Realignment talk: Here we go

The teams in Class AA.

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:31 am

I totally disagree. If you're going to talk about enrollment cutoffs and what to pick for your numbers, you have to start that discussion somewhere. Otherwise, you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. You start the conversation by looking for natural breaks.

Williston has competed just fine in the top football class forever. Devils Lake has been strong but not dominant in AA football, and they rarely made any noise in AAA football prior to their move down. Therefore, we have evidence that a school of Williston's size can compete in AAA and a school of Devils Lake belongs in AA. At what size can a school compete in AAA? I say split the difference. There's a gap of 89 students between them. 350 is a nice round number almost halfway between the male enrollments of those two schools. Seems like a nice place to draw a line between AAA and AA, and I provided some reasoning and some evidence to support the #350. Is my reasoning perfect? Of course not. Anyone can find dents in the armor, but at least my #350 had some thought put into it.

I could've also picked 295 or 362 or 418 or 462 or 507 or 585 as the number where I feel a school could compete in AAA. Those numbers came out of thin air. They have no historical basis and no regard for North Dakota's high school population. I didn't do any historical research and I didn't look at current ND enrollments. They are simply guesses, and your guess is as good as mine.

You won't always find convenient 'natural breaks,' but you can't just ignore them if they exist.

P.S. 350 is your number, and you used the "natural break" concept to choose it.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby classB4ever » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:30 am

Where can a person find the enrollment numbers for ND schools? Have done a number of searches and can only find old numbers.
classB4ever
NDPreps Hall of Fame
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:23 am

Here is the enrollment source being referenced on this thread:

http://www.ndhsaa.org/files/0910_FB_Divisions.pdf

These numbers are the male enrollments for grades 7 through 10 which were used to draw the realignment for the '09 season.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:30 pm

Bisonguy06 wrote:I totally disagree. If you're going to talk about enrollment cutoffs and what to pick for your numbers, you have to start that discussion somewhere. Otherwise, you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. You start the conversation by looking for natural breaks.

Williston has competed just fine in the top football class forever. Devils Lake has been strong but not dominant in AA football, and they rarely made any noise in AAA football prior to their move down. Therefore, we have evidence that a school of Williston's size can compete in AAA and a school of Devils Lake belongs in AA. At what size can a school compete in AAA? I say split the difference. There's a gap of 89 students between them. 350 is a nice round number almost halfway between the male enrollments of those two schools. Seems like a nice place to draw a line between AAA and AA, and I provided some reasoning and some evidence to support the #350. Is my reasoning perfect? Of course not. Anyone can find dents in the armor, but at least my #350 had some thought put into it.


Bisonguy06, it’s my turn to disagree. I did choose 350 (349.5 actually) as my AAA/AA cutoff. However, I couldn’t find any of my previous posts where I used the natural break between Williston and Devils Lake as my justification(feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, I only skimmed). In all honesty, you didn’t use the natural break as your justification for supporting 350 either.

Read your post above… you pointed out that the natural break existed, but that wasn’t your justification. Your justification was that, “we have evidence that a school of Williston's size can compete in AAA and a school of Devils Lake belongs in AA.” Therefore, you chose a number between the two enrollments. Your justification was based on which size school it is fair to ask to play the bigs and which isn’t. It really didn’t have anything to do with the natural break.

Point: Let’s say that one more school existed in North Dakota with an enrollment of 356, which would completely disrupt the natural break. Would that suddenly make it any less fair to ask Williston to play Minot? Would it suddenly make it any more fair to ask Devils Lake play Minot? Would it suddenly make it any less fair to ask Lisbon to play Devils Lake? The answer to all those questions is no. The existence or non-existence of a natural break has absolutely no impact on any of those relationships. Williston still belongs where Williston belongs, and Devils Lake still belongs where Devils Lake belongs.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:45 pm

We are talking about how to draw these enrollment lines for the first time. All we have to go by is competitive history + current enrollments. If you find a competitive gap combined with an enrollment gap, you've found a natural break.

Did you arrive at the number 350 randomly? Did you crunch some numbers and use some math? No, you looked at competitive history and current enrollments. You found that Williston has been competitive in AAA and Devils Lake has not, and you put the number between the two.

If we had a school at 356 boys, we'd evaluate their competitive history and draw the line accordingly.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:44 pm

This has been my point the entire time. Enrollment cutoffs are unworkable because everyone goes and finds a new line that favors them, not the system in general.

Personally, and I'm not even looking at the numbers right now, but knowing that the largest is about 1000, I would just throw it out like this:

1000-500
499-275
274-150
Rest.

Again, I have no idea where the "bubble" teams are in this system, and I'm not even going to look. The point is that, you can make a great case for this scenario because the numbers all look like good spreads. I'd say it's fair for a 500 school to compete with a 1000 school, a 275 to compete with a 450, a 150 to compete with a 274, and the rest together.

One of you likes natural breaks, the other does not. One of you likes competitive history, the other does not. One of you wants to draw the line one way, the other a second way, and I've now thrown together two ways to use enrollment on the same thread. All of it is useless. Groups are superior, because enrollment and competitive history are then factors, not total results.

Williston and Devils Lake are prime examples. Williston has competitive history with small enrollment. Devils Lake has far less competitive history with smaller, but similar enrollment. If we use enrollment, or enrollment and competitive history only, we can easily shaft one of these teams. With groups, we can ask the following:

Should they be in the same group of bigs?
Should they be in the same group of smalls?
Should they be in different groups?
Should they be the same group of mediums?

There are way more options for making a system that is FAIR FOR ALL ATHLETES IN THE STATE.

Seems I heard that saying somewhere before.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby ndlionsfan » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:50 pm

Maybe you should have looked at the numbers a little bit because in your second largest group you would have 4 schools (DL, James, Dkson, Will) and in the next division down you would have about another 4 (Whap, Shanley, VC, TMCHS, and maybe another team or two) and the rest would be 60-70 teams.
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 4088
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:05 pm

No, that's exactly the point! Enrollment cutoffs just wouldn't work. Those are fair numbers, but there's just no teams to fit into them. That's why groups are superior.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:58 pm

Yeah, we're arguing over semantics here. I believe that by groups, by natural breaks, or by enrollment cutoffs, Williston fits AAA better than AA, and I'll support any plan that reflects that.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:57 pm

Awesome Bisonguy. Here's the new plan:

AAAA: South, Davies, Central, Red River, West Fargo, North, Century, Bismarck, Minot, Mandan.

AAA: Williston, Dickinson, Jamestown, Valley City, Devils Lake, Shanley, Wahpeton, Belcourt, Grafton, Central Cass

AA: The next 32

A: The rest

That puts Williston solidly in AAA :lol:
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:58 pm

Like I said, I don't care if you agree with me, I was just hoping for a little more understanding of the mindset. Obviously that was way too much to ask. There is a philosophical theory called Occam’s Razor which paraphrased states: When two theories present themselves, the simplest explanation should always be preferred. Some of you on here have a tremendous knack for complicating a simple solution.

Of course when debating what fair enrollment marks are competitive history and current enrollment are the benchmarks of comparison. Those have nothing to do with natural breaks. An enrollment cutoff does not have to correspond to a natural break, nor does a natural break necessarily indicate a lack of reasonable opportunity to compete.

The solution is very simple. Either start at the top or the bottom and work your way up or down depending on where you start… either way your numbers will be similar. In North Dakota the top is Minot High (1031) and the bottom is St. John and Center-Stanton (37 apiece). Like I said you could start either way, however since the major concern of most seems to be the AAA/AA cutoff, I will start at the top.

The first question is… what is the lowest possible number which is reasonably fair to ask play 1031? (Remember, I feel that a committee of coaches should be the only ones whose opinion matters on that question, everything I say is speculation). Now use your competitive history… 400 has a history of fitting in with 1031… 311 doesn’t. So common sense tells you to draw a line somewhere in between, and 350 is a nice looking round number about halfway there.

The result of the first question unveils the second question. What is the lowest number which is reasonably fair to play 349? My own speculation? Well in our recent history Watford (110) and Trinity (108) have seen success against Devils Lake (311)…. But they also have a history of exceptional programs, probably more exceptional than can be reasonably expected… plus the number is 349 not 311… so in my own mind, 125 seems reasonable. After all, those exception programs always have the option to opt up.

Final question, what is the lowest number reasonably fair to ask play 124? I think this number could go pretty low, so it almost changes into a question of what number is reasonably fair to play 11 man and what isn’t? I will suggest 70… I think if you have 70 boys you can find an 11 man team.

You can agree or disagree with the numbers, you can agree or disagree with the mind set. Just recognize that natural breaks had ZERO influence in the process.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Well done Steven, good one :)

I never did like the 3A, 2A, 1A naming of classes. Call them A, B, and C. No one should be offended by that.

Playin' = We're arguing over the definition of a word or words (natural break, in this case). What you are describing, to me, is a natural break. To you, it's not. It's semantics. It's silly.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:15 pm

"The result of the first question unveils the second question. What is the lowest number which is reasonably fair to play 349? My own speculation? Well in our recent history Watford (110) and Trinity (108) have seen success against Devils Lake (311)…. But they also have a history of exceptional programs, probably more exceptional than can be reasonably expected… plus the number is 349 not 311… so in my own mind, 125 seems reasonable. After all, those exception programs always have the option to opt up."

And here in lies the bias of Playin's viewpoint. It's okay for Williston, who has been competitive (in his words) with the top to stay at the top, with no mention of the fact that it might have taken an "exceptional program" to be competitive for that number.

But, when it comes to the same evidence for Watford City and Trinity competing with Devils Lake, the result is not the same. The line should be drawn to exclude them.

Everyone pay attention to this now: Playin would have us believe that Williston, a team that, when they are good, they will make the playoffs or even win a game there, should stay in the top division. But Watford City, a team that won a STATE TITLE in AA just last year, should be allowed to play down at A.

If that isn't the largest double-standard in the world, I honestly can't imagine what is.

With Playin, if you've got any size to your school, you get the shaft. If you're little, you get salvation......at a smaller class.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:44 am

Steven, a year ago you supported the current realignment, which put Williston in AAA and Watford City in A, even though they had just won the AA title. You have no point. Or, to be more accurate, you had to contradict yourself to make a point. We've all seen that before...

Perhaps Playin's number of 125 is off, but his reasoning has been consistent throughout.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:02 pm

I didn't contradict myself. I'm not saying I don't support Watford City playing down, or Williston playing up. What I am saying is that Playin directly contradicted himself in one post.

He says that Williston can play up with a competitive history, but Watford City gets to play down, with the same competitive history, or better.

I'm pointing out that Williston has been less competitive at AAA than Watford has been at AA. Yet, he chooses to accentuate Williston's success and downplay Watford to support his enrollment cutoffs. It's a perfect example of why groups are better than enrollment lines to separate the teams.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NorthDakota11 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:50 pm

Steve, I don't think anyone would argue with you that Watford City could play up and probably should be in AA right now... this arguement started because you wanted to move a completely viable AAA team down to AA... That is why Williston has been the focus of this discussion...

But you are right... if we keep Williston up I certainly think it should at least be considered that a team like Watford City would possibly be able to stay in AA also... in fact... if Trinity doesn't man up two years ago and opt up (which I think they should continue to do as I've said before) Watford City is still in AA... Watford benifited from this "Group Think" of yours... People think we need a 16 team AA... so when Trinity opted up... NDHSAA gave them a 16 team AA... why couldn't it have been 17 teams? because odd numbers are inconvient... right?
"Why did you go for two?"

"Because I couldn't go for three..." - Woody Hayes
NorthDakota11
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:26 am
Location: Williston, ND

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:09 pm

Okay, now you're twisting my words. I guess I have to type slower.

I d o n t h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h W a t f o r d C i t y p l a y i n g " A " .

Now that we have that cleared up.

I"m not arguing that Watford should be AA. Right now, as the classes are drawn, Watford is where they should be.

My problem is the inconsistency of the argument posed by Playin in regards to drawing the enrollment cutoffs. He says that Williston has shown they can compete at AAA, so they stay there. He says Watford has shown they can compete at AA, but they shouldn't be there.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he is going to argue that Williston's competitive history is enough to warrant drawing a line that includes them in AAA, then there is no justification in deliberatly drawing a line that moves Watford City into A instead of AA.

But right now, I'm just fine where Watford is, not because they belong there, but because the groups put them there for a reason. They fell in the next level, and they are exactly where they should be. If the classes changed and included them in AA, I'd say they were where they should be. If the classes changed and they said they should be 9-man, then they should be 9-man. But if you're going to consider competitive history in drawing enrollment cutoffs, and you saw Williston has demonstrated a belonging in AAA, then you have NO JUSTIFICATION in deliberatly drawing Watford out of AA.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby Bisonguy06 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:15 am

Fair point. Watford City has been more competitive in AA than Williston has been in AAA. They probably should not be drawn out of AA or excluded from AA, however you want to phrase it.

They were just a student or two away from having a AA enrollment the last time around, and who knows what'll happen with the numbers the next time. A little oil activity in their area might give them the enrollment bump they need to qualify as a AA school. The size of AAA will also help dictate where Watford City ends up.
Bisonguy06
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Steve, chill out for a second… you have a short memory.

First, I have always said that I am open to discussion about what the exact numbers should be. For once, you have a good point about not liking my 125 AA/A cutoff. Perhaps I should have been clearer about my reasons… my reason for choosing 125 was more mathematical than historical. Your historical points are valid. However, while you made good points I notice you didn’t offer an alternate (lower) AA/A cutoff, usually a key part in the discussion process which I am open to.

Oh, and the different justification between Williston being up and Watford City being down (historically speaking) has to do with surrounding teams. I believe Williston and every team above them can be competitive. Watford can be competitive, but there are teams above them like Grafton and Kindred who have never been competitive. When comparing histories, you can't be so quick to point out Watford's history but then completely ignore Kindred's. Those differences are exactly why I don't like comparing competitve histories. Whenever you do that, you are either going to punish someone just because they have a good program, or bail someone out just because they have a bad one. Neither is appropriate.

