North Dakota Preps

Shilo will certainly become a historically strong team once they been around longer. It's not likely they will ever be in the bottom 3 in the region and will likely finish in the top 4 year after year. So in time they will make historic level.

Bigbrew22 wrote:Shilo will certainly become a historically strong team once they been around longer. It's not likely they will ever be in the bottom 3 in the region and will likely finish in the top 4 year after year. So in time they will make historic level.

I don't disagree that Shiloh will have a very competitive program for years to come. Especially with the feeder system that the YFL and BMFL provide. This is a huge advantage over remote Class B schools.

Shiloh will move up to 'A' very soon and maybe after next year. So there will be some growing pains with that transition. Also that will remove them from being considered in this 9-man post. The past few years have been historical but over the long term 12 years in 9 man, with 6 winning seasons won't cut it as a historically great program in the 9-man division. IMO historical programs are built over many years not just a few.

NoDakinSouth wrote:Private schools do well because their parents put a premium on their child's performance in schools, paying for tuition and camps. Many of the "normal" Class B schools have a majority of parents that aren't involved in their child's education or extracurricular activities. Private schools have parents that are very involved by definition.

With the rules and penalties against recruiting, it doesn't enter into the equation except at a young age and doesn't generally effect elite athletes.

As a parent in a "normal" Class B school who is very involved in their kid's activities I find this offensive. This is why people don't like Private schools, because of arrogant statements like this.

sportsphenom wrote:

NoDakinSouth wrote:Private schools do well because their parents put a premium on their child's performance in schools, paying for tuition and camps. Many of the "normal" Class B schools have a majority of parents that aren't involved in their child's education or extracurricular activities. Private schools have parents that are very involved by definition.

With the rules and penalties against recruiting, it doesn't enter into the equation except at a young age and doesn't generally effect elite athletes.

As a parent in a "normal" Class B school who is very involved in their kid's activities I find this offensive. This is why people don't like Private schools, because of arrogant statements like this.

If you are stating that $$ is more involved in the child's education & athletic training then yes...you are correct...Parents in private schools 'tend' to have more involvement that way. But to just say that public school parents aren't involved in their child's education and athletic involvement is just plain stupid. Doesn't matter the school, private or public, parents are involved (sometimes too much...but that's a different subject entirely)...but parents are involved. I'm sure there are some examples that fit your statement, NoDakinSouth, but for the most part your statement is 'swiss cheese'

d_fense wrote:

classB4ever wrote:

NoDakinSouth wrote:Private schools do well because their parents put a premium on their child's performance in schools, paying for tuition and camps. Many of the "normal" Class B schools have a majority of parents that aren't involved in their child's education or extracurricular activities. Private schools have parents that are very involved by definition.

With the rules and penalties against recruiting, it doesn't enter into the equation except at a young age and doesn't generally effect elite athletes.

Referring to the above bold statement: Could you supply where you got that information from? Thank you.

Really??? To me that is like asking someone to site their source when they say "Traffic sure picks up at the start of a long weekend heading towards the lakes."

I think it is common sense. Ask someone who is in public education (a teacher) how often parents contact them with comments, questions, and or concerns regarding their students education. And as the students get older (after elementary school) is gets less and less quickly. What percent of high school parents speak to each of their children's teachers outside of parent teacher conferences even quarterly? Would it surprise you if only around 1/2 of parents attend their high school students parent teachers conferences. And I believe most schools only hold them twice a school year.

Your bolding went beyond the classroom and included extra curricular activities as well.

Oh, my. Run pretty much summed up my feelings above and was spot on. I don't think the statement was common sense at all and quite frankly was a negative blanket statement towards a lot of parents. If it is true, then our rural ND society has failed miserably.
Also, your analogy is not even close. Let me give you one and show you why things like the above statement shouldn't be said:

Fact: I knew an athlete who was recruited by a private/parochial school once upon a time.
Conclusion: The majority of private/parochial schools recruit all the time.

It's a stupid conclusion and shouldn't be stated. I apologize for getting off topic.

Cavalier has been a dominant force in both 11-man and 9-man. Great tradition, great program. Their community, facilities, etc. show their passion for the game.

classB4ever wrote:

d_fense wrote:

classB4ever wrote:

NoDakinSouth wrote:Private schools do well because their parents put a premium on their child's performance in schools, paying for tuition and camps. Many of the "normal" Class B schools have a majority of parents that aren't involved in their child's education or extracurricular activities. Private schools have parents that are very involved by definition.

With the rules and penalties against recruiting, it doesn't enter into the equation except at a young age and doesn't generally effect elite athletes.

Referring to the above bold statement: Could you supply where you got that information from? Thank you.

Really??? To me that is like asking someone to site their source when they say "Traffic sure picks up at the start of a long weekend heading towards the lakes."

I think it is common sense. Ask someone who is in public education (a teacher) how often parents contact them with comments, questions, and or concerns regarding their students education. And as the students get older (after elementary school) is gets less and less quickly. What percent of high school parents speak to each of their children's teachers outside of parent teacher conferences even quarterly? Would it surprise you if only around 1/2 of parents attend their high school students parent teachers conferences. And I believe most schools only hold them twice a school year.

Your bolding went beyond the classroom and included extra curricular activities as well.

Oh, my. Run pretty much summed up my feelings above and was spot on. I don't think the statement was common sense at all and quite frankly was a negative blanket statement towards a lot of parents. If it is true, then our rural ND society has failed miserably.
Also, your analogy is not even close. Let me give you one and show you why things like the above statement shouldn't be said:

Fact: I knew an athlete who was recruited by a private/parochial school once upon a time.
Conclusion: The majority of private/parochial schools recruit all the time.

It's a stupid conclusion and shouldn't be stated. I apologize for getting off topic.

Cavalier has been a dominant force in both 11-man and 9-man. Great tradition, great program. Their community, facilities, etc. show their passion for the game.

ClassB4ever, regarding the bolded statement you referenced, I think it is common sense. He stated "a majority", that is over half. Now if you are going to say that if a parent asks their child a few days a week or even daily how school was makes them "involved" in their education, well that is a point we will just always differ on. If you think that by a parent attending a game, that makes them "involved", I'd be more tempted to agree, but are they really engaged. You cut off a good chunk of my post regarding how engaged are parents in extra curricular activates. Take my volleyball example. What % of volleyball parents would say they are involved in their daughters volleyball? What % of those parents hit a ball around with them? So a parent that goes to games in involved.. A parent that goes to games and drives their daughter to open gyms and camps is more involved.. A parent that goes to games, promotes open gym opportunities, camps and actively practices with them is engaged? We are talking about things that are not easily quantifiable because they are just not black and white and fall into so many different degrees.

Your using the word "analogy" doesn't fit with your "Fact" and "Conclusion" statements. An analogy compares things. I did compare things. I compared, when a decent level (I understand "a decent level" is subjective) of standards are applied, how a majority of parents are not actively involved in their students education. Can you qualify it with numbers? Maybe there is a study out there somewhere, but I'm not sure. Same can be said for my analogy. "Traffic sure picks up at the start of a long weekend heading towards the lakes." Is there a study out there that shows this. Probably, but I don't know where and frankly don't care. But my experience tells me that if I'm going to leave the twin city's on a Friday before a long weekend, I might get stuck in some traffic.

The portion right after you stopped bolding that he wrote, "Private schools have parents that are very involved by definition", I think is bologna as well. Private schools don't have a "majority" of parents actively engaged either. On a percentage basis, I think there are more, but still well less than a majority.

Will keep this short to let this get back on topic. I took the original comment as derogatory. It painted a broad picture without any "quantifiable" numbers to back it up, which was the reason for my original question. To answer your question about participation by parents, I can only speak for our local community and can tell you that the majority of parents in our system are very involved with their kids academically as well as with extra curricular activities. That's the end of my input on this subject. You can have the last word.

New Rockford-Sheyenne and LaMoure/Litchville-Marion are two more that come to mind for putting quality teams on the field year in and year out.

What makes no sense to me I mean how fare is that having a 9 man team in Bismarck. For example Bismarck High, Bismarck Century, Bismarck Leagcy (class AAA) Bismarck St. Mary's (class AA) and Bismarck Shiloh Christian (9 man). I don't think so Shiloh has enough kids where they should be bumped up to 11 man. Hey they have more kids then where I'm from the Underwood-Turtle Lake-Mercer-McClusky area combined. And they bumped us up to 11 man. I mean aren't they one of the biggest schools in the western part of the state. I think any 9 man team located in Bismarck and Fargo should not be 9 man. I mean look at Fargo Oak Grove they were 9 man a few years ago and now they just went back 11 man. But i'm not referring to Minot or Williston at all because Minot Ryan is Class A and Tioga and Ray are 9 man. Smaller towns like Underwood, Washburn, Crosby, Napoleon, Linton, Strasburg just to name a few should stay 9 man. I can see Linton jumping to 11 man cause their a bit bigger than Washburn and Underwood. I know some of these smaller towns have enough enrollment to jump to 11 man. All I'm saying any school in a large community like Bismarck should be 11 man.

AEEMO and Central Valley

Sorenson23 wrote:What makes no sense to me I mean how fare is that having a 9 man team in Bismarck. For example Bismarck High, Bismarck Century, Bismarck Leagcy (class AAA) Bismarck St. Mary's (class AA) and Bismarck Shiloh Christian (9 man). I don't think so Shiloh has enough kids where they should be bumped up to 11 man. Hey they have more kids then where I'm from the Underwood-Turtle Lake-Mercer-McClusky area combined. And they bumped us up to 11 man. I mean aren't they one of the biggest schools in the western part of the state. I think any 9 man team located in Bismarck and Fargo should not be 9 man. I mean look at Fargo Oak Grove they were 9 man a few years ago and now they just went back 11 man. But i'm not referring to Minot or Williston at all because Minot Ryan is Class A and Tioga and Ray are 9 man. Smaller towns like Underwood, Washburn, Crosby, Napoleon, Linton, Strasburg just to name a few should stay 9 man. I can see Linton jumping to 11 man cause their a bit bigger than Washburn and Underwood. I know some of these smaller towns have enough enrollment to jump to 11 man. All I'm saying any school in a large community like Bismarck should be 11 man.

Enrollment numbers used to determine placement is strictly male enrollment in grades 7-10...if that's how the state is going to do it then that's how it goes. If a school wants to opt up that is there choice...but if a school falls in the area that keeps them 9-man then the school should stay in that respective level that their enrollment places them. You can't just make up an exception for a couple towns and have that added in (unless it gets passed by the board somehow). Otherwise, you are going to open the door for the 'unfair' statement to be thrown out by the other side of the argument.

Also just to state: when you are looking at the enrollments for males in grades 7-10 in Region 3 (when the plan was put in place..things may have changed slightly, not drastic, since then)...Central McLean is the largest school in 9-Man Region 3 (71)...that's almost enough to play 11-Man A FB; Shiloh is at 62. Oh and Shiloh isn't one of the biggest schools in the Western half of the State (120 in 9-12)...PLENTY of higher enrolled schools...Central McLean's three schools (Underwood - 69; TL-M - 55; McClusky - 46...all are 7-12 numbers) all equal to Shiloh's numbers.

Sorenson23 wrote:What makes no sense to me I mean how fare is that having a 9 man team in Bismarck. For example Bismarck High, Bismarck Century, Bismarck Leagcy (class AAA) Bismarck St. Mary's (class AA) and Bismarck Shiloh Christian (9 man). I don't think so Shiloh has enough kids where they should be bumped up to 11 man. Hey they have more kids then where I'm from the Underwood-Turtle Lake-Mercer-McClusky area combined. And they bumped us up to 11 man. I mean aren't they one of the biggest schools in the western part of the state. I think any 9 man team located in Bismarck and Fargo should not be 9 man. I mean look at Fargo Oak Grove they were 9 man a few years ago and now they just went back 11 man. But i'm not referring to Minot or Williston at all because Minot Ryan is Class A and Tioga and Ray are 9 man. Smaller towns like Underwood, Washburn, Crosby, Napoleon, Linton, Strasburg just to name a few should stay 9 man. I can see Linton jumping to 11 man cause their a bit bigger than Washburn and Underwood. I know some of these smaller towns have enough enrollment to jump to 11 man. All I'm saying any school in a large community like Bismarck should be 11 man.

I hate to say it but according to NDHSAA, your Underwood/Turtle Lake/Mercer has 9 more than Shiloh does for male enrollment. The thing to remember is the classes are setup on male enrollment and not total enrollment. Going off of your arguement then we should place both WNG and Killdeer in 9-man this year instead of A, where they are the number 4 and 5 team in the state. NDHSAA does their best to place teams in division based off of total male enrollment, which is constantly changing and why you see a two year plan for football. Yes, Shiloh or Oak Grove may get a STUDENT-Athlete that is the caliber of a AAA one, but that does happen from time to time along with many other small schools. More times than not It's about the families that are in these communities that you will continue to see come through for different generations at a time.

http://www.ndhsaa.com/files/2013_14_Spo ... _and_R.pdf

Run4Fun2009 wrote:
Enrollment numbers used to determine placement is strictly male enrollment in grades 7-10...if that's how the state is going to do it then that's how it goes. If a school wants to opt up that is there choice...but if a school falls in the area that keeps them 9-man then the school should stay in that respective level that their enrollment places them. You can't just make up an exception for a couple towns and have that added in (unless it gets passed by the board somehow). Otherwise, you are going to open the door for the 'unfair' statement to be thrown out by the other side of the argument.

A number that would be great to know but nearly impossible to find is "participation %" for all these schools. Believe this is where you really see the difference in the top and bottom teams of each region. Really nothing new, teams that have built strong programs continue to get high participation. Also, teams that drop down from 11-man to 9-man, seem to do pretty well for 1-2 years afterward which really shows that numbers seem to drive success in 9-man. I think it's a tribute to see these smaller schools still fielding teams with low numbers. They are playing a lot of 8th grade - sophomore players just to field teams. As long as the stronger teams understand this and nobody gets hurt, I think it shows a lot of heart for these kids to continue to compete. I watched a very good and classy Thompson team know a game was in hand and sub early and often. Hat's off to the coaching staff and players of Thompson. That type of sportsmanship is really what playing sports is all about.

When it comes to the NDHSAA football plan I've always thought that it is an inequity to have a reduction in numbers if you have higher then a certain percentage in free and reduced meals, and not have a multiplier if you have under a certain percentage in free and reduced meals. Just my two cents.

I thought this was a very interesting question so I did a little research on the traditionally strong 9 Man teams. I decided to use the 24 teams in the 2015 playoffs as the basis for my theory. Some of the teams had spent some time as a member in co-ops that no longer exist and some of the teams spent time as 11 man squads. I took a look back at when the last time each of the 2015 playoff teams last made, or missed the playoffs. I have Gridirons/Pigskin Previews that date back to 2000 that I used as my reference books. Forgive me if I made any errors, but this is what I found.

Shiloh - last missed playoffs in 2010
LaMoure - last missed playoffs in 2010
New Rockford - last made playoffs in 2012
Hankinson - last missed playoffs in 2013
Linton - last missed playoffs before 1999**
North Border - last made playoffs in 2011
Thompson - last missed playoffs 2012
Strasburg - last made playoffs in 2013
Wyndmere Lidgerwood - last made playoffs in 2012
Cavalier - last missed playoffs 2006
Napoleon - last made playoffs 2013
Hettinger Scramton - last made playoffs 2008
Kenmare - last made playoffs 2009
St John - last missed playoffs 2011
Divide Co - last missed 2001
Mott Regent - last missed playoffs 2013
Drake Annamoose - last made playoffs 2005 (as Tri Co)
North Prarie - last missed 2012
New Salem - last missed playoffs 2012
Tioga - last made playoffs 2011 (as Williams Co)
MLS - last made playoffs 2011
TGU - last missed playoffs 2006
Richardton - last missed playoffs 2012

** I am not exactly sure when Linton last missed the playoffs, but I believe it was before 1999. If someone knows when the Lions last missed, please post it as a reply.

As I same many of the teams on this list spent some time in the 11 man game, but it gives us an idea on the teams that traditionally good because they are in the playoffs seemingly every year.

Linton - Early to Mid 90s I believe

Very impressive on Linton's part. I am thinking that the majority of time between around 2006-2014 they were an 11 man team. It has been a while since I did my research, so I can't remember off the top of my head. Cavalier has a streak that dates back to 2006. They were 11 man (even AA) for at least some of their streak. There does seem to be quite a bit of turnover in the playoff teams. Divide Co dates back to 2001 and TGU goes back to 2006. I don't believe either of those teams were ever 11 man for any time during their current playoff streaks.

Here is the list of 2015 9-man playoff teams an the last time they missed the playoffs:

* - school last missed playoffs as an 11-man team

Region 1
Richland - 2013
Hankinson - 2013
LaMoure/Litchville-Marion - 2008*
Wyndmere/Lidgerwood - 2014

Region 2
Thompson - 2012
Cavalier - 2006*
New Rockford-Sheyenne - 2014
North Border - 2014*

Region 3
Shiloh Christian - 2010
Linton/HMB - 1994 (only Fargo South and Bismarck have longer current playoff streaks than Linton)
Strasburg/Zeeland - 2014
Napoleon/Gackle-Streeter - 2014

Region 4
North Prairie - 2012*
TGU - 2006
St. John - 2011
Drake-Anamoose - 2014 (Qualified for the 1st time ever in 2015 since the consolidation of Drake and Anamoose)

Region 5
Hettinger/Scranton - 2014 (Qualified for the 1st time ever in 2015 since Hettinger and Scranton formed a co-op)
Mott-Regent - 2013
New Salem/Glen Ullin - 2012*
Richardton-Taylor/Hebron - 2012*

Region 6
Mohall-Lansford-Sherwood - 2014
Divide County - 2001
Kenmare - 2014
Tioga - 2001*/2014* (Prior to 2015, Tioga last fielded a stand alone team in 2001. From 2002-14, Tioga and Ray formed the Williams County co-op.)

Since 1979, Linton has missed the playoffs only 3 times (1987, 1992, 1994) and 7 times since the playoff era began in 1975. In two of those three seasons since '79, Linton was playing 11-man.

Divide County didn't hit the 9-man ranks until 1990 and prior to 1995, Divide County's only playoff appearance was in 1980. Since 1995, Divide County has only missed the playoffs once (2001).

P.S.: My apologies New Guy, I didn't realize you already made a list

Trivia Question: Which school that has been playing football continuously since the playoff era began in 1975 has never made the playoffs?

Is trivia answer: Bowman??

caserace0710 wrote:Trivia Question: Which school that has been playing football continuously since the playoff era began in 1975 has never made the playoffs?

Run4Fun2009 wrote:Is trivia answer: Bowman??

Nope. Bowman made the playoffs in 1984, 1988, 1993, 1998, 1999, and 2001-05. Bowman's last season was in 2005 when they consolidated with Rhame at the end of the school year to form Bowman County HS (Bowman's football team was named Bowman County since 2003 when they had a co-op with Scranton).

I should've reworded my question and made it more clear. Bowman County HS itself has never made the playoffs which my question would be a little confusing.

I was thinking more along the lines of what school that played in the first playoff season in 1975 that played during the 2015 season and still has never made a playoff appearance. There is only one...

I would agree with SCC, but if I had to make my own guess it would be Fort Yates/Standing Rock

New Town is correct. Standing Rock has actually made the playoffs once and that was in 1983 losing to Watford City 15-14.

Back to the main topic. Zeeland had a good couple years in the late 70's becoming the first team to win back-to-back 9-man titles. Des Lacs-Burlington and Berthold made some playoff appearances in the 70's and 80's (both are now 11-man schools). New England/Regent was a perennial powerhouse for most of the 80's and 90's (they played 11-man for two years in the late 80's or early 90's) until Regent consolidated with Mott in the 2000's.

Some other strong programs that are no longer around are Hope and Esmond.

One thing I do find interesting is when you break down every other school the ratio of boys to girls is close to 50/50. When you look at Shiloh the breakdown is 70/30. With boys being the 30%. Don't know why that is but if their enrollment was even like most every other school they would be 11 man easily. Not saying it's on purpose, just find it interesting.

Well I just went and looked up the 2017-2018 football enrollment. Shiloh will be class A football after next year.

Bacon wrote:One thing I do find interesting is when you break down every other school the ratio of boys to girls is close to 50/50. When you look at Shiloh the breakdown is 70/30. With boys being the 30%. Don't know why that is but if their enrollment was even like most every other school they would be 11 man easily. Not saying it's on purpose, just find it interesting.

Where are you finding numbers for female students? I have only been able to find numbers for 7-10 males and for total students in 9-12 or on some cases total students for 7-12.

http://www.localschooldirectory.com/state-schools/ND This is where. Just clicked the schools and the enrollment is broke down in gender.