3 class system

[The Schwab]

When this came around again a few years back membership schools voted 60% against and 40% for a 3 class system. Its hard to change classifications when the majority of the schools aren't in favor.

I have heard the reason for this is so many schools are voting on the belief of "if it doesn't help us specifically we won't vote for it" would you agree with that assessment?

Any response would be purely speculation on my part. I have to believe that a large number of member schools have no desire to travel excessively in Dec/Jan/Feb. Adding an additional class would certainly add to that.

I agree for sure that travel is a huge piece to the puzzle. If we went to a 3 class system we could essentially play the same schools for regular season, use a power points formula like South Dakota, and add a 3rd class of tournaments.

[Run4Fun2009]

When this came around again a few years back membership schools voted 60% against and 40% for a 3 class system. Its hard to change classifications when the majority of the schools aren't in favor.

I have heard the reason for this is so many schools are voting on the belief of "if it doesn't help us specifically we won't vote for it" would you agree with that assessment?

Any response would be purely speculation on my part. I have to believe that a large number of member schools have no desire to travel excessively in Dec/Jan/Feb. Adding an additional class would certainly add to that.

I agree for sure that travel is a huge piece to the puzzle. If we went to a 3 class system we could essentially play the same schools for regular season, use a power points formula like South Dakota, and add a 3rd class of tournaments.

It's feasible...same formula different numbers (I have the same formula going right now for fun in a spreadsheet); it'd be super easy to run...took a day to set up each gender.

[ndlionsfan]

When this came around again a few years back membership schools voted 60% against and 40% for a 3 class system. Its hard to change classifications when the majority of the schools aren't in favor.

I have heard the reason for this is so many schools are voting on the belief of "if it doesn't help us specifically we won't vote for it" would you agree with that assessment?

Any response would be purely speculation on my part. I have to believe that a large number of member schools have no desire to travel excessively in Dec/Jan/Feb. Adding an additional class would certainly add to that.

I agree for sure that travel is a huge piece to the puzzle. If we went to a 3 class system we could essentially play the same schools for regular season, use a power points formula like South Dakota, and add a 3rd class of tournaments.

Is it though? I know this season has some special circumstances, but our local high school co-op of Benson County has traveled to the following schools for away games: Richland, Napoleon, Westhope, Edinburg, and has region games against Langdon each year. Plus they have had Park River and MPCG travel to our school. Those are huge distances for regular season games compared to 10+ years ago anyway. All of the top teams in the state are traveling to all corners to play the best teams.

[Run4Fun2009]

When this came around again a few years back membership schools voted 60% against and 40% for a 3 class system. Its hard to change classifications when the majority of the schools aren't in favor.

I have heard the reason for this is so many schools are voting on the belief of "if it doesn't help us specifically we won't vote for it" would you agree with that assessment?

Any response would be purely speculation on my part. I have to believe that a large number of member schools have no desire to travel excessively in Dec/Jan/Feb. Adding an additional class would certainly add to that.

I agree for sure that travel is a huge piece to the puzzle. If we went to a 3 class system we could essentially play the same schools for regular season, use a power points formula like South Dakota, and add a 3rd class of tournaments.

Is it though? I know this season has some special circumstances, but our local high school co-op of Benson County has traveled to the following schools for away games: Richland, Napoleon, Westhope, Edinburg, and has region games against Langdon each year. Plus they have had Park River and MPCG travel to our school. Those are huge distances for regular season games compared to 10+ years ago anyway. All of the top teams in the state are traveling to all corners to play the best teams.

There are some schools who refuse to travel far for games...before this year's situation; there are also schools who don't even schedule their full allotment of games.

[The Schwab]

And honestly the travel thing can go out the window when you look at Region 4 for football, or the schedule that the top teams in the state play for basketball year after year.

[Flip]

I agree. The teams that would be the best in that middle class are traveling all over the state. And if you were worried about travel, seed your tournaments by QRF and don't require any region games. That way if you're a middle-class team having a down year you can schedule a bunch of "B" games so you can stay competitive during the season.

[classB4ever]

Travel has been an excuse forever. It can no longer be used as one. Remaining in a 2 class system has increased travel throughout the state. Not just for games/practices but for academics and all extracurricular activities as well.

[B Historian]

SD has approximately 274 public schools and 16 private. They are fielding 18 - AA teams, 55 - A teams and 84 - B teams. Percentage of bbb teams to high schools is 54%. ND has approximately 177 public schools and 16 private. They are fielding 22 - A teams and 126 B - teams. Percentage of bbb teams to high schools is 65%. You could say that ND has a better participation rate than SD. The question remains, how many more teams would there be if ND would have went to 3 classes 20 years ago? How many co-ops would not have happened if there was more parity in the smaller schools?

SD currently has 14 basketball coops in its lower two divisions while ND currently has over 30 coops in Class B. In general SD rural school districts have been a bit more proactive about consolidating than those in ND, so that fact skews the number of coops between the two states. But I think it's fair to say that had a 3-class system been in place in ND for long period of time that there would be more basketball teams playing today.

[B Historian]

When this came around again a few years back membership schools voted 60% against and 40% for a 3 class system. Its hard to change classifications when the majority of the schools aren't in favor.

I have heard the reason for this is so many schools are voting on the belief of "if it doesn't help us specifically we won't vote for it" would you agree with that assessment?

I think it's the lack of a well thought out plan that causes schools to vote against a 3-class system. It's easy to divide the schools up into three classes, but administrators casting votes also want to know how the regional and state tournament system will work, the effects on other sports and sports seasons (start dates), regular season scheduling requirements, etc.

[Flip]

Also, I never see this talked about, but I think the shot clock has made the parity issues worse in Class B. Sure, the shot clock is fine when teams like Enderlin and Four Winds play, but for the 90% of the rest of these schools it doesn't make sense. It's just logical that a team with less shooters and athletes is going to play worse basketball with the shot clock. I am shocked at the number of games this season with teams scoring in the 20's. The Utopian vision of 80-78 scores in Class B every night has not materialized.

I think the parity issues have got worse in the shot clock era, but I don't think it is due to the shot clock. Teams that are scoring in the 20s wouldn't be scoring in the 30s if they took away the shot clock IMO. How many teams lack shooters and athletes, but have competent ball-handling and passing to hang on to the ball for 35 seconds? I'd say very few.

[B Historian]

Also, I never see this talked about, but I think the shot clock has made the parity issues worse in Class B. Sure, the shot clock is fine when teams like Enderlin and Four Winds play, but for the 90% of the rest of these schools it doesn't make sense. It's just logical that a team with less shooters and athletes is going to play worse basketball with the shot clock. I am shocked at the number of games this season with teams scoring in the 20's. The Utopian vision of 80-78 scores in Class B every night has not materialized.

I think the parity issues have got worse in the shot clock era, but I don't think it is due to the shot clock. Teams that are scoring in the 20s wouldn't be scoring in the 30s if they took away the shot clock IMO. How many teams lack shooters and athletes, but have competent ball-handling and passing to hang on to the ball for 35 seconds? I'd say very few.

The shot clock has forced all teams to play the same style. Teams that would be better off slowing it down or trying to run something more patterned on offense are forced to play at a pace they may not be comfortable with. With the shot clock, teams take the first somewhat open shot they can get. This doesn't lead to good basketball and makes the less talented teams even worse compared to the teams they are playing. I watch a lot of HS basketball in another state that doesn't have the shot clock. The games have a much more natural flow to them and coaching/strategy play a larger role when there is no shot clock.

[packers21]

Also, I never see this talked about, but I think the shot clock has made the parity issues worse in Class B. Sure, the shot clock is fine when teams like Enderlin and Four Winds play, but for the 90% of the rest of these schools it doesn't make sense. It's just logical that a team with less shooters and athletes is going to play worse basketball with the shot clock. I am shocked at the number of games this season with teams scoring in the 20's. The Utopian vision of 80-78 scores in Class B every night has not materialized.

I think the parity issues have got worse in the shot clock era, but I don't think it is due to the shot clock. Teams that are scoring in the 20s wouldn't be scoring in the 30s if they took away the shot clock IMO. How many teams lack shooters and athletes, but have competent ball-handling and passing to hang on to the ball for 35 seconds? I'd say very few.

The shot clock has forced all teams to play the same style. Teams that would be better off slowing it down or trying to run something more patterned on offense are forced to play at a pace they may not be comfortable with. With the shot clock, teams take the first somewhat open shot they can get. This doesn't lead to good basketball and makes the less talented teams even worse compared to the teams they are playing. I watch a lot of HS basketball in another state that doesn't have the shot clock. The games have a much more natural flow to them and coaching/strategy play a larger role when there is no shot clock.

Totally disagree with this statement.

[hoophoophoop]

get out of 80s and move on, shot clock is the best thing

[BasketballMind]

Also, I never see this talked about, but I think the shot clock has made the parity issues worse in Class B. Sure, the shot clock is fine when teams like Enderlin and Four Winds play, but for the 90% of the rest of these schools it doesn't make sense. It's just logical that a team with less shooters and athletes is going to play worse basketball with the shot clock. I am shocked at the number of games this season with teams scoring in the 20's. The Utopian vision of 80-78 scores in Class B every night has not materialized.

I think the parity issues have got worse in the shot clock era, but I don't think it is due to the shot clock. Teams that are scoring in the 20s wouldn't be scoring in the 30s if they took away the shot clock IMO. How many teams lack shooters and athletes, but have competent ball-handling and passing to hang on to the ball for 35 seconds? I'd say very few.

The shot clock has forced all teams to play the same style. Teams that would be better off slowing it down or trying to run something more patterned on offense are forced to play at a pace they may not be comfortable with. With the shot clock, teams take the first somewhat open shot they can get. This doesn't lead to good basketball and makes the less talented teams even worse compared to the teams they are playing. I watch a lot of HS basketball in another state that doesn't have the shot clock. The games have a much more natural flow to them and coaching/strategy play a larger role when there is no shot clock.

"I don't like the shot clock because bad teams can't sit on the ball and play keep away for entire quarters anymore."

I respect the coaches that took advantage of not having to shoot quick to win games when the rules allowed it, but that isn't basketball. Teams with fewer shooters and athletes are going to play worse basketball. Uhh, ya think? Taking away a shot clock isn't going to make them better. Getting in the gym in the spring, summer and fall might. What the shot clock does is it makes teams play basketball from start to finish. There used to be a time when you'd see a team up by 5-6 points with 3 minutes to go and the team with the lead would force teams to start fouling or they'd run 40, 50, and 60 seconds off the clock. Call it strategy, I call it playing 10-man pig in the middle, not basketball. You can still control the flow of the game, run a continuity offense for 15-20 seconds and then go on the attack. It's all coaching at that point.

I also don't see many shot clock violations, and if teams are jacking up a shot the first time they get one, taking a shot clock away isn't going to change that. Teach your kids to have an attack first mentality and look for lay-ups or rhythm shots. This idea that the shot clock is preventing that is ridiculous. State and Region tournaments have gotten better considerably since the shot clock was implemented.

[GOPACKGO!!!]

I personally don't think schools would combine so easily if they didn't have to try and compete with the burbs. There are students that would like to play but when schools combine there is less playing time. This also would help to maintain the number of teams in a given area and travel wouldn't be an issue unless the school wanted to travel greater distances for competition.
There is also a revenue point to make. If we had three tourneys it would also generate more revenue in the state.

[B Historian]

Also, I never see this talked about, but I think the shot clock has made the parity issues worse in Class B. Sure, the shot clock is fine when teams like Enderlin and Four Winds play, but for the 90% of the rest of these schools it doesn't make sense. It's just logical that a team with less shooters and athletes is going to play worse basketball with the shot clock. I am shocked at the number of games this season with teams scoring in the 20's. The Utopian vision of 80-78 scores in Class B every night has not materialized.

I think the parity issues have got worse in the shot clock era, but I don't think it is due to the shot clock. Teams that are scoring in the 20s wouldn't be scoring in the 30s if they took away the shot clock IMO. How many teams lack shooters and athletes, but have competent ball-handling and passing to hang on to the ball for 35 seconds? I'd say very few.

The shot clock has forced all teams to play the same style. Teams that would be better off slowing it down or trying to run something more patterned on offense are forced to play at a pace they may not be comfortable with. With the shot clock, teams take the first somewhat open shot they can get. This doesn't lead to good basketball and makes the less talented teams even worse compared to the teams they are playing. I watch a lot of HS basketball in another state that doesn't have the shot clock. The games have a much more natural flow to them and coaching/strategy play a larger role when there is no shot clock.

"I don't like the shot clock because bad teams can't sit on the ball and play keep away for entire quarters anymore."

I respect the coaches that took advantage of not having to shoot quick to win games when the rules allowed it, but that isn't basketball. Teams with fewer shooters and athletes are going to play worse basketball. Uhh, ya think? Taking away a shot clock isn't going to make them better. Getting in the gym in the spring, summer and fall might. What the shot clock does is it makes teams play basketball from start to finish. There used to be a time when you'd see a team up by 5-6 points with 3 minutes to go and the team with the lead would force teams to start fouling or they'd run 40, 50, and 60 seconds off the clock. Call it strategy, I call it playing 10-man pig in the middle, not basketball. You can still control the flow of the game, run a continuity offense for 15-20 seconds and then go on the attack. It's all coaching at that point.

Have you looked at all the facts?

1. The NFHS determined that the average possession time in a HS basketball game is about 15 seconds.

2. There are 40 states that do not have a shot clock and HS basketball is still wildly successful and popular in those states. It's obviously not a minority opinion to be against a shot clock.

3. I believe it was AZ a couple of years ago that decided to run a big high school holiday tournament as a shot clock experiment. They determined that the shot clock shortened average possession times by one second compared to games with no shot clock. Not worth the investment or change to the game to add the clock.

4. Since the inception of the shot clock in ND Class B basketball, scoring is up about 3 points per game across the state in region tournaments in comparison to the 6 years prior to the shot clock. Scoring in the state tournament has actually DECREASED 1.5 points per game over the same time period.

Region and state tournament games involve the best teams in the state and the most talented players and yet there has been virtually no change in scoring. Maybe there are more possessions, but if scoring doesn't increase with a shot clock that means there are more turnovers and/or poorer shooting. Maybe it's just me, but I would rather watch a 56-54 game with both teams playing good team basketball and shooting 50% then watch a game with the same score but with some rushed possessions and 38% shooting.

I also don't see many shot clock violations, and if teams are jacking up a shot the first time they get one, taking a shot clock away isn't going to change that. Teach your kids to have an attack first mentality and look for lay-ups or rhythm shots. This idea that the shot clock is preventing that is ridiculous. State and Region tournaments have gotten better considerably since the shot clock was implemented.

I don't see many shot clock violations either. What I do see a lot of is Team A running a passive 3/4 court press to delay Team B from getting its offense set up. By the time the ball is across half court and everyone in position to run offense, Team B is down to 24 seconds on the shot clock. They make 3-4 passes and then when the clock gets to about 12 seconds and no open shot, you start to see ill advised drives to the basket, forced 3-pointers etc. Basketball has a flow to it and if it takes a HS team more than 35 seconds on occasion to get a good shot, then I'm all for it. Not every team should be forced to play at the same pace, especially when it's already been shown that it doesn't lead to a big bump in scoring.

[Flip]

I personally don't think schools would combine so easily if they didn't have to try and compete with the burbs. There are students that would like to play but when schools combine there is less playing time. This also would help to maintain the number of teams in a given area and travel wouldn't be an issue unless the school wanted to travel greater distances for competition.
There is also a revenue point to make. If we had three tourneys it would also generate more revenue in the state.

I've asked this before, who are the schools that cooped to compete with the bigger schools or private schools? I had a poster DM two schools that I was unfamiliar with the last time I asked. In almost every instance one of the schools was short on players.

[BasketballMind]

Have you looked at all the facts?

1. The NFHS determined that the average possession time in a HS basketball game is about 15 seconds.

2. There are 40 states that do not have a shot clock and HS basketball is still wildly successful and popular in those states. It's obviously not a minority opinion to be against a shot clock.

3. I believe it was AZ a couple of years ago that decided to run a big high school holiday tournament as a shot clock experiment. They determined that the shot clock shortened average possession times by one second compared to games with no shot clock. Not worth the investment or change to the game to add the clock.

4. Since the inception of the shot clock in ND Class B basketball, scoring is up about 3 points per game across the state in region tournaments in comparison to the 6 years prior to the shot clock. Scoring in the state tournament has actually DECREASED 1.5 points per game over the same time period.

Region and state tournament games involve the best teams in the state and the most talented players and yet there has been virtually no change in scoring. Maybe there are more possessions, but if scoring doesn't increase with a shot clock that means there are more turnovers and/or poorer shooting. Maybe it's just me, but I would rather watch a 56-54 game with both teams playing good team basketball and shooting 50% then watch a game with the same score but with some rushed possessions and 38% shooting.

I also don't see many shot clock violations, and if teams are jacking up a shot the first time they get one, taking a shot clock away isn't going to change that. Teach your kids to have an attack first mentality and look for lay-ups or rhythm shots. This idea that the shot clock is preventing that is ridiculous. State and Region tournaments have gotten better considerably since the shot clock was implemented.

I don't see many shot clock violations either. What I do see a lot of is Team A running a passive 3/4 court press to delay Team B from getting its offense set up. By the time the ball is across half court and everyone in position to run offense, Team B is down to 24 seconds on the shot clock. They make 3-4 passes and then when the clock gets to about 12 seconds and no open shot, you start to see ill advised drives to the basket, forced 3-pointers etc. Basketball has a flow to it and if it takes a HS team more than 35 seconds on occasion to get a good shot, then I'm all for it. Not every team should be forced to play at the same pace, especially when it's already been shown that it doesn't lead to a big bump in scoring.

I don't want to go back to games that are in the 30s because teams consistently run 40, 50, and 60 seconds off the game clock because there's no pressure to shoot. They're not looking to score or beat their opponent. Bad teams play stall ball to "win" and people drool over it because they talk about discipline. Obviously it takes time for players to adjust. If the shot clock is so bad, then why doesn't class A take it out to improve the quality of play? The ends of games forces players to play and coaches to coach.

You can also strategize to get a 2-for-1 at the end of quarters and run a quick hitter with 50 or so seconds left, try to get a stop and get another shot off. Bad teams shouldn't be rewarded because they are able to sit on the ball and not play the game. Ball control and stalling are two different things. And if a team can't break a passive 3/4 press and get a good shot with a shot clock, taking it away isn't going to help them dribble and pass. Any kid that aspires to play basketball after high school will have to play with a shot clock, against other kids that grew up playing with it. You've gotta adapt with the times or you'll get left behind

[Flip]

Any kid that aspires to play basketball after high school will have to play with a shot clock, against other kids that grew up playing with it. You've gotta adapt with the times or you'll get left behind

I'm pro shot clock, but this has always been a bad argument for it. Most states don't have a shot clock so when there is a good chance in college the other players didn't grow up having one. There was a mod, baseball, that went on to play college basketball and said there was basically no adjustment from HS to college with regards to a shot clock. We should pull HS freshman and ask what the biggest adjustment from JH to HS is. I wonder where the shot clock would fall on the list.

[classB4ever]

There are time rules for a reason:
1. 3 seconds in the lane: Prevents big teams from camping out and dominating paint.
2. 5 seconds to inbound: Rewards good defense.
3. 10 seconds backcourt: Rewards good defense.
4. 5 seconds closely guarded: Rewards good defense.
5. 10 seconds free throw: Game flow.

I am old school as well, but all of these time rules were installed to enhance the game. IMHO, the shot clock is the reason Class A bb is much more exciting than it was in the 90's. However, each of those teams are much deeper and more athletic. There are pros and cons for all rules. Guessing shot clock is here to stay so coaches should teach accordingly. I can think of only a handful of games over 50 years in which stall ball worked to keep an inferior team close to or beating a superior team. However, some of them go down as classics.

[Sportsrube]

After all of the money invested in shot clock systems in every school in ND that has a basketball team, the shot clock is here to stay. Like it or not you need to learn to live with it, it is not going away.

[Run4Fun2009]

There are time rules for a reason:
1. 3 seconds in the lane: Prevents big teams from camping out and dominating paint.
2. 5 seconds to inbound: Rewards good defense.
3. 10 seconds backcourt: Rewards good defense.
4. 5 seconds closely guarded: Rewards good defense.
5. 5 seconds free throw: Game flow.

I am old school as well, but all of these time rules were installed to enhance the game. IMHO, the shot clock is the reason Class A bb is much more exciting than it was in the 90's. However, each of those teams are much deeper and more athletic. There are pros and cons for all rules. Guessing shot clock is here to stay so coaches should teach accordingly. I can think of only a handful of games over 50 years in which stall ball worked to keep an inferior team close to or beating a superior team. However, some of them go down as classics.

Just to clarify...you get 10 seconds to attempt a FT once the shooter controls the ball at the line.

[classB4ever]

5. 10 seconds free throw: Game flow.

Just to clarify...you get 10 seconds to attempt a FT once the shooter controls the ball at the line.

Good catch, corrected.

[BasketballMind]

Any kid that aspires to play basketball after high school will have to play with a shot clock, against other kids that grew up playing with it. You've gotta adapt with the times or you'll get left behind

I'm pro shot clock, but this has always been a bad argument for it. Most states don't have a shot clock so when there is a good chance in college the other players didn't grow up having one. There was a mod, baseball, that went on to play college basketball and said there was basically no adjustment from HS to college with regards to a shot clock. We should pull HS freshman and ask what the biggest adjustment from JH to HS is. I wonder where the shot clock would fall on the list.

The shot clock comes into play in close games, and if you're smart and prepared you can use it to your advantage. 2-for-1 situations in the final minute, controlling the final possession when the game clock has less time on it than a full shot clock, etc. There are not a lot of possessions during the flow of the game that have shot clock violations, but you do see it from time to time. My best argument for it is not letting teams sit on the basketball to kill the clock. 3-4 minutes to go in the game, teams can't go into a stall. They've still got to get the ball in the basket. I'm very against teams picking up wins because they can play keep away during the fourth quarter.

[Flip]

The shot clock comes into play in close games, and if you're smart and prepared you can use it to your advantage. 2-for-1 situations in the final minute, controlling the final possession when the game clock has less time on it than a full shot clock, etc. There are not a lot of possessions during the flow of the game that have shot clock violations, but you do see it from time to time. My best argument for it is not letting teams sit on the basketball to kill the clock. 3-4 minutes to go in the game, teams can't go into a stall. They've still got to get the ball in the basket. I'm very against teams picking up wins because they can play keep away during the fourth quarter.

These are good reasons IMO.