… However, as I read your words, I realized there were a couple people who could better explain my thoughts than I could.

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Sir Winston Churchill

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

“We choose to go...not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard, because that goal will serve to measure and organize the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.” - John Fitzgerald Kennedy


“There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.”- John Fitzgerald Kennedy


In short, I acknowledge that the three hurdles you mentioned are real, but reiterate that all three are very temporary, one time hurdles. Here is a more extended response to each of the three…

1) Setting the numbers- I think two things would need to be emphasized in this process. Equal input from all the sizes of schools, and that it is the input of the people who know the competitive requirements of the state best, the coaches. Too many cooks spoil the soup… so, I think it would be effective and fair to have two coaches, selected by their peers, from each of the four divisions as currently set; 2 from AAA, 2 from AA, 2 from A, 2 from 9 man. The 8 of them would create a knowledgeable group small enough to sit down at one table but still equally represent the different sizes of schools. They could come up with appropriate numbers that take into account the best interest of all, and recommend those numbers to the NDHSAA.

2) Re-evaluating co-ops- No matter what type of plan is developed, the co-ops that find themselves on the bubble will re-evaluate their situation. However, at least an enrollment cutoff plan allows every co-op to know exactly where they stand, and their decision will never be dependent on another school.

Example, under the last shift from a 16 to 12 team AAA, Watford City found themselves tied as the 16th AA team with Rugby. When Dickinson Trinity was debating whether or not to opt-up to be the 16th team… Watford made it very clear that if Trinity chose A… Watford would dissolve one of their co-ops in order to remain A, and thus make Rugby the 16th team.

With an enrollment cutoff plan, at least all co-opping schools can make their own decisions completely independent of the decisions of other schools. The co-op either puts them over the line or it doesn’t, and either they are okay with that or they aren’t. They make the decision they think best for their student-athletes and do so without need to consider other school’s decisions.

3) Setting of schedules- This is most important to emphasize as a one-time problem. I don’t think the re-districting will take an extreme amount of work. There is no decision to be made on who goes into which division, that decision is made for you… Math determines how many conferences of how many teams, geography does the rest. It won’t be simple by any means, but shouldn’t be excruciating either.

Scheduling will be the toughest one time hurdle. The first year it will take a few meetings to determine who will play who which week and arrange for the non-conference games… but after the first year, the second will be no different than any other… And I think that one year is a small price to pay to provide a fair playing field for our student-athletes. I think all of this is a small price to pay to provide a fair playing field for our student-athletes.

[steve34]

Enrollment numbers failed before, and will fail if ever used again. The advent of the four-class system based on groups of teams has been the single best thing to happen to high school football in the state.

You can never set the enrollment numbers in a fair way. It's already been demonstrated on this thread that I can make two groups of 10 teams in the AAA and AA divisions that are more evenly matched than any numbers you can come up with. Those groups were based on enrollment. And those groups were rejected for "not having enough teams" in them.

Any plan based on enrollment will have either a sub-acceptable amount of teams to be called a class, or too many to force an uncompetitive atmosphere top to bottom. Until people on this thread can accept that small numbers of teams may be the most competitive and fair process to realign football, enrollment numbers will never work.

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.

What am I saying? It already failed. You're trying to set football back 20 years. Nice work.

[NDplayin]

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.

I accept!!! And I accept whole-heartedly... A few people have said that ten is too few, but upon review, more people have said ten could be enough... I know that ten got questioned, but the major question was never the number ten Steve... it was your bad logic for seperating those 10 from the next 3 in your "natural groups" argument.

I think there are other fair enrollment lines that could be drawn. However, while I have an opinion (and am happy to share it on here for speculation purposes), I don't think it should be up to me NOR up to you what the fair enrollment lines should be... the coaches should reccomend those numbers.

Now it's time to hold you to your word Steve... you said that you would accept enrollment cutoffs if I could accept that upon evaluation ten teams fell in each of the top two class. I accept with only one condition, that the evaluation includes the most knowledgable people on the subject, the coaches... not merely a bunch of guys who sit in offices all day long.

Steve, if after the coaches set the enrollment numbers there just so happened to be ten teams fall in each of the top two classes, I would be thrilled that the process worked. THRILLED!!!! Now we can get somewhere! I would be extremely happy to accept the coaches decision if the numbers they drew placed ten in the top and ten in the second. Would you accept their decision if the numbers they chose just so happened to place 13 in the top class?