Mike Ditka wrote:But can the majority (bigger schools) really say its fair to the minority to not let them have a class of their own?
classB4ever wrote:Please remember, and NDPlayin stated it, these numbers can be used for both sides of this debate.
ndlionsfan wrote:classB4ever wrote: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
Mike Ditka wrote: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.
Mike Ditka wrote:-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???
Mike Ditka wrote:-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.
Mike Ditka wrote:-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.
classB4ever wrote: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.
classB4ever wrote:One thing that nobody on this site has ever shown, are true enrollment figures (some are 7-12, 9-12, nobody seems to know).
classB4ever wrote:
Now, explain to me why 2.4% of schools attending at a 25% rate can simply be explained away as good programs, etc.?
classB4ever wrote:One thing that nobody on this site has ever shown, are true enrollment figures (some are 7-12, 9-12, nobody seems to know).
classB4ever wrote: 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.
NDplayin wrote:classB4ever wrote: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 wrote:classB4ever wrote: 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 wrote:ndlionsfan wrote:classB4ever wrote: 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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests