The Schwab wrote:Quite the interesting plan to say the least. I agree with most of Ryan's points. Interesting to see Dickinson Trinity moving down to 9 man, considering they were in the AA state playoffs in 2016.
edit* I realize that New England was with Dickinson Trinity in 2016
magic man wrote:I expect to see some co-op's go away, namely central Dakota, pushing kindred back into 2A.
The Schwab wrote:Quite the interesting plan to say the least. I agree with most of Ryan's points. Interesting to see Dickinson Trinity moving down to 9 man, considering they were in the AA state playoffs in 2016.
edit* I realize that New England was with Dickinson Trinity in 2016
heimer wrote:After writing my blog, I sat down and tried to take all of the information shared with me over the years, and also my personal observations, and put it into one formula for classification of football.
Some of the things I've heard over the years, and you have probably heard these things as well:
1) The disparity of 1000 and 500 is harder to overcome than 500 to 250, and 250 to 125, and so on. Some have proposed a 2 to 1 rule and let the numbers fall where they may.
2) Enrollment is not the only variable that should be accounted for.
A) Population centers with more tax revenue and resources can attract participation and produce athetes
B) co-ops can have poorer participation than one-center schools
3) Private schools get blue-chippers at a better rate.
I tried to account for everything, from enrollment to population to participation, and put together the best route of classification based on the numbers. I took some numbers from past plans, current plans, theories, all of it. Here's what I came up with:
2021-23 Football Classification Plan
1. The plan will be a three-year term.
2. The plan will utilize a top-down approach to classification, favoring like-schools in a division over number of teams in a division, to produce the best overall games and best overall post-season tournaments.
3. The largest remaining school will set the baseline for that classification of competition.
4. For schools with no defined district, their adjusted male enrollment in grades 7-10 will use a multiplier of 1.4 to determine classification.
5. For the largest two classifications, all schools with a grades 7-10 male enrollment that is equal to, or higher than, 60% of the grades 7-10 male enrollment of the classification’s largest school will compete in that classification. (I took 60% from the old "free and reduced meals" plan, where if more than 60% of your enrollment was on free and reduced meals, your enrollment counted for 60%)
6. In addition, schools with a total enrollment equal to, or above, the current Class A enrollment cutoff in the NDHSAA constitution, in cities with a population equal to, or greater than, the average population of the cities that are represented in (4) shall compete in the classification identified in (4) above.
7. For the remaining divisions, the largest remaining school will continue to establish the baseline, and the enrollment spread will expand to 50% of the baseline for classification.
8. Pertaining to (7), schools in cities with a population equal to, or greater than, the average population of the cities represented in (7) and having a total enrollment of 50% of the current Class A enrollment number in the current NDHSAA constitution will participate in the class defined by 7 (this affected no one, would be a factor if Shiloh grows)
9. Low participation waiver: All schools will report their pre-cut, opening day participation to the NDHSAA office at the end of the opening day of practice in year one of the plan. Schools with pre-cut, opening day participation less than 60% of the average participation reported by the remaining schools in the class may request a waiver to be reduced one classification for the remaining years of the plan with the NDHSAA Board of Directors. At the end of the plan, schools granted the waiver will again be placed in the classification their enrollment would qualify them for. Schools may not be reduced more than one level of competition by way of waiver.
10. Scheduling:. Teams will be allowed to play 10 contests. Divisions of 10-12 teams will play a statewide schedule. In a 12-team division, with 10 games annually and 11 opponents, you'd not schedule one opponent each year. Less than that, it works out. I'm assuming that the divisions would use this to negate travel. In divisions with less than 10 teams, teams may play each other twice on a statewide basis (home and home scheduling.
Obviously, I have no idea the number of teams that would take the waiver. Without that information, here's how the numbers broke out:
4A: (897.87 to 538.72) Minot, West Fargo, Sheyenne, Legacy, Century, Davies (on enrollment), South, North, Bismarck, Shanley, St. Marys (population). 11 teams, statewide schedule with rotator, 6 team playoff.
3A: (524.56 to 314.74) Williston, Central, Mandan, Dickinson, Red River, Jamestown (on enrollment) 6 teams, statewide schedule, home and home, 4 team playoff.
2A: (210.7 to 105.35) Devils Lake, Watford City, Wahpeton, Turtle Mountain, Valley City, Central Cass, Grafton, Beulah, New Town, H-CV (enrollment), Oak Grove (enrollment with multiplier). 11 teams, statewide schedule
9AA: (103.44 to 51.72) Kindred, Stanley, E-E-K, Hazen, Lisbon, Garrison-Max, Heart River, Washburn-Wilton-Wing, Des Lacs-Burlington, Rugby, PRFLVE, Carrington, Langdon Area, Northern Cass, Killdeer, Thompson, Nedrose, Sargent County, H-N, Oakes, Velva, Larimore, Bottineau, New Salem/Glen Ullin, Wells County, Shiloh, Richardton-Taylor-Hebron, Four Winds, Westhope-Newberg-Glenburn, Trinity, South Prairie, Minot Ryan, Bowman County, Kenmare-Bowbells-Burke Central, Tioga, Underwood-Turtle Lake-Mercer-McClusky, Ray-Powers Lake, May-Port-C-G, Mott-Regent/New England, Surrey, Enderlin-Maple Valley, Lakota-Dakota Prairie, Trenton-Trinity Christian, Dunseith, Wyndmere-Lidgerwood, Berthold-Our Redeemers, Linton-HMB. 48 teams, six regions of 8, 24 team playoff.
9A: The rest. 25 teams at present. Would likely pick up a couple from 6-man or new co-ops. Four regions, 16 team playoff.
Now, I know the 9AA division wouldn't stay in it's present form. You'd likely see some co-ops dissolve to take advantage of the new cutoffs. Isn't that the point. A six team 3A may pi$$ you off. Why? Those teams would play quality games against each other all year, with parity, as would the top division and likely the third division.
This plan does one thing: It needs a fifth state championship game. That's the only change. Play the 4A game by itself on Saturday, play the rest on Friday. The TV crews will find a way to squeeze in a Saturday game at noon, or 3, or 11 AM, or 10:30, or whatever.
heimer wrote:Must be a Grover, as they are the only team that fits your description, and the only team affected by the multiplier, and in the largest city in North Dakota.
Ill let the non-defined district in a city of 120,000 speak for itself. Kindreds enrollment fell where it fell. Even with the current plan, the only thing that moved them to AA was the dissolution of Central Dakota. They were 1A before that.
heimer wrote:The difference is that I want, and authored, a system that does some crucial things:
1) Used more than just base enrollment as a factor. We know enrollment in a multi-school co-op does not equal the same participation as the same enrollment in one city, one point of practice, etc. We need a formula that accounts for that.
heimer wrote:I know a six-team class not cool. But it's what the numbers suggest works. Further, I think the top class in SD is 7 teams. Why, because SD thinks classes that look the same work the same.
Also, who does it affect? No one. They are only playing each other. The plan doesn't make them play anyone else. It's one extra game.
Finally, check the waiver system. Does a Fargo North request a waiver? I bet they'd get one. Would Devils Lake opt up into that class? This system allows for movement to fit.
heimer wrote:
1) The disparity of 1000 and 500 is harder to overcome than 500 to 250, and 250 to 125, and so on. Some have proposed a 2 to 1 rule and let the numbers fall where they may.
heimer wrote:
2) Enrollment is not the only variable that should be accounted for.
A) Population centers with more tax revenue and resources can attract participation and produce athetes
B) co-ops can have poorer participation than one-center schools
3) Private schools get blue-chippers at a better rate.
classB4ever wrote:
Agree with all of this. My only input to this subject is your plan will increase participation, period. That's what needs to get started. Once these kids start coming out and are playing in meaningful games and start producing winning programs, the movement amongst divisions will naturally happen again. It might take 5 - 6 years to accomplish, but it will happen. 2 cents.
heimer wrote:classB4ever wrote:
Agree with all of this. My only input to this subject is your plan will increase participation, period. That's what needs to get started. Once these kids start coming out and are playing in meaningful games and start producing winning programs, the movement amongst divisions will naturally happen again. It might take 5 - 6 years to accomplish, but it will happen. 2 cents.
In order to have meaningful games, you have to fix classification, and perhaps more aggressively than you'd like.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests