North Dakota Preps

TapouTfighter wrote:Right, I was just using his number. I am also curious where the numbers came from where he states that a good class B team will beat an average class A team half of the time or whatever. When have the class A teams and class B teams collided to get this information? I watch mythbusters occasionally and they usually have some evidence to back their stuff up. Or theres at least an explosion to distract me on there. I didnt see any here much to my disappointment!

Please don't be surprised by the overwhelming assumptions you come across on this site especially the ones pertaining to Class A teams Beating Class B, Heck I'm sure on a good night.... that extreme level of talent produced at those Big Big schools could hang with a small collage. Oh Shoot there goes another assumption.

Its like Cavalier was supposed to get beat by 25-30 points by north Star but nobody comes back on to say they were WAY OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

avidsportster,

Dont worry Ryan has ticked people not just in lamoure but also in oakes and ellendale too. the arguements are terrible. Bravo for lamoure and edgley for keeping the NDHSAA honest. I think the vote to move VC back to A proved that others thought the same thing. All you have to do is walk into VC's facilities and see they are not a B school.

Now why, when VC was moved down to B, did they not put them with District 2??? Central Cass, Oak Grove, Northern Cass, Kindred and other seems like a better fit for VC, they are bigger schools.

Lastly for RC arguement that the state tourney starts at the single elim regional level. Does that mean indiana takes roughly 128 teams to state in most of their classes every yr???? did some research and most of the tournaments in classes with the most schools start single elim with around 100-128 teams still playing.

Yep, I too, am glad that LaMoure / Edgeley headed up this up. Cunningham has tried to spew this as a whole deal where LaMoure just doesn't want Valley City in this, when he keeps forgetting to mention the overwhelming 70 schools that didn't want it.

Yes, went to their school for the ballgame the other day. Beautiful place, gigantic, and huge student body. Fabulous athletes, there is no reason we even hung close. The school needs to look internally at its coaches. Of their players, we had one player comparable to nine of theirs. Their B squad is mainly juniors, with a C squad being sophomores. It just doesn't match up with what most B schools are dealing with. I hope that they can come up with a plan that works for all.

avidsportster wrote:Yep, I too, am glad that LaMoure / Edgeley headed up this up. Cunningham has tried to spew this as a whole deal where LaMoure just doesn't want Valley City in this, when he keeps forgetting to mention the overwhelming 70 schools that didn't want it.

Yes, went to their school for the ballgame the other day. Beautiful place, gigantic, and huge student body. Fabulous athletes, there is no reason we even hung close. The school needs to look internally at its coaches. Of their players, we had one player comparable to nine of theirs. Their B squad is mainly juniors, with a C squad being sophomores. It just doesn't match up with what most B schools are dealing with. I hope that they can come up with a plan that works for all.

I thought their C squad was all freshman? I remember because someone thought that was just crazy that they had enough kids to have a C squad of 8 or 9 freshman. If what you said is correct then where are the frehsman at?

C squad on the roster listed about 8 or 9 sophomores. Not one freshman was on the list for A,B,or C. I heard that their freshman play in a league in Fargo, but have no idea if that is correct or not. Those C squad members got in to play in the 4th quarter of the B game, which were more in the league with the lamoure B team.

One second inside of the VC gym will dispel any notion that they are a Class B school. It is amazing that any team within District 5 stays close with them. In speaking to some of the VC fans, I have to say there is an element of delusion. They are great fans, but their perspective is a bit skewed.

Yes, they have some chants that are questionable for high school. The one that sticks with me is the "nuts and bolts, we just got screwed" one. That is more your college age level chant. But, it must be acceptable in class A schools. It would be looked down upon in our B schools and dealt with (at least I would think it would). And, they have a huge student body to draw from to put together a loud section.

Without a doubt, the facility is not a picture of class B. Casselton has a wonderful facility, upper end class B. But, not even close in size, etc. The high school / junior high is one that our B school kids would have a tough time adjusting to its size.

avidsportster wrote:Yes, they have some chants that are questionable for high school. The one that sticks with me is the "nuts and bolts, we just got screwed" one. That is more your college age level chant. But, it must be acceptable in class A schools. It would be looked down upon in our B schools and dealt with (at least I would think it would). And, they have a huge student body to draw from to put together a loud section.

Without a doubt, the facility is not a picture of class B. Casselton has a wonderful facility, upper end class B. But, not even close in size, etc. The high school / junior high is one that our B school kids would have a tough time adjusting to its size.

I don't see a problem with that cheer. I don't see why it's frowned upon. I know it argues with the refs but its creative and I like to see a big student section that is loud and creative.

I can't stand the arguement for their facilities. Yes they have a big gym and its nice because its fairly new. Why does it matter if they have a nice big facility. Hazen, Buelah, Bottineau, and Central Cass(Although I've never been there thats just what I've heard) all have these.

And I really don't think the B students would have trouble adjusting. It might seem kinda weird at first but after a week or two they would be fine.

The "nuts and bolts" cheer is frowned on because of the sexual connotation of the word "screwed."

Some folks are still horrified when that word is used out loud. Think about it - it's a more acceptable version of the "f" word. I remember saying "screwy" in the car one day when I was younger and my Mom just about had a fit, but she wouldn't tell me why she was having a fit. "Just don't say that!" is all she would say.

Shoot, Elmer Fudd used to say "That scwewy (Elmer Fudd-speak for "screwy") wabbit!" in reference to Bugs Bunny all the time. So somewhere along the line, post-Elmer Fudd, the word "screw" got a whole new meaning.

That's why the nuts and bolts cheer is frowned on by some.

It's akin to "Elevator, elevator, we got the shaft!" Some people are horrified at that one too.

Hinsa wrote:The "nuts and bolts" cheer is frowned on because of the sexual connotation of the word "screwed."
Some folks are still horrified when that word is used out loud. Think about it - it's a more acceptable version of the "f" word. I remember saying "screwy" in the car one day when I was younger and my Mom just about had a fit, but she wouldn't tell me why she was having a fit. "Just don't say that!" is all she would say.

Shoot, Elmer Fudd used to say "That scwewy (Elmer Fudd-speak for "screwy") wabbit!" in reference to Bugs Bunny all the time. So somewhere along the line, post-Elmer Fudd, the word "screw" got a whole new meaning.

That's why the nuts and bolts cheer is frowned on by some.

It's akin to "Elevator, elevator, we got the shaft!" Some people are horrified at that one too.

Yes those words can be used in perverted ways but just saying them doesn't mean you have that intention behind it. So I think if I say screw or shaft it's acceptable in most cases.

And another thing, the nuts and bolts cheer is refering to tools. How could you get a sexual connotation out of tool talk?

And another thing, the nuts and bolts cheer is refering to tools. How could you get a sexual connotation out of tool talk?[/quote]

Indy, you aren't serious, are you? The didn't invent the cheer because it was a cute play on hardware store nuts and bolts.

Hinsa wrote:And another thing, the nuts and bolts cheer is refering to tools. How could you get a sexual connotation out of tool talk?

Indy, you aren't serious, are you? The didn't invent the cheer because it was a cute play on hardware store nuts and bolts.[/quote]
I have always thought it was about tools haha.

Getting back on topic, I'd invite any of you to jump to the class B girls thread and read through my breakdown of the class B girls field of 64, showing just how well the small schools fared against the bigger class B schools in the district tournaments.

Bisonguy06 wrote:Getting back on topic, I'd invite any of you to jump to the class B girls thread and read through my breakdown of the class B girls field of 64, showing just how well the small schools fared against the bigger class B schools in the district tournaments.

We know there will always be small schools mixed in just because there aren't that many big schools. And for some reason it seems like girls basketball is usually more small school oriented than boys. I know boys still has its fair share of small schools mixed in. There aren't necessarily major problems with our system. I don't think anyone would say so. But there are some minor problems that could be fixed. I think a 40/80 plan would be good.

Your 40/80 plan allocates 4 state tournament bids to the small schools, but in many years, more than 4 small schools are making it to state in our current system. Have you considered the possibility that you might be short-changing them?

Bisonguy06 wrote:Your 40/80 plan allocates 4 state tournament bids to the small schools, but in many years, more than 4 small schools are making it to state in our current system. Have you considered the possibility that you might be short-changing them?

Do you want to make it 60/60 then? Or should we just give the small schools 5 because there are more of them.

Here's the thing: In your 40/80 plan, you're still throwing the big and small B's into the same state tournament, so you must still believe that a good small B can beat a big B. Therefore, there's no need to divide them up 40/80, 60/60, or any other way. There's no need to allocate a certain number of state berths to big and small schools. Lump them all together and let the chips fall where they may.

In other words, keep essentially the same system that we have right now.

The one change that I do support is redistricting. North Dakota could still be drawn up to have at least 7 schools in every district. There's no reason why some districts have 6 and others have 8.

I would like the 40/80 plan because then we don't have to listen to all the small schools complain about having to go through big schools. One example(I don't like it but its very recent) is Valley City. With an 80/40 plan, they play schools a lot closer to their size so the small schools of the world don't have to worry. I know you just hate that example because you think this is all about Valley City when it isn't. We had this talk before the whole Valley City deal took place. 2 more examples are Bishop Ryan and Trinity. I think because those 2 are hated so much, that the bigger schools in their region are tolerated. Such as the Hazens, Beulahs, and Bottineaus. I remember being at some Region 6 championship games and seeing the entire gym cheering for Bottineau or Dunsieth, and booing Bishop Ryan. There were all kinds of kids from local schools in the Dunsieth student section. This has also happened at Region 7 title games with Trinity as well.

Perhaps we should educate all the "haters" out there instead of catering to them by drawing up a new plan.

Valley City will be back in A next year. I don't think that 'hatred' of Trinity and Ryan is a good enough reason to scrap a system that fits our state quite well.

Indy, you strike me as a reasonable guy, so just say it with me... "There aren't enough big B's to form a third class. There aren't enough big B's to form a third class..."

Bisonguy06 wrote:Indy, you strike me as a reasonable guy, so just say it with me... "There aren't enough big B's to form a third class. There aren't enough big B's to form a third class..."

Maybe there aren't enough to make a ideal third class but I think we could make a pretty good one. I actually think if we are going to go the 40/80 route, it should be 30/90 instead. How do we know it wouldn't be good? It might be better than what we have. Maybe not. We just don't know.

It sounds like you just like to experiment! You'd make a great chemist or chef.

Haha, no I'm not much for an experimenter, I just like to see if there are other possiblities to improve things. I guess you could call me more of a scouter maybe?

Today it's very hard to find any region in class "B" who has more then four or five decent teams in it. Imagine the overall quality of play in a third class. Please, I'm not putting anyone down... but it wouldn't be pretty..

scruffy wrote:Today it's very hard to find any region in class "B" who has more then four or five decent teams in it. Imagine the overall quality of play in a third class. Please, I'm not putting anyone down... but it wouldn't be pretty..

It would probably be ugly for the first few years, but you never know when some of these teams that haven't won for ages start having some success, the younger kids could get more excited and work on their game and more kids stick with it in the future it could improve by leaps and bounds. That is, if the NDHSAA does something to get more teams on the court by breaking up some co-ops and such. I know its a stretch, but its pretty ignorant for people to say it will only make things worse or it will never work without actually trying to change some things.