why not add a class?

[NDplayin]

Some rambling observations concerning this topic. These are not intended as pros or cons for either side and are certainly debatable.

1. Participation at the state b is fairly predictable. This is not meant as a bad thing, just really historical and geographical numbers. Of the 8 regions, 3 of them do not really have big schools (3, 4, 8 ). That means there is generally going to be a minimum of 38% small schools every year. Of the remaining 5 regions, one small school is generally going to represent one of those regions, bringing the total to 50% smalls. Of the remaining 4 regions, chances are 2 bigger schools and 2 parochial schools will be representing.

The consistency you refer to is not limited to enrollment. One of the many things pointing this way is how consistently deep smalls are making it when they do go to state. Furthermore, it may not be as exactly as consistent as you think... Region 7 is usually considered to have the most "bigs." In the last 5 years, Beulah (244) has gone twice; Dickinson Trinity (166), Bowman (139), and Mott-Regent (68) have each gone once... That's pretty good balance.

2. Just saying "Go out and build a program if you want to compete" is not always that easy. First of all, to do it you must be willing to realize the "return on the investment" is at best 5 years and more then likely 7-9 years away. There is always a certain amount of DNA, timing and good luck to figure into the equation as well. Every year there is proof that it has been done in communities across the state. It takes players, parents, fans and coaches to buy in and the results are generally pretty obvious. However, it does take numbers to make these programs sustainable.

It better not be that easy. In the words of Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan (A League of Their Own), "It's supposed to be hard; if it wasn't hard, everybody would do it. The hard is what makes it great."

You're right, the return on the investment takes plenty of time. You're also right... there are several other factors that "play into the equation as well." That's why we need to quit using enrollment as the lone scapegoat of failure. While it's hard work, all of the recent history in front of us shows it's a reasonable accomplishment... it's just not as easy as crying about how you want your own class.

3. IMO, comparing boys and girls basketball in this topic is unfair. If making the state tournament is the true ultimate goal, I think that a girl's basketball team with a star caliber player and average players around her has a legitimate shot at achieving it. I do not believe it is the same in boys. IMO, it seems that you have to have some star power, some above average players and some role players.

If the topic is a 3 class system, we better compare boys and girls because it affects boys and girls equally. If there is a 3 class system for boys basketball there will be one for girls basketball as well. There will also be one for Volleyball. Girls Basketball and Volleyball may not be the fan favorites, but they are 2/3rds of the equation.

I also took the liberty of bolding one of your lines. I think that's part of the real problem... making the state tournament is the only tangible measure for success we have, but with only 8 going it would be an extremely lofty goal for most teams in most years. That's one of the reasons I advocate moving to 4 regions instead of 8... Make it an accomplishment to make the regional tournament again, give programs a more attainable goal for the years they are down or rebuilding, and you will hear less three class complaining from those who didn't make the state tournament. Different teams in different years need different goals. We need to establish a middle marker for those who aren't in a year where state is realistic.

[Jenkman]

Keep it a 2 class system.
Keeps traveling distances shorter, and if a smaller school makes it to state, it makes for a better story!

[ndlionsfan]

I think that's part of the real problem... making the state tournament is the only tangible measure for success we have, but with only 8 going it would be an extremely lofty goal for most teams in most years. That's one of the reasons I advocate moving to 4 regions instead of 8... Make it an accomplishment to make the regional tournament again, give programs a more attainable goal for the years they are down or rebuilding, and you will hear less three class complaining from those who didn't make the state tournament. Different teams in different years need different goals. We need to establish a middle marker for those who aren't in a year where state is realistic.

This does make a lot of sense. Making the region tourney right now is not a big accomplishment.

[MNTwinsFan]

I think that's part of the real problem... making the state tournament is the only tangible measure for success we have, but with only 8 going it would be an extremely lofty goal for most teams in most years. That's one of the reasons I advocate moving to 4 regions instead of 8... Make it an accomplishment to make the regional tournament again, give programs a more attainable goal for the years they are down or rebuilding, and you will hear less three class complaining from those who didn't make the state tournament. Different teams in different years need different goals. We need to establish a middle marker for those who aren't in a year where state is realistic.

This does make a lot of sense. Making the region tourney right now is not a big accomplishment.

Maybe in some but across the state, I disagree. In some districts it is so competitive that a regional berth is a BIG accomplishment.

[ndlionsfan]

For the most part, districts have 6 teams and the bottom 1-2 are not in contention for the region tourney at all. A lot of times the #4 seed has a losing record. REgion 6 and Region 1 still have 16 teams and there is probably some more competition there.

[NDplayin]

I think the unbalanced numbers in the districts is a problem that should be fixed, but not one that relates to the fact that we have too many teams qualify for regionals.

With 109 teams and 16 districts... we average 6.8 teams per district. In my mind, that means we should have either 6 teams or 7 teams in each district, never 5 or 8 as we do now.

I just think that taking 4 out of an average of 6.8 teams to the next level is too many. It diminishes the quality of the Regional tournament, and in turn, diminishes the "goal" of reaching the regionals. With 60% of the teams in the state making regionals- having a goal to qualify for regionals is like having a goal of not to stink (there may be exceptions in a couple districts every now and then- but that would be the exception to the rule), but having the goal to make state, which only 7% of teams do is too lofty for most teams in most years. We need a middle ground- not a third class.

I think this accounts for a lot of our "current" problem. If you look at where most of the 3 class hollering originates, it is from areas where qualifying for regionals is almost a foregone conclusion but where making state is still the rarity it should be. Making regional qualification an achievement worth celebrating would alleviate the whining about not going to state and stop the misconceived "need" for a third class.

I understand people don't like the idea of a team with a post-season loss going to state- which would happen with 2 teams coming from 4 regionals. However, the reality is that not only would the regional tournament be more competitive- but qualifying for state would actually be harder for most teams. Look at the west half of the state this year for an example. Two teams (one from region 8- one from region 5) will go to state... neither of which would beat Beulah or Dickinson Trinity (one of which will stay home). If you combined either region 8 or region 5 with region 7, qualifying for state would be more difficult for those teams. Now, you also have more of the best teams at the state tournament AND a partially seeded tournament (4 region champs play 4 runner ups)- improving the quality of semi-final night as well.

[winner-within]

It does work well overall
yet I think the district tourney is a waste of time in most instances
a longer season with a bit more east/west match ups and less "play the same team 2 times play would put things in perspective when it comes to the theory of "this region is heavily weighted with class B champs, but only 1 can go".......

I have friends anmd family in Fargo and the classes abroad (from Ben Franklin, to Davies, to North, to West)
.........have close to or above, 300 kids in each, yes!! I said each class......and my theory of getting 400 to 500 from 7 to 12 under one roof is "dumb" ....400 to 500 under one roof from 7-12......is still MINOOT (spelled to get point across)

I agree the district tournaments need a tweak... The teak I would prefer seems to be different than most people. Rather than do away with them, I would prefer to keep them but only bring 2 teams out instead of 4.

To quickly address your other side topic, I don't think anyone said 400 to 500 under one roof was "dumb," but in the way you are talking about it, it is unfeasible. 500 under one roof is fine- 500 under one roof when 300 of them have to drive 1 hour plus to school doesn't work.

I'll tell you something you may not know........If there was one big school in central pembina county....nobody would drive more than 30 miles to get to it(now think of sports nights and days also) ........right now Walhalla kids are on the bus way more than they would be.

you could even put a school leaning slightly more to the south of pembina county and now 4 more towns could drive less than 30 miles

point being... THE MAJORITY OF THE STATE IS ALREADY DRIVING HUNDREDS OF MILES A WEEK TO DO WHAT THE CO-OPS ASK OF THEM!! but we better not shut down the old run down school.

todays little schools are the country schools of yesterday, and many have already closed (i know mine has)....

[ndlionsfan]

I'm starting to come around to your 4 region idea and I think it has some merit. But I also think it's a tougher sell to the NDHSAA than the super-regional or 6 team region tourney ideas. Also, if the districts were balanced out as we both agree should happen, by having 2 less teams qualify for the regional would in a way solve some of the issues that you are addressing with the 4 region idea. At least a team with have to finish in the upper half of its district to qualify so its a little tougher goal to obtain. It just doesn't help get the top 8 teams to state, but that is also fairly subjective anyway. Even with only 4 regions in some years a person could argue that 3-4 teams in region A are better than any 2 in region B, etc. If you look at AA fball, people have said in the past that the east region had 6 teams better than the top team in the west region and so on. I don't think that way of thinking will ever truly be eliminated or substantiated as well.

[classB4ever]

Some rambling observations concerning this topic. These are not intended as pros or cons for either side and are certainly debatable.

1. Participation at the state b is fairly predictable. This is not meant as a bad thing, just really historical and geographical numbers. Of the 8 regions, 3 of them do not really have big schools (3, 4, 8 ). That means there is generally going to be a minimum of 38% small schools every year. Of the remaining 5 regions, one small school is generally going to represent one of those regions, bringing the total to 50% smalls. Of the remaining 4 regions, chances are 2 bigger schools and 2 parochial schools will be representing.

The consistency you refer to is not limited to enrollment. One of the many things pointing this way is how consistently deep smalls are making it when they do go to state. Furthermore, it may not be as exactly as consistent as you think... Region 7 is usually considered to have the most "bigs." In the last 5 years, Beulah (244) has gone twice; Dickinson Trinity (166), Bowman (139), and Mott-Regent (68) have each gone once... That's pretty good balance.

2. Just saying "Go out and build a program if you want to compete" is not always that easy. First of all, to do it you must be willing to realize the "return on the investment" is at best 5 years and more then likely 7-9 years away. There is always a certain amount of DNA, timing and good luck to figure into the equation as well. Every year there is proof that it has been done in communities across the state. It takes players, parents, fans and coaches to buy in and the results are generally pretty obvious. However, it does take numbers to make these programs sustainable.

It better not be that easy. In the words of Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan (A League of Their Own), "It's supposed to be hard; if it wasn't hard, everybody would do it. The hard is what makes it great."

You're right, the return on the investment takes plenty of time. You're also right... there are several other factors that "play into the equation as well." That's why we need to quit using enrollment as the lone scapegoat of failure. While it's hard work, all of the recent history in front of us shows it's a reasonable accomplishment... it's just not as easy as crying about how you want your own class.

3. IMO, comparing boys and girls basketball in this topic is unfair. If making the state tournament is the true ultimate goal, I think that a girl's basketball team with a star caliber player and average players around her has a legitimate shot at achieving it. I do not believe it is the same in boys. IMO, it seems that you have to have some star power, some above average players and some role players.

If the topic is a 3 class system, we better compare boys and girls because it affects boys and girls equally. If there is a 3 class system for boys basketball there will be one for girls basketball as well. There will also be one for Volleyball. Girls Basketball and Volleyball may not be the fan favorites, but they are 2/3rds of the equation.

I also took the liberty of bolding one of your lines. I think that's part of the real problem... making the state tournament is the only tangible measure for success we have, but with only 8 going it would be an extremely lofty goal for most teams in most years. That's one of the reasons I advocate moving to 4 regions instead of 8... Make it an accomplishment to make the regional tournament again, give programs a more attainable goal for the years they are down or rebuilding, and you will hear less three class complaining from those who didn't make the state tournament. Different teams in different years need different goals. We need to establish a middle marker for those who aren't in a year where state is realistic.

NDplayin,
As I stated from the top, the post was just observation and some personal thoughts not intended to support or go against either side of this discussion. One point that you consistently bring up is the emotional side. You are 100% correct on this. Personally, haven't debated this topic for a couple of years. When a new person comes on and broaches this subject matter, you are very good to address the subject and layout very good groundwork. There are a few times when you went to the emotional side, such as: "Again 3 class supporters consistently ignore the objective, rational side of the argument, and they continue to attempt lubricating the gears of change with the tears from their emotional weeping because their team hasn't built the type of program many other schools of comparable enrollments have." To be honest, I did not expect this coming from you, rather from someone you have adamantly debated in the past . Irregardless, you are well read and passionate on this subject matter. Proof would be of your approximate 200 posts, many have been about this or rule changes.
A couple of other things addressing your response.
1. I never said "consistently". I said it has become "fairly predictable". The difference in my mind is consistency would mean the same teams are going to be back there. Predicting that 2 big, 2 parochial and 4 small schools is just following history and percentages with no names attached.
2. I think we are on the same page, but wouldn't you also agree that it does take numbers to sustain a good program? I think this is what is toughest for small school fans. They may have "had it and tasted it, but then it is gone and it won't be back for a while if ever". However, someone else in the mean time is now 'tasting" it and IMO, this is where emotions really kick in. Just life, really. Happens all the time.
3. This is the toughest one and where you have made a believer out of me, whether I liked it or not. Kind of like politics. A bill is brought forth with good intentions, but by the time it is passed, there are so many things added to it, one almost forgets why it was brought forth in the first place. IMO, the landscape of boys and girls basketball, and girls volleyball are not the same but they are handcuffed together. So the changes to one will effect the others.
The bottom line, as I have said in all my recent posts, for our landscape right now there probably isn't a better system then what we have.
Thanks.

[NDplayin]

ClassB4ever,

You're right... your post which I responded to at length (like I almost always do), was more observational than opinionated. My response was meant to share my interpretation or opinions of your observations rather than attack them... however, if it came off another way, which often happens with passion, I'm sorry.

You're also right. I had a rare emotional moment of my own when I used that "lubricate the gears of change" line. I guess we all have our weak spots and I'll share mine with you: The idea that a poorly thought out, ill-advised idea might come to fruition simply because a small, confused minority is more boisterous and adamant than a large, straight thinking majority. As an example, Mike Ditka gave us the following quote regarding 3 classes in the toughest road to state thread which got off topic and ignited this thread

It will continue to be brought up in ND until it passes.

I'll admit, that kind of language can make me emotional. If it ever passes, it won't necessarily be because it is the right thing to do for our student-athletes. It will be because the majority got so sick and tired of listening to the minority scream and moan that they finally voted for it just to shut them up. Then we would all be stuck lamenting the unfortunate result.

[classB4ever]

Fair and well written.

[NDplayin]

I'm starting to come around to your 4 region idea and I think it has some merit. But I also think it's a tougher sell to the NDHSAA than the super-regional or 6 team region tourney ideas. Also, if the districts were balanced out as we both agree should happen, by having 2 less teams qualify for the regional would in a way solve some of the issues that you are addressing with the 4 region idea. At least a team with have to finish in the upper half of its district to qualify so its a little tougher goal to obtain. It just doesn't help get the top 8 teams to state, but that is also fairly subjective anyway. Even with only 4 regions in some years a person could argue that 3-4 teams in region A are better than any 2 in region B, etc. If you look at AA fball, people have said in the past that the east region had 6 teams better than the top team in the west region and so on. I don't think that way of thinking will ever truly be eliminated or substantiated as well.

First- I think you're the first person on preps that has ever "started to come around" to this idea. progress!

Second- You're right... there is absolutely no system that will ever completely eliminate talk of which region is tougher than the other- and there will always be someone who feels they are deserving left home. However, there are systems that can alleviate these feeling. In the case of the 4 region idea- all four regions are "tougher"... which tempers the talk a little, and while the 3rd best team in the region might be one of the top 8... it's much harder to complain about not qualifying after you've lost twice in the tournament- than it is after losing just one game to a team which might be head and shoulders above the rest of the state field.

Third= You're right again. 4 regions is the most difficult sell to the NDHSAA- not because it isn't a better plan- not because it doesn't fit the landscape better- not because it wouldn't be better for our student-athletes- but simply because 32 teams in 4 regions makes less money than 64 teams in 8 regions. Frankly, it doesn't sit well with me that the governing body of such issues would make this decision based on money- but that's exactly what I believe drives their decision making process.

[The Schwab]

I'm starting to come around to your 4 region idea and I think it has some merit. But I also think it's a tougher sell to the NDHSAA than the super-regional or 6 team region tourney ideas. Also, if the districts were balanced out as we both agree should happen, by having 2 less teams qualify for the regional would in a way solve some of the issues that you are addressing with the 4 region idea. At least a team with have to finish in the upper half of its district to qualify so its a little tougher goal to obtain. It just doesn't help get the top 8 teams to state, but that is also fairly subjective anyway. Even with only 4 regions in some years a person could argue that 3-4 teams in region A are better than any 2 in region B, etc. If you look at AA fball, people have said in the past that the east region had 6 teams better than the top team in the west region and so on. I don't think that way of thinking will ever truly be eliminated or substantiated as well.

First- I think you're the first person on preps that has ever "started to come around" to this idea. progress!

Second- You're right... there is absolutely no system that will ever completely eliminate talk of which region is tougher than the other- and there will always be someone who feels they are deserving left home. However, there are systems that can alleviate these feeling. In the case of the 4 region idea- all four regions are "tougher"... which tempers the talk a little, and while the 3rd best team in the region might be one of the top 8... it's much harder to complain about not qualifying after you've lost twice in the tournament- than it is after losing just one game to a team which might be head and shoulders above the rest of the state field.

Third= You're right again. 4 regions is the most difficult sell to the NDHSAA- not because it isn't a better plan- not because it doesn't fit the landscape better- not because it wouldn't be better for our student-athletes- but simply because 32 teams in 4 regions makes less money than 64 teams in 8 regions. Frankly, it doesn't sit well with me that the governing body of such issues would make this decision based on money- but that's exactly what I believe drives their decision making process.

That is simply the truth and it drives me crazy as well

[winner-within]

I'm starting to come around to your 4 region idea and I think it has some merit. But I also think it's a tougher sell to the NDHSAA than the super-regional or 6 team region tourney ideas. Also, if the districts were balanced out as we both agree should happen, by having 2 less teams qualify for the regional would in a way solve some of the issues that you are addressing with the 4 region idea. At least a team with have to finish in the upper half of its district to qualify so its a little tougher goal to obtain. It just doesn't help get the top 8 teams to state, but that is also fairly subjective anyway. Even with only 4 regions in some years a person could argue that 3-4 teams in region A are better than any 2 in region B, etc. If you look at AA fball, people have said in the past that the east region had 6 teams better than the top team in the west region and so on. I don't think that way of thinking will ever truly be eliminated or substantiated as well.

First- I think you're the first person on preps that has ever "started to come around" to this idea. progress!

Second- You're right... there is absolutely no system that will ever completely eliminate talk of which region is tougher than the other- and there will always be someone who feels they are deserving left home. However, there are systems that can alleviate these feeling. In the case of the 4 region idea- all four regions are "tougher"... which tempers the talk a little, and while the 3rd best team in the region might be one of the top 8... it's much harder to complain about not qualifying after you've lost twice in the tournament- than it is after losing just one game to a team which might be head and shoulders above the rest of the state field.

Third= You're right again. 4 regions is the most difficult sell to the NDHSAA- not because it isn't a better plan- not because it doesn't fit the landscape better- not because it wouldn't be better for our student-athletes- but simply because 32 teams in 4 regions makes less money than 64 teams in 8 regions. Frankly, it doesn't sit well with me that the governing body of such issues would make this decision based on money- but that's exactly what I believe drives their decision making process.

I would say its influenced more by complacency, and ignorance, and the threat of change itself......for if you start to calculate the reality of a change the true dollar amount over the next 10 years just might be better with the change vs how it is now.......but nobody wants to take the time to explore...why? because their kid is out of school or they only have three years left etc. etc.

[Bisonguy06]

I would like to know this - why don't we have more movement among teams from region to region?

Region 1 has 16 teams.
Region 3 sits right next to Region 1, geographically speaking. Region 3 has slowly dwindled and co-oped its way to just 11 teams. Why not shift a couple teams west to Region 3 to create better balance?

Region 6 has 16 teams and is surrounded on all sides by regions with fewer teams and schools. Why hasn't there been any movement?

[High School Fan]

Schwab...I appologize for the way my post was written...after reading the post it sounded mean-spirited. Please know that was not my intention. Bishop Ryan, like most private schools, have seen declining enrollments since the mid to late 80's. Bishop Ryan currently has about 32 kids per class in grades 9-12. Dickinson Trinity is even smaller. If you recall, it was not many years ago that Dix. Trinity was actually in the discussion of going Class "A" in football and even 9-man at one point before their coop. Both Trinity and Ryan were, by the numbers, slated to go class "A" in football but petitioned up to "AA".

[The Schwab]

I was just going off of the NDHSAA publication for this year, that is where I got my information from.

[EHS1998]

I've stayed away from this discussion primarily because I think the NDHSAA likes it the way it is and really isnt significantly concerned over percieved competitive imbalances.

The system now is profitable, I dont see them changing it anytime soon or ever.

Where we will probably see changes at some point is the District/Region tournament structure.

[Mike Ditka]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it isn't up to the NDHSAA (and I'm not certain so seriously correct me if I'm wrong because I want to know, lol.) it can be proposed by a member and if seconded goes to a vote. Then I believe each school get's a vote that it would effect. I don't think the association has much of a say about it whether or not they are profiting.

[Run4Fun2009]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it isn't up to the NDHSAA (and I'm not certain so seriously correct me if I'm wrong because I want to know, lol.) it can be proposed by a member and if seconded goes to a vote. Then I believe each school get's a vote that it would effect. I don't think the association has much of a say about it whether or not they are profiting.

I think it has to pass the board members before the each school gets a vote...its a 4 step process.

At least that's what I think it is...

[ndlionsfan]

I just copied this from the NDHSAA membership meeting notes held Monday....

"January 2012, Region 7 was granted permission for a 2-year experiment with the format
of region Basketball and Volleyball tournament. The experiment is for the 2013/14 and
2014/15 school years. The board felt it was important to develop guidelines for other
regions who may choose to request an experiment. The region requirement for Class B
volleyball and basketball tournaments is as follows: The region tournament shall be a
bracketed tournament with a minimum of 8 teams. How regions get to those 8 teams
would be spelled out in a proposal to NDHSAA. There will be no approval for plans
having less than 8 teams in their region tournaments brackets."

I guess this must mean the Region 3 idea will not get a shot....

[Mike Ditka]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it isn't up to the NDHSAA (and I'm not certain so seriously correct me if I'm wrong because I want to know, lol.) it can be proposed by a member and if seconded goes to a vote. Then I believe each school get's a vote that it would effect. I don't think the association has much of a say about it whether or not they are profiting.

I think it has to pass the board members before the each school gets a vote...its a 4 step process.

At least that's what I think it is...

But....all that has to happen with the board is one member submit it, and one member second it...right?

[The Schwab]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it isn't up to the NDHSAA (and I'm not certain so seriously correct me if I'm wrong because I want to know, lol.) it can be proposed by a member and if seconded goes to a vote. Then I believe each school get's a vote that it would effect. I don't think the association has much of a say about it whether or not they are profiting.

I think it has to pass the board members before the each school gets a vote...its a 4 step process.

At least that's what I think it is...

But....all that has to happen with the board is one member submit it, and one member second it...right?

Unless when we talk about the "division B" fiasco

[classB4ever]

Some rambling observations concerning this topic. These are not intended as pros or cons for either side and are certainly debatable.

1. Participation at the state b is fairly predictable. This is not meant as a bad thing, just really historical and geographical numbers. Of the 8 regions, 3 of them do not really have big schools (3, 4, 8 ). That means there is generally going to be a minimum of 38% small schools every year. Of the remaining 5 regions, one small school is generally going to represent one of those regions, bringing the total to 50% smalls. Of the remaining 4 regions, chances are 2 bigger schools and 2 parochial schools will be representing.

The consistency you refer to is not limited to enrollment. One of the many things pointing this way is how consistently deep smalls are making it when they do go to state. Furthermore, it may not be as exactly as consistent as you think... Region 7 is usually considered to have the most "bigs." In the last 5 years, Beulah (244) has gone twice; Dickinson Trinity (166), Bowman (139), and Mott-Regent (68) have each gone once... That's pretty good balance.

2. Just saying "Go out and build a program if you want to compete" is not always that easy. First of all, to do it you must be willing to realize the "return on the investment" is at best 5 years and more then likely 7-9 years away. There is always a certain amount of DNA, timing and good luck to figure into the equation as well. Every year there is proof that it has been done in communities across the state. It takes players, parents, fans and coaches to buy in and the results are generally pretty obvious. However, it does take numbers to make these programs sustainable.

It better not be that easy. In the words of Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan (A League of Their Own), "It's supposed to be hard; if it wasn't hard, everybody would do it. The hard is what makes it great."

You're right, the return on the investment takes plenty of time. You're also right... there are several other factors that "play into the equation as well." That's why we need to quit using enrollment as the lone scapegoat of failure. While it's hard work, all of the recent history in front of us shows it's a reasonable accomplishment... it's just not as easy as crying about how you want your own class.

3. IMO, comparing boys and girls basketball in this topic is unfair. If making the state tournament is the true ultimate goal, I think that a girl's basketball team with a star caliber player and average players around her has a legitimate shot at achieving it. I do not believe it is the same in boys. IMO, it seems that you have to have some star power, some above average players and some role players.

If the topic is a 3 class system, we better compare boys and girls because it affects boys and girls equally. If there is a 3 class system for boys basketball there will be one for girls basketball as well. There will also be one for Volleyball. Girls Basketball and Volleyball may not be the fan favorites, but they are 2/3rds of the equation.

I also took the liberty of bolding one of your lines. I think that's part of the real problem... making the state tournament is the only tangible measure for success we have, but with only 8 going it would be an extremely lofty goal for most teams in most years. That's one of the reasons I advocate moving to 4 regions instead of 8... Make it an accomplishment to make the regional tournament again, give programs a more attainable goal for the years they are down or rebuilding, and you will hear less three class complaining from those who didn't make the state tournament. Different teams in different years need different goals. We need to establish a middle marker for those who aren't in a year where state is realistic.

NDplayin,
As I stated from the top, the post was just observation and some personal thoughts not intended to support or go against either side of this discussion. One point that you consistently bring up is the emotional side. You are 100% correct on this. Personally, haven't debated this topic for a couple of years. When a new person comes on and broaches this subject matter, you are very good to address the subject and layout very good groundwork. There are a few times when you went to the emotional side, such as: "Again 3 class supporters consistently ignore the objective, rational side of the argument, and they continue to attempt lubricating the gears of change with the tears from their emotional weeping because their team hasn't built the type of program many other schools of comparable enrollments have." To be honest, I did not expect this coming from you, rather from someone you have adamantly debated in the past . Irregardless, you are well read and passionate on this subject matter. Proof would be of your approximate 200 posts, many have been about this or rule changes.
A couple of other things addressing your response.
1. I never said "consistently". I said it has become "fairly predictable". The difference in my mind is consistency would mean the same teams are going to be back there. Predicting that 2 big, 2 parochial and 4 small schools is just following history and percentages with no names attached.
2. I think we are on the same page, but wouldn't you also agree that it does take numbers to sustain a good program? I think this is what is toughest for small school fans. They may have "had it and tasted it, but then it is gone and it won't be back for a while if ever". However, someone else in the mean time is now 'tasting" it and IMO, this is where emotions really kick in. Just life, really. Happens all the time.
3. This is the toughest one and where you have made a believer out of me, whether I liked it or not. Kind of like politics. A bill is brought forth with good intentions, but by the time it is passed, there are so many things added to it, one almost forgets why it was brought forth in the first place. IMO, the landscape of boys and girls basketball, and girls volleyball are not the same but they are handcuffed together. So the changes to one will effect the others.
The bottom line, as I have said in all my recent posts, for our landscape right now there probably isn't a better system then what we have.
Thanks.

This is an older topic that I wanted to bring back to the top only to show that this years field pretty much follows historical numbers. This year, we could probably say 3 big schools, 3 small schools and 2 parochial schools. I would consider Cavalier, Rugby and FWM big. LLM, Trenton, Milnor small.

[rock83]

How many regions have private schools? 4? So if every year there are 2 or 3 private schools in the state tournament that is coming from the same 4 regions. They have such an advantage in their region.
Also in boys and girls you have to have a decent team to make it to state. Shiloh boys are an example they have a nice team but they are led by a great player and some nice kids around him. How many of these kids started out in shiloh from the time they were lower elementary? None of there better players.

Some rambling observations concerning this topic. These are not intended as pros or cons for either side and are certainly debatable.

1. Participation at the state b is fairly predictable. This is not meant as a bad thing, just really historical and geographical numbers. Of the 8 regions, 3 of them do not really have big schools (3, 4, 8 ). That means there is generally going to be a minimum of 38% small schools every year. Of the remaining 5 regions, one small school is generally going to represent one of those regions, bringing the total to 50% smalls. Of the remaining 4 regions, chances are 2 bigger schools and 2 parochial schools will be representing.

The consistency you refer to is not limited to enrollment. One of the many things pointing this way is how consistently deep smalls are making it when they do go to state. Furthermore, it may not be as exactly as consistent as you think... Region 7 is usually considered to have the most "bigs." In the last 5 years, Beulah (244) has gone twice; Dickinson Trinity (166), Bowman (139), and Mott-Regent (68) have each gone once... That's pretty good balance.

2. Just saying "Go out and build a program if you want to compete" is not always that easy. First of all, to do it you must be willing to realize the "return on the investment" is at best 5 years and more then likely 7-9 years away. There is always a certain amount of DNA, timing and good luck to figure into the equation as well. Every year there is proof that it has been done in communities across the state. It takes players, parents, fans and coaches to buy in and the results are generally pretty obvious. However, it does take numbers to make these programs sustainable.

It better not be that easy. In the words of Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan (A League of Their Own), "It's supposed to be hard; if it wasn't hard, everybody would do it. The hard is what makes it great."

You're right, the return on the investment takes plenty of time. You're also right... there are several other factors that "play into the equation as well." That's why we need to quit using enrollment as the lone scapegoat of failure. While it's hard work, all of the recent history in front of us shows it's a reasonable accomplishment... it's just not as easy as crying about how you want your own class.

3. IMO, comparing boys and girls basketball in this topic is unfair. If making the state tournament is the true ultimate goal, I think that a girl's basketball team with a star caliber player and average players around her has a legitimate shot at achieving it. I do not believe it is the same in boys. IMO, it seems that you have to have some star power, some above average players and some role players.

If the topic is a 3 class system, we better compare boys and girls because it affects boys and girls equally. If there is a 3 class system for boys basketball there will be one for girls basketball as well. There will also be one for Volleyball. Girls Basketball and Volleyball may not be the fan favorites, but they are 2/3rds of the equation.

I also took the liberty of bolding one of your lines. I think that's part of the real problem... making the state tournament is the only tangible measure for success we have, but with only 8 going it would be an extremely lofty goal for most teams in most years. That's one of the reasons I advocate moving to 4 regions instead of 8... Make it an accomplishment to make the regional tournament again, give programs a more attainable goal for the years they are down or rebuilding, and you will hear less three class complaining from those who didn't make the state tournament. Different teams in different years need different goals. We need to establish a middle marker for those who aren't in a year where state is realistic.

NDplayin,
As I stated from the top, the post was just observation and some personal thoughts not intended to support or go against either side of this discussion. One point that you consistently bring up is the emotional side. You are 100% correct on this. Personally, haven't debated this topic for a couple of years. When a new person comes on and broaches this subject matter, you are very good to address the subject and layout very good groundwork. There are a few times when you went to the emotional side, such as: "Again 3 class supporters consistently ignore the objective, rational side of the argument, and they continue to attempt lubricating the gears of change with the tears from their emotional weeping because their team hasn't built the type of program many other schools of comparable enrollments have." To be honest, I did not expect this coming from you, rather from someone you have adamantly debated in the past . Irregardless, you are well read and passionate on this subject matter. Proof would be of your approximate 200 posts, many have been about this or rule changes.
A couple of other things addressing your response.
1. I never said "consistently". I said it has become "fairly predictable". The difference in my mind is consistency would mean the same teams are going to be back there. Predicting that 2 big, 2 parochial and 4 small schools is just following history and percentages with no names attached.
2. I think we are on the same page, but wouldn't you also agree that it does take numbers to sustain a good program? I think this is what is toughest for small school fans. They may have "had it and tasted it, but then it is gone and it won't be back for a while if ever". However, someone else in the mean time is now 'tasting" it and IMO, this is where emotions really kick in. Just life, really. Happens all the time.
3. This is the toughest one and where you have made a believer out of me, whether I liked it or not. Kind of like politics. A bill is brought forth with good intentions, but by the time it is passed, there are so many things added to it, one almost forgets why it was brought forth in the first place. IMO, the landscape of boys and girls basketball, and girls volleyball are not the same but they are handcuffed together. So the changes to one will effect the others.
The bottom line, as I have said in all my recent posts, for our landscape right now there probably isn't a better system then what we have.
Thanks.

This is an older topic that I wanted to bring back to the top only to show that this years field pretty much follows historical numbers. This year, we could probably say 3 big schools, 3 small schools and 2 parochial schools. I would consider Cavalier, Rugby and FWM big. LLM, Trenton, Milnor small.