A Better Plan

[heimer]

Screw it, I don't care how many people trash me on this board for the following suggestion about football.

And, before I get there, let me just say that I have been labeled a Valley City apologist in the past because I'm originally from there. This is not motivated by their likely assignment to Region II (west) of AA football. If the plan is the plan, that's where they belong, and they'll be just fine. I believe in more classes, not fewer, and I'm not going to abandon that premise because of a regional shift.

That all being said, the coaches got it wrong when they voted to expand AAA to 16 teams with the addition of Legacy and Sheyenne.

Seriously, I know some great people at the AAA level. But their desire to have 16 teams for no sake but variety poses problems. And if they can't find any way to make a 14 team schedule work, then we need smarter people coaching AAA football.

Now, the suggestion.

It's time for 5 classes of football. This is not about championships, playoff appearances, any of that. This is about quality of play in the regular season and like schools being like schools.

Now, before Bisonguy, the Schwab, and any of the other Heimer-bashers take their shots, saying, "Well, what's your suggestion if you're so smart....blah blah blah," (reference evolution of basketball from posts past), here it is.

Top three classes are 10 teams. 9 game schedule, everyone plays everyone, and the top 8 make the playoffs.

Here it is.

AAAA:
West: Minot, Century, Bismarck, Mandan, Williston
East: West Fargo, Davies, Red River, South, Central

AAA:
West: Dickinson, Legacy, Watford City, Belcourt, St. Marys
East: North, Sheyenne, Jamestown, Devils Lake, Wahpeton

AA:
West: Valley City, Griggs/Barnes et al, Stanley, Beulah, Dickinson Trinity
East: Grafton, Shanley, Central Cass, Lisbon, Enderlin-Maple Valley

A: (20)
West: Harvey, Berthold, Des Lacs, Bottineau, Standing Rock, Belfield, Hazen, Garrison, Rugby, Kenmare
East: Kindred, Hillsboro-Central Valley, E-E-K, Park River, Carrington, Larimore, Lakota, Oak Grove, May-Port, Northern Cass

9: The rest.

Let the opt-ups sort out the rest: I would see, in this scenario, Shanley goes AAA, Minot Ryan goes AA, Oakes goes A as they have declared they will now. In this scenario:

Add Shanley to AAA east. Would typically displace St. Marys, but St. Marys would likely opt up also. Belcourt down, Jamestown to west AAA.

Add Belcourt and Minot Ryan to AA west. Valley City and Griggs-Barnes-Everyone-Who-Needs-A-Home-Till-Hope-Page-Finley-Sharon-Can't-Field-A-Team-In-Two-Years-And-They-Talk-Griggs-Into-Getting-Remarried go to east. Lisbon and Enderlin-Maple Valley down.

Lisbon, Enderlin-Maple Valley, and Oakes to A east. Carrington go west, Kenmare down. May-Port and Northern Cass down.

I believe this creates a ton of balance, gives teams more options for fielding teams or choosing co-ops, and finds some natural breaks in enrollment for classification.

Yes, I know, travel travel travel. Again, you do it every other year. Top three classes playing everyone, no mystery. A playing everyone in region. Travel just isn't a reason to hate this. And it's one more title game for our lovely Bison Teammakers to clear, so, we'll have to have two games Friday and three Saturday. Oh the struggle to find a weekend when they are gone. If they can't, send it to GF for an extra year, and to H#ll with the Fargodome.

Fire away. I'll schedule a counseling session for the mental damage your comments are about to do later this week.

[lovwatchingsports]

Looks ok, would like to see about 36 teams in the A div.

[NDplayin]

Ah, my dear friend Heimer- I've been gone so long that I had to blow the dust off my keyboard to begin.

Ready for a shock? I like much of Heimer's proposed plan. I also agree with him on two fronts- I think ND prep football needs a make over, and I was disappointed in the new plan. The one big difference between us is that he thinks top-down, and I think bottom-up.

As I've bitterly opposed a 3-class basketball system in the past, he will be surprised to learn that I'm not opposed to adding a division to football. They are two very different games, and having 11 players on the field at once with 22 starting positions (opposed to 5) drastically changes the way enrollment impacts the ability to compete- but that's a discussion for another time.

I would like to a class where Jamestown and Devils Lake can play with similar sized schools. I sympathize with the tough spot they are in under the current 4 division system- i.e. either get pounded by schools you have no legitimate prayer of being consistently competitive with, or pound of schools who have no legitimate shot of consistently competing with you. The problem is that the landscape of North Dakota doesn't offer a lot of schools that would fit into a class that would fit well for those 2, and while it's not perfect (nothing ever will be) Heimer's 10-10 idea comes as close as any other idea I've seen.

My only problem with Heimer's plan (there had to be one) is at the bottom- which is precisely where I think the biggest problem in North Dakota football is at the bottom, and I think it's precisely where the biggest fix is needed

Problem: Too many schools are playing 9-man in North Dakota

Disclaimer: I love 9 man- I would support a 6 man class. I love the way 9 man allows an individual school to keep its football identity. Even more, I love the way 9 man increases the opportunities for young men to compete rather than decreasing those opportunities via a co-op that spans 100 miles and requires a travel commitment that equals hours a day. I want North Dakota to always have a strong 9 man class.

The reality: As it stands now, the strong 9-man class which I WISH we had is cluttered and dominated by schools that should be fielding 11 man teams.We have too many schools with 11 man enrollments hiding in the 9 man division. I don't know what they are hiding from, but they are definitely hiding. I'd assume each school has their own reasons- maybe their hiding from the big bad school whom they think would thump them if they were 11 man, maybe they are making excuses for terrible participation numbers, maybe they just enjoy being the big kid on the block (who can blame them). None-the-less, if you are big enough to play 11 man, you should play 11 man.

Solution: A hard-line enrollment cutoff- You can not play 9 man unless your male enrollment falls below a certain line for 2 years in a row. If you are over the line, even barely, you are big enough to field an 11 man team.

I would set the line at a male enrollment of 65. Big classes come and go and so do small classes, but with a male enrollment of 65 you'd average out to have 16 boys per class (rounding down). If even half of the boys in each class go out (and I consider 50% to be a pathetic participating rate for football), then you have 8 boys out for football per class. Granted not all 8 are likely to be varsity level athletes, but if you put your 5 best seniors - 5 best juniors - and 1 stud sophomore on the field you should have 11 guys capable of competing in the smallest 11 man division and you should still have some capable seniors, juniors, and even sophomores ready to play in a reserve role.

In a nut shell, I feel that with 65 boys and even a pathetic 50% participation rate you are capable of being in the lowest 11 man class. If for some reason you can't, you should probably look in your own backyard for the source of the problem rather than blame the system. There are currently 14 schools bigger than 65 males slated to play 9-man in the next plan, some as high as 77, 76, 75...



The Big PictureHere's what I would do- rather than look at it top-down- I'd work bottom up. Any school under 65 boys can play 9-man unless they wish to opt up. That would give us a class of 31 nine-man teams prior to opt-ups. Enrollments from 65 boys to 84 boys would make up Class A- there are 25 of those schools for the next rotation. Enrollments 85-134 would give Class AA 20 teams. Enrollments 135-399 makes 11 3A teams. Enrollments 400+ gives us 14 4A teams.

9-man- (64 and under)- 31 Teams
A- (65-84)- 25 Teams
AA- (85-134)- 20 Teams
AAA- (135-399)- 11 Teams
AAAA- (400 and up) 14 Teams

[HammerTime]

I also really agree like this plan. But it isn't without its faults. Class A should not be an East/West setup. The schools are really too small, and the travel too get from, say Bottineau to Standing Rock, is insane for a regional Class A game.
Second of all, I have always thought Hazen, Carrington and Rugby belong in AA. They aren't small schools. They are not small schools and have decent enough programs where they draw a large amount of kids each year.
Third, having 10 teams in the higher divisions and then having the best 8 make up the playoffs is ridiculous. 80% of teams should not make the playoffs each year. Ever. If you're going to have that few teams, you should have a max of 6 teams make the playoffs each year.

I really like the idea, and this system does need to change. Also, Heimer, thank you for creating a topic we can argue about again. This was why I made my account.

