Thundersnow wrote:The Schwab, I agree with you 100%. Since we don't have a time machine to break up any/many of these co-ops, the next best thing is to get a 3-class system passed as soon as possible.
Who do you cheer for ?
Thundersnow wrote:The Schwab, I agree with you 100%. Since we don't have a time machine to break up any/many of these co-ops, the next best thing is to get a 3-class system passed as soon as possible.
Thundersnow wrote:Who do I cheer for?
I cheer for the state of North Dakota. I cheer for schools that are big and small, public and private. I cheer for the coaches who win state championships and for the coaches who go winless for an entire season. I cheer for the players who are future D-1 athletes and for the players who rarely see the floor. I cheer for high quality basketball and for basketball that maybe isn't high quality, but is highly competitive. I cheer for a 3-class system.
For Class AA, a 3-class system will provide more scheduling flexibility and more competitive games. For those that want to challenge themselves, they can go play out-of-state tournaments. For those that are rebuilding, they could schedule some games against Class A teams.
For Class A, a 3-class system provides a home for the homeless. Those moving down into a middle class will no longer have to be beaten by 50 points on a nightly basis. The "Big B's" can now have the same scheduling flexibility that AA could get. Want to challenge yourself? Play a statewide schedule against your class and maybe even a AA team or 2. Find yourself in a rebuilding phase? Play your region opponents and then fill out your schedule with Class B teams.
For Class B, a 3-class system allows them to stay alive. There will still be perennial powers, there will still be underdogs. Teams will cycle through highs and lows. We won't have new co-ops every year. Small schools and small towns can stay on the map.
You can say this sounds cliche, naive, or whatever but that is who I cheer for.
Thundersnow wrote:For Class AA, a 3-class system will provide more scheduling flexibility and more competitive games. For those that want to challenge themselves, they can go play out-of-state tournaments. For those that are rebuilding, they could schedule some games against Class A teams.
For Class A, a 3-class system provides a home for the homeless. Those moving down into a middle class will no longer have to be beaten by 50 points on a nightly basis. The "Big B's" can now have the same scheduling flexibility that AA could get. Want to challenge yourself? Play a statewide schedule against your class and maybe even a AA team or 2. Find yourself in a rebuilding phase? Play your region opponents and then fill out your schedule with Class B teams.
For Class B, a 3-class system allows them to stay alive. There will still be perennial powers, there will still be underdogs. Teams will cycle through highs and lows. We won't have new co-ops every year. Small schools and small towns can stay on the map.
Thundersnow wrote:Who do I cheer for?
I cheer for the state of North Dakota. I cheer for schools that are big and small, public and private. I cheer for the coaches who win state championships and for the coaches who go winless for an entire season. I cheer for the players who are future D-1 athletes and for the players who rarely see the floor. I cheer for high quality basketball and for basketball that maybe isn't high quality, but is highly competitive. I cheer for a 3-class system.
For Class AA, a 3-class system will provide more scheduling flexibility and more competitive games. For those that want to challenge themselves, they can go play out-of-state tournaments. For those that are rebuilding, they could schedule some games against Class A teams.
For Class A, a 3-class system provides a home for the homeless. Those moving down into a middle class will no longer have to be beaten by 50 points on a nightly basis. The "Big B's" can now have the same scheduling flexibility that AA could get. Want to challenge yourself? Play a statewide schedule against your class and maybe even a AA team or 2. Find yourself in a rebuilding phase? Play your region opponents and then fill out your schedule with Class B teams.
For Class B, a 3-class system allows them to stay alive. There will still be perennial powers, there will still be underdogs. Teams will cycle through highs and lows. We won't have new co-ops every year. Small schools and small towns can stay on the map.
You can say this sounds cliche, naive, or whatever but that is who I cheer for.
Thundersnow wrote:State tournaments being played on the same weekend isn't optimal. But it's certainly not a deal breaker for me.
AA - Why do none of them do it currently then? Do the EDC and WDA really hold that much power over the individual programs and the state?
A - That is my point. The best teams are already creating their own statewide schedules. If Kindred, Shiloh, and Four Winds-Minnewaukan can continue what they're already doing, what is so wrong with playing in a different class from Tri-State, Flasher and New England?
B - No doubt participation numbers are down at all levels, and yes at times with good programs too. Does the potential move to a 3-class system increase the chance of lower participation numbers or does it provide a shot in the arm that maybe could help participation numbers?
So your idea is to leave it as it is?
Everyone knows exactly what will happen if we stay on our current trajectory. Games will become more lopsided in Class A: Century will beat Turtle Mountain by 65 in girls. West Fargo will beat Valley City by 55 in boys. Watford City boys will go 0-84 for the next 4 years.
Class B will lose more teams every single year. Meanwhile the rich get richer. Interest in high school basketball and sports generally will continue to dwindle. There will be roughly 10 good teams in Class A and maybe 20 in Class B. The best teams will continue to get better (which is a good thing), but the bad teams will continue to get worse or quit completely.
I don't understand the unwillingness to try a 3-class system.
Thundersnow wrote:State tournaments being played on the same weekend isn't optimal. But it's certainly not a deal breaker for me.
AA - Why do none of them do it currently then? Do the EDC and WDA really hold that much power over the individual programs and the state?
A - That is my point. The best teams are already creating their own statewide schedules. If Kindred, Shiloh, and Four Winds-Minnewaukan can continue what they're already doing, what is so wrong with playing in a different class from Tri-State, Flasher and New England?
B - No doubt participation numbers are down at all levels, and yes at times with good programs too. Does the potential move to a 3-class system increase the chance of lower participation numbers or does it provide a shot in the arm that maybe could help participation numbers?
So your idea is to leave it as it is?
Everyone knows exactly what will happen if we stay on our current trajectory. Games will become more lopsided in Class A: Century will beat Turtle Mountain by 65 in girls. West Fargo will beat Valley City by 55 in boys. Watford City boys will go 0-84 for the next 4 years.
Class B will lose more teams every single year. Meanwhile the rich get richer. Interest in high school basketball and sports generally will continue to dwindle. There will be roughly 10 good teams in Class A and maybe 20 in Class B. The best teams will continue to get better (which is a good thing), but the bad teams will continue to get worse or quit completely.
I don't understand the unwillingness to try a 3-class system.
BasketballMind wrote:Almost everyone that is opposed to it is opposed to what the current plan is. The plan isn't good and won't work or increase participation. Passing a bad plan just for the idea of "change" is the same as doing nothing. Everyone that says "I know this plan is no good, but we should just pass it and see what happens" should be disqualified from discussing this further. It's either a plan with WAY more flexibility between boys and girls basketball, or keeping it the way it is would be a far better solution.
Everyone knows there is an issue with massive blowouts across the state, but the proposed plan isn't the solution, which is exactly what he said. This response to "I don't like the current plan" of "Why are you unwilling to change?" is far too common in this discussion. I am not in favor of passing a terrible plan just to say we changed something.
classB4ever wrote:BasketballMind wrote:Almost everyone that is opposed to it is opposed to what the current plan is. The plan isn't good and won't work or increase participation. Passing a bad plan just for the idea of "change" is the same as doing nothing. Everyone that says "I know this plan is no good, but we should just pass it and see what happens" should be disqualified from discussing this further. It's either a plan with WAY more flexibility between boys and girls basketball, or keeping it the way it is would be a far better solution.
Everyone knows there is an issue with massive blowouts across the state, but the proposed plan isn't the solution, which is exactly what he said. This response to "I don't like the current plan" of "Why are you unwilling to change?" is far too common in this discussion. I am not in favor of passing a terrible plan just to say we changed something.
A couple of questions:
1. You have mentioned a number of times this plan will not increase participation. Please explain how you know this?
2. You claim this proposal is terrible and lacks flexibility, could you list all the reasons the current proposal is so terrible?
The Schwab wrote:Here's a point to ponder and you can take it for what it is worth. Why does this plan have to include girls basketball and volleyball? Why can't the plan just be for boys basketball? Baseball, track, cross country, golf and wrestling aren't mentioned and they are currently split up into class A and class B.
ndlionsfan wrote:The Schwab wrote:Here's a point to ponder and you can take it for what it is worth. Why does this plan have to include girls basketball and volleyball? Why can't the plan just be for boys basketball? Baseball, track, cross country, golf and wrestling aren't mentioned and they are currently split up into class A and class B.
I think it should include all three sports. All of them have been dominated by the same teams in many regions consistently. It might not be the same teams as in boys bball, but I feel we have a competitive balance issue in all three sports.
BasketballMind wrote:
The "increase in participation" point is based on this: The current class B schools getting blown out every night will attract more kids because the level of competition isn't as stiff, right? Makes sense in theory. So now we have to look at everyone else.
Are the girls basketball programs that currently aren't good and moving to the middle class going to get more girls to play? How about the boys programs? They just doubled or tripled their travel and budget, and are now in a worse position than they were in a 2-class system. There are currently 7 girls programs that finished with 6 or fewer wins in 2021-22 in a weak B division that are joining the middle class. (Oak Grove, HCV, Nedrose, Dickinson Trinity, Killdeer, Hazen, Standing Rock) I don't see those programs getting a jolt in numbers in the middle class, I see it being just the opposite. Maybe some of these girls decide basketball isn't for them anymore and they switch over to wrestling? No one brings that up either.
BasketballMind wrote:People in favor of this plan don't think about travel costs for each school in the middle class. That will also negatively affect participation. Some families might have make their kids choose one sport instead of 2-3 because they can't afford the travel. Especially those with boys and girls in high school together.
[/quote]BasketballMind wrote:The focus of this plan from day one has been to get Oak Grove, Bishop Ryan, Trinity, and Shiloh out of Class B boys basketball by any means necessary. It doesn't consider girls basketball or volleyball and it doesn't care at all about what happens to the teams in the middle. That's why the "lets just get it passed" argument gets thrown around so much. And I have to think it's from people who would be in the lowest class.
WalkingStick wrote:Per Dom Izzo's tweet today:
"A vast majority of private schools are interested in opting up to the middle class; that includes Shiloh Christian, Oak Grove and Dickinson Trinity. Vast majority of private schools are in favor of 3-class proposal, just not the multiplier. Don't want to see this end in lawsuits."
So to be clear...not EVERY private school is against this; just some. In Shiloh, OG & DT's cases...they already would rather play the middle class schools then to play the bottom teams from their respective regions.
I think an all private school tournament should be considered we have 8 in ND and if Shanley & St. Mary's don't want to be in you could probably get two MN teams (EGF Sacred Heart & Park Christian)
ndlionsfan wrote:WalkingStick wrote:Per Dom Izzo's tweet today:
"A vast majority of private schools are interested in opting up to the middle class; that includes Shiloh Christian, Oak Grove and Dickinson Trinity. Vast majority of private schools are in favor of 3-class proposal, just not the multiplier. Don't want to see this end in lawsuits."
So to be clear...not EVERY private school is against this; just some. In Shiloh, OG & DT's cases...they already would rather play the middle class schools then to play the bottom teams from their respective regions.
I think an all private school tournament should be considered we have 8 in ND and if Shanley & St. Mary's don't want to be in you could probably get two MN teams (EGF Sacred Heart & Park Christian)
So it's just Minot Ryan against it then? Our Redeemers and Williston Trinity are in the lowest class of the proposal already. I would guess that Shanley and St. Mary want to stay in the highest class.
The multiplier is applied to all schools with open enrolled students. I don't see how there could be a legal case that it singles out private schools. Yes, their enrollment numbers are increased more than others but that is part of being a private school without district boundaries and drawing students from a much larger population center.
classB4ever wrote:BasketballMind wrote:
The "increase in participation" point is based on this: The current class B schools getting blown out every night will attract more kids because the level of competition isn't as stiff, right? Makes sense in theory. So now we have to look at everyone else.
Are the girls basketball programs that currently aren't good and moving to the middle class going to get more girls to play? How about the boys programs? They just doubled or tripled their travel and budget, and are now in a worse position than they were in a 2-class system. There are currently 7 girls programs that finished with 6 or fewer wins in 2021-22 in a weak B division that are joining the middle class. (Oak Grove, HCV, Nedrose, Dickinson Trinity, Killdeer, Hazen, Standing Rock) I don't see those programs getting a jolt in numbers in the middle class, I see it being just the opposite. Maybe some of these girls decide basketball isn't for them anymore and they switch over to wrestling? No one brings that up either.
Thanks for your reply. It seems to me you are kind of proving the point that participation would increase. Let me put it this way, you brought up 7 girl's programs to use for your example. What you are stating is they will lose participation because they are now going against tougher competition. Well wouldn't that be saying the same thing for the 74 schools in the lower class having to play against the larger schools in the current system? Also, some of the teams dropping down should also see an increase in participation. That means approximately 74 small schools and 5 larger schools on both boy's and girl's side would see an increase in participation vs. the 7 girls programs you listed.
Also, it seems to me that these schools are not being moved up. Of the 31 schools in the proposed middle class, 26 of the schools are already Class B. 5 schools are actually being moved down. Just because an A is being put in front of the class doesn't mean they are being moved up. Vast majority are current Class B teams.BasketballMind wrote:People in favor of this plan don't think about travel costs for each school in the middle class. That will also negatively affect participation. Some families might have make their kids choose one sport instead of 2-3 because they can't afford the travel. Especially those with boys and girls in high school together.
A majority of schools in the proposed middle class are currently traveling across the state to play against like competition. Also, all these schools are better equipped financially to do this. IMHO, travel has been used for years as an excuse. Every school's travel has increased and there is always the option to schedule more teams in your area if needed.
BasketballMind wrote:The focus of this plan from day one has been to get Oak Grove, Bishop Ryan, Trinity, and Shiloh out of Class B boys basketball by any means necessary. It doesn't consider girls basketball or volleyball and it doesn't care at all about what happens to the teams in the middle. That's why the "lets just get it passed" argument gets thrown around so much. And I have to think it's from people who would be in the lowest class.
Flying Wallenda wrote:classB4ever wrote:
A majority of schools in the proposed middle class are currently traveling across the state to play against like competition. Also, all these schools are better equipped financially to do this. IMHO, travel has been used for years as an excuse. Every school's travel has increased and there is always the option to schedule more teams in your area if needed.
1) List the majority of schools of the 31 potential middle class schools who travel across the state
2) Explain "the option to schedule more teams in your area if needed"
Thanks
classB4ever wrote:Flying Wallenda wrote:classB4ever wrote:
A majority of schools in the proposed middle class are currently traveling across the state to play against like competition. Also, all these schools are better equipped financially to do this. IMHO, travel has been used for years as an excuse. Every school's travel has increased and there is always the option to schedule more teams in your area if needed.
1) List the majority of schools of the 31 potential middle class schools who travel across the state
2) Explain "the option to schedule more teams in your area if needed"
Thanks
Qualifier: I am going to assume the schedules for the middle class teams will be to play each of your regional opponents 1 time during the year. That will equate to approximately 15 games. Half will be home, half will be away. So, let's say worst case scenario 8 games away for regional opponents. Therefore they would have approximately 6 more games to fill up their schedule. I would assume they could fill in those games with current B teams in their area and half will be home and half away. Or play in some tourneys which they already are doing.
My apologies that I know the east schedules much better than west: Wahpeton, Oak Grove, Valley City, Kindred, Four Winds/Minn., Dunseith, Turtle Mountain, Devils Lake, Hillsboro/CV, Grafton all participate in games/tournaments across the state during regular season in the past.
Flying Wallenda wrote:Thanks for the reply. IMO "A majority" is a vast overstatement. Wahp/VC/DL didn't travel all over the state to play a hypercompetitive schedule, they did because they were in the EDC and were required to. I believe Kindred likely did in both girls and boys, FW only in boys, Dunsieth - not sure, HCV only boys, and Grafton perhaps in both? - Most obviously not a majority. And when teams do this, it because they are fielding a good crew. When they don't, they'll stay close to home.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests