ND HS Sports Classification System - who disagrees?

[sportsmarketing20]

Class B is perfect the way it is with the exception of maybe needing a shot clock.

Well i did discuss the 3 Class subject at one time, and will give my idea of what would work and could be done. You take the biggest 32 Class B schools and put in Regions, then the rest would be smaller class B of 4 regions, you have the 4 Champs from Big Class B in top Bracket at State, and the 4 champs from small class B in the lower Bracket and play out the state tourny with the Big class B teams playing the Small class b teams on the final day, guarantee David vs Goliath every yr, that would be exciting, also guarantee 4 bigs schools and 4 small schools. But i think it averages out to about 5-3 to 4-4 , on big to small schools now, so i dont think it is a big deal. But i think this would appease the small school people who complain.

You know, that's not a half bad idea.  I think it would make for an interesting state tourney.

yeh...i like that idea alot.. i think class b is good how it is.but i think that would be better!!!

[sportsperson]

Ok, what's the most popular sporting event in ND high school sports? The Class B boys basketball state tournament. So i say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[magic715]

Ok, what's the most popular sporting event in ND high school sports? The Class B boys basketball state tournament. So i say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Well i do have to say with that attitude, the State B wouldnt be what it is today. I mean, if it aint broke dont fix it, we wouldnt have the 3 points line either, they implemented that , but besides that i also dont think the B needs to be changed, but if it were, this would placate all the grumbling people that the big schools take all the small school spots, even thou i dont necessarily agree with that.  But if it is changed this is the only way it would ever pass. Would like more comments on my idea, yea or nay, Thank you

[sportsperson]

Well the whole thing with the three-point line is different. That was a universal change to the game of basketball everywhere and was pretty much necessary, whereas the state-b tourney is great just how it is. Why change it? I know you're just saying that because of the grumbling from little schools and stuff, but I really don't see that as a huge deal. So I'm sticking with nay on the big class b/little class b idea.

[magic715]

Well the whole thing with the three-point line is different. That was a universal change to the game of basketball everywhere and was pretty much necessary, whereas the state-b tourney is great just how it is. Why change it? I know you're just saying that because of the grumbling from little schools and stuff, but I really don't see that as a huge deal. So I'm sticking with nay on the big class b/little class b idea.

ty , and i cant necessarily dissagree with you

[Mandan]

For the question raised if class B teams can compete with Class A, what would be the definition of compete?

In Trinity's last years of Class A basketball, the boys usually won between 4-8 games, and usually finished 7th or 8th in the WDA (out of 8 teams), and lost two games at the WDA and were done.  Losing to teams like Minot and Centry by scores of 60-90, 60-100 were common.  When you are down to 200 students, you don't have the kids to compete with schools of 1000+ very effectively.

Out of the last six years, there was one year where they could have finished 5th, but lost their best players to suspension and would up 8th.  Another year they had talent but underachieved, the only real highlight being beating Bismarck in the first loser-out game at the WDA Tourney.  They then lost the next game and were eliminated.

The girls were usually able to finish 6th and win the Friday loser-out game, but lose the Saturday morning game.  They were more a little stable at head coach, which may have helped.

Neither basketballl team went to state during those six years.

Does that qualify as competing?

[BB11]

[user=1315]Mandan[/user] wrote:

For the question raised if class B teams can compete with Class A, what would be the definition of compete?

In Trinity's last years of Class A basketball, the boys usually won between 4-8 games, and usually finished 7th or 8th in the WDA (out of 8 teams), and lost two games at the WDA and were done.  Losing to teams like Minot and Centry by scores of 60-90, 60-100 were common.  When you are down to 200 students, you don't have the kids to compete with schools of 1000+ very effectively.

Out of the last six years, there was one year where they could have finished 5th, but lost their best players to suspension and would up 8th.  Another year they had talent but underachieved, the only real highlight being beating Bismarck in the first loser-out game at the WDA Tourney.  They then lost the next game and were eliminated.

The girls were usually able to finish 6th and win the Friday loser-out game, but lose the Saturday morning game.  They were more a little stable at head coach, which may have helped.

Neither basketballl team went to state during those six years.

Does that qualify as competing?

OK hold the phone - 1st off I am NO Dickinson Trinity fan - or even close to being one - but you honestly don't think that Trinity could have competed in Class A the last 7 or 8 years? You don't think the MPCG teams of 02-03 could have competed and won against Class A's best? You don't think New Rockford could have beaten Class A teams during the 02-05 seasons? I would highly beg to differ.
Now talent levels have changed over the years and everything else - but the balance of talent overall has pretty much remained the same - meaning back in the day Class B teams used to play Class A teams on a regular basis. And would compete with them and occasionally beat them.
ONe example - Glen Ullin defeating Grafton in 87 when Grafton was ranked #1 in class A.
Just because Trinity couldn't compete 14 years ago - doesn't mean they and some of the other top teams in Class B - like Hazen, Watford, Minot Ryan, etc. couldn't compete now.

[Deuce]

[user=1315]Mandan[/user] wrote:

For the question raised if class B teams can compete with Class A, what would be the definition of compete?

In Trinity's last years of Class A basketball, the boys usually won between 4-8 games, and usually finished 7th or 8th in the WDA (out of 8 teams), and lost two games at the WDA and were done.? Losing to teams like Minot and Centry by scores of 60-90, 60-100 were common.? When you are down to 200 students, you don't have the kids to compete with schools of 1000+ very effectively.

Out of the last six years, there was one year where they could have finished 5th, but lost their best players to suspension and would up 8th.? Another year they had talent but underachieved, the only real highlight being beating Bismarck in the first loser-out?game at the WDA Tourney.? They then lost the next game and were eliminated.

The girls were usually able to finish 6th and win the Friday loser-out game, but lose the Saturday morning game.? They were more a little stable at head coach, which may have helped.

Neither basketballl team went to state during those six years.

Does that qualify as competing?

OK hold the phone - 1st off I am NO Dickinson Trinity fan - or even close to being one - but you honestly don't think that Trinity could have competed in Class A the last 7 or 8 years? You don't think the MPCG teams of 02-03 could have competed and won against Class A's best? You don't think New Rockford could have beaten Class A teams during the 02-05 seasons? I would highly beg to differ.
Now talent levels have changed over the years and everything else - but the balance of talent overall has pretty much remained the same - meaning back in the day Class B teams used to play Class A teams on a regular basis. And would compete with them and occasionally beat them.
ONe example - Glen Ullin defeating Grafton in 87 when Grafton was ranked #1 in class A.
Just because Trinity couldn't compete 14 years ago - doesn't mean they and some of the other top teams in Class B - like Hazen, Watford, Minot Ryan, etc. couldn't compete now.

If that's the case then they should forget about the 3 class idea and bump some class B schools back to A.   For basketball they should have at least 32 schools at the top level.  In football they also need to get rid of a class. 

[Free Hugs]

[user=1315]Mandan[/user] wrote:

For the question raised if class B teams can compete with Class A, what would be the definition of compete?

In Trinity's last years of Class A basketball, the boys usually won between 4-8 games, and usually finished 7th or 8th in the WDA (out of 8 teams), and lost two games at the WDA and were done.? Losing to teams like Minot and Centry by scores of 60-90, 60-100 were common.? When you are down to 200 students, you don't have the kids to compete with schools of 1000+ very effectively.

Out of the last six years, there was one year where they could have finished 5th, but lost their best players to suspension and would up 8th.? Another year they had talent but underachieved, the only real highlight being beating Bismarck in the first loser-out?game at the WDA Tourney.? They then lost the next game and were eliminated.

The girls were usually able to finish 6th and win the Friday loser-out game, but lose the Saturday morning game.? They were more a little stable at head coach, which may have helped.

Neither basketballl team went to state during those six years.

Does that qualify as competing?

OK hold the phone - 1st off I am NO Dickinson Trinity fan - or even close to being one - but you honestly don't think that Trinity could have competed in Class A the last 7 or 8 years? You don't think the MPCG teams of 02-03 could have competed and won against Class A's best? You don't think New Rockford could have beaten Class A teams during the 02-05 seasons? I would highly beg to differ.
Now talent levels have changed over the years and everything else - but the balance of talent overall has pretty much remained the same - meaning back in the day Class B teams used to play Class A teams on a regular basis. And would compete with them and occasionally beat them.
ONe example - Glen Ullin defeating Grafton in 87 when Grafton was ranked #1 in class A.
Just because Trinity couldn't compete 14 years ago - doesn't mean they and some of the other top teams in Class B - like Hazen, Watford, Minot Ryan, etc. couldn't compete now.

If that's the case then they should forget about the 3 class idea and bump some class B schools back to A.   For basketball they should have at least 32 schools at the top level.  In football they also need to get rid of a class. 

AGREED!!!!!!!!!

[Mandan]

[user=1315]Mandan[/user] wrote:

For the question raised if class B teams can compete with Class A, what would be the definition of compete?

In Trinity's last years of Class A basketball, the boys usually won between 4-8 games, and usually finished 7th or 8th in the WDA (out of 8 teams), and lost two games at the WDA and were done.? Losing to teams like Minot and Centry by scores of 60-90, 60-100 were common.? When you are down to 200 students, you don't have the kids to compete with schools of 1000+ very effectively.

Out of the last six years, there was one year where they could have finished 5th, but lost their best players to suspension and would up 8th.? Another year they had talent but underachieved, the only real highlight being beating Bismarck in the first loser-out?game at the WDA Tourney.? They then lost the next game and were eliminated.

The girls were usually able to finish 6th and win the Friday loser-out game, but lose the Saturday morning game.? They were more a little stable at head coach, which may have helped.

Neither basketballl team went to state during those six years.

Does that qualify as competing?

OK hold the phone - 1st off I am NO Dickinson Trinity fan - or even close to being one - but you honestly don't think that Trinity could have competed in Class A the last 7 or 8 years? You don't think the MPCG teams of 02-03 could have competed and won against Class A's best? You don't think New Rockford could have beaten Class A teams during the 02-05 seasons? I would highly beg to differ.
Now talent levels have changed over the years and everything else - but the balance of talent overall has pretty much remained the same - meaning back in the day Class B teams used to play Class A teams on a regular basis. And would compete with them and occasionally beat them.
ONe example - Glen Ullin defeating Grafton in 87 when Grafton was ranked #1 in class A.
Just because Trinity couldn't compete 14 years ago - doesn't mean they and some of the other top teams in Class B - like Hazen, Watford, Minot Ryan, etc. couldn't compete now.

I am no sports expert, but I believe competing is a combination of coaching, talent, and confidence.  If you are beat down year after year by larger schools, you don't know how to win or how to overcome adversity, even if you have the talent. Yes, if you bring some of those teams up right now, they would compete because they have confidence from previous winning and expect to do well.  If those kids had to compete since junior high against teams that are deeper than theirs, then you have a different story.  If competing means every fifth year you might finish 5th in the WDA and have a chance at state, is that worth it? Each school gets to decide that.  If it was so easy to compete in Class A, Beulah would have stayed there rather than drop down to Class B the first chance they got.

[BB11]

I get where you're going with it Mandan - and I do agree. At first I thought you were referring to Class B as being inferior with the Trinity reference, but I do see your point. It would be tough year in and year out with the numbers fluctuating the way they do in smaller schools.
No harm no foul. Good points

[7-11]

Class B basketball has always had an underdog appeal to the public as a whole.  It's unpredictable, and people who aren't from the communities, cheer for a different  team each year because of their storyline.  And the game has changed over the last 10 years or so.  The players do more off-season work (which unfortunately coaches resist and refer to as barnball), and they are capable of playing uptempo.  As a fan, it's dull to sit and watch a team hold the ball for 45 seconds and then take a 3-point shot.  That's not coaching, it's cookie cutter offenses that don't adjust each year as individual player ability and skills change.  Aside from the fiscal concerns, I think that the only people who really are against a shot clock are the coaches who fear losing control of their game plan, and can't adjust as quickly as other coaches.  MayPort's Dave Nelson has been a master at keeping scores low, and then coaching his team to wins.  But he needed good, and big teams to do it.  They weren't uptempo players.  The 3-point shot gave smaller, less talented teams the chance to compete against bigger teams, like Hunter Berg and his Grenora shooters years ago in the state tournament.   A shot clock would put teams back competing based on skill and good coaching, and would most likely hurt the less talented teams.  So if the goal is keep the competition in check, don't use the shot clock.  If it's for entertainment purposes, then install it.

[cubsfan]

I just want to hear one person tell me why we need a three class system.  It would ruin the biggest sporting event in ND. 

[rep]

about the only reason i've heard is that with schools' populations continuing to grow apart, there is becoming quite a gap between the top-end b schools and the bottom-end b schools.

personally, i don't buy it. it isn't like fargo south is rolling in to the gopher hole to play kulm. talent is talent and coaching is coaching and with class b you either have it or you don't.

and every year there is a story from one of the smaller class b schools that have three or four or five players that have played together since they were in grade school and those kids show that it isn't impossible to make it to state.

especially in this area of the state (central and south central) with all of the co-ops, numbers-wise anyway, it is probably easier to get to state now.

[7-11]

Maybe there should be an experimental year or part of a season with it.   I think the public reaction would be favorable. 

[7-11]

I wouldn't mind seeing an experimental season of it, and the public reaction, even if only in one region, say one with historical low scoring.  Alot of those higher scoring games are fastbreak-full court press results; not necessarily of quick set offenses.  I agree that some teams put up the shots, but I've seen enough coaches in my region just sit on the ball, and the team stats are ridiculous.    BB should be fun for players and fans, not damage control for a coach.

[Hinsa]

I'm assuming the last 2 posts are about shot clocks.

Has anyone noticed that the NBA has a 24 second shot clock? And has anyone noticed how scoring is dropping off in the NBA? It's because no one wants to run with the ball any more. That and they can't shoot worth a hoot in the NBA.

What percentage of possessions in the NBA begin with the ball being walked up the court? 75%? And then they clear a side and run pick and roll. Wow, exciting basketball. NOT!!!!

The way to increase scoring is to play pressure defense and run with the friggin' ball!

Shot clocks will not do it. Shot clocks will only result in hastily hoisted shots as the clock runs out, which will decrease shooting percentages, which could have the exact opposite effect of the intent to increase scoring.

Another way to increase scoring: call a foul a foul which will result in kids not being so blasted physical. That would bring finesse back into the game and you will see scoring go up dramatically!

[7-11]

The shot clock transition certainly would have drawbacks for teams and coaches until they "learn" how to design offenses to get the good shots.  I think it makes them use all 5 players on the floor, especially on zone defenses, where you can clamp down on a singular star.  As I said, don't use the shot clock if you want more even competition.   Let's face it, it's tough to find good coaches in the smaller schools, although there have been some gems.  Most are teachers, which shouldn't be a requirement,  and they all have their careers to pursue.  Coaching is an extra chore.

As to physicality of the game, it has without a doubt, become a wrestling match.  And it gets the fans hot at their elevated advantage in the seats who see more than the officials on the floor with the body obstructions.  So is that because of tolerance of the officials, less experienced officials due to the combined girls-boys schedule, or the players pushing the line, or maybe all of them?  Even the girls are much more physical.

[Hinsa]

I believe the physicality is due to more tolerant officials who are being directed by the NDHSAA to be more tolerant. I know this because I used to officiate and I was told to let the players play as long as no one is gaining an advantage and it doesn't affect the play.

A great response to that philosphy is this: is it OK for a kid on the weak side to shove someone out of bounds if it is away from the play? It didn't affect the play. No one gained an advantage. So according to the NDHSAA directive, it's a non-foul.

Of course, not calling such a foul makes the kids mad and they become even more physical.

I truly believe the physical play needs to be cleaned up and you will see basketball played again the way it should be.

[ndlionsfan]

I actually disagree with the previous few posts.  I think physical play makes baketball more exciting.  In your face pressure defense makes the game have a quicker pace.  I don't know if it necessarily results in more points, but the game is a lot more exciting to watch than one where both teams walk the ball up the floor and set up an offense to run through 5-6 times.  The problems is that teams that try to run this style of defense usually end up in foul trouble because of the refs calling touch fouls 50 ft from the basket.  I can see maybe trying to clean it up a bit in the lane, but I still enjoy post players battling it out down there.

[magic715]

I actually disagree with the previous few posts.  I think physical play makes baketball more exciting.  In your face pressure defense makes the game have a quicker pace.  I don't know if it necessarily results in more points, but the game is a lot more exciting to watch than one where both teams walk the ball up the floor and set up an offense to run through 5-6 times.  The problems is that teams that try to run this style of defense usually end up in foul trouble because of the refs calling touch fouls 50 ft from the basket.  I can see maybe trying to clean it up a bit in the lane, but I still enjoy post players battling it out down there.

i think i mostly agree with you, i hate the touch foul calls , and they still do happen, but there should be some happy medium. but i do think having boys and girls bb at the same times hurts some. Just my opinion.

[smart source]

plain and simple class b needs a shot clock or they will never play hard defense which makes the game more intersesting and if anyone agreees go watch a class a game then a class b game IMO its much more exciting then watching the stalling technique used by a lot of class b teams

[Hinsa]

You call it stalling, I call it slowing the game down, being patient, and waiting for a really good shot.

It's all in the eye of the beholder....

[baseball]

You call it stalling, I call it slowing the game down, being patient, and waiting for a really good shot.

It's all in the eye of the beholder....

there is a small difference between slowing the game down and stalling....while most teams slow it down, some stall plain and simple

[Hinsa]

Agreed.