Second, if you forgot, when I originally introduced the enrollment cutoffs to this thread, I recommended 100 as that cutoff. I still see great justification in that, as you and I both pointed out, not only do Watford and Dickinson Trinity have good histories, but so do Rugby, Hazen, and Lisbon. There would perhaps be a few teams above the cutoff getting beat badly, but I think it would be fair to blame that on the program and not the numbers. I could be very happy with a cutoff slightly lower than 125.

Third, and most importantly , I made it very clear that I should not be the one to decide the numbers, that everything I said was speculation. You want to berate me for being bias Steve? Go right ahead. I do have some bias. I am a human being and I cannot prevent having some natural bias. You have some bias, Bisonguy06 has some bias, NorthDakota11 has some bias. Everyone who has or will ever write here has bias to some degree. The difference between you and I is that I try to quell my bias the best I can, and I think I do a pretty good job of it, but it still exists. The important thing is that the process is without bias. I have already said that neither you nor I nor any group in an office should decide the numbers. The coaches understand the competitive landscape better than anyone. A small group of coaches who evenly represent the different sized schools in the state should decide the numbers.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:39 pm

I think coaches should be a major part of deciding the system, period. And, I have yet to hear from a coach that endorses enrollment standards as classification in football.

I talk to many coaches who like groups.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:40 pm

When was the last time an enrollment cutoff plan was proposed to the football coaches of North Dakota?
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:03 pm

The point is that it hasn't even been a thought over the past several years. Meaning that people that know much more than you or I think so little of it that they won't even bring it up.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:12 am

Oh, so who proposes plans to the NDHSAA, the coaches who want a level field for their players or the athletic directs who want a comfy easy to fill schedule?

Here is all I know Steve. I know we have been doing "groups" forever, and since you appeared hear you have never been happy with the groups. One group didnt like any of the groupings that were in place, so we changed them and a whole different group didn't like the change. You got on here a year ago and lobbied for 12 teams like your life depended on it. You got it, and came back a year later came back demanding another change. Now you don't like any of the groupings that were on the NDHSAA survey.

I have no doubt that "people know more than I do." But maybe those people aren't considering enrollment cutoffs because no one has ever presented it to them properly... Even more likely, maybe they are focusing on the way it has always been done and not realizing that the old way isn't garunteed to be the best way. I don't know, Steve, but I do know that grouping, no matter what they are, don't seem to be making anybody happy.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby steve34 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:09 pm

I'm happy with the current grouping system.

That system includes:

Top 12--AAA
Next 16--AA
Next 32--A
Rest--9-man

I'm just fine with keeping these groups the way they are.
steve34
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Realignment talk: Here we go

Postby NDplayin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:30 pm

steve34 wrote:I'm happy with the current grouping system.

That system includes:

Top 12--AAA
Next 16--AA
Next 32--A
Rest--9-man

I'm just fine with keeping these groups the way they are.

Here we go again, Steve. I can’t believe you're still try to play these games. Reminder: You started this whole post by introducing the ten team class. This post above was your 80th post on this topic. These next two were among your first dozen on this topic in the context of a 12 team class
October 21, 2009
steve34 wrote:BisonGuy, please try to understand the issue. It's not a 12 team problem. The plan is to increase to 14, and that has problems. Even if you're going to keep the class at 12, you have to move someone down, as Davies enters the mix. So Williston goes down. And you still can't fill schedules with 12 teams. Half the season is non-conference games. It doesn't work with 12 period.

October 23, 2009
steve34 wrote:12 teams is done. Reason: Even if you fill the schedule nicely among the teams, half the schedule is non-conference games. Coaches did not like the big number of non-league games this year.

I could continue forever, but people get the point by now.

Steve, nobody knows what you favor. Whatever it is, you are clearly willing to abandon all consistency to get it. You don’t favor a 12 team class, you made that very clear. At least you didn’t favor it when not doing so supported your argument. Then all of a sudden you began to favor it because it backed up whatever it is you want. Then it was back to 12 doesn’t work. Now, suddenly, you are fine with 12 again.

It isn’t only about 12 teams. Steve, you were the first person to rebuke a poster for using competitive history to back up their viewpoint (I can quote you again if you like). About 20 posts later, after you got your butt kicked in the enrollment math, you were all about dishing mathematical theories and couldn’t quit talking about your “evidence on the field”, which is nothing more than a dime-phrase for competitive history.

I’m going to quote myself now, “You can’t continue to stand on one side of a fence when it supports your argument, and then jump to the other side of the exact same fence when it doesn’t support your argument.” Steve, for once man up and lay it on the line for us. Tell us where you really stand and why you really stand there.
NDplayin
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to AA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests