why not add a class?

[Mike Ditka]

Im not trying to cause problems....but seriously...everybody please give me legit reasons why there shouldn't be another class in North Dakota? The difference in school sizes is remarkable in some cases and many co-ops that don't get along would love to be on their own if they could compete with schools the same size.

I realize we have a sweet class B...and a great tourney. But can the majority (bigger schools) really say its fair to the minority to not let them have a class of their own? If it works in football....wont in work for hoops?

Would people feel the same if the bigger class B schools competed against big A schools? Its technically the same...a school with 50 competing against a school with 250 is the same as 250 competing with 1500. Those bigger B schools no matter what you say...WOULD NOT have a chance.

[Mike Ditka]

No different than the B schools that are small now struggle competing with big schools. I realize the small schools have their years where they can compete....but those are years that in another class....they could win a state title. Ask Montana if they like their class c and b (they also have a and aa) they will tell you that both those tourneys (b and c) are the best each year.

I know we don't like change but it seems very very DUMB to not have more than 2 classes in the state of north Dakota. To me....it shows how behind with the times we are.

[NDplayin]

Mike, I disagree with you but I definitely like the throught process you are putting into this. You are asking the right questions that's for sure. I notice you only joined a couple months ago... Im not very veteran either, but one thing you might want to do is go back to the archives and read some of the threads that have already beat this topic to death, you will find a lot of opinions (some backed up with facts, some not... some presented courteously and professionally, some just flat out obnoxious) that relate to this topic.

The debate always gets complicated because everyone has a different way to define a team as "successful." Is a team successful if it qualifies for state or only if it wins state? What if it gets to play for a regional championship? Also, when talking numbers like this, there are tons of different angles one can spin to make is appear they way they want to appear.

Here are my thoughts on some of the points you made and questions you asked.

First, I don't think the difference in school sizes is as remarkable as it seems to you. Right after the Boys B this year, I was thinking about this very topic and made a spreadsheet of the 8 teams that qualified for the boys tournament since 2001 to present and their current 9-12 enrollments (that's 88 state appearances made by 47 different teams). I'll give you some factual numbers from that spreadsheet for consideration. (Note... if all I could find was a schools 7-12 enrollment, I used 2/3rds of that number, 4 classes instead of 6... as what I consider a safe estimation of their 9-12 enrollment.)

*Out of 88 appearances over 11 years...

*Only 7 of those were by schools with enrollment over 199.

*Meanwhile, 9 appearances were made by schools with an enrollment of 50 or below.

*Only 28 appearances ( 31.8%) were by schools with enrollment over 149

* Meanwhile, 36 appearances (40.9%) were made by schools with enrollments under 100.

*Exactly half (44) of the appearances were made by schools with enrollments of 121 or under.

*The average enrollment of the 88 representatives is 122.

*12 teams with an enrollment under 125 have had repeat state appearances in the last 11 years.

*8 teams with an enrollment under 100 have had repeat state appearances in the last 11 years.

*4 of the 11 state champions have an enrollment under 125.

*6 of the 11 state runner-ups have an enrollment under 125.

*7 teams with an enrollment under 100 have played for a state championship (7 out of 22)

You brought up that co-ops would love to compete on their own. I don't know many of many, if any, co-ops that exist for competitive (winning and losing) reasons. The vast majority of co-ops exist because one of the two schools can no longer put a Varisty and Jv team together without dipping into their junior high. People take great pride in their school and community, and if the school has enough athletes to field its own team, people cling very hard to that identity as long as they can whether they ever win a game or not. Adding another class isnt going to delay any inevitable co-ops for more than a year or two.

Furthermore, too much time and money and heart ache goes into the forming of a co-op. IF we did add another class, you wouldnt see any schools breaking them up 'just beacuse'.

You bring up the fact that we have 4 classes in football. Apples and Oranges. Football requires over twice as many (11 to 5) players on the playing surface at a time. To field a strong, competitive football team, a school needs to find at least 15 players that can compete at a varsity level. Competitive basketball teams are very often formed of 7 or even 6 players that can compete at a varsity level. The equation to determine what a reasonably fair enrollment spread in football is and the equation to determine what a reasonably fair enrollment spread in basketball is are two extremely different equations.

Yes, most other states have more than two classes. I was happy to see you chose Montana's 4 class system for comparrison because I am very familiar with the high school sports landscape in Montana. What's the difference in the two states as it applies to this discussion? The number of schools. North Dakota has 110 schools in the second of two classes. Montana splits there schools up 4 ways and still has over 100 schools in Class C, after that... they still have over 3 times as many Class B schools as ND has Class A, they then still have more Class A schools than North Dakota has A... and we havent even counted Montana's AA schools yet. Montana has way more schools (perhaps twice as many) that represent a way different enrollment breakdown. So do all the other states that surround us. The fact that we have two classes doesnt show that we are dumb and behind the times as you suggest. It shows that we have a completely different situation than those states around us and that we are smart enough to recognize that... rather than blindly follow just to regret it later.

I want to quote your exact words to make my next point.

But can the majority (bigger schools) really say its fair to the minority to not let them have a class of their own?

You are wrong about who the majority and minority is. The NDHSAA isn't the electoral college. Schools only get one vote regardless of what their enrollment is. A Three-class system has been voted on and failed so many times already that it's hard to keep track. In everyone of those proposals, the majority of the votes belong to the schools that would be in the lowest class. It is that majority of the smallest schools that has voted NO for a three class system not once, not twice, not three times but more more more. I'm not even speaking in opinions here: It is a fact proven by vote time and time again that the majority of small North Dakota schools DO NOT want 3 classes. Sometimes I think we lose sight of that fact because we hear so much noise for the very small, yet very vocal minority that can't let it go.

Again, I applaud you for the civilized manner in which you brought up this same tired old topic. You showed a lot more professionalism than so many of those that have tried and failed before you. The only thing you said that I personally take exception to is when you said "come on people, I know we don't like change"... That is a cop-out argument. We are fine with change. The same schools that have voted NO repeatedly to three classes just voted yes to a shot clock in Class B this year. Everyone is fine with change if it is a positive change. I for one am thankful that our powers to be have enough common sense to closely examine the possibility of change first to make certain that it will be a change for the better. We don't need to change simply to change, and the powers to be have correctly identified a third basketball class as a change that would not be positive for North Dakota right now.

[Mike Ditka]

Thank you for an awesome answer....I will definitely go back and look. I knew a ton (possibly majority) would disagree on the topic....I just think so much good would come from it.

You mention that smaller schools have stayed somewhat competitive (great facts) but that is grouping them together. For every small school that has made it to state and competed how many have never made it at all? How many have waited on a group of kids to grow and invested time only to run into a bigger school with a larger talent pool and couldn't win. To me a school playing a school 5 times the size of it (new england vs Hazen 50 vs 250) is a remarkable difference in size. Especially when competing year in and year out.

-there are co-ops out there that on their own are larger than schools that aren't combined with another. Belfield and south heart for example compared to Scranton, new england. It is hard for me to imagine that they aren't combined knowing that it gives them a competitive edge. That being said....if a 3rd class was made....they would be in the middle class due to their size...do we really think they wouldn't want to separate to compete alone against the smaller schools??? I do realize some towns are extra small and that's why they combine with another. However....if they had enough....and could compete in a smaller class....I bet they would want to be on their own. That's where pride and being proud of your home town comes into play.

-I truly believe that many co-ops aren't as smooth on the inside (parents, coaches, administration) as it seems....and if they had the opportunity to compete alone....they would.

-I understand how the voting works and I do believe that most schools get a vote? I also know that superintendents....not athletic directors or coaches have the final vote. Also....many of the smaller schools that vote no are the schools that are right on the edge and wouldn't want to be stuck with higher competition without the less successful smaller schools to beat.

-tough to argue that it takes more athletes to compete in football than basketball....but....Montana also has 6 man 8 mam 9 man and 11 man football to help keep their small "c" schools competing. I realize that they have more schools in mt...but that doesn't mean we couldn't have a 32 team class "c" and it wouldn't be great in its own right.

[Mike Ditka]

Sorry....didn't get to finish that post.

I really do appreciate a great answer. We obviously disagree...maybe we aren't afraid of change...what we have is GREAT. Im just saying it could be changed and still be great. Maybe nobody would even notice the bottom 32 teams were even gone! But those 32 teams that would have a chance sure would notice.

[ndlionsfan]

NDPlayin, I love that you used hard statistical facts to breakdown the trends in representation at the state class B tourney. You just simply can't argue against it from a mathematical point of view. It follows the bell curve almost to a tee.

[classB4ever]

Please remember, and NDPlayin stated it, these numbers can be used for both sides of this debate.

[ndlionsfan]

Please remember, and NDPlayin stated it, these numbers can be used for both sides of this debate.

How? Everyway I read it, the percentages of success between the largest and smallest, mid small and mid large, etc. were exactly the same

[NDplayin]

Please remember, and NDPlayin stated it, these numbers can be used for both sides of this debate.

How? Everyway I read it, the percentages of success between the largest and smallest, mid small and mid large, etc. were exactly the same

Well.... isn't that interesting

[classB4ever]

BS and you know it. I have taken those very numbers in other threads and showed you some serious flaws based on facts. I will not be part of starting this all over again. I liked NDPlayin's post, didn't necessarily agree with everything, but was written well.

[The Schwab]

I am against a 3rd class because I believe our population (and the population trend over the last 10 years doesn't support it.) I am not sure if the "3 class system" will ever pass. They shot down the best plans for the 3 class system a few years ago, the last proposal wasn't their best effort. 20 years ago a 3 class system would have made a lot more sense, and could have possibly saved some small schools from co-oping. I feel the best way to make a change would be to possibly put a lower cap on class B, for the sake of argument lets say 200, and have the schools from 200-650 play for 4 spots in a state tournament, and then have the schools 650 and larger play for 4 spots in the same tournament, and then have those teams square off to determine a state champion. I believe this was discussed in one of the 3 class plans. Just my opinion.

[winner-within]

I hope like heck in the future that Community's can come together and Lower there Pride and If a School consolidation makes perfect sense than close the one and bring them in....More importantly I hope basketball doesn't loose its Fizz and Kids keep pouring their heart and soul into it.. I hope Parents and coaches recognize this desire to learn and the love of the sport and steer them along into the next level and the next level as they grow....

[NDplayin]

You mention that smaller schools have stayed somewhat competitive (great facts) but that is grouping them together. For every small school that has made it to state and competed how many have never made it at all? How many have waited on a group of kids to grow and invested time only to run into a bigger school with a larger talent pool and couldn't win. To me a school playing a school 5 times the size of it (new england vs Hazen 50 vs 250) is a remarkable difference in size. Especially when competing year in and year out.

Your argument that looking at the success of individual schools instead of groups of schools lumped together based on their enrollment works very well both ways. Let's actually look at some individual schools. You used Hazen vs. New England as an example... so let's look at Hazen first:

Hazen has a 9-12 enrollment of 216 students. This year their Class B regular season record was 8 wins and 11 losses. Their season ended in the regional tournament at the hands of the very New England team you reference. Most telling of all, Hazen and its 216 high school students have been to the Class B boys state tournament a grand total of one time and that was 1965. Small schools from Hazen's own region that have gone to state more recently than 1965 include: South Heart, Glen Ullin, Belfield, Hettinger, Bowman, Mott-Regent, Richardton, Scranton, New England. How many times has Hazen waited on a group of kids to grow and invested time only run into a smaller school with fewer students just to lose to that school?

It is obvious that a school with over 200 kids has a statistical advantage over a school with under 100 kids. However, a school with 100 kids has a statistical advantage over a school with 95 kids. The question isnt if there is an advantage or not, the question is if the advantage is too great for us to reasonably expect schools to compete against each other. There is this idea is some peoples heads that the really big schools are dominating Class B, I would like to know where that idea came from. Hazen surely isn't dominating Class B. Let's look at some more individual schools

Central Cass is the largest school to make the boy's state tourney in the last 11 years. They have an enrollment of 282. In those last 11 years the only year they made it was 2005. I don't consider one state appearance in 11 years "dominating Class B."

Beulah has 257 students. They have been to state once in the last 11 years (2010).

Bottineau has 224 students. They have been to state once in the last 11 years (2005).

However, Turtle Lake- Mercer, Parshall, North Star/Cando, Mandaree, Lamoure, and Berthold have each made the state tournament twice in last 11 years (thats more than C Cass, Beulah, and Bottineau for those keeping score at home). The largest of those schools is Lamoure with an enrollment of 91.

Grafton and Watford are the only schools over 200 to make the tournament twice in the last 11 years. No school over 200 has made it three times in the last 11 years. However, Four Winds (109) and New Rockford-Sheyenne (113) have made it three years.

I guess whether I'm looking a groups of schools lumped together by enrollment or if I'm looking at individual schools, I don't see the same unreasonable advantage/disadvantage that you see. And I certainly don't see the big schools dominating Class B.

-there are co-ops out there that on their own are larger than schools that aren't combined with another. Belfield and south heart for example compared to Scranton, new england. It is hard for me to imagine that they aren't combined knowing that it gives them a competitive edge. That being said....if a 3rd class was made....they would be in the middle class due to their size...do we really think they wouldn't want to separate to compete alone against the smaller schools???

Scranton and Hettinger are co-opping next year, my sources tell me the decision to do so rested not on if they were competing, but that they were begining to struggle to fill out varsity and sub-varsity squads. I applaud New England for still flying solo. It is a testimate to their strength. I hope they can continue to do so forever, but if their downward enrollment trend continues... it is only a matter of time, regardless of how many classes there are.

Again, talking co-ops only further complicates the issue. When we talk class systems we must talk total number of students available. When we talk co-ops, the issue isnt numbers available but numbers participating. The participation percentage at every school is not created equally, and no matter how many students you have in your school, if not enough are participating, its hard for you to stand on your own. In your South Heart/Belfield example, I believe at least one of the schools (ironically I think it was the larger school Belfield) was struggling to get enough participants to stand on its own. Do we all wish a higher percentage of students would choose the life long benefits that come from participating in high school athletics? Yes. Is changing class systems going to increase those participation percentages? No.

I would say there are extremely few cases where schools that have formed a co-op could break up and each of the schools still be able to field their own team. Even in those cases, so much (money and effort) goes into the forming of a co-op. Gym floors are repainted, new uniforms are purchased, new scoreboards, new mascots and more. Even if another class was added, you aren't going to see many (if any) co-ops break up.

-I understand how the voting works and I do believe that most schools get a vote? I also know that superintendents....not athletic directors or coaches have the final vote. Also....many of the smaller schools that vote no are the schools that are right on the edge and wouldn't want to be stuck with higher competition without the less successful smaller schools to beat.

Every school gets a vote, one vote. Even schools who are co-opped for sports get individual votes. Ex: South Heart and Belfield each get one vote even though athletically the combine to form one team. Superintendents get the final vote.... I pity any school where the Superintentent, Athletic Director, and Coaches aren't meeting together to try to determine what is in the best interests of the school. 3 classes gets voted down consistently by the majority of schools, and the majority of schools would be in the smallest of 3 classes.

-tough to argue that it takes more athletes to compete in football than basketball....but....Montana also has 6 man 8 mam 9 man and 11 man football to help keep their small "c" schools competing. I realize that they have more schools in mt...but that doesn't mean we couldn't have a 32 team class "c" and it wouldn't be great in its own right.

The whole point of the fact that football requires more athletes to compete than basketball was to illustrate that it is pointless to compare a football class plan to a basketball class plan. You are right, Montana has both 6man and 8man football in order to help out the schools that can't put 11 varsity athletes on the field. I don't know how that could possibly apply to this topic unless you suggest that the 32 teams North Dakota would put in a "Class C" play 3 on 3 instead of 5 on 5.


It seems that you desperately want 3 classes, and I don't have an illusions that I am going to quell that desire in you. However, you started this thread asking for legit reasons why North Dakota shouldnt add a third class. There are several reasons and I'm listing them as they come up in the debate. In all honesty, I think it would be much much more difficult to come up with a statistical, fact-based argument that ND should add a third class. The evidence isn't there.

[ndlionsfan]

BS and you know it. I have taken those very numbers in other threads and showed you some serious flaws based on facts. I will not be part of starting this all over again. I liked NDPlayin's post, didn't necessarily agree with everything, but was written well.

Tell me how you refute these facts then? Out of 88 teams in the last 11 years

*Only 7 of those were by schools with enrollment over 199. *Meanwhile, 9 appearances were made by schools with an enrollment of 50 or below. Statiscally equal between very large and very small

*Only 28 appearances ( 31.8%) were by schools with enrollment over 149 * Meanwhile, 36 appearances (40.9%) were made by schools with enrollments under 100. Statistcally equal between the next level down/up on the enrollment scale.

*Exactly half (44) of the appearances were made by schools with enrollments of 121 or under. *The average enrollment of the 88 representatives is 122. Exact 50/50 split above/below the enrollment average.

Playin's post was well written and I'm not 100% for or against our current 2 class plan and am open minded for change. I'm just curious how you can show flaws in the facts he has stated?

[classB4ever]

One thing that nobody on this site has ever shown, are true enrollment figures (some are 7-12, 9-12, nobody seems to know). With that said, my numbers for state appearances shows an average enrollment for schools attending at 133. Schools above that have 44 appearances by 19 schools. Schools below that have 39 appearances by 28 schools. (I do know I am missing a couple of schools). According to your statement "it follows the bell curve almost to a tee" is just not true. Here is my final say. NDplayin has put the numbers together to back his argument. He states how statistically the big schools should attend at a higher rate, but it doesn't happen. Brings up C Cass, Hazen, etc. Shows how the small schools attend at a high rate. Facts, statistics, etc. to back it up. Alright, that is the holy grail. Now, explain to me why 2.4% of schools attending at a 25% rate can simply be explained away as good programs, etc.? If you want to use these for this argument, then please don't sweep them under the carpet for other arguments.

[digger]

One thing that nobody on this site has ever shown, are true enrollment figures (some are 7-12, 9-12, nobody seems to know).

Someone just had them listed for practically every school in the state in another topic.

Now, explain to me why 2.4% of schools attending at a 25% rate can simply be explained away as good programs, etc.?

Please fill me in, not sure where you're heading.

[NDplayin]

One thing that nobody on this site has ever shown, are true enrollment figures (some are 7-12, 9-12, nobody seems to know).

Actually, I addressed that in my first post on this particular thread. I realize that post (like many of mine) was very long winded and that sometimes people skim them, so I will repeat it quickly. I know you weren't "attacking" the validity of my numbers, but I think it is important to the debate to confirm we are working with the best numbers possible.

All of the numbers I used were taken directly from the MVP website through the NDHSAA. Every school is required to submit rosters, team pictures, win-loss records, AND enrollment to that site. The site even indicates if that enrollment is 7-12 or 9-12. Most all of the schools had their 9-12 enrollment listed. For the few that had their 7-12 enrollment listed I multiplied that number by 2/3rds (the fraction that represents the difference between 4 classes and 6) to find a fair estimate of their 9-12 enrollment. The only school that didn't have their enrollment listed like they are suppose to was Watford City, but their school website says them have 300 7-12... 300 x 2/3= 200... which is the number I used for them.

Are the numbers I used going to be exact down to the student? No, but the source is credible and the numbers are submitted by the schools themselves. All my numbers will be acurate 9-12 within a small hand full of students here or there. The only way I can think of that you could get more exact numbers it to take the time to call an administrator from each of the schools and ask them for their 9-12 enrollment. If you want to do that, please be my guest.

[ndlionsfan]

Now, explain to me why 2.4% of schools attending at a 25% rate can simply be explained away as good programs, etc.? If you want to use these for this argument, then please don't sweep them under the carpet for other arguments.

Just because the private schools have qualified for state in their respective regions as much as they have for the past decade does not support the need for a 3 class system. It might be different is their enrollments were all over 200, but Shiloh is a small school around 100 enrollment and Trinity and Oak Grove are in the mid to above average 150-200 enrollment. Ryan is the only one above 200. Would you be making the same argument if Williston Trinity and Our Redeemers (both around 50 enrollment) were consistantly making the tournament instead of Trinity, Ryan, or Oak Grove?

[classB4ever]

One thing that nobody on this site has ever shown, are true enrollment figures (some are 7-12, 9-12, nobody seems to know).

Actually, I addressed that in my first post on this particular thread. I realize that post (like many of mine) was very long winded and that sometimes people skim them, so I will repeat it quickly. I know you weren't "attacking" the validity of my numbers, but I think it is important to the debate to confirm we are working with the best numbers possible.

All of the numbers I used were taken directly from the MVP website through the NDHSAA. Every school is required to submit rosters, team pictures, win-loss records, AND enrollment to that site. The site even indicates if that enrollment is 7-12 or 9-12. Most all of the schools had their 9-12 enrollment listed. For the few that had their 7-12 enrollment listed I multiplied that number by 2/3rds (the fraction that represents the difference between 4 classes and 6) to find a fair estimate of their 9-12 enrollment. The only school that didn't have their enrollment listed like they are suppose to was Watford City, but their school website says them have 300 7-12... 300 x 2/3= 200... which is the number I used for them.

Are the numbers I used going to be exact down to the student? No, but the source is credible and the numbers are submitted by the schools themselves. All my numbers will be acurate 9-12 within a small hand full of students here or there. The only way I can think of that you could get more exact numbers it to take the time to call an administrator from each of the schools and ask them for their 9-12 enrollment. If you want to do that, please be my guest.

No need to be smart alec. Was not calling you out on your numbers, simply stating yours and mine are different, which has been the case many times on here.

[classB4ever]

Now, explain to me why 2.4% of schools attending at a 25% rate can simply be explained away as good programs, etc.? If you want to use these for this argument, then please don't sweep them under the carpet for other arguments.

Just because the private schools have qualified for state in their respective regions as much as they have for the past decade does not support the need for a 3 class system. It might be different is their enrollments were all over 200, but Shiloh is a small school around 100 enrollment and Trinity and Oak Grove are in the mid to above average 150-200 enrollment. Ryan is the only one above 200. Would you be making the same argument if Williston Trinity and Our Redeemers (both around 50 enrollment) were consistantly making the tournament instead of Trinity, Ryan, or Oak Grove?

Listen closely, I am not fighting for a 3 class system. It has been voted down, and I certainly can live with it. I am in favor of open minded discussions about basketball in North Dakota. If you want people to accept facts for one argument, then be willing to accept them for others.

[NDplayin]

Whoa ClassB.... I certainly didn't intend to make any wise-cracks in that. Having now re-read it, the only thing I can possibly see that would prompt that response from you was the very last sentence. I meant it only to illustrate that it is going to be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to present exact enrollment numbers for all these schools.

The point of my post was to back up the credibility of the numbers I used as the best possible system I could come up with to find them.

Relax a little bit and let's continue to have those open-minded discussions about North Dakota basketball that you are in favor of.

[ndlionsfan]

Another twist...Since 2003, from what I can recall, the following teams have made it to state a number of times. NRS (3), FW (3), TLM (2), Northstar (2), and Linton (4). Northstar and TLM were heavily favored to each go another time as well. So basically, you have 14 appearances out of the 72 and should have had 16. This is very close to your 2.4% attending at a 25% rate you mentioned before. however, its all with small public schools.

[ndlionsfan]

Now, explain to me why 2.4% of schools attending at a 25% rate can simply be explained away as good programs, etc.? If you want to use these for this argument, then please don't sweep them under the carpet for other arguments.

Just because the private schools have qualified for state in their respective regions as much as they have for the past decade does not support the need for a 3 class system. It might be different is their enrollments were all over 200, but Shiloh is a small school around 100 enrollment and Trinity and Oak Grove are in the mid to above average 150-200 enrollment. Ryan is the only one above 200. Would you be making the same argument if Williston Trinity and Our Redeemers (both around 50 enrollment) were consistantly making the tournament instead of Trinity, Ryan, or Oak Grove?

Listen closely, I am not fighting for a 3 class system. It has been voted down, and I certainly can live with it. I am in favor of open minded discussions about basketball in North Dakota. If you want people to accept facts for one argument, then be willing to accept them for others.

I feel the exact same way as you do. I am very open to FACTS presented from all angles. I just stated that I was impressed with NDPlayin's stats and I did not realize it has been as evenly divided as it has for the past decade.

[bball15]

Don't fix something that isn't broken.

[spittinkitten]

I finally heard from an Administrator..
Just for the record when this whole arguement started about enrollment, private schools and whatever topic it came up with. I called Bishop Ryan about their enrollment.
The question that is asked by the NDHSAA is what is the enrollment at your school.
At Bishop Ryan it is 240 grades 6 through 12.
The enrollment at BRHS grades 9-12 is 149.
Oh-oh that is not what certain members wanted to hear.