3 class proposal

[Flying Wallenda]

The problem those opposed to it have are that it was not put together to create a better system. There was one goal in place and the numbers have been manipulated to the point that it’s comical when you consider all three classes. So when people clutch their pearls and claim that those opposed to it want to “beat up on the little guy” forever aren’t helping matters. The proposed plan isn’t good and wanting it to be revised before it’s just passed “#ForTheKids” is a very reasonable reaction.

Isn't the plan that would be the most popular the best plan?

That’s a nice way to spin it, but the plan has flaws and anyone that’s read this board or read the plan knows what those are. The multiplier for private schools on a made up notion that they don’t have district lines when they do is a big red flag. The other is the made up enrollment cut off that is exactly at the number that gets the smallest of the Class B private schools to the middle class (Bishop Ryan boys) is another.

Rugby switching their vote from No to yes after they got out of the East region is another one. The fact that this plan does absolutely nothing for girls basketball and even though this is a boys basketball thread, it never gets addressed. The small schools would vote for anything that gets the privates out and the bigger B’s out, I don’t know how many times
I can keep saying it. 3 Classes is probably the right move, this specific plan isn’t it.

I agree of much of what Mind says. Its comical that the goal lines were moved to drop DL/TM which gained two votes and drop EKM/Sawyer Surrey. There was the difference. Devils Lakes girls have made state 6 of the last 7 years, boys 2 of 6. Should they be middle class? Debatable. Rugby didn't want to go East, they complain, boom, go west, another vote gained. It just doesn't seem that that is the way it should be.
Do the states that use the multiplier have open enrollment?

20 top class/45 middle/60 small and i'm on board. 3 Classes should probably happen. This just seems like a loaded set of dice.

[ndlionsfan]

I like the multiplier for the open enrollment students in EACH district. It is not just the private schools. We have all discussed on here that small towns near larger cities have advantages over the regular rural class B schools. Some of that is just proximity to more resources but some of that is also open enrollment of students from those larger cities. It is not always the case, so when those students count extra is does help even the playing field regarding an enrollment number. If those "suburbs" don't have open enrollees, then their number isn't affecting as much. Does the multiplier need to be a full 2x? Not sure about that, I would be fine with a 1.5x multiplier.

[maddog1971]

The numbers don't lie. Privates have an advantage over small class B Schools. I don't care if 92 kids.... when they are in State every year and beating up on all other local schools and they have done it forever.... When was the last time Ryan went 4-12 on the year... and finished last in the region.... Statistically it should happen every few years on a level playing field.

[BasketballMind]

The numbers don't lie. Privates have an advantage over small class B Schools. I don't care if 92 kids.... when they are in State every year and beating up on all other local schools and they have done it forever.... When was the last time Ryan went 4-12 on the year... and finished last in the region.... Statistically it should happen every few years on a level playing field.

I’d maybe give you that argument if Bishop Ryan was dominating at the state tournament every year. Their last championship was in 1994. Two other championship game appearances almost twenty years apart. When is the last time Bishop Ryan played a region championship against a team ranked in the top 10-15? Happens almost every year in Region 1 and 2. You put any of the top 4 teams from Region 1 or 2 in that tournament and Bishop Ryan’s appearances are probably cut in half

[packers21]

The problem those opposed to it have are that it was not put together to create a better system. There was one goal in place and the numbers have been manipulated to the point that it’s comical when you consider all three classes. So when people clutch their pearls and claim that those opposed to it want to “beat up on the little guy” forever aren’t helping matters. The proposed plan isn’t good and wanting it to be revised before it’s just passed “#ForTheKids” is a very reasonable reaction.

Isn't the plan that would be the most popular the best plan?

That’s a nice way to spin it, but the plan has flaws and anyone that’s read this board or read the plan knows what those are. The multiplier for private schools on a made up notion that they don’t have district lines when they do is a big red flag. The other is the made up enrollment cut off that is exactly at the number that gets the smallest of the Class B private schools to the middle class (Bishop Ryan boys) is another.

Rugby switching their vote from No to yes after they got out of the East region is another one. The fact that this plan does absolutely nothing for girls basketball and even though this is a boys basketball thread, it never gets addressed. The small schools would vote for anything that gets the privates out and the bigger B’s out, I don’t know how many times
I can keep saying it. 3 Classes is probably the right move, this specific plan isn’t it.

I agree of much of what Mind says. Its comical that the goal lines were moved to drop DL/TM which gained two votes and drop EKM/Sawyer Surrey. There was the difference. Devils Lakes girls have made state 6 of the last 7 years, boys 2 of 6. Should they be middle class? Debatable. Rugby didn't want to go East, they complain, boom, go west, another vote gained. It just doesn't seem that that is the way it should be.
Do the states that use the multiplier have open enrollment?

20 top class/45 middle/60 small and i'm on board. 3 Classes should probably happen. This just seems like a loaded set of dice.

Manipulating jokes for a yes, is a joke! I would totally agree with a middle class that size. Only problem with that is most of the schools in the Middle will vote no. I think the middle class should be small the 10-12 schools that don't have a home plus the privates that opt up. The best way to achieve that 60% is a smaller middle class. IMO

[Flip]

I've always thought 28-32 in the middle class was about the right number for the middle class. Here is a post I made over five years ago.

....16 for the largest enrollments, 32 for the middle class, and everyone else in the lowest class.

[Bison-Vikes #1]

Girl's BB has been brought up extensively in opposition to this plan. Main reason: Will lose participation. Girl's BB has lost 40% participation in past decade. Believing that this plan is going to magically reverse that trend is fool's gold. I do not know the numbers for girl's volleyball participation but would be willing to guess it is steady or has increased in same timeframe. The only thing that will ever reverse that trend is switching the seasons back to where they once were. And I think we can all agree that is never happening. I am not sure if GBB participation will go up, go down, or stay even with this plan. However, using GBB participation to rail against this plan, IMHO, is not apples vs. apples.

[ndlionsfan]

Actually in the plan they have the data for volleyball participation. I thought the same that VB participation has shot up in the last 20 years, however it has also seen a decline of 16%. Certainly not the 40% of GBB but there are less girls playing VB as well.

[Bison-Vikes #1]

Actually in the plan they have the data for volleyball participation. I thought the same that VB participation has shot up in the last 20 years, however it has also seen a decline of 16%. Certainly not the 40% of GBB but there are less girls playing VB as well.

Wow. Thanks for that. Not positive news.

[Flying Wallenda]

I've always thought 28-32 in the middle class was about the right number for the middle class. Here is a post I made over five years ago.

....16 for the largest enrollments, 32 for the middle class, and everyone else in the lowest class.

It sure is the right number in order to pass the plan. That was well thought out by those in favor.

If you compare to South Dakota, which this committee has done a lot of when it fits their agenda, you'll see that they have:
AA: 19 Schools - 12% of all teams
A: 61 Schools - 39% of all teams
B: 78 Schools - 49% of all teams

The plan being proposed in ND:
AA - 19 Schools - 15% of all teams
A - 31 schools - 25% of all teams
B - 74 schools - 60% of all teams

Hhhmm..........

[Bison-Vikes #1]

20 top class/45 middle/60 small and i'm on board. 3 Classes should probably happen. This just seems like a loaded set of dice.

Could you give us an idea who the top team and bottom team (enrollment wise) in the middle class would be in your plan? Thanks.

[Flying Wallenda]

20 top class/45 middle/60 small and i'm on board. 3 Classes should probably happen. This just seems like a loaded set of dice.

Could you give us an idea who the top team and bottom team (enrollment wise) in the middle class would be in your plan? Thanks.

I go 500 and up - big class

499 - 150 - A

150 and under - B

Ballpark -

This says nothing about multipliers/joined state tournaments/travel/etc.

[BasketballMind]

Actually in the plan they have the data for volleyball participation. I thought the same that VB participation has shot up in the last 20 years, however it has also seen a decline of 16%. Certainly not the 40% of GBB but there are less girls playing VB as well.

Wow. Thanks for that. Not positive news.

I do not believe Volleyball participation is not in a bad spot compared to GBB. I’d like to see a count of how many schools have C-teams in volleyball vs girls basketball. One reason for a drop in volleyball participation could be an increase in Cross Country runners. On the east side there is also fall ball opportunities for softball players now, which would have an impact. Now that golf is in the fall, the numbers could continue to dip some, but I don’t think volleyball participation is troublesome. Can factor in girls that play hockey too.

[Bison-Vikes #1]

Actually in the plan they have the data for volleyball participation. I thought the same that VB participation has shot up in the last 20 years, however it has also seen a decline of 16%. Certainly not the 40% of GBB but there are less girls playing VB as well.

Wow. Thanks for that. Not positive news.

I do not believe Volleyball participation is not in a bad spot compared to GBB. I’d like to see a count of how many schools have C-teams in volleyball vs girls basketball. One reason for a drop in volleyball participation could be an increase in Cross Country runners. On the east side there is also fall ball opportunities for softball players now, which would have an impact. Now that golf is in the fall, the numbers could continue to dip some, but I don’t think volleyball participation is troublesome. Can factor in girls that play hockey too.

Hope you're right. Your info is more positive than alternative.

I go 500 and up - big class

499 - 150 - A

150 and under - B

Ballpark -

This says nothing about multipliers/joined state tournaments/travel/etc.

This will be my last post on this topic as we have all been here before. For last 10 years many on this site have put forward proposals, moving the top and bottom cutoff numbers around to appease the crowd. There isn't a cutoff where you can make everyone happy. After all the discussions, my own personal opinion is this: Without some type of multiplier, no problems will be solved, they just get moved. Some saying they will opt up if given the opportunity without a multiplier also makes no sense, since what difference does it make of how they arrive in the middle class? Thanks for the discussion.

[maddog1971]

The numbers don't lie. Privates have an advantage over small class B Schools. I don't care if 92 kids.... when they are in State every year and beating up on all other local schools and they have done it forever.... When was the last time Ryan went 4-12 on the year... and finished last in the region.... Statistically it should happen every few years on a level playing field.

I’d maybe give you that argument if Bishop Ryan was dominating at the state tournament every year. Their last championship was in 1994. Two other championship game appearances almost twenty years apart. When is the last time Bishop Ryan played a region championship against a team ranked in the top 10-15? Happens almost every year in Region 1 and 2. You put any of the top 4 teams from Region 1 or 2 in that tournament and Bishop Ryan’s appearances are probably cut in half

I never said they have won it all.... I said state appearances... and if Bishop Ryan does not want to go to the state tournament... I am guessing the class B schools from the area would.

[Flip]

For the "small schools will vote for anything" crowd, doesn't it say a lot about the current two class system that nearly all the small schools would rather have anything else?

[BasketballMind]

For the "small schools will vote for anything" crowd, doesn't it say a lot about the current two class system that nearly all the small schools would rather have anything else?

The crowd you’re referring to isn’t opposed to the idea of the 3-class system. Again, the proposed plan is not good and you’re not going to get people to support it for the sake of passing it. Fix it before you pass it if it’s as easy to “tweak” as has been stated. Tweak it now, there’s more than enough feedback with the issues with it. I’m not going to get guilt tripped into supporting a plan that isn’t good.

[BasketballMind]

The numbers don't lie. Privates have an advantage over small class B Schools. I don't care if 92 kids.... when they are in State every year and beating up on all other local schools and they have done it forever.... When was the last time Ryan went 4-12 on the year... and finished last in the region.... Statistically it should happen every few years on a level playing field.

I’d maybe give you that argument if Bishop Ryan was dominating at the state tournament every year. Their last championship was in 1994. Two other championship game appearances almost twenty years apart. When is the last time Bishop Ryan played a region championship against a team ranked in the top 10-15? Happens almost every year in Region 1 and 2. You put any of the top 4 teams from Region 1 or 2 in that tournament and Bishop Ryan’s appearances are probably cut in half

I never said they have won it all.... I said state appearances... and if Bishop Ryan does not want to go to the state tournament... I am guessing the class B schools from the area would.

My point is the other schools in that region aren’t dealing with a juggernaut program that beats everyone in their path because of their private school status.

[The Schwab]

I guess I look at the middle class in the current proposal and not one school jumps out at me as not having the resources or the enrollment to compete against the rest of the teams in the class. I don't know what the enrollment numbers should be or what is a fair way to come up with them. The fact of the matter is when it comes to ND high schools (not just athletics, but the actual schools) there are haves and have nots and I guess I see a lot more right with this plan than wrong with it.

I feel like you have to have the multiplier, because teams will not just opt up based on their own free will. I don't know if that should be a 1.5 or a 2, but there needs to be a multiplier. We have one in our football plan, granted it's to help out the "have nots" when it comes to resources, but it's a multiplier regardless.

I know people say it's been discussed on here, but I've went back and read this topic. What are the main issues people have with the plan? I've seen that the cut off number is just to get Ryan in the middle, I've also seen that regions have flip flopped and the number has changed to get a couple of teams in/out of a class. Are there any others? Please spell it out for me like I'm unintelligent because I'm trying to understand.

From what I've seen, almost 60 percent of the total schools are in favor of this plan with about 25 that haven't submitted a vote. If 10 of those schools are in favor we would be quite a bit over the 60 percent threshold. I would assume 20 of those schools would be in favor of it as they are the larger current class A schools.

[maddog1971]

The numbers don't lie. Privates have an advantage over small class B Schools. I don't care if 92 kids.... when they are in State every year and beating up on all other local schools and they have done it forever.... When was the last time Ryan went 4-12 on the year... and finished last in the region.... Statistically it should happen every few years on a level playing field.

I’d maybe give you that argument if Bishop Ryan was dominating at the state tournament every year. Their last championship was in 1994. Two other championship game appearances almost twenty years apart. When is the last time Bishop Ryan played a region championship against a team ranked in the top 10-15? Happens almost every year in Region 1 and 2. You put any of the top 4 teams from Region 1 or 2 in that tournament and Bishop Ryan’s appearances are probably cut in half

I never said they have won it all.... I said state appearances... and if Bishop Ryan does not want to go to the state tournament... I am guessing the class B schools from the area would.

My point is the other schools in that region aren’t dealing with a juggernaut program that beats everyone in their path because of their private school status.

Well I grew up in that area and played Bishop Ryan all the time... Bishop Ryan is the Juggernaut.

[Thundersnow]

The arguments against this proposal appear to fall into 3 categories:

1) "This plan isn't perfect."
2) "My team will be moved up the middle class and we might lose more games."
3) "Nothing needs to change, things are good the way they are."

People are certainly entitled to their own opinion. I just don't find any of the arguments against the proposal to be compelling enough to vote against it.

[Flying Wallenda]

The arguments against this proposal appear to fall into 3 categories:

1) "This plan isn't perfect."
2) "My team will be moved up the middle class and we might lose more games."
3) "Nothing needs to change, things are good the way they are."

People are certainly entitled to their own opinion. I just don't find any of the arguments against the proposal to be compelling enough to vote against it.

I don't agree.

Figure out what the state tournament looks like - do we have to have joint tournaments/tournaments the same weekend? Venues? Don't just give me a list of towns/cities.....Broadcasting? Semifinals held at 1 PM in order to broadcast? Are we webstreaming? UNKNOWNS....

Why the condensed middle class? I think you know -

No idea who you cheer for, lets say hypothetically HN due to your name - do you think THEY would have voted for this if the cutoff numbers were what they are in SD (90-449)? Do you think they would have voted for this if the cutoff was 150, like I believe is PROBABLY fair? NO WAY -

Do you think Devils Lake/Turtle MT vote for this if the cutoff had stayed at 575?

Should Carrington's administration be voting for this because Valley City has struggled? Carrington's boys have won about 15 games the last 3 years......

[Thundersnow]

Flying Wallenda, all of your questions are fair. State tournaments have been the way they are a for a long time. Adding two more of them will require details that need to be worked out. The proposal has laid out dates and location possibilities. As far as broadcasting, game times, and exact venues, you're right, I don't see them specified. I don't know where the media rights contract is at currently, but I would hope the NDHSAA gives up on the "exclusive rights" idea if the 3-class proposal passes. BEK, NBC Sports, Magnitude Sports, Your Live Event, and PSP Network are all capable of broadcasting and/or streaming a state tournament. ABC has done fine, but they put some state tournament games behind a paywall and I don't think they deserve to have all broadcasting rights for what would be 6 state tournaments if this passes.

All of your questions about specific schools voting "yes" or "no" I see your point. At least 80% of schools seem to vote for what is in their best interests, and that is totally their right. This proposal is addressing as many concerns as it can. No doubt there will be teams and towns that are unhappy with where the lines are drawn. But anyone that thinks that 325 is the magic number that determines whether you are a big school or a small school hasn't paid attention to ND high school basketball since 1995.

[Thundersnow]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=3+ ... ORM=VDRVSR

Here is part 4 of the "After the Whistle" show that talks specifically about the postseason with Ryan Larson and Tanner Purintun. All 4 segments are worth watching in my opinion.

[TommiesFan]

I guess I look at the middle class in the current proposal and not one school jumps out at me as not having the resources or the enrollment to compete against the rest of the teams in the class. I don't know what the enrollment numbers should be or what is a fair way to come up with them. The fact of the matter is when it comes to ND high schools (not just athletics, but the actual schools) there are haves and have nots and I guess I see a lot more right with this plan than wrong with it.

I feel like you have to have the multiplier, because teams will not just opt up based on their own free will. I don't know if that should be a 1.5 or a 2, but there needs to be a multiplier. We have one in our football plan, granted it's to help out the "have nots" when it comes to resources, but it's a multiplier regardless.

I know people say it's been discussed on here, but I've went back and read this topic. What are the main issues people have with the plan? I've seen that the cut off number is just to get Ryan in the middle, I've also seen that regions have flip flopped and the number has changed to get a couple of teams in/out of a class. Are there any others? Please spell it out for me like I'm unintelligent because I'm trying to understand.

From what I've seen, almost 60 percent of the total schools are in favor of this plan with about 25 that haven't submitted a vote. If 10 of those schools are in favor we would be quite a bit over the 60 percent threshold. I would assume 20 of those schools would be in favor of it as they are the larger current class A schools.

Okay, I'll bite. Held my tongue as long as I could...ha!
From Thompson, and here is my personal take on this:

Original proposal of 150-500 being middle class honestly wasn't bad, in fact our school probably would have been in favor of this. This had us in the NE Region, which consisted of 10 teams. This would allow us to play the 9 games required in our Region, and then schedule the remaining 12 how we see fit. We could double up with HCV and Grafton, for example, as rivalry games. We still had MPCG, Hatton, Langdon, Midway/Minto, etc, in the Region, who are also rivals. We could still play Casselton, Kindred, Northern Cass, Oak Grove, like we have in the past, including some of those teams this year. We'd still go out West for the Holiday tournament in Minot. So, from a scheduling perspective, it was not too bad.

Then, the numbers started changing. Bottom cutoff of middle class went from 150 to 180. Top cutoff went from 500 to 575. Middle class went from 40 teams to 32. Our NE Region that originally still included our rival schools went to an EAST Region of 15 teams, that included Devils Lake and Turtle Mountain, Valley City and Wahpeton. We lost MPCG, Hatton/Northwood, Langdon, and Midway/Minto. Our average travel time for away games went from about 40 minutes, to 120 minutes. You think of a home game vs rival MPCG, with a full gym, being replaced with a home game vs Valley City, for example, who will probably bring about 15-20 parents. You think of doubling or tripling your travel costs, in combination with lost revenue of the gate, the lost revenue of concessions, and the financial piece starts to be a concern.

Then, as you watch the numbers move, and figure out why they are moving, you grow frustrated.
When the cutoff moved from 150 to 180, they gained probably 11-15 "yes" votes. When they moved the line from 500 to 575, they gained 2 "yes" votes. BUT, more importantly, they gained a "Yes" vote on the 11-person NDHSAA Board (Supt of Devils Lake is ironically on the Board, as is the Principal of Wahpeton). When you hear that Rugby was originally in the NE Region and were a "No", and then magically got moved to the West, and all of a sudden switch to a "Yes" vote, it really questions the integrity of the whole process. To me, that is the most frustrating part of this whole thing. Mr. Johnson 100% moved the lines to get the votes. It passed by maybe 7 schools? What I mention above got him 13 "yes" votes for sure.

If we think the person pushing this cares at all about small-town Class B teams, we are fools. He grew up in a Class A school, who is putting this together to create a middle class for the small Class A's that he grew up playing in, and is now a superintendent in. If he truly cared about the smaller Class B's in North Dakota, he would have left the cutoff at 120-150 for the smallest class, and created more equality in the bottom two classes. They like to throw out "competitive balance" as a reason this is needed. Then turn around and move the top cutoff to include Devils Lake in the middle class, whose girls team has made the state tournament 5 out of the past 6 years, finishing as co-champs and 2nd place in the past 3-4 years. Their boys have been to state 2 out of the past 6 years. I think most Class B's would take that same success over the past 6 years. And, if you want competitive balance, Langdon most definitely should be in the middle class, again, like was originally proposed, before moving the cutoff numbers.

Regarding participation numbers: Thompson girls program will probably have about 11 girls in grades 9-12 this year going out. Boys program will have approximately 20. These are two tenured, well-respected coaches, in programs that have been strong. I think participation numbers across the state have more to do with iPhones, iPads, XBoxs, and PS4's, then anything.

I get it: A lot of people across the state don't care for Thompson. But, I will defend our programs, as I feel we have top-notch coaches who run their programs with high class and integrity. They are top-notch guys, who run solid programs, and are highly respected within the coaching ranks. The notion that we get stellar athletes into our system from Grand Forks couldn't be further from the truth. Of the top 20 athletes that we've had in the past 5 years, 95-100% of the kids lived in the District, most of which started kindergarten in Thompson. And, just to remind everyone, the Thompson boys program has made it to State 1 time in the history of the program (2019). Girls have had success, but never have won State.

In summary, I think a 3-class system makes some sense. But, in my opinion, the middle and lower class should more closely match the %s that SD has in those lower two classes. This would allow 4 regions, with more reasonable travel, better attendance at your home games, and would allow to keep in place the existing rivalry games and home game atmospheres that Class B basketball is all about. The original 150-500 achieved this, and would have been a solid setup. So, if anyone wonders why Thompson might be against this, maybe this post shows things a bit from our perspective.