North Dakota Preps

In the plan that I drafted with the enrollment triggers, every school in a co-op situation could evaluate the combined numbers and know ahead of time exactly where they would land.

This allows for adding or subtracting co-op partners toward whatever you perceive your advantage to be.

I’d expect Linton HMB to shed SZ and land in nine man if the numbers allow it.

What about SZ?
Someone else may pick them up, or they could play independent six man, or they could be on an island and without a program. I acknowledge all these possibilities. I don’t like them. I could be persuaded to allow them to co-op with their closest neighbor with no penalty (ie not forced upward to the next division).

LaMoure-Litchville/Marion
74-0
76-0
54-0
74-0
59-0
42-12
50-0
34-0

SO the is 463 to 12...

I will take LLM

maddog1971 wrote:LaMoure-Litchville/Marion
74-0 vs. Larimore (2-6)
76-0 vs. Griggs-Midkota (0-8)
54-0 vs. FSHP (5-3)*
74-0 vs. Tri-State (0-8)
59-0 vs. Richland (1-7)
42-12 vs. Wyndmere-Lidgerwood (6-2)*
50-0 vs. Hankinson (4-4)
34-0 vs. Enderlin/Maple Valley (4-4)*

SO the is 463 to 12...

I will take LLM

* = Playoff Team
Combined Opponent Win Total: 22-42
Two closest games vs. Region Playoff Opponents and W-L game was a different story once Arth was injured
NO ranked opponents

They weren't exactly challenged during the season...so what may happen when they run into a ranked opponent in the postseason? We don't know right now...but the 'other' numbers suggest a very weak schedule (exactly why the QRF has them so low).

Do not get me wrong...L-LM is a SOLID team but the point differential doesn't just win you future games.

Who plays football at those schools that are from Casselton?

maddog1971 wrote:Also there are kids that live in Casselton that also drive into Shanley and Oak Grove.

I am pretty sure they got all the top talent out of Fargo South this year. That is why they are good. I heard they are running a bussing program.

magic man wrote:Who plays football at those schools that are from Casselton?

maddog1971 wrote:Also there are kids that live in Casselton that also drive into Shanley and Oak Grove.

No one...I don't even think there are any Casselton kids at one of those.

This has just become an 'attack' on schools without merit because they 'work hard' and have success; let's stop trying to spread rumors and lies and maybe actually make civil comments about the 2022 Plan

WalkingStick wrote:

magic man wrote:Who plays football at those schools that are from Casselton?

maddog1971 wrote:Also there are kids that live in Casselton that also drive into Shanley and Oak Grove.

No one...I don't even think there are any Casselton kids at one of those.

This has just become an 'attack' on schools without merit because they 'work hard' and have success; let's stop trying to spread rumors and lies and maybe actually make civil comments about the 2022 Plan

Exactly..

The Schwab wrote:I do think that there needs to be more taken into account than just enrollment.
I do feel that there should be more teams moving up a class based on success then teams being moved down based on a lack of success.

I don't think there will ever be a perfect system

I disagree with your first comment, agree with your second comment.

Move teams up or down based on success? So a team that has a winning coach and a winning culture should be penalized? I'm not for that. Moving teams down because they can't compete? So we're gonna put those teams on "welfare" ? I'm not for that.

Sports are a competition, Not a "make everything fair and equal and warm and fuzzy and filled with unicorns and bubbles an cotton candy scent"

We can agree to disagree.

Make the system as fair as possible. Opt in, opt up, or opt out and play an independent schedule.

There should be no opting down.

The perfect plan would be that every school who has a smaller enrollment beats every team that has a bigger enrollment. Or... every team that plays HCV, Central Cass, Thompson, Grafton or Kindred.... gets to destroy them.... that would be the perfect system for the people on this board.

I'm fine with not moving teams up based on success as long teams can't opt down. I would be all in favor of that.

Let me know when you're done having a temper tantrum maddog and we can have a civilized conversation. Otherwise maybe you should just take your ball and go home.

My opinion is that Kindred, Cass, HCV, and probably Beulah don't belong in Class B football. They should all be in Class A football. When you are putting 11 guys out there, it is very difficult for a program as successful as Linton to go up against the depth of Kindred and Cass in their region. Plus I think those four schools all make the playoffs or have a really good shot of making it if they are in Class A football.

BelfieldBantams wrote:My opinion is that Kindred, Cass, HCV, and probably Beulah don't belong in Class B football. They should all be in Class A football. When you are putting 11 guys out there, it is very difficult for a program as successful as Linton to go up against the depth of Kindred and Cass in their region. Plus I think those four schools all make the playoffs or have a really good shot of making it if they are in Class A football.

Cass is on the bleeding edge just because of numbers but the others are fine, otherwise you get to move up newtown, grafton, lisbon, stanley? all are in the 100-120 range. Numbers cut off at 145, I think was mentioned earlier? is a good spot

I proposed 150. Central Cass would land just above that line, with Kindred the next most likely to grow above 150 males grades 7-10.

I hope the group is seeing the wisdom of setting enrollment triggers versus simply naming teams that we’d rather not play against.

Bisonguy06 wrote:I proposed 150. Central Cass would land just above that line, with Kindred the next most likely to grow above 150 males grades 7-10.

I hope the group is seeing the wisdom of setting enrollment triggers versus simply naming teams that we’d rather not play against.

As much as I appreciate your “wisdom”, it still doesn’t address the elephant in the room. Tippy toe, be politically correct, whatever. Be honest and address the real problems. Main point: Increase participation. Certain schools have ability to adjust enrollment no matter where the trigger points are. End that and I can agree with your proposal.

No “honesty” problem here.

If you have evidence, now or in the future, of schools manipulating enrollment count to move down a football division, I would fight that battle together with you.

I do not have such evidence.

As far as participation goes, I also have nothing to say about how to get a larger percentage of kids out for football at your school or my school. I see that as a local issue.

That being said, there is one form of enrollment manipulation that I would totally support in my plan.

Schools could add or dissolve co-ops at will to try and gain an advantage. Some of this already happens.
I would expect it to increase, because they’d know with certainty which division they would occupy.

Two schools co-op and grow to be a small 11 man team? Split into two teams playing at the 9 man or 6 man level.

One school lands firmly as a small 11 man team? Look to add a small neighbor to add their talent to your roster.

I think the end result would be more co-ops splitting, more teams formed, the sanctioning of 6 man football, and more North Dakota football participants on the field.

I think my plan increases participation and addresses your elephant in the room just fine.

I like it the way it is. I think it has been organized to be the most competitive it can be. BUT don't worry... if you dont' like it... It will change in a year. Basically if Central Cass, Beulah, HCV or Kindred win the title this year.... All four of those teams will move up to get beat up by St. Marys.

maddog1971 wrote:I like it the way it is. I think it has been organized to be the most competitive it can be. BUT don't worry... if you dont' like it... It will change in a year. Basically if Central Cass, Beulah, HCV or Kindred win the title this year.... All four of those teams will move up to get beat up by St. Marys.

St Mary's has 86 male students. LOCCSE has 92 male students. I don't know how many of those students participate in sports, even if they get equal participation from both schools (which I doubt they do) that gives them 178 total students. Central Cass has 152, Kindred has 123, Beulah has 117, HCV has 112. I don't think it's outrageous that those schools would be in a football division together.

I would say it would be less outrageous than having a school with 152 boys in the same division as a school with 73 boys.

A group wanted it to be Class A & Class B split apart like it is in everything else; going to guess that came from the WDA side of state as they don’t like allowing their varsities to play B schools in sports…You are starting to see more of that from the east side in VB & GBB…heck some of the A schools have traveled even in those scenarios.

I don’t think the plan is too far off if they don’t want A&B together…and it’s okay to give it some time (more than a year) to see if this will work. No system is perfect right away!

I have lost brain cells reading this thread. I've also laughed a ton.

EARN IT.

The Schwab wrote:

maddog1971 wrote:I like it the way it is. I think it has been organized to be the most competitive it can be. BUT don't worry... if you dont' like it... It will change in a year. Basically if Central Cass, Beulah, HCV or Kindred win the title this year.... All four of those teams will move up to get beat up by St. Marys.

St Mary's has 86 male students. LOCCSE has 92 male students. I don't know how many of those students participate in sports, even if they get equal participation from both schools (which I doubt they do) that gives them 178 total students. Central Cass has 152, Kindred has 123, Beulah has 117, HCV has 112. I don't think it's outrageous that those schools would be in a football division together.
Des Lacs-Burlington 121
Newton 152
Stanley 114
Grafton 118
lisbon 105
Velva Garrision 132
EEKM 123

I would say it would be less outrageous than having a school with 152 boys in the same division as a school with 73 boys.

WOW.. St. Mary's get's lots of boys out for their program. They have over 60 plus kids on the football program and 44 of them are juniors and seniors. Almost everyone must go to St. Marys for football.

They should move down to 9 man.

Also boys with 73 is the bottom and the 152 is the top.

Yes let's move up CC, Kindred, HCV, Beulah... because it is only fair they ave about 126 kids. The enrollments they would have to compete against. 637,612,540,502,304,239,625,414,310,178,308

Yep you got me again. the plan they have now is horrible. It is more competitive for the schools with 126 kids to compete against 637 kids. Makes sense to me.

I found my ball by the way.

Fargo, GF, Dickinson etc... public schools should not be in a class other than the top class. So in your numbers if you take off schools above 300 I think you'd have a pretty good class if we add the schools who are over 100 male students.

The Schwab wrote:Fargo, GF, Dickinson etc... public schools should not be in a class other than the top class. So in your numbers if you take off schools above 300 I think you'd have a pretty good class if we add the schools who are over 100 male students.

That plan would move VC/Wahp/Horace (for now) and St. Mary down a division.

Oak Grove/Northern Cass/Oakes/MNS/Thompson/Rugby/Harvey Fessenden-Bowden/Langdon/Ray Powers lake/Minot Ryan/Kenmare/Nedrose/Shiloh/Belfield/Killdeer/Hazen/Dickinson Trinity/Bowman County would move down to 9 man.

I see this as having a minimal impact on 11B (besides St. Mary's of course), and having a huge impact on 9 man - making it much tougher for the smaller schools.

Sorry for the confusion, my numbers were based on the current four class system. Making 11AA and 11A larger.