[ndlionsfan]

I also really agree like this plan. But it isn't without its faults. Class A should not be an East/West setup. The schools are really too small, and the travel too get from, say Bottineau to Standing Rock, is insane for a regional Class A game.
Second of all, I have always thought Hazen, Carrington and Rugby belong in AA. They aren't small schools. They are not small schools and have decent enough programs where they draw a large amount of kids each year.
Third, having 10 teams in the higher divisions and then having the best 8 make up the playoffs is ridiculous. 80% of teams should not make the playoffs each year. Ever. If you're going to have that few teams, you should have a max of 6 teams make the playoffs each year.

I really like the idea, and this system does need to change. Also, Heimer, thank you for creating a topic we can argue about again. This was why I made my account.

I also agree with this along with possibly a few other schools such as Botno. I believe the NDHSAA needs to go to some type of weighted system for coops. Griggs Co, Barnes Co N, Midkota, Pingree Buchanon, and Kenal while total enrollment wise have more students than the previously mentioned schools are not going to get the same participation rate as a single school would. Same goes for Hillsboro/CV and MV/Enderlin in that AA division.

[HammerTime]

I didn't include Bottineau because, they don't have a football team that draws kids. I honestly see them only playing JV in a few years. When you have to play 8th graders because you don't have enough high school players, you should not be in AA.

[ndlionsfan]

I didn't include Bottineau because, they don't have a football team that draws kids. I honestly see them only playing JV in a few years. When you have to play 8th graders because you don't have enough high school players, you should not be in AA.

At the same time, if you have 200 kids in 9-12 you shouldn't have a problem fielding a team. They have enough kids in the community to start building a program at the peewee level and in a few years be competitive again with good participation. Schools that coop usually don't have that luxury.

[NDplayin]

I didn't include Bottineau because, they don't have a football team that draws kids. I honestly see them only playing JV in a few years. When you have to play 8th graders because you don't have enough high school players, you should not be in AA.

HammerTime- In years past on this site I would "hammer" this point to death, but it's been a long "time" and it bears repeating.

We absolutely cannot create a classification or division system based on how successful the program's tradition is. Enrollment is the only logical way to do it. I understand to temptation to put programs who play at the same level together, but it can't be done. For one, it's variable. Second, it's subjective. And the worst of all, it punishes the smaller school that builds a strong program and rewards the bigger school whose program is a failure. It just doesn't work and it never will... The most likely end results is the decline of the strong, smaller programs.

I believe in the opt-up. Any school that wants to be up a division should be allowed up.

I do not believe in the "opt-down." If you are above the enrollment cutoff, you should have to play in that division. You should not be given the option to move down simply because a smaller school mans-up and opts-up.

[NDplayin]

I also agree with this along with possibly a few other schools such as Botno. I believe the NDHSAA needs to go to some type of weighted system for coops. Griggs Co, Barnes Co N, Midkota, Pingree Buchanon, and Kenal while total enrollment wise have more students than the previously mentioned schools are not going to get the same participation rate as a single school would. Same goes for Hillsboro/CV and MV/Enderlin in that AA division.

This is a whole new discussion here but it is hard to argue. While I will forever adamantly argue that enrollment is the only fair and objective way to determine divisions, we do have a singular precedent by which we "subjectively" adjust that enrollment. The NDHSAA already adjusts enrollment numbers for schools who have a certain percentage of their enrollment qualifying for free and reduced lunch. Call me a hypocrite, but I accept this adjustment for 2 reasons: 1) There is a correlation, verifiable by research, that poverty levels impact participation rates, and 2) Not one of these schools has dominated the division the adjustment puts them in- in most cases they still wouldn't even be considered average teams.

Based on the the success of the free and reduced lunch adjustment, would I personally be okay with a weighted system for co-ops? I would; however, I think it would have to be a very complicated formula based on mileage. I don't think co-ops have smaller participation rates because they are co-ops- it's an indirect result of the additional daily travel miles created by the co-op. I look at South Heart/Belfield (12 miles apart) and Washburn/Wilton (16 miles apart). I don't think either of those co-ops should receive any kind of enrollment adjustment- the mileage simply doesn't warrant it, and I would bet that their participation numbers would verify that. On the other hand, I think the daily miles covered by the Central Dakota and MV/E Co-op would warrant an adjustment because that type of distance does impact participation.

How would it work in my mind? It would be complicated- there would have to be a scale set-up whereby the more miles traveled, the larger the adjustment. Furthermore, the adjustment would only apply to the portion of the enrollment subject to that daily travel. If you're a school of 100 boys and practice is always at your school, but you co-op with a school of 20 boys fifty miles away, That 50 mile adjustment would only apply to the 20 boys, not to the combined enrollment of 120. If practice facilities rotate between two or more locations, the travel would have to be averaged out to equal a "daily commitment."

[ndlionsfan]

I also agree with this along with possibly a few other schools such as Botno. I believe the NDHSAA needs to go to some type of weighted system for coops. Griggs Co, Barnes Co N, Midkota, Pingree Buchanon, and Kenal while total enrollment wise have more students than the previously mentioned schools are not going to get the same participation rate as a single school would. Same goes for Hillsboro/CV and MV/Enderlin in that AA division.

This is a whole new discussion here but it is hard to argue. While I will forever adamantly argue that enrollment is the only fair and objective way to determine divisions, we do have a singular precedent by which we "subjectively" adjust that enrollment. The NDHSAA already adjusts enrollment numbers for schools who have a certain percentage of their enrollment qualifying for free and reduced lunch. Call me a hypocrite, but I accept this adjustment for 2 reasons: 1) There is a correlation, verifiable by research, that poverty levels impact participation rates, and 2) Not one of these schools has dominated the division the adjustment puts them in- in most cases they still wouldn't even be considered average teams.

Based on the the success of the free and reduced lunch adjustment, would I personally be okay with a weighted system for co-ops? I would; however, I think it would have to be a very complicated formula based on mileage. I don't think co-ops have smaller participation rates because they are co-ops- it's an indirect result of the additional daily travel miles created by the co-op. I look at South Heart/Belfield (12 miles apart) and Washburn/Wilton (16 miles apart). I don't think either of those co-ops should receive any kind of enrollment adjustment- the mileage simply doesn't warrant it, and I would bet that their participation numbers would verify that. On the other hand, I think the daily miles covered by the Central Dakota and MV/E Co-op would warrant an adjustment because that type of distance does impact participation.

How would it work in my mind? It would be complicated- there would have to be a scale set-up whereby the more miles traveled, the larger the adjustment. Furthermore, the adjustment would only apply to the portion of the enrollment subject to that daily travel. If you're a school of 100 boys and practice is always at your school, but you co-op with a school of 20 boys fifty miles away, That 50 mile adjustment would only apply to the 20 boys, not to the combined enrollment of 120. If practice facilities rotate between two or more locations, the travel would have to be averaged out to equal a "daily commitment."

I agree with you here. On coops with close distances between each and similarly sized schools, participation rates don't suffer as much due to more of a shared practice location (split evenly between schools). It's the coops such as Central Dakota, EEK, LEDP, WNG where you are getting more schools with larger travel distances with some schools not getting any home practices. It might not affect participation in all, but it definitely will in a lot of cases. Another case is in the AA cutoff with Hillsboro/CV and MV/E. Both are on the very low end of the enrollment cutoff, but as being coops they are going to be affected a bit more by participation rates then say Kindred, Botno, DLB, etc which are just a few kids less and in a lower division.

[HammerTime]

I didn't include Bottineau because, they don't have a football team that draws kids. I honestly see them only playing JV in a few years. When you have to play 8th graders because you don't have enough high school players, you should not be in AA.

HammerTime- In years past on this site I would "hammer" this point to death, but it's been a long "time" and it bears repeating.

We absolutely cannot create a classification or division system based on how successful the program's tradition is. Enrollment is the only logical way to do it. I understand to temptation to put programs who play at the same level together, but it can't be done. For one, it's variable. Second, it's subjective. And the worst of all, it punishes the smaller school that builds a strong program and rewards the bigger school whose program is a failure. It just doesn't work and it never will... The most likely end results is the decline of the strong, smaller programs.

I believe in the opt-up. Any school that wants to be up a division should be allowed up.

I do not believe in the "opt-down." If you are above the enrollment cutoff, you should have to play in that division. You should not be given the option to move down simply because a smaller school mans-up and opts-up.

I did not say what I said based on Bottineau's lack of success. This is a matter of participation. You literally can not compete if you do not have the kids come out and play. I realize that is a very complicated factor to take into account, but as I said before, if you don't have kids playing, you can't compete, regardless of your school's size.

[NDplayin]

I did not say what I said based on Bottineau's lack of success. This is a matter of participation. You literally can not compete if you do not have the kids come out and play. I realize that is a very complicated factor to take into account, but as I said before, if you don't have kids playing, you can't compete, regardless of your school's size.

Understood, my point is still this- If you allow Bottineau into a lower class because their program is weak while forcing a program with the same enrollment up because they are successful, you are punishing success and rewarding mediocrity. What are we saying, "Congratulations for not being successful- go play someone half your size?"

You say you're pointing at Bottineau's participation rate rather than their lack of success. They go hand in hand. If any school (not just Bottineau) strengthens their program then their participation numbers also increase. Bottineau has 94 boys in the school- and they are middle of the pack while there are two schools with enrollments 74 and 70 ranked in the top 5 of the same division. Bottineau has the resources- if they can't get the kids out, that's their issue to resolve. It's not the place of the NDHSAA to bail them out with a different division assignment.
The minute you start assigning divisions based on participation numbers rather than enrollment, is the minute you will start having certain coaches discouraging the average athlete from participating so that they can take the 17 best athletes out of 200 and go win a 9-man state championship.

[HammerTime]

That is a fair point. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded, but what happens when you lose an entire program? Bottineau isn't exactly a shrinking town. It's definately not 9-man size. It's not a co-op that can split up. You mentioned Bottineau has 94 boys right? Is that a total for 7-12, or just 9-12? Sometimes schools put 7-12 to make them look bigger and healthier.
But I'm getting off topic. I realize Bottineau isn't and shouldn't be a focus for a new football plan, but when a program is so bad so few high schoolers play that 8th graders can play varsity, there is a serious problem. Participation is an important aspect of football, and if you can't get kids out what do you do? When you were talking about co-ops and how there needs to be a system of weighting them, participation was at least a factor for you. But when it's a single school that doesn't have people that want to come out for football, you say it's not a factor and it's the school's own fault and they need to fix it on their own. I realize that co-ops are at a disadvantage, with having to travel everyday and all, but a school like Bottineau can't simply fix this. It turns into a cycle. Without good seasons, you don't get players. And without players, you don't get good seasons. This isn't a cycle that can be broken easily. In a case like this, it would require outside help. A suggestion would be allowing a team to go down a level for a couple of seasons, get their act together and move back up. However, during this time, they can not be a part of playoffs and championships and stuff like that.
I don't really know how to answer a problem like this, but something has to happen. You can at least agree with that, right?

[HammerTime]

And please, do not call me a Bottineau apologist because of this argument. I simply think that as this is high school football, not college, semi-pro, or pro, the playing field shouldn't be so uneven. Especially at these low levels when some kids play football simply because they have nothing better to do with their time. At this level, enrollment and participation are everything.

[ndlionsfan]

That is a fair point. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded, but what happens when you lose an entire program? Bottineau isn't exactly a shrinking town. It's definately not 9-man size. It's not a co-op that can split up. You mentioned Bottineau has 94 boys right? Is that a total for 7-12, or just 9-12? Sometimes schools put 7-12 to make them look bigger and healthier.

The NDHSAA takes the 7-10 boys enrollment from each school to determine placement for the next football plan. Also, Botno competed well in AA ball not too long ago so its not like they have had a struggling program for 20+ years. It's something that goes in cycles and will turn around for a town that size.

[NDplayin]

I broke your posts into sections so I could respond to each individually

That is a fair point. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded, but what happens when you lose an entire program? Bottineau isn't exactly a shrinking town. It's definately not 9-man size. It's not a co-op that can split up. You mentioned Bottineau has 94 boys right? Is that a total for 7-12, or just 9-12? Sometimes schools put 7-12 to make them look bigger and healthier.

The NDHSAA bases every upcoming 2 year football plan on the 7-10 enrollment of each school. Bottineau currently has 94 boys from 7th Grade through Sophomore. You can find those numbers for all schools at this link: http://www.ndhsaa.com/files/2013_14_Spo ... _and_R.pdf

But I'm getting off topic. I realize Bottineau isn't and shouldn't be a focus for a new football plan, but when a program is so bad so few high schoolers play that 8th graders can play varsity, there is a serious problem. Participation is an important aspect of football, and if you can't get kids out what do you do? When you were talking about co-ops and how there needs to be a system of weighting them, participation was at least a factor for you. But when it's a single school that doesn't have people that want to come out for football, you say it's not a factor and it's the school's own fault and they need to fix it on their own. I realize that co-ops are at a disadvantage, with having to travel everyday and all, but a school like Bottineau can't simply fix this. It turns into a cycle. Without good seasons, you don't get players. And without players, you don't get good seasons. This isn't a cycle that can be broken easily. In a case like this, it would require outside help. A suggestion would be allowing a team to go down a level for a couple of seasons, get their act together and move back up. However, during this time, they can not be a part of playoffs and championships and stuff like that.
I don't really know how to answer a problem like this, but something has to happen. You can at least agree with that, right?

I can agree with your statement that in scenarios like you describe, something needs to be done. I just can't agree that anything external needs to be done- I still think it needs to be fixed locally.

You're right- I'm comfortable with an enrollment adjustment from both free and reduced lunch and for co-ops that span a large travel distance. Quite frankly those are participation impacting factors which are beyond the program's control. In a case where Bottineau could be an example- 94 boys all in the same school district and no poverty problem- whatever factors are limiting their participation are within local control to fix.

You're right, the fix isn't "simple" nor would it be "quick." It would take a long-term commitment to strengthening the program, and it would be hard work- but how do you think the schools who are currently successful got to that point? It didn't just happen without the commitment and hard work.

Now specifically regarding Bottineau, I'm not as familiar with their program as you seem to be. It does indeed sound like things are bad there right now- but like another poster said, is that really a long-term trend or is it just a temporary down-swing that all programs go through? Within the last decade Bottineau was the AA West Region Champion.

Bottineau's 94 Boys will be the fourth highest of all Class A schools in the next plan, and only 4 boys below the highest. They have no co-op and not that many kids on free and reduced lunch- we don't need to "pity them down a class" for reasons within their control.

And please, do not call me a Bottineau apologist because of this argument. I simply think that as this is high school football, not college, semi-pro, or pro, the playing field shouldn't be so uneven. Especially at these low levels when some kids play football simply because they have nothing better to do with their time. At this level, enrollment and participation are everything.

I'm glad you made this comment- I don't consider you an "apologist" on this point. In my mind that's exactly what we are talking about is leveling the playing field. Moving a school down a class lower than they should be is the opposite of leveling the playing field. Having a level playing field doesn't mean everyone competes at the same level, it means everyone has the same opportunity and resources to compete at the same level. Some one still has to win the game, and if Bottineau isn't winning with the 4th highest enrollment in their class then it's their problem to work on.

[HammerTime]

I think we seem to be saying very similar things, except in different words. Something needs to be done.
Would you agree with a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years simply to get some wins and get some participation. But while in this time period, they are not a part of a region, and cannot be a part of the postseason. This way, a school can get some wins, bring up participation and move back up. But at the same time, not taking away championships and playoff spots and regional wins from the schools that are supposed to be at that level.

[NodakQ2]

I think we seem to be saying very similar things, except in different words. Something needs to be done.
Would you agree with a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years simply to get some wins and get some participation. But while in this time period, they are not a part of a region, and cannot be a part of the postseason. This way, a school can get some wins, bring up participation and move back up. But at the same time, not taking away championships and playoff spots and regional wins from the schools that are supposed to be at that level.

No...It's a cycle. Bottineau will be back. Simply put, moving a team down so it's "easier" for them while they "develop" a program is what is gravely wrong with society today. Make everyone a winner...C'mon man. The NDHSAA does the fairest division possible the way they do it now. Not everyone can win every year.

In an earlier thread a guy made the statement that Ellendale should be 9 man and Carrington should be AAA! Based on what??? Ellendale has higher enrollment numbers than Carrington...Too many people base class on historical success of programs. If a program wants to opt up a class...Go for it, but moving someone down a class because they've had a tough run...ludicrous.

[HammerTime]

I think we seem to be saying very similar things, except in different words. Something needs to be done.
Would you agree with a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years simply to get some wins and get some participation. But while in this time period, they are not a part of a region, and cannot be a part of the postseason. This way, a school can get some wins, bring up participation and move back up. But at the same time, not taking away championships and playoff spots and regional wins from the schools that are supposed to be at that level.

No...It's a cycle. Bottineau will be back. Simply put, moving a team down so it's "easier" for them while they "develop" a program is what is gravely wrong with society today. Make everyone a winner...C'mon man. The NDHSAA does the fairest division possible the way they do it now. Not everyone can win every year.

In an earlier thread a guy made the statement that Ellendale should be 9 man and Carrington should be AAA! Based on what??? Ellendale has higher enrollment numbers than Carrington...Too many people base class on historical success of programs. If a program wants to opt up a class...Go for it, but moving someone down a class because they've had a tough run...ludicrous.

I agree with you. My suggestion isn't a straight up "opt-down" setup. If your team decides to go down, you can't play in playoffs or championships, and any wins you do have don't count as region wins, even if you are in the same area. I understand that it is not a perfect solution and it should never be an official practice.

[HammerTime]

Also, one last thing, can you show me the thread where they put Ellendale in 9-man and Carrington in AAA? That looks like an entertaining read.

[NDplayin]

I think we seem to be saying very similar things, except in different words. Something needs to be done.
Would you agree with a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years simply to get some wins and get some participation. But while in this time period, they are not a part of a region, and cannot be a part of the postseason. This way, a school can get some wins, bring up participation and move back up. But at the same time, not taking away championships and playoff spots and regional wins from the schools that are supposed to be at that level.

I agree that we are saying similar things- but not the same thing.

I'm sorry, I can't agree to a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years but gets no post-season participation. Among the many reasons I have, this sticks out: I don't think it would be a successful way to rejuvenate a program, especially one suffering from a lack of numbers. I just don't think the subtle communication of- "Yea, we may get a few more wins, but you have no hope for any post-season because you're in essence cheating, but we're letting you get away with it because we pity you"- is going to be a anymore of a successful way to rebuild participation numbers in the program and work any more quickly than good old fashioned dedication and commitment starting and the top and filtering its way down.

[B-oldtimer]

I have been reading that 50% participation level is even a weak level of participation level but if you look at lot of the schools these past few years participation for a number of schools have been much less than that. Coops have had effect on participation reducing the number of kids, also kids are not playing sports like they did in the past and football I believe has parents not wanting their kids to play football with risk of injury so they are not encouraging their kids to play football and even discouraging them from playing football. The days where schools had 75 to 80% participation has passed and I believe that were going to see a lot of schools be lucky to reach the 33% level in the coming years.
I think like I said on injury topic parents and kids are both looking at injuries happening in football and deciding its not worth the risk. I have seen number of kids hurt this season that only were they injured for football but they will miss basketball season and may miss whole school year for other sports. This is having effect on other kids participating in football too they don't want to miss a year of all the sports. What I have seen then is your left with kids that only play football or is there main sport they play the kids that play other sports and consider them there first love will not go out for football. I looked at number of schools and there rosters and most are around that 50% level and number were even down to 30% level or less. All I know is that enrollment numbers are not total picture whether schools are evenly matched because of participation this is going to very across the state and from school to school because attitudes of parents and communities whether they want their kids to play football.

[HammerTime]

So we do have a large problem
With participation. I wasn't saying it was only Bottineau that had low participation rate. But now, I'm seeing this could be a large problem in the future for nearly every school that isn't winning.

I have been reading that 50% participation level is even a weak level of participation level but if you look at lot of the schools these past few years participation for a number of schools have been much less than that. Coops have had effect on participation reducing the number of kids, also kids are not playing sports like they did in the past and football I believe has parents not wanting their kids to play football with risk of injury so they are not encouraging their kids to play football and even discouraging them from playing football. The days where schools had 75 to 80% participation has passed and I believe that were going to see a lot of schools be lucky to reach the 33% level in the coming years.
I think like I said on injury topic parents and kids are both looking at injuries happening in football and deciding its not worth the risk. I have seen number of kids hurt this season that only were they injured for football but they will miss basketball season and may miss whole school year for other sports. This is having effect on other kids participating in football too they don't want to miss a year of all the sports. What I have seen then is your left with kids that only play football or is there main sport they play the kids that play other sports and consider them there first love will not go out for football. I looked at number of schools and there rosters and most are around that 50% level and number were even down to 30% level or less. All I know is that enrollment numbers are not total picture whether schools are evenly matched because of participation this is going to very across the state and from school to school because attitudes of parents and communities whether they want their kids to play football.

If a school isn't winning, the people the school needs to go out for football will say "To heck with it. I don't want to get injured. I still want to play basketball and track."
I realize I sound like I'm trying to make everyone a winner, but something has to be done about football participation. If there's no reason to play other than to play and occasionally win, what's the point. Or if you're a JV kid, and your school does have a starting lineup out but they stink and you never get the chance to play, then the team loses replacements in case of injuries. I know you guys say this is an internal problem, but with the exception of a few schools, this could be a large state-wide problem.

[B-oldtimer]

Yes winning has something to it and also expectations that are part of sports is also playing into it for participation and injuries. In these smaller schools we have wide variance of kids participating in football it not like large schools where majority of the kids are concentrating on football. The kids in these schools lift and prepare for football year around. Now in lower classes of football some schools are getting this but a lot of schools we have few kids that may lift and work on football year around but a lot of kids are going out to play and participate but they play other sports too that may be there true sports. Now you these kids are running up against these schools or kids that are totally concentrating on football and you get mismatches and injuries because of strength differences. Also you see this in scores and wins by various schools against each other. Back in my day kids played sports for each of the seasons and moved on to next sport there was no lifting and training year around that was something done at the college level. Now we have this mixture of the old way and kids that are preparing to play at the next level. This I believe why were seeing number of injuries, wide variance in programs, and why they are having such hard time to come to competitive balance. I also believe this why participation numbers are down for majority of schools kids don't want to work at sport year around it becomes a job not something they do for fun and they can move on to the next sport and have fun. I can hear each side of this that kids don't want to work at there sports but lets face it majority of kids will never play beyond highschool and even the ones that do number that play into college for four years are few and far between. I don't have solution for this problem especially for small schools because were caught between where sports were activity for fun for kids and now being feeder program for colleges. The problem is that being as small as these schools are were going to have to soon decide how much participation and training is going be allowed for each sport year around.

[lovwatchingsports]

Yes winning has something to it and also expectations that are part of sports is also playing into it for participation and injuries. In these smaller schools we have wide variance of kids participating in football it not like large schools where majority of the kids are concentrating on football. The kids in these schools lift and prepare for football year around. Now in lower classes of football some schools are getting this but a lot of schools we have few kids that may lift and work on football year around but a lot of kids are going out to play and participate but they play other sports too that may be there true sports. Now you these kids are running up against these schools or kids that are totally concentrating on football and you get mismatches and injuries because of strength differences. Also you see this in scores and wins by various schools against each other. Back in my day kids played sports for each of the seasons and moved on to next sport there was no lifting and training year around that was something done at the college level. Now we have this mixture of the old way and kids that are preparing to play at the next level. This I believe why were seeing number of injuries, wide variance in programs, and why they are having such hard time to come to competitive balance. I also believe this why participation numbers are down for majority of schools kids don't want to work at sport year around it becomes a job not something they do for fun and they can move on to the next sport and have fun. I can hear each side of this that kids don't want to work at there sports but lets face it majority of kids will never play beyond highschool and even the ones that do number that play into college for four years are few and far between. I don't have solution for this problem especially for small schools because were caught between where sports were activity for fun for kids and now being feeder program for colleges. The problem is that being as small as these schools are were going to have to soon decide how much participation and training is going be allowed for each sport year around.

I played football, wrestled, hs baseball, and legion baseball. Lifted all year also. You can do it if you want to.