Realignment talk: Here we go

The teams in Class AA.

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:12 am

Oh, so who proposes plans to the NDHSAA, the coaches who want a level field for their players or the athletic directs who want a comfy easy to fill schedule?

Here is all I know Steve. I know we have been doing "groups" forever, and since you appeared hear you have never been happy with the groups. One group didnt like any of the groupings that were in place, so we changed them and a whole different group didn't like the change. You got on here a year ago and lobbied for 12 teams like your life depended on it. You got it, and came back a year later came back demanding another change. Now you don't like any of the groupings that were on the NDHSAA survey.

I have no doubt that "people know more than I do." But maybe those people aren't considering enrollment cutoffs because no one has ever presented it to them properly... Even more likely, maybe they are focusing on the way it has always been done and not realizing that the old way isn't garunteed to be the best way. I don't know, Steve, but I do know that grouping, no matter what they are, don't seem to be making anybody happy.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:09 pm

I'm happy with the current grouping system.

That system includes:

Top 12--AAA
Next 16--AA
Next 32--A
Rest--9-man

I'm just fine with keeping these groups the way they are.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:30 pm

steve34 wrote:I'm happy with the current grouping system.

That system includes:

Top 12--AAA
Next 16--AA
Next 32--A
Rest--9-man

I'm just fine with keeping these groups the way they are.

Here we go again, Steve. I can’t believe you're still try to play these games. Reminder: You started this whole post by introducing the ten team class. This post above was your 80th post on this topic. These next two were among your first dozen on this topic in the context of a 12 team class
October 21, 2009
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.

October 23, 2009
steve34 wrote:12 teams is done. Reason: Even if you fill the schedule nicely among the teams, half the schedule is non-conference games. Coaches did not like the big number of non-league games this year.

I could continue forever, but people get the point by now.

Steve, nobody knows what you favor. Whatever it is, you are clearly willing to abandon all consistency to get it. You don’t favor a 12 team class, you made that very clear. At least you didn’t favor it when not doing so supported your argument. Then all of a sudden you began to favor it because it backed up whatever it is you want. Then it was back to 12 doesn’t work. Now, suddenly, you are fine with 12 again.

It isn’t only about 12 teams. Steve, you were the first person to rebuke a poster for using competitive history to back up their viewpoint (I can quote you again if you like). About 20 posts later, after you got your butt kicked in the enrollment math, you were all about dishing mathematical theories and couldn’t quit talking about your “evidence on the field”, which is nothing more than a dime-phrase for competitive history.

I’m going to quote myself now, “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 exact same fence when it doesn’t support your argument.” Steve, for once man up and lay it on the line for us. Tell us where you really stand and why you really stand there.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:03 pm

After being presented with numerous options, including changing the sizes of groups, exploring your enrollment cutoff plan, and seeing what the state has sent to the coaches for consideration, here is what I favor, in order of most preferable to least preferable:

1. Our current system. 12 in AAA, 16 in AA, 32 in A, rest 9-man

2. 12 in AAA, 20 in AA, some split of the rest to form either two classes of 9-man or the current system of an A 11-man, and a 9-man class.

3. 10 AAA, 10 AA, 28 A, the rest 9-man.

4. 12 AAA, 16 AA, the rest A. Eliminate 9-man completely.

5. 32 A, the rest B, eliminate 9-man completely.

6. One-class system, eliminate 9-man completely.

7. Four classes of 9-man, with our current system for classification dividing the classes.

8. Force schools to start girls football, and eliminate the male enrollment numbers that divide classes. Keep our current system.

9. Eliminate football completely. Everyone plays mixed-gender soccer.

10. Eliminate all of high school athletics. Everyone has a speech team.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:20 pm

I started ignoring you at #4 because that ridiculousness is the exact type of strategy you employ to avoid having to justify #1-3 and to avoid having to confront more real options which may be uncomfortable to you.

Instead, I will ask you to state your justifications for #1-3.... the ones you plan on sticking with this time.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:24 pm

I will not answer that challenge until you permit me to justify all 10 of my suggestions. I believe I have legitimate reasons for all 10 options. They are not just made up. There are good reasons for doing all.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:31 pm

First, it wasn't a challenge... it was a request.

Second, I will "permit" that on the condition that when you are justifying #4-10 that you are justifying why they are better than any possible alternative plan that didn't make your list. Not merely reasons for being plans, but what makes them the better plans.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:34 pm

Playin, if you look at my post again, I said they were ordered from most preferable to least. So, it is impossible to say #4, for example, is better than any other possible plan, since I'm already admitting the top three are better than 4.

So, just so we're clear, are you asking me to justify 4 as better than any others besides 1, 2, or 3? Or are you asking me to justify why 4 is better than any plan period? I can do the former. I can't do the latter. I'm sure you get where I"m coming from.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:47 pm

No, we aren't clear
NDplayin wrote:First, it wasn't a challenge... it was a request.

Second, I will "permit" that on the condition that when you are justifying #4-10 that you are justifying why they are better than any possible alternative plan that didn't make your list. Not merely reasons for being plans, but what makes them the better plans.


It appears to me like Im asking you to justify why #4-10 are better than the possible plans that you excluded from your list all together.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:55 pm

Steve put forth an article on a 10 team AAA and initially supported it.

Over 300 posts later, after we hashed out several new plans and all the numbers behind them, Steve comes full circle and says "on second thought, let's leave the football classes exactly the same way that they are now."

Personally, I don't want to hash out 10 more of Steve's plans just to get us back to square one. I did the math and it would take 3,000 posts.
Last edited by Bisonguy06 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Well, whatever, I'll do my best. I left the other plans off because they are either unworkable or are less fair than those listed.

1. Our current system. 12 in AAA, 16 in AA, 32 in A, rest 9-man

Our current system produced the best season of football we've had in a long time. AA football was the superior class based on competiveness from top to bottom, despite absorbing four teams. Absorbing a fifth (Williston) is more fair than forcing Devils Lake to AAA, making this plan superior to any plan calling for 14 teams in the top class. There are imperfections, such as the inordinate number of non-league games, but there are ways around that issue.

2. 12 in AAA, 20 in AA, some split of the rest to form either two classes of 9-man or the current system of an A 11-man, and a 9-man class.

This plan keeps with the advantages of the first plan, but expands AA on the bottom end, which evidence suggests can work. With the exception of one team, those that would find their way back into AA have had competitive history there, their enrollment numbers are in line, and their demographics match fairly well.

3. 10 AAA, 10 AA, 28 A, the rest 9-man.

There is a natural fit between the teams in the four large metros. However, if you reduce their group, the second group must also be reduced, so as to even out the competitive balance at the bottom of the AA class. This plan also reduced the third class to even out that competitive balance also.

4. 12 AAA, 16 AA, the rest A. Eliminate 9-man completely.

If you're looking for fairness and equity, then everyone should play the same game. Nine-man is not 11-man. By eliminating 9-man, you put schools in a position to form co-ops that will have longevity to them, instead of constantly examinating splitting the co-op to go back to 9-man. Here, everyone plays the same game.

5. 32 A, the rest B, eliminate 9-man completely.

The same advantages as 4, but allows for a better examination of the large schools by those that currently have pre-conceived notions about what it takes to compete there.

6. One-class system, eliminate 9-man completely.

Same as 5, only everyone making a difference in the process now has a true understanding of what the largest schools are like. Neither 5 or 6 would survive more than a year, but the knowledge gained in that year would be instrumental in forming better plans.

7. Four classes of 9-man, with our current system for classification dividing the classes.

Everyone is playing the same game here as well. If the top class were 9-man, it could expand, allowing for more teams to play in the top class.

8. Force schools to start girls football, and eliminate the male enrollment numbers that divide classes. Keep our current system.

The male enrollment standard is flawed. Intangibles such as equipment, number of coaches, quality of coaches, facilities, etc., are determined by total school size, not just the boys in school. A larger school with the same number of boys as a smaller school could be well ahead of the smaller school in these intangibles due to its financial resources available. By counting the girls, you get a better picture of what a school actually looks like. (Playin, this may actually support your enrollment cutoff theory)

9. Eliminate football completely. Everyone plays mixed-gender soccer.

This plan is a more amped-up version of 8. In this manner, a very expensive sport is reduced to a far less expensive one. Total enrollment is used to determine classification, allowing for a much more fair playing field.

10. Eliminate all of high school athletics. Everyone has a speech team.

The ratio of academic to athletic scholarships at the college level is 77-1 across the nation. Participating in athletics has a great impact, but schools should be concentrating their resources on preparing students for a job market that will be much tougher in the future. Athletics does less in that regard than academic-based competitions.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:43 am

I don't have anything new to add on this thread. I don't see this discussion going anywhere until we have some action at the NDHSAA or some newer enrollment numbers to examine. I'm ready for a break.

Then again, I have said that before, and I jumped right back in when it got heated...

Merry Christmas everyone.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:36 pm

There's a nice article in the GF Herald today on the football realignment. Sounds like the survey results will be discussed at the Jan NDHSAA meeting.
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3185
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:45 am

After all the talk about bumping Williston down to AA football, it turns out that their enrollment has spiked significantly. Now it would be Dickinson that would get drawn out of AAA football if AAA is capped at 12 teams.

See the new enrollment numbers here:
http://www.ndhsaa.org/files/FB_11_12_En ... th_F_R.pdf
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Deuce » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:30 am

Unless Jamestown would disolve one of its coops. That'd put them under Dickinson.
Deuce
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:14 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Indy5 » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:16 pm

Deuce wrote:Unless Jamestown would disolve one of its coops. That'd put them under Dickinson.

No they still would have one more than Dickinson.
User avatar
Indy5
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Northwest ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Deuce » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:55 pm

your right. :oops: I was looking at the first column.
Deuce
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:14 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:32 pm

Wow, looks there will be some more juggling of teams moving up and down between 11mn and 9man. Can't believe how small some of those enrollments have gotten. Harvey at only 52? But with the WC co-op they'll have 69 so will they still opt up? Hard to imagine 11man without Harvey.
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3185
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:06 pm

I went through the list and counted out the 16 and 32 for AA and A. I also took into account co-op proposals and dissolutions that have already been passed by the NDHSAA and this is what the changes will look like (barring region alignments, geography, and opt ups).

dropping from AA to A would be Botno and Dickinson Trinity.

going up to AA from A would be Rugby and GBC

dropping from A to 9man would be Cavalier, Velva, Harvey (even with Wells), and Bowman (because they'll lose Scranton)

going from 9man to 11man would be WNG, RTH, Hillsboro, and Kenmare
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3185
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby GRIDIRON GURU » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:19 pm

The Griggs/Barnes county coop, which I thought was a bad Idea to start with, really looks like a bad idea now.

I think they should dissolve all the coops and look seriously at 6-man
"One thing you have to remember Bobby, soccer was invented in europe by women, so they would have something to do while the men stayed home and did the dishes"
Hank Hill
User avatar
GRIDIRON GURU
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:51 am
Location: USA

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:36 pm

I have to agree with you there on both your points. I don't like seeing these schools that are co-oped in one sport, but then with other towns in another sport. Examples....Glen Ullin/Hebron are split between RT and NS in football, Munich/Starkweather split for fball when both are combined in everything else and with Northstar in other sports, Medina and Gackle go different ways with fball when they could probably field a team if they stayed CP, and there are others too. The board stresses they want the schools to have a single co-op partner to have an identity, but then they have all these in place. I think 6man would help straighten out this out of control co-ops a bit and strengthen fball overall in ND
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3185
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:13 pm

Another problem with the current system is that they're asking the same number of schools to play 11 man football even though the vast majority of schools/teams are slipping in numbers.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby GRIDIRON GURU » Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:49 pm

Just off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of schools that would fit right in to 6-man.

Wells county
Maddock
North Central Benson
Barnes county North
Griggs Co./ Midkota
Maple Valley
Enderlin
Rolla
Rollette
Look at any coop that combines two or more formally nine man schools into an 11 man program makes no sense. It would reduce travel expense, renew old rivals, keep school Identity so you knew who the heck was playing instead of wondering who the heck North Praire is when you check the scores on Saturday morning. More kids would go out for football, more kids would actually get to play, more people would go to the games, It would allow more coaching opportunities, more school and hometown pride.

If we added 6-man
AAA top 12
AA next 16
9-man next 24
rest 6-man

I know if my kid wanted to play footabll, and I lived at the north end of Midkota's district no way would I send him to practice every day to North Central.
"One thing you have to remember Bobby, soccer was invented in europe by women, so they would have something to do while the men stayed home and did the dishes"
Hank Hill
User avatar
GRIDIRON GURU
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:51 am
Location: USA

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Indy5 » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:44 pm

GRIDIRON GURU wrote:Just off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of schools that would fit right in to 6-man.

Wells county
Maddock
North Central Benson
Barnes county North
Griggs Co./ Midkota
Maple Valley
Enderlin
Rolla
Rollette
Look at any coop that combines two or more formally nine man schools into an 11 man program makes no sense. It would reduce travel expense, renew old rivals, keep school Identity so you knew who the heck was playing instead of wondering who the heck North Praire is when you check the scores on Saturday morning. More kids would go out for football, more kids would actually get to play, more people would go to the games, It would allow more coaching opportunities, more school and hometown pride.

If we added 6-man
AAA top 12
AA next 16
9-man next 24
rest 6-man

I know if my kid wanted to play footabll, and I lived at the north end of Midkota's district no way would I send him to practice every day to North Central.

I think if we add 6-man, we should make it the 5th class then. Drop A from 32 to 24 and split 9-man up.
User avatar
Indy5
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Northwest ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:32 pm

GRIDIRON GURU wrote:Just off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of schools that would fit right in to 6-man.

Wells county
Maddock
North Central Benson
Barnes county North
Griggs Co./ Midkota
Maple Valley
Enderlin
Rolla
Rollette
Look at any coop that combines two or more formally nine man schools into an 11 man program makes no sense. It would reduce travel expense, renew old rivals, keep school Identity so you knew who the heck was playing instead of wondering who the heck North Praire is when you check the scores on Saturday morning. More kids would go out for football, more kids would actually get to play, more people would go to the games, It would allow more coaching opportunities, more school and hometown pride.

If we added 6-man
AAA top 12
AA next 16
9-man next 24
rest 6-man

I know if my kid wanted to play footabll, and I lived at the north end of Midkota's district no way would I send him to practice every day to North Central.


Griggs Co and Enderlin are too big for 6man. I think they would fit nicely in 9man alone. I also think Maple Valley and Rolla are just a bit too big for 6man. I think teams like Maddock, Leeds, Drake, Hebron, Glen Ullin, etc would make great 6man teams. Looking at enrollments, I would think 300 and up for AAA (13 teams), the next 32 in 11man (basically 80-300), the next 32 in 9man (basically 40-80), and everyone else in 6man which would be about 32 teams if he NDHSAA breaks up a few co-ops.
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3185
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

PreviousNext

Return to AA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests