WalkingStick wrote:"The tournament performance factor will be a three-year cumulative total of no less than six points per division"
Key statement being overlooked.
Thompson was Class B for 2021-2022, 2022-2023 seasons therefore their success points will not be used in addition to the 2023-2024 season as they are in a different division. Their Success points start now for their new division (Class A).
The Schwab wrote:Common sense would go a long way in determining divisions. I guess you have to have it spelled out to a T for some people.
Teams that have been brought up in this thread already (sorry if I miss any)
1. HCV Girls- I would assume the petition would be accepted for them to move to class B.
2. Thompson girls- They are right where they belong in Class A. They did "move up a division" so their points from previous years shouldn't count- reason? common sense.
3. Langdon girls- if they experience success as assumed, should play class A.
4. Devils Lake boys- I think they're a AA team, but we shall see how things play out.
5. Cavalier football- Moved up, played a tough schedule against schools they shouldn't have had to play against, made the playoffs. Now moving to 9-man, where they belong. Hats off to Cavailer for what they did this year.
6. FWM girls- I'm kind of on the fence with them. We'll see what happens.
7. Carrington boys- same as above.
8. GFC Girls- one of 2 public schools in the 3rd largest city in the state. Should be in the top classification.
bk1990 wrote:The Schwab wrote:Common sense would go a long way in determining divisions. I guess you have to have it spelled out to a T for some people.
Teams that have been brought up in this thread already (sorry if I miss any)
1. HCV Girls- I would assume the petition would be accepted for them to move to class B.
2. Thompson girls- They are right where they belong in Class A. They did "move up a division" so their points from previous years shouldn't count- reason? common sense.
3. Langdon girls- if they experience success as assumed, should play class A.
4. Devils Lake boys- I think they're a AA team, but we shall see how things play out.
5. Cavalier football- Moved up, played a tough schedule against schools they shouldn't have had to play against, made the playoffs. Now moving to 9-man, where they belong. Hats off to Cavailer for what they did this year.
6. FWM girls- I'm kind of on the fence with them. We'll see what happens.
7. Carrington boys- same as above.
8. GFC Girls- one of 2 public schools in the 3rd largest city in the state. Should be in the top classification.
Common sense seems to be lacking in my opinion, not trying to be combative, but will give my take on your points above, whether agree or disagree
1. Why? Your enrollment has you in A. Your boys team does just fine
2. I agree. you are where you belong, but don't say they were moved up a class, basically just playing same teams for the most part, got rid of a few smaller ones, added a bigger school or two, nobody "moved" to A, just changed names of divisions
3. Why punish someone for being good consistently? You want to beat them, get better. Don't take the easy way out and move them out
4. One of the reasons for the 3 class was because smaller A schools couldn't compete with the big schools, now because they are beating up on schools a third of their size, ship them out back to playing the big boys? Seems they are admitting they made a mistake
5. Good culture, proved it by winning. Going to the class their size says they should be, not being determined by being successful, isn't that the way it should be? If you are successful, good for you.
6. Stay in the class your size says you should be, your male counterparts are successful
7. Successful in other winter sports, that life, can't be good in all sports. Grans Forks schools typically are good in hockey not basketball, that is the sport that is the focus, that's life
8. Agree, once again, that's life, not familiar with them, but do they have a successful girls hockey program? If anything like their boys teams, probably are and that is the popular sport for the students and may get the better athletes
As I said, not trying trying to attack someones point of view, just trying to give another take on opinions to create discussion
bk1990 wrote:The Schwab wrote:Common sense would go a long way in determining divisions. I guess you have to have it spelled out to a T for some people.
Teams that have been brought up in this thread already (sorry if I miss any)
1. HCV Girls- I would assume the petition would be accepted for them to move to class B.
2. Thompson girls- They are right where they belong in Class A. They did "move up a division" so their points from previous years shouldn't count- reason? common sense.
3. Langdon girls- if they experience success as assumed, should play class A.
4. Devils Lake boys- I think they're a AA team, but we shall see how things play out.
5. Cavalier football- Moved up, played a tough schedule against schools they shouldn't have had to play against, made the playoffs. Now moving to 9-man, where they belong. Hats off to Cavailer for what they did this year.
6. FWM girls- I'm kind of on the fence with them. We'll see what happens.
7. Carrington boys- same as above.
8. GFC Girls- one of 2 public schools in the 3rd largest city in the state. Should be in the top classification.
Common sense seems to be lacking in my opinion, not trying to be combative, but will give my take on your points above, whether agree or disagree
1. Why? Your enrollment has you in A. Your boys team does just fine
2. I agree. you are where you belong, but don't say they were moved up a class, basically just playing same teams for the most part, got rid of a few smaller ones, added a bigger school or two, nobody "moved" to A, just changed names of divisions
3. Why punish someone for being good consistently? You want to beat them, get better. Don't take the easy way out and move them out
4. One of the reasons for the 3 class was because smaller A schools couldn't compete with the big schools, now because they are beating up on schools a third of their size, ship them out back to playing the big boys? Seems they are admitting they made a mistake
5. Good culture, proved it by winning. Going to the class their size says they should be, not being determined by being successful, isn't that the way it should be? If you are successful, good for you.
6. Stay in the class your size says you should be, your male counterparts are successful
7. Successful in other winter sports, that life, can't be good in all sports. Grans Forks schools typically are good in hockey not basketball, that is the sport that is the focus, that's life
8. Agree, once again, that's life, not familiar with them, but do they have a successful girls hockey program? If anything like their boys teams, probably are and that is the popular sport for the students and may get the better athletes
As I said, not trying trying to attack someones point of view, just trying to give another take on opinions to create discussion
RiverMiner99 wrote:I agree with bk1990. Play where your enrollment places you. Privates need to be addressed differently than enrollment alone. I wanted to start this discussion after hearing of HCV asking to be moved down. I feel if you begin to approve these you need to also stay with moving teams up. Teams should not be moved up based on success, and teams should not be moved down due to lack of success. Classifying teams this way is crazy and only leads to questioning of the system. Maybe the success and lack of success should only apply to privates? If HCV wants to move their girls' program down a class could they disbanded the Coop for girls basketball only? I'm sure Central Valley would be below the cut number, not sure about Hillsboro. If they did do this, I'm not sure at this time if either team would have enough to field a team without girls open enrolling to one of the schools. However, now that we have 3 classes in basketball the number of girls participating with be going up and won't be a problem (I'm joking here as I think this was the most dishonest reason given for going to 3 classes by the NDHSAA).
The Schwab wrote:RiverMiner99 wrote:I agree with bk1990. Play where your enrollment places you. Privates need to be addressed differently than enrollment alone. I wanted to start this discussion after hearing of HCV asking to be moved down. I feel if you begin to approve these you need to also stay with moving teams up. Teams should not be moved up based on success, and teams should not be moved down due to lack of success. Classifying teams this way is crazy and only leads to questioning of the system. Maybe the success and lack of success should only apply to privates? If HCV wants to move their girls' program down a class could they disbanded the Coop for girls basketball only? I'm sure Central Valley would be below the cut number, not sure about Hillsboro. If they did do this, I'm not sure at this time if either team would have enough to field a team without girls open enrolling to one of the schools. However, now that we have 3 classes in basketball the number of girls participating with be going up and won't be a problem (I'm joking here as I think this was the most dishonest reason given for going to 3 classes by the NDHSAA).
You better come up with a system that uses some form of multiplier that can be used with all schools to accomplish this goal.
bk1990 wrote:I still have a hard time with how it is assumed just because you live in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo or Dickinson, it automatically gives you an athletic advantage? Is it the water? Grace of God? Please, someone come up with something other than the blanket statement that " They have an unfair advantage". Please specify what it is or don't say it.
bk1990 wrote:The Schwab wrote:RiverMiner99 wrote:I agree with bk1990. Play where your enrollment places you. Privates need to be addressed differently than enrollment alone. I wanted to start this discussion after hearing of HCV asking to be moved down. I feel if you begin to approve these you need to also stay with moving teams up. Teams should not be moved up based on success, and teams should not be moved down due to lack of success. Classifying teams this way is crazy and only leads to questioning of the system. Maybe the success and lack of success should only apply to privates? If HCV wants to move their girls' program down a class could they disbanded the Coop for girls basketball only? I'm sure Central Valley would be below the cut number, not sure about Hillsboro. If they did do this, I'm not sure at this time if either team would have enough to field a team without girls open enrolling to one of the schools. However, now that we have 3 classes in basketball the number of girls participating with be going up and won't be a problem (I'm joking here as I think this was the most dishonest reason given for going to 3 classes by the NDHSAA).
You better come up with a system that uses some form of multiplier that can be used with all schools to accomplish this goal.
I'm glad someone does agree with me, but I do have I don't totally agree with some of your statements. First, private schools are treated different already. Isn't the formula now, if you are in an "A' town (old A) and you are a private, if enrollment over 100, moved to new A, if over 350 (?), not sure where this was set, you are moved to AA?
I still have a hard time with how it is assumed just because you live in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo or Dickinson, it automatically gives you an athletic advantage? Is it the water? Grace of God? Please, someone come up with something other than the blanket statement that " They have an unfair advantage". Please specify what it is or don't say it.
"They recruit" Really? I don't like to mention names on this site of high school kids, I don't think it is appropriate, but I'm to the point of give me some names and proof or quit saying it. It's easy to hide behind inaccurate and vague statements when you don't have to provide proof.
I have met people whose kids went to parochial schools, it is an added expense and if a school was recruiting and paying tuition for the athletes, I guaranty the other families who were paying full price would have been at the first school board meeting after this happened and put an end to that. Money is tight enough, I'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for someone else's kids tuition just for sports. They receive no state money, I'm sure their budget is tight enough. They aren't trying to recoup by getting a few extra people to come watch a kid play a basketball game, it takes a lot of $7 gate fees to recoup that.
bk1990 wrote:The Schwab wrote:RiverMiner99 wrote:I agree with bk1990. Play where your enrollment places you. Privates need to be addressed differently than enrollment alone. I wanted to start this discussion after hearing of HCV asking to be moved down. I feel if you begin to approve these you need to also stay with moving teams up. Teams should not be moved up based on success, and teams should not be moved down due to lack of success. Classifying teams this way is crazy and only leads to questioning of the system. Maybe the success and lack of success should only apply to privates? If HCV wants to move their girls' program down a class could they disbanded the Coop for girls basketball only? I'm sure Central Valley would be below the cut number, not sure about Hillsboro. If they did do this, I'm not sure at this time if either team would have enough to field a team without girls open enrolling to one of the schools. However, now that we have 3 classes in basketball the number of girls participating with be going up and won't be a problem (I'm joking here as I think this was the most dishonest reason given for going to 3 classes by the NDHSAA).
You better come up with a system that uses some form of multiplier that can be used with all schools to accomplish this goal.
I'm glad someone does agree with me, but I do have I don't totally agree with some of your statements. First, private schools are treated different already. Isn't the formula now, if you are in an "A' town (old A) and you are a private, if enrollment over 100, moved to new A, if over 350 (?), not sure where this was set, you are moved to AA?
I still have a hard time with how it is assumed just because you live in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo or Dickinson, it automatically gives you an athletic advantage? Is it the water? Grace of God? Please, someone come up with something other than the blanket statement that " They have an unfair advantage". Please specify what it is or don't say it.
"They recruit" Really? I don't like to mention names on this site of high school kids, I don't think it is appropriate, but I'm to the point of give me some names and proof or quit saying it. It's easy to hide behind inaccurate and vague statements when you don't have to provide proof.
I have met people whose kids went to parochial schools, it is an added expense and if a school was recruiting and paying tuition for the athletes, I guaranty the other families who were paying full price would have been at the first school board meeting after this happened and put an end to that. Money is tight enough, I'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for someone else's kids tuition just for sports. They receive no state money, I'm sure their budget is tight enough. They aren't trying to recoup by getting a few extra people to come watch a kid play a basketball game, it takes a lot of $7 gate fees to recoup that.
Flip wrote:bk1990 wrote:I still have a hard time with how it is assumed just because you live in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo or Dickinson, it automatically gives you an athletic advantage? Is it the water? Grace of God? Please, someone come up with something other than the blanket statement that " They have an unfair advantage". Please specify what it is or don't say it.
Access to facilities, involved parents, money.
bk1990 wrote:Exactly, I have said that a number of times, being in a city does give you access to facilities, etc, but you still have to use them. That comes down to the child. I would like to think parents are involved in public schools. Money? I haven't seen any financial statements, but I'm pretty sure there are public school parents who make good money, and public schools I'm pretty sure have deeper pockets than private schools,
Flip wrote:bk1990 wrote:Exactly, I have said that a number of times, being in a city does give you access to facilities, etc, but you still have to use them. That comes down to the child. I would like to think parents are involved in public schools. Money? I haven't seen any financial statements, but I'm pretty sure there are public school parents who make good money, and public schools I'm pretty sure have deeper pockets than private schools,
The kid that lives in Glenfield doesn't even have the opportunity to use the facilities the kid at Shiloh does.
I'm not saying there aren't wealthy or involved parents at public schools. Take the 100 kids and their parents that go to Ryan and compare them to the 100 kids and their parents that go to Northwood. It's not the same or even close.
bk1990 wrote:Flip wrote:bk1990 wrote:Exactly, I have said that a number of times, being in a city does give you access to facilities, etc, but you still have to use them. That comes down to the child. I would like to think parents are involved in public schools. Money? I haven't seen any financial statements, but I'm pretty sure there are public school parents who make good money, and public schools I'm pretty sure have deeper pockets than private schools,
The kid that lives in Glenfield doesn't even have the opportunity to use the facilities the kid at Shiloh does.
I'm not saying there aren't wealthy or involved parents at public schools. Take the 100 kids and their parents that go to Ryan and compare them to the 100 kids and their parents that go to Northwood. It's not the same or even close.
Why and how? Please explain. Can't wait to hear what makes Ryan kids and parents superior to Northwood kids and parents in your opinion.
The Schwab wrote:bk1990 wrote:Flip wrote:bk1990 wrote:Exactly, I have said that a number of times, being in a city does give you access to facilities, etc, but you still have to use them. That comes down to the child. I would like to think parents are involved in public schools. Money? I haven't seen any financial statements, but I'm pretty sure there are public school parents who make good money, and public schools I'm pretty sure have deeper pockets than private schools,
The kid that lives in Glenfield doesn't even have the opportunity to use the facilities the kid at Shiloh does.
I'm not saying there aren't wealthy or involved parents at public schools. Take the 100 kids and their parents that go to Ryan and compare them to the 100 kids and their parents that go to Northwood. It's not the same or even close.
Why and how? Please explain. Can't wait to hear what makes Ryan kids and parents superior to Northwood kids and parents in your opinion.
What's the free and reduced percentage at Minot Bishop Ryan? What's the percentage of students on IEP's at Minot Bishop Ryan?
They're not superior as human beings, but the makeup of the school community is different.
bk1990 wrote:The Schwab wrote:bk1990 wrote:Flip wrote:bk1990 wrote:Exactly, I have said that a number of times, being in a city does give you access to facilities, etc, but you still have to use them. That comes down to the child. I would like to think parents are involved in public schools. Money? I haven't seen any financial statements, but I'm pretty sure there are public school parents who make good money, and public schools I'm pretty sure have deeper pockets than private schools,
The kid that lives in Glenfield doesn't even have the opportunity to use the facilities the kid at Shiloh does.
I'm not saying there aren't wealthy or involved parents at public schools. Take the 100 kids and their parents that go to Ryan and compare them to the 100 kids and their parents that go to Northwood. It's not the same or even close.
Why and how? Please explain. Can't wait to hear what makes Ryan kids and parents superior to Northwood kids and parents in your opinion.
What's the free and reduced percentage at Minot Bishop Ryan? What's the percentage of students on IEP's at Minot Bishop Ryan?
They're not superior as human beings, but the makeup of the school community is different.
Oh this should be good, what does it matter what the free and reduced percentage is? Or the IEP? What does that have to do with anything related to athletic success? Are you saying because a kid is on free/reduced they aren't as good of an athlete? Please answer they way I think you will and insult some more people.
bk1990 wrote:Flip wrote:bk1990 wrote:I still have a hard time with how it is assumed just because you live in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo or Dickinson, it automatically gives you an athletic advantage? Is it the water? Grace of God? Please, someone come up with something other than the blanket statement that " They have an unfair advantage". Please specify what it is or don't say it.
Access to facilities, involved parents, money.
Exactly, I have said that a number of times, being in a city does give you access to facilities, etc, but you still have to use them. That comes down to the child. I would like to think parents are involved in public schools. Money? I haven't seen any financial statements, but I'm pretty sure there are public school parents who make good money, and public schools I'm pretty sure have deeper pockets than private schools,
Also, the $10,000,000 that was mentioned, it may have been passed by the legislature, but if we are thinking about the same thing, our governor vetoed the bill. Private schools do not get any money from the state or local governments. So on top of paying for their kids to go to a private school and save money for the local school districts, they are still paying property taxes to pay for others peoples kids to go to school. But they chose to do so.
Also contrary to popular belief, not all families that choose to send their children to private schools are wealthy, they make sacrifices to do so
WalkingStick wrote:bk1990 wrote:Flip wrote:bk1990 wrote:I still have a hard time with how it is assumed just because you live in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo or Dickinson, it automatically gives you an athletic advantage? Is it the water? Grace of God? Please, someone come up with something other than the blanket statement that " They have an unfair advantage". Please specify what it is or don't say it.
Access to facilities, involved parents, money.
Exactly, I have said that a number of times, being in a city does give you access to facilities, etc, but you still have to use them. That comes down to the child. I would like to think parents are involved in public schools. Money? I haven't seen any financial statements, but I'm pretty sure there are public school parents who make good money, and public schools I'm pretty sure have deeper pockets than private schools,
Also, the $10,000,000 that was mentioned, it may have been passed by the legislature, but if we are thinking about the same thing, our governor vetoed the bill. Private schools do not get any money from the state or local governments. So on top of paying for their kids to go to a private school and save money for the local school districts, they are still paying property taxes to pay for others peoples kids to go to school. But they chose to do so.
Also contrary to popular belief, not all families that choose to send their children to private schools are wealthy, they make sacrifices to do so
Financial Aid is very helpful in helping make private education a reality for many families (just like college).
There are definitive differences between Private and Public schools and the advantages that each have over the other...Also, being near a larger city is a bit more advantageous for opportunities then being in a small rural community.
Larger cities have facilities that are open to the public (fitness centers, etc.) where a rural community might have a weight room that has to be opened by someone at the school (not open all the time...especially in the summer when the school isn't open all the time during the day).
Larger cities have the strength training programs available via Sanford or others...smaller rural communities either have farm work as their strength training or those athletes have to travel 50+ miles to get it...that's time away from the family business of farming for some athletes.
$$ is less of a clear advantage of a larger city cause some of those rural families have lots of $$...its more so TIME for people which is limited...less travel if you are within 30 miles of a larger city...families that have to travel 50-100 miles for these 'amenities' are less likely to do so.
AAU costs a boatload of money BUT it's the TIME required that can make things hard on rural families/athletes.
None of this is insulting...there are correlations between what people have brought up here...we just all have to have an open mind to understand them.
I have public and private school education...I know people in both sides of this argument.
This topic has gone a bit off the rails...Back to the original statement...I'd have no objections for HCV to move to B - they are playing a mostly B schedule this year anyways...I think there's proof in their results that they might belong down...but if they end up having to stay up there program will continue to struggle and their numbers will drop. People stated they wanted competitive balance and them moving down gives competitive games instead of 5-10 beatdowns if they have to stay in A...just my two cents.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest