KISS football plan

[Bisonguy06]

KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid

If you want to make the football plan better, make it simpler. Here's the plan.

AAA = Grades 7-10 male enrollment 450+
AA = Grades 7-10 male enrollment 150-449
A = Grades 7-10 male enrollment 75-149
9 man = Grades 7-10 male enrollment under 75

You can opt up or you can opt out for an independent schedule.
No opting down; no enrollment multipliers.
Co-op as needed.

[Bisonguy06]

https://ndhsaa.com/athletics/football

Based on preliminary 2022 data, this plan would result in the following:

AAA (450+) = 14 teams, Balanced with 7 in the east and 7 in the west
Minot the largest (1104); Fargo South the smallest (532)

AA (150-449) = 10 teams, one statewide division. Possible opt-up from Shanley.
Jamestown the largest (413); Central Cass the smallest (158). Horace lands here at 169 and growing rapidly.

A (75-149) = 38 teams, Kindred being the largest, with potential to grow into AA.

9 man (under 75) = 42 teams; 6 currently play 6 man

[Bisonguy06]

The dream scenario is that no school is more than double the size of any of its opponents. We're real close.

AAA - Minot is 2.07x the size of South. Minot may split soon.
AA - Jamestown is 2.61x the size of Central Cass. Cass is growing. Jamestown could grow out of AA.
A - All ratios are under 2:1
9man - Virtually all ratios under 2:1. The very smallest schools are your best candidates for six man football.

Your school and any of its potential co-op partners will know their placement ahead of time. There would be no guessing game.

I'll invite anyone to poke holes in this plan as you see fit.

[BelfieldBantams]

But how are the fargo schools supposed to get back to the championship game??

[WalkingStick]

The dream scenario is that no school is more than double the size of any of its opponents. We're real close.

AAA - Minot is 2.07x the size of South. Minot may split soon.
AA - Jamestown is 2.61x the size of Central Cass. Cass is growing. Jamestown could grow out of AA.
A - All ratios are under 2:1
9man - Virtually all ratios under 2:1. The very smallest schools are your best candidates for six man football.

Your school and any of its potential co-op partners will know their placement ahead of time. There would be no guessing game.

I'll invite anyone to poke holes in this plan as you see fit.

If shanley opts up (we all know they will especially if Mattern is the coach)…then do you keep 8 E & 7 W or do you allow South down for balanced regions??

[Bisonguy06]

I’m proposing that we accept odd numbers of teams in divisions and regions across the board in this plan and pitch it to the AD’s to figure out scheduling.
South would stay in AAA.

[WalkingStick]

I’m proposing that we accept odd numbers of teams in divisions and regions across the board in this plan and pitch it to the AD’s to figure out scheduling.
South would stay in AAA.

Just wanted that to be clear on that since it wasn’t stated

[Bisonguy06]

It’s a good question, thanks.

By requiring an even number of teams, previous plans have had some true misfits land in the top divisions. Here it’s all enrollment based, with follow up needed on how to make some odd numbers work. (It can be done)

PS - St. Mary’s is a potential opt up. They beat Shanley, Mandan and Williston this year. Growing school, new building and athletic complex, ect. I’m not certain they’d make that move, but it’s possible.

[Bisonguy06]

The football threads will lose steam soon, and with it, this idea will likely go nowhere.
I'll continue to filibuster to flesh this out. Sorry, not sorry.

Why bother? Because a new approach is needed.

Football realignment has suffered from the perception, and perhaps the reality, that administrators are bringing their school colored pom poms into the process.

Put the pom poms aside, and set enrollment cutoffs that are undeniably fair and reasonable. With that, the "opt down" goes away, as it should.

If the elimination of the free and reduced lunch multiplier is a deal breaker for you, I'm fine with including it. The grouping of the top 14 schools in AAA and the next 10 in AA would not change.

Schools will grow, schools will shrink, schools will add and drop co-op partners, and the plan accommodates all of these things because the enrollment cutoffs were fair to begin with.

[Sportsrube]

It’s a good question, thanks.

By requiring an even number of teams, previous plans have had some true misfits land in the top divisions. Here it’s all enrollment based, with follow up needed on how to make some odd numbers work. (It can be done)

PS - St. Mary’s is a potential opt up. They beat Shanley, Mandan and Williston this year. Growing school, new building and athletic complex, ect. I’m not certain they’d make that move, but it’s possible.

I don't think St. Mary's will ever opt up. They enjoy the easier schedule with a legit shot at being in the championship game every year.

[Bisonguy06]

Certainly can’t bank on them opting up, or anyone else.

[classB4ever]

Bisonguy06 wrote on a similar thread:

It sounds like you’re in favor of some sort of rural/suburban/urban multiplier.

If Johnny moves from out of state to Harvey, he’s valued at 0.8 for male enrollment.
If Johnny moves to Kindred, he’s valued at 1.0.
If Johnny moves to Minot, he’s valued at 1.2.

Same kid. 6’0, 190 RB/LB. Three different enrollment values, depending on where he lands.

Sorry, I just don’t like it, and prefer saying that “a boy is a boy” for football classification.

If the elimination of the free and reduced lunch multiplier is a deal breaker for you, I'm fine with including it. The grouping of the top 14 schools in AAA and the next 10 in AA would not change.

Schools will grow, schools will shrink, schools will add and drop co-op partners, and the plan accommodates all of these things because the enrollment cutoffs were fair to begin with.

My point is this: You can’t have it both ways according to your thought process. Johny will start in Harvey. He might get to play in Kindred. He might quit sports in Minot. This is the proverbial hill. Either get rid of multipliers all together (free and reduced) or do it across the board. Then we can talk about a KISS plan. No more excuses.

[classB4ever]

Bisonguy06 wrote:

“Here’s why I say “a boy is a boy” for the purposes of enrollment.

I could think of about 25 reasons why “Johnny“ might have a particular hardship.

Currently we adjust for one of them, socioeconomic status, and none of the others.

I think it’s impossible to adjust for all the hardships.

I think we are better off telling Johnny that we can coach him up to be on par with any of his peers from anywhere in the state, even if there are some realities that might be hard to overcome.”

Either you believe in this statement or not.

[Bisonguy06]

I could understand if that all sounds wishy washy. So let's be clear. In a fantasy world where I would get everything that I want, I believe in a football plan with no enrollment multipliers.

[Bisonguy06]

Now let's talk about the real world, where people have to come together and compromise. Let's also lighten the mood a bit, and compare football plans to pizza toppings.

I love pizza. I'm OK with many different combinations of pizza toppings.
But if you put anchovies on my pizza, I'm out, no matter how much I might like the other toppings.

In North Dakota football, the "opt down" is the pizza topping that I can't stomach. If the overall structure of the plan (the crust of this pizza) is solid, then the "opt down" shouldn't exist. Somehow, we're allowing schools in the largest metro areas of our state, with over 500 boys, to opt down and out of the top division. That teaches all the wrong lessons.

I'm out on any plan that has fewer than the largest 14 schools in AAA football.
I'm out on any plan that has "opt down" built in.
Get those anchovies off my pizza.

In a fantasy world where I would get to pitch this plan to the decision makers, I think it would be a tough sell to get rid of the socioeconomic status multiplier. People like that topping. I'd personally compare it to pineapple, a topping that I'd rather leave off, but it doesn't ruin the pizza.

[Sportsrube]

Now let's talk about the real world, where people have to come together and compromise. Let's also lighten the mood a bit, and compare football plans to pizza toppings.

I love pizza. I'm OK with many different combinations of pizza toppings.
But if you put anchovies on my pizza, I'm out, no matter how much I might like the other toppings.

In North Dakota football, the "opt down" is the pizza topping that I can't stomach. If the overall structure of the plan (the crust of this pizza) is solid, then the "opt down" shouldn't exist. Somehow, we're allowing schools in the largest metro areas of our state, with over 500 boys, to opt down and out of the top division. That teaches all the wrong lessons.

I'm out on any plan that has fewer than the largest 14 schools in AAA football.
I'm out on any plan that has "opt down" built in.
Get those anchovies off my pizza.

In a fantasy world where I would get to pitch this plan to the decision makers, I think it would be a tough sell to get rid of the socioeconomic status multiplier. People like that topping. I'd personally compare it to pineapple, a topping that I'd rather leave off, but it doesn't ruin the pizza.

I agree 100% that opting down should never be an option.
If the socioeconomic factor is used for football, why not for other sports?

[WalkingStick]

Now let's talk about the real world, where people have to come together and compromise. Let's also lighten the mood a bit, and compare football plans to pizza toppings.

I love pizza. I'm OK with many different combinations of pizza toppings.
But if you put anchovies on my pizza, I'm out, no matter how much I might like the other toppings.

In North Dakota football, the "opt down" is the pizza topping that I can't stomach. If the overall structure of the plan (the crust of this pizza) is solid, then the "opt down" shouldn't exist. Somehow, we're allowing schools in the largest metro areas of our state, with over 500 boys, to opt down and out of the top division. That teaches all the wrong lessons.

I'm out on any plan that has fewer than the largest 14 schools in AAA football.
I'm out on any plan that has "opt down" built in.
Get those anchovies off my pizza.

In a fantasy world where I would get to pitch this plan to the decision makers, I think it would be a tough sell to get rid of the socioeconomic status multiplier. People like that topping. I'd personally compare it to pineapple, a topping that I'd rather leave off, but it doesn't ruin the pizza.

I agree 100% that opting down should never be an option.
If the socioeconomic factor is used for football, why not for other sports?

Because there are only two classes for the other sports and they are split between A & B already; no where to go for other schools. I wonder if that is the 'missing factor' in a 3 class system proposal?!?! Worth considering on why 3-class proposals have failed.

[classB4ever]

Now let's talk about the real world, where people have to come together and compromise. Let's also lighten the mood a bit, and compare football plans to pizza toppings.

I love pizza. I'm OK with many different combinations of pizza toppings.
But if you put anchovies on my pizza, I'm out, no matter how much I might like the other toppings.

In North Dakota football, the "opt down" is the pizza topping that I can't stomach. If the overall structure of the plan (the crust of this pizza) is solid, then the "opt down" shouldn't exist. Somehow, we're allowing schools in the largest metro areas of our state, with over 500 boys, to opt down and out of the top division. That teaches all the wrong lessons.

I'm out on any plan that has fewer than the largest 14 schools in AAA football.
I'm out on any plan that has "opt down" built in.
Get those anchovies off my pizza.

In a fantasy world where I would get to pitch this plan to the decision makers, I think it would be a tough sell to get rid of the socioeconomic status multiplier. People like that topping. I'd personally compare it to pineapple, a topping that I'd rather leave off, but it doesn't ruin the pizza.

You have a gift. It's a great analogy and does bring credence to your plan. As you know, I have fought for 3 classes in basketball for quite sometime. It's hard for me to understand why football and not basketball. However, you have a qualifier that states this is for football. With that, I could get on board with your KISS plan. FWIW, your cutoffs align with mine for 3 classes in basketball using total enrollment and there is a lot of proof why they are solid numbers, but that's for another time. Good luck.

[The Schwab]

I like the pizza analogy. I feel that if we are going to have a socioeconomic multiplier for what are considered negative factors we need to have one for the positive factors. I stated this in my plan but I'll add it here as well.

Set the mean free and reduced percentage across the state (I don't know what that number will be). Give a plus or minus 5% (or whatever deviation you want) of that number. Those schools would have their number multiplied by 1 (no change). If your schools free and reduced percentage is greater than that top cut off number your enrollment will be multiplied by .7, if it's less than the lower cut off you multiply it by 1.3.

[Flying Wallenda]

I like the pizza analogy. I feel that if we are going to have a socioeconomic multiplier for what are considered negative factors we need to have one for the positive factors. I stated this in my plan but I'll add it here as well.

Set the mean free and reduced percentage across the state (I don't know what that number will be). Give a plus or minus 5% (or whatever deviation you want) of that number. Those schools would have their number multiplied by 1 (no change). If your schools free and reduced percentage is greater than that top cut off number your enrollment will be multiplied by .7, if it's less than the lower cut off you multiply it by 1.3.

That's not a bad idea. I'd love to see how the divisions fall using this formula.