by steve34 » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:23 pm
Nonetheless, Luv has a great point that has nothing to do with enrollments. There is a tremendous lack of openmindedness on the part of many when it comes to a three division system.
I, personally, am not in favor of the current proposal for a three division system for two main reasons.
1. Lack of credible bottom class. With the current 16, 32, and the rest plan, the 32 middle gouges the current class "B", leaving a bottom-tier tournament that really would lack some credibility. True, you would see some good teams remain, but each year, the state tourney of this class would contain a team or two that obviously doesn't belong.
2. Lack of sustainability. With consolidations and closures, we would eventually revert to two classes, since we would be locked into a 32 team middle.
That being said, some of the arguments that are being thrown around by superintentants are rediculous.
1. Travel. Not a concern. I see teams play each other in big cities on Saturdays just to get their crowds to Fargo, Bismarck, or whatever, and then travel 90+miles on a weekday to play someone else. By using weekend days for their real use, to allow further travel, the issue of travel would be easily dealt with.
2. Lack of a District tournament costing money. Any district that plays loser-out in the first round (reference District 1) cannot make the argument that they need to preserve their gate. They basically tell half of their teams to not come back the next day. The format that uses the regional qualifiers (2, 5, 6, 7 did this, among others) is a great format. It adds 0 additional days, only three more games, and those three games add a total of six more fan bases to the party buying tickets that normally wouldn't be there. Until every district does things that maximize their gate, B administrators can't throw the gate around.
This thread has advocated looking back for historical direction on three classes. Again, I repeat, I am not a fan of the current plan, but I will suggest that we really need to look forward, not backward. it's easy to see that, over the next 10-15 years, it will become tougher and tougher for small B's to defeat big B's, and, thus, advance to the next level. The three division idea has merit, even if the current plan, for lack of better terms, not cool.
Alternatives: Expand A in a creative way to return A to the North Star days. The idea is to keep two classes, with the top 28 teams A, the rest B. The 28 are split into two divisions of 14, top and bottom. Each division gets four spots in the state tourney. Since each division would have 2 regions, all the teams in the state tournament would have to advance to a regional title game to advance to state. No more 9-13 teams that are lucky enough to win a couple of consolation games going to the state A tournament. If B teams have to win a regional title to go, wouldn't it make sense to force A teams to at least play for a regional title to advance.
(To explain: The top division of 14 would have a 7 team east and 7 team west division. The regional champ and runner up from each advance. The bottom division would be the same)
This is the first time that any idea has come about that makes the Class "A" teams play along with the rest of the state. They all get to live in their own world of having a whole state tournament, with television coverage and everything, for a class that has 18 frickin schools. Somehow, it just doesn't seem right. And if the B teams that move up have a chance to go to state without having to beat the biggest of the big, I don't think they'd mind playing them once they get there. If it's fair to make Richland play Central Cass to go to state, it would be just as fair to make Central Cass play Bismarck to win state. The second option might actually be more equitable, considering that Central Cass would still be playing teams of their size to go to state.
No additional tournaments, no dragging out the seasons. No re-inventing the wheel. Its the same two-class system we've all enjoyed forever, just improved to make a trip to state more meaningful for everyone involved, both A and B. Sure, the biggest schools will be upset that they get less opportunities to go to state, but, since everyone on this thread is all about ratios, check this out:
Class "A": 18 teams, 8 state tourney spots=44.4% of teams advance to state
Class "B": 128 (est) teams (based on 8 per district), 8 state tourney spots=6.25% of teams advance to state
Under this idea:
Class "A" 28 teams, 8 spots, 28.6%
Class "B" 118 teams, 8 spots, 6.78%
Still pretty inequitable, but it would preserve the idea of "B" being the big dance in the state, while A becomes more exclusive and gives us the "David vs. Goliath" matchup we all love about basketball.
The other idea would be use our football template for basketball. 16-16 and the rest would at least not gouge the bottom class, allowing for it to be around for a lot longer.