Strength of Region (toughest road to state)

[old#63]

I can agree to that Old 63. The pendulum swings back and forth in terms of what regions are tougher. Some Regions traditionally seem to keep their strength longer than others... but it swings none the less. The constant seems to be that the system we use leaves more deserving teams behind than it should.

Thanks, just wanted to plug R2... which in the past 12 years has produced 4 state champs, 3 runner ups, 2 3rd's, 2 4th's, and a consi champ. R2 has left a lot of good teams behind. It's just some other region's turn this year. And I like the system, by the way.

[Run4Fun2009]

I can't put Hazen, HR, or MR over FWM, Cavalier, or even a top team from a weaker region like TLMM or LLM. Maybe one of those teams in there, but definitely not 2-3.

It's like this every year...."my region is better than yours", but there is really no way to compare all of them because no one can see them all play. Best way to compare is to look at the Northstar/Beulah, Rugby, Cavalier, FWM, etc. games over the Christmas break and they were all pretty even.

And there is no way to guarantee the top 8 teams in the state to make the tournament because there is no possibly way to figure out and justify who the top 8 are.

I think I could feel like I could put Hazen, HR or M-R ahead of Region 5...just from the fact that Mott-Regent (the 5th best team from R7) just defeated Shiloh Christian (the top team from R5...but barely). But you guys are all right...there is no justifiable way to say this region is better than this region or this team would win this region if they were in it. Its just opinions that can be debated.

[old#63]

Boys, I can remember back to the day (70's) when top 8 teams might get left behind at District tourneys. This system has been around a long time. I love it.

[packers21]

Boys, I can remember back to the day (70's) when top 8 teams might get left behind at District tourneys. This system has been around a long time. I love it.

I agree, everyone has a equal shot to make it. I like it.

[The Schwab]

I like the tournament set up, I however wish we would look at doing what south dakota does (Single Elimination starting in districts, so the regional is only 1 game between district champs.)

[Run4Fun2009]

I like the tournament set up, I however wish we would look at doing what south dakota does (Single Elimination starting in districts, so the regional is only 1 game between district champs.)

So like Minnesota and their Sub-Sections leading to one Section Final. Lose and you go home.

[gominers]

How about what Region 7 is doing (I believe next year), and just eliminating districts altogether?

[Run4Fun2009]

How about what Region 7 is doing (I believe next year), and just eliminating districts altogether?

I think all regions will be that way here real soon...

[old#63]

How about what Region 7 is doing (I believe next year), and just eliminating districts altogether?

I think all regions will be that way here real soon...

Hope so.

[packers21]

How about what Region 7 is doing (I believe next year), and just eliminating districts altogether?

I think all regions will be that way here real soon...

Hope so.

I like the super-regional idea a lot.

[ndlionsfan]

Same here. Hate double elimination. Would rather see top teams earn byes based on their regular season performance but then everything win or go home in the postseason. Nothing worse for me than to have a 3 day tournament to eliminate 2 teams and then start all over again at regionals.

[gominers]

I agree completely as well. Winning the district tournament has very little to no meaning.

[Run4Fun2009]

Two ways to seed:
1. Regional records are kept and used as the bench-mark for seeding.
2. Coaches from the Region vote

#1 is an easier way and less biased way..but #2 is a viable option.

If they were to go to one tourney (sub-sections to section final)...then each team would be able to add 2-3 (maybe even more) games to their regular season schedule.

[gominers]

I believe region 7 is doing the first. Every team plays the other 11 in a "region" game. It does reduce scheduling flexibility to some extent. Possibly fewer non-region games.

[Flip]

Two ways to seed:
1. Regional records are kept and used as the bench-mark for seeding.
2. Coaches from the Region vote

3. QRF

[Run4Fun2009]

Two ways to seed:
1. Regional records are kept and used as the bench-mark for seeding.
2. Coaches from the Region vote

3. QRF

yeah the QRF could be used...but highly doubt the NDHSAA would change that much. They'd likely go with the easier.

[winner-within]

I gotta question...
What makes all these teams so much more powerful than they were in the past?
the oil field?

The talent on the teams...

"talent on the teams"?? 30%
Coach on the Bench...70%

[MNTwinsFan]

Unfortunately, according to most fans; players are the reason teams win and coaching is why teams lose.

[winner-within]

Unfortunately, according to most fans; players are the reason teams win and coaching is why teams lose.

Unfortunately being the Key word

[NDplayin]

I think Region 7 is barking up the completely wrong tree with the super regional idea. It doesn't address the problem at all.

This thread is a perfect case in point. First, the thread is created wondering which Region is going to be the toughest in which to qualify for state. Second, Discussion begins that it's too bad that their isn't more consistent parity between regions so that more of the best teams get to state. Finally, the solution is to eliminate the district tournament??? The solution has no bearing on the problem what-so-ever.

I agree the district tournaments are ridiculous but not because we have them- because we barely eliminate anyone with them anymore. The point of a district tournament is not necessarily to have a champion, but to qualify so many for the regional tournament, and qualifying 4 teams (over 50% in almost every case) is ridiculous. It also leads to some really poor teams at the Regional tournament.

The REAL problem is neither the district tournament set up nor the state tournament set up, it is the regional tournament set up. I tip my cap to the gentlemen who mentioned this system has been around forever; this system served us well when we had over double the number of class b teams we do now. It's a good system when it fits the state. I would never recommend changing for change sake (read some of my past posts and you'll find that to be very true), but the state has changed with dramatically fewer teams and the 8 region system no longer fits the state.

Problems caused by insisting we keep 8 regions
1. Too many teams qualify for regionals. Some very poor teams make the tourney in all 8 regions. This detracts from the quality of the tournament and makes for some really terrible first round match ups. It also detracts from the feeling of accomplishment a team should get from qualifying for the regional tournament.

2. With so few teams per region (as low as 11 teams), the expectation of parity among regions shrinks to the original debate of this thread. Regions with so few teams as we have cannot guarantee a legitimate top team in the state year in and year out. This leads to very average teams qualifying for state out of regions experiencing a down year, and very excellent teams staying home out of regions having a strong year. This hurts the quality of the state tournament.

Solutions created by changing to 4 regions
1. Better regional tournaments. Taking the top 2 teams out of 4 districts to 1 Region greatly improves the field of the regional tournament. No cupcake first round match ups.

2. Restored pride in qualifying for the regional tournament. Finally we have a sufficient gauge for the success of a team's season beyond the loft goal of qualifying for the state tournament.

3. More of the best teams qualifying for state. Imagine this current year if Region 7 and 8 were combined. Both Beulah and Trinity would go where they belong, the state tournament. Same if you combined regions 6 and 5- in this current year you would have two strong teams from Region 6 and none of whatever is happening in Region 5 this year. Better teams at the state tournament make a better state tournament.

4. With a larger number of teams per region, the parity among the regions would be more consistent long term.

5. Better State tournament pairing. The four regions would still match up with each other, but with one regional champion playing the runner-up of the other region. Greatly increasing the probability of having the four best teams in the state in the semi-final round.


Bottom line- 8 Regions worked wonderfully when there were 200+ Class B teams. There are 108 now, and splitting those 108 into 8 regions and allowing 60% of all the teams in the state to qualify for Regionals but only maybe 50% of the top 10 teams in the state going to the state tournament doesn't work.

[ndlionsfan]

Two problems I have with the 4 region idea...

1. Travel. The region tourney would be more like the state tourney. If you combined regions 7 and 8, where would it be held? Williston? Bismarck? Dickinson? Awful long travel times for a lot of teams.

2. Qualifying the top 2 teams for state. The region champsionship just lost all its luster. Instead of win or go home, its oh well we're in anyway. Yeah, the teams are playing for seeding playing against the champion or runnerup from another region but the do or die excitement is gone. I believe a team shouldn't get rewarded for a loss in the postseason...period.

In my opinion, as long as we have an 8 team state tournament, 8 regions is the way to go. Does the dist/reg format need to be tweaked? Definitely. the other interesting trial is what Region 3 is hoping to do. Three teams from each district qualify for a 6 team regional. Dist champs get byes (eliminates that ugly 1 vs 4 opening round matchup). 3rd place game in districts means something. Yes, teams still get rewarded for a post season loss, but its better than the current setup. Double elim is gone. Dist tourney is shorter, reg tourney is shorter. Is it better than the super regional? I don't know, I still lean towards that. But it will be nice to compare the pros and cons of them if they both get a trial from the NDHSAA.

Dist/Region realignment also needs to happen. With 108 teams divided among 8 regions, there should be 13-14 in a region. not 11 to 16. Yes, may be difficult based on geography and not every school is going to like it, but it would add just a little more parity that is needed.

[SportsYearRound]

I'd rather do what Region 3 is doing than Region 7. Keeps districts/money for the schools. Makes the District championship meaningful/top team gets first round region bye. Eliminates an extra 2 teams/top 3 make regionals, so districts are more meaningful.

[The Schwab]

I also am curious to see how the Region 3 idea works out.

[NDplayin]

Two problems I have with the 4 region idea...

1. Travel. The region tourney would be more like the state tourney. If you combined regions 7 and 8, where would it be held? Williston? Bismarck? Dickinson? Awful long travel times for a lot of teams.

Teams stay in hotels if the travel is far. This is, in my mind, the way it should be for the second level tournament. The district tournament is the "local" tournament. The next level should be more exclusive by nature, and therefore, come with great rewards and privileges like overnight stay. It's about time that qualifying for regional tournament means something again. We don't need two local tournaments and one premier state tournament. We need one local tournament, one more exlusive mid-level tournament, and one premier state tournament.

2. Qualifying the top 2 teams for state. The region champsionship just lost all its luster. Instead of win or go home, its oh well we're in anyway. Yeah, the teams are playing for seeding playing against the champion or runnerup from another region but the do or die excitement is gone. I believe a team shouldn't get rewarded for a loss in the postseason...period.

It's pure fiction that the regional championship would lose its luster. First, there are only 4 regions- to win one would be an EXTREME source of pride. Second, the loser of the championship game is not guaranteed a trip to the next level. It's a very common thing in sports called the challenge game- if the loser of the championship game and the winner of the 3rd place game have not met in the tournament, they meet in a 2nd and 3rd place game to "challenge" for the right to go to the next level. Third, winning the regional championship game carries with it the important #1 seeding, matching you up with the #2 from whatever region you match-up with... extreme significant.

I can understand the notion of not wanting to reward teams for a loss in the postseason... even agree with it. However, if I'm given the choice between a system where a team with a loss can move on and a system that actually gets the best teams to the state tournament... I'll choose having the best teams at state. I would prefer to see the best 4 teams in the state in the semi-final round- but we are already guaranteed that one of the best 3 teams in the state this year will be left home from the state tournament all-together. So, when making a choice between the lesser of two evils, I want the best teams where they belong.... period.

In my opinion, as long as we have an 8 team state tournament, 8 regions is the way to go. Does the dist/reg format need to be tweaked? Definitely. the other interesting trial is what Region 3 is hoping to do. Three teams from each district qualify for a 6 team regional. Dist champs get byes (eliminates that ugly 1 vs 4 opening round matchup). 3rd place game in districts means something. Yes, teams still get rewarded for a post season loss, but its better than the current setup. Double elim is gone. Dist tourney is shorter, reg tourney is shorter. Is it better than the super regional? I don't know, I still lean towards that. But it will be nice to compare the pros and cons of them if they both get a trial from the NDHSAA.

Dist/Region realignment also needs to happen. With 108 teams divided among 8 regions, there should be 13-14 in a region. not 11 to 16. Yes, may be difficult based on geography and not every school is going to like it, but it would add just a little more parity that is needed.

8 teams from 8 regions doesn't work for 108 schools. The evidence is straight in front of your face this year. Several educated people's opinion is that Beulah and Trinity should play in the state championship game, and I haven't heard anyone even imagine that one of those two teams shouldn't be battling North Star in one Semi-final while the other cruises to an easy victory over whomever the other poor soul to make the semi's would be. More-over, this repeats it'self over and over again... the only thing that changes is which region is head and shoulders above the other in any particular year.

3 teams are so much better than the entire rest of the state this year that it's not even funny, and you're defending a system that guarantees one of those 3 teams won't make a field of 8. I can't agree with that.

[gominers]

There's flaws to every system. The overall point is to find a state champion. The current system actually works very well for that. The problem is we give an award to teams at the state tournament ranking them from 1-8, when we all know there are teams at home that may be better than the 3rd place team. If we want to get the four best teams in the state tournament semifinals, the better option could be an NCAA style system with teams playing teams from other regions way earlier. I don't agree with this system, but its an option (I also don't think it will ever happen).