North Dakota Preps

Flying Wallenda wrote:That's exactly the case. Just like LAE can't compete in the middle class, but have been to state the last 6 years in girls. DL''s girls too.

But what ya have to understand is, no one put a seconds worth of thought or cared in the least about the girls end of this. This was 100% about boys.

So how do you write a plan that LEM girls in the middle class and not their boys or OG's boys, but not their girls?

Flip wrote:

Flying Wallenda wrote:That's exactly the case. Just like LAE can't compete in the middle class, but have been to state the last 6 years in girls. DL''s girls too.

But what ya have to understand is, no one put a seconds worth of thought or cared in the least about the girls end of this. This was 100% about boys.

So how do you write a plan that LEM girls in the middle class and not their boys or OG's boys, but not their girls?

You have a success factor (or lack of success factor) built in prior to passing the plan and putting it in place. But when the goal is to ramrod things through in the name of partisan politics, that wasn't going to happen.

Flying Wallenda wrote:

maddog1971 wrote:Just asking questions because I do not know. Wasn't it the Garrison Super that said they were going to sue the NDHSAA if they did not go to 3 classes because their teams could not be competitive and they soon would not be able to get kids to go out for basketball? Also didn't Hailey Quam play for Garrison a few years ago before she went to Shiloh?

That's exactly the case. Just like LAE can't compete in the middle class, but have been to state the last 6 years in girls. DL''s girls too.

But what ya have to understand is, no one put a seconds worth of thought or cared in the least about the girls end of this. This was 100% about boys.

LAE was never included in the middle-class discussion because their enrollment was always below the 'break line'

Yep, the argument of 3 classes from the B perspective was mostly towards the boys...from the A perspective it was to get rid of the small end schools who can't compete; using the talking points those schools' use...interesting how the DL boys are the EDC #4 seed and 'they can't compete with the big schools'.

WalkingStick wrote:

Flying Wallenda wrote:

maddog1971 wrote:Just asking questions because I do not know. Wasn't it the Garrison Super that said they were going to sue the NDHSAA if they did not go to 3 classes because their teams could not be competitive and they soon would not be able to get kids to go out for basketball? Also didn't Hailey Quam play for Garrison a few years ago before she went to Shiloh?

That's exactly the case. Just like LAE can't compete in the middle class, but have been to state the last 6 years in girls. DL''s girls too.

But what ya have to understand is, no one put a seconds worth of thought or cared in the least about the girls end of this. This was 100% about boys.

LAE was never included in the middle-class discussion because their enrollment was always below the 'break line'

Yep, the argument of 3 classes from the B perspective was mostly towards the boys...from the A perspective it was to get rid of the small end schools who can't compete; using the talking points those schools' use...interesting how the DL boys are the EDC #4 seed and 'they can't compete with the big schools'.

I believe the original plan was 150-399, which included LAE in the middle class but did not include Watford/DL/Turtle Mountain. Shockingly, the numbers changed!! I'm sure it was strictly coincidence that the change turned all of those schools from no votes to yes votes. And you are SPOT ON with DL's boys. Partisan politics at its finest. And its shameful.

I'm confused on who actions are partisan and most shameful.

The small schools who wanted the plan because so they get more wins?
The middle schools who wanted to stay the same so they could get more wins?
The bigger schools who wanted to move down so they could get more wins?

muley14 wrote:I'm confused on who actions are partisan and most shameful.

The small schools who wanted the plan because so they get more wins?
The middle schools who wanted to stay the same so they could get more wins?
The bigger schools who wanted to move down so they could get more wins?

I'll help clear up your confusion. None of the above are are most partisan and shameful.

The ones that are partisan and carry the most shame are the ones that pandered for votes, hand picked pieces of data, condensed a middle class to receive less no votes, repeatedly told us to "look at the numbers", but when were told that 80% of the middle class was against the plan said "the numbers don't matter", told half truths, looked out for their own interests, and forced a partial plan through in order to insure they got what they wanted.