North Dakota Preps

heimer wrote:I have five minutes before I'm on the air.

So, last thing first:

Bismarck--B boys every year, period.

We can talk about the rest later. If there was any evidence about anything to be gleaned by this past weekend, it's that B boys belongs in Bismarck.

Amen

ndlionsfan wrote:Just a question, but I thought Rugby had moved to Class B quite a while before the Northstar Conference ended. I was thinking mid-80s, but could be wrong. Can anyone verify exactly when Rugby left Class A?

1990 was Rugby's last year in A. A lot of people were angry about them moving down with Bottineau and Harvey in a similar way to the whole Valley City hate we have now.

heimer wrote: There's a good reason why Rugby hasn't won a B title since 62. They were flippin' Class A till 1991.

Just gonna correct you right there. That '62 title was over Phil Jackson's Williston Coyotes. It was one of very few A titles won by a North Star team. Their last B title was in '41. And, incidentally, I was a little disappointed that nobody noticed that it was 75 years ago, not 74, not 76, I'm not rounding, that Rugby won their very first state title at any level. That was why I asked on the "past state champions" what day it was on.

Hammer, the point still valid. They hadn't won a title because they were A. No one bumps Valley City down to B so they can win a title just because they haven't won one since 61 (I think that was their last title, may be 60). Maybe we should put that number back to 400 and rejoice when the Hi-Liners hoist the B trophy.

Same thing.

Oh that's right, they aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.

I need to ask one question. How many people that oppose the three class system lived during the last three class system?

Depends on what you mean.

If you mean the class C days, not many,

The North Star was what I've asked for for years: an expansion of A, small school regions, and guaranteed representation in the state tournament.

It's such a crappy system that the NCAA uses it for the most popular tournament on the planet.

I lived through that. It works.

HONKER wrote:I need to ask one question. How many people that oppose the three class system lived during the last three class system?

If you're talking the class C days, it's apples to oranges because there were so many more teams back then.

Indy5 wrote:

HONKER wrote:I need to ask one question. How many people that oppose the three class system lived during the last three class system?

If you're talking the class C days, it's apples to oranges because there were so many more teams back then.

Very true, Indy. We are talking about a solution to a very different issue, with other problems to think of. This isn't a call back to the past.

Heimer, that NCAA tournament you speak of... That's the one where a 16 seed has never won a game, seeds 12-16 have never made the Final Four, and a 9-16 seed has never won the title, right?

Expand 'A' and that's what you'll get at the bottom. If that's what you want, if that's a better alternative than what we have, in your opinion, fine. We just disagree.

Indy5 wrote:

HONKER wrote:I need to ask one question. How many people that oppose the three class system lived during the last three class system?

If you're talking the class C days, it's apples to oranges because there were so many more teams back then.

Indy, sorry it's apples to oranges. Back then small schools didn't have much for enrollment but could compete at a more even level. When your talking schools with enrollment of 280 vs. 80 who has the advantage?

Bisonguy06 wrote:Heimer, that NCAA tournament you speak of... That's the one where a 16 seed has never won a game, seeds 12-16 have never made the Final Four, and a 9-16 seed has never won the title, right?

Expand 'A' and that's what you'll get at the bottom. If that's what you want, if that's a better alternative than what we have, in your opinion, fine. We just disagree.

Says the guy constantly representing the "Our champ would be just as good as the A champ" "Best team ever" crowd.



And talk about moving the goal posts. Now it's about how you do at the state tournament? We were talking about the field, not how a team does.

And fine, I've always said the payoff is getting to state. Unless you win it, few remember how you actually did. But those New England kids that didn't win a game will look back at this year as a successful year, considering the toil they had getting there.

If Minot Ryan had to go through Jamestown, Devils Lake, and Belcourt to get to state wouldn't care about how they do after the tournament is over.

The B crowd is always bragging about how good their champ is. Lets see if their regulars would make state competing against A schools.

I have never, ever said that the B champ is as good as the A champ, and I absolutely do not believe that to be true. You'll find people on this website who'll make that claim. Not me.

heimer wrote:Hammer, the point still valid. They hadn't won a title because they were A. No one bumps Valley City down to B so they can win a title just because they haven't won one since 61 (I think that was their last title, may be 60). Maybe we should put that number back to 400 and rejoice when the Hi-Liners hoist the B trophy.

Same thing.

Oh that's right, they aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.

If Valley City moves down to B - drops over 120 kids in enrollment over a 25 year period of time and then wins a State B trophy in one sport (like Rugby)- I really don't think anyone is going to give 2 Sh$#2s that they were a class A team 25 years previous or think that they only won the title because they once were a Class A town before any of their current crop of kids were even conceived or thought of.
Doesn't make much sense.

You're talking to a guy who'll write at length about Valley City being at a competitive disadvantage as the smallest public school in class A, and his solution is to add even smaller schools to class A. "Doesn't make much sense" is an understatement.

The first six "big B" schools that would move up in his plan (Watford City, Central Cass, Grafton, Beulah, Lisbon, Kindred) went a combined 1 for 18 in class B state tournament appearances this year (0 for 6 in volleyball, 1 for 6 in GBB, 0 for 6 in BBB.) I didn't cherry-pick these schools at random to make my case. They are the six 'B' schools competing without co-ops and placed by enrollment in class AA football. They are the biggest of the big B's, they batted 1 for 18 this year in class B, and Heimer wants to move them up because "the system is broken." Nonsense.

I will say this though... if we're being consistent, no one should ever complain about Valley City in class 'B' if they also slide below 325. They've paid their dues as the small A school for a long time. There's nothing wrong with them having 'big B' status for awhile (see above).

heimer wrote:

Bisonguy06 wrote:Heimer, that NCAA tournament you speak of... That's the one where a 16 seed has never won a game, seeds 12-16 have never made the Final Four, and a 9-16 seed has never won the title, right?

Expand 'A' and that's what you'll get at the bottom. If that's what you want, if that's a better alternative than what we have, in your opinion, fine. We just disagree.

Says the guy constantly representing the "Our champ would be just as good as the A champ" "Best team ever" crowd.



And talk about moving the goal posts. Now it's about how you do at the state tournament? We were talking about the field, not how a team does.

And fine, I've always said the payoff is getting to state. Unless you win it, few remember how you actually did. But those New England kids that didn't win a game will look back at this year as a successful year, considering the toil they had getting there.

If Minot Ryan had to go through Jamestown, Devils Lake, and Belcourt to get to state wouldn't care about how they do after the tournament is over.

The B crowd is always bragging about how good their champ is. Lets see if their regulars would make state competing against A schools.

I've been very consistent. You can judge whether our system fits our state with a top-down approach. Start with the championship game. If you're a Milnor-sized school and Milnor wins the state championship, I'm sorry, but you can't cry foul. The same could be said about recent state champions North Star and Parshall. Throw in a much longer list of small B's that have made it to the state championship game and it's clear (to the powers that be) that our system gives a reasonable chance to the schools in class B. I didn't say "fair." Life isn't fair. I said "reasonable."

Take the same approach in class A. Just in the last two years, you have back-to-back state champions with the Fargo Shanley girls (we know how you feel about their competitive advantages), a Wahpeton boys team that was highly touted by you, a state runner-up at St. Mary's, and a banner year at TMCHS Belcourt. Again, the smallest 'A' schools seem to have a reasonable shake.

If I thought the class B champ could ever beat the class A champ under normal circumstances, I'd be pushing for a one class system. I don't believe that, so I haven't pushed for one class. All I've ever said is that "the sky is falling, our 2 class system is broken" chatter is nonsense.

Bisonguy06 wrote:You're talking to a guy who'll write at length about Valley City being at a competitive disadvantage as the smallest public school in class A, and his solution is to add even smaller schools to class A. "Doesn't make much sense" is an understatement. The first seven "big B" schools that would move up in his plan (Watford City, Central Cass, Grafton, Beulah, Lisbon, Kindred, Stanley) went a combined 1 for 21 in class B state tournament appearances this year (0 for 7 in volleyball, 1 for 7 in GBB, 0 for 7 in BBB.)

I will say this though... if we're being consistent, no one should complain about Valley City in class 'B' if they also slide below 325.

I have no complaints with Valley City being B right now...but they will be Class B really soon as they should fall under 325 at some point over the next 5 years

I edited my previous comment to remove Stanley from the very largest of the "big B's." Not that they're small, but they do co-op with Powers Lake in football, a co-op that might be what pushes them to AA football.

We'll call Stanley part of the "next 6" largest that would move up and out of B in almost any new plan. Stanley, Bottineau, Rugby, Carrington, DesLacs-Burlington, Hazen. They all have recent history in AA football, which is enrollment-based. This group batted 2 for 18 in state tourney appearances this year (1-6 in VB, 0-6 in GBb, 1-6 in BBB). I know I'm back to my bag of tricks again by listing actual tourney results.

Finally, just look at your B championship games this year.

Volleyball: North Star over Hankinson.
GBB: Ryan over Kindred
BBB: Rugby over Four Winds-Minnewaukan

If you come from a B school, you can find one in that list that looks a lot like yours. Small, medium, large, public, private, reservation, rural, metro area.

Folks, the sky isn't falling. The system isn't broken.

When you move the goalposts to the title game, all looks great.

When you just got beat in the regional semifinals for the umpteenth straight year and denied a state trip because of a "berthhog" (bigs, privates), the system doesn't look all that rosy.

You can take a micro view or a macro view. Your view is micro, and always has been: the state tournament.

My view is macro: 60-point blowouts in the regular season and Trinity winning by 2 do defeat the latest flavor to get close but not close enough.

Everytime Shiloh, Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, or a big get in, they defeated three schools to do so.

We have about 90 teams statewide, give or take. Shiloh and Oak Grove both there=6 of 90 that lost an unfair matchup in regionals, just short of 10 percent.

Expansion of A means a fighting chance for a trip to state for a lot of teams. The status quo means that, every year, a quarter of the field will not look like the other ones, or much like the 82 teams that stayed home.

This can be debated until the cows come home. One side says the sky is not falling, the other says the system is broke. One side wants to take a snapshot the other uses a wide angle lens. There are problems but I have no idea what the answer is. One side uses the fact that there are always 3 to 4 small teams in the tournament, but you must realize that 3 to 4 regions only had/have small teams so we will always get that many small teams. In some regions, there has been dominance by private/parochial schools. One side says "good programs", the other side says, "unfair advantages". Milnor was used as an example as a small winning the state 3 years ago. For them to come out of region 1 pretty much tells you they were a powerhouse and what tells more of a story is they weren't back the next year with nearly the entire team coming back. There have been small schools who had runs in the past 20 years. Teams like Cavalier, Leeds, Berthold, Lamoure/LMM, Northstar, and Linton/HMB have proved that small schools can compete and are used for one side's argument. How long can those small schools sustain that? I have a feeling some of those are on the cusp of long dry spells. Will some other smalls step up and take their place? I follow region 2 & 4 closely. It wouldn't be surprising to see Four Winds/Minn. go on a 10 year run in that region. Good program with numbers. Same with Grafton and HIllsboro/Central Valley in 2. Once again, good programs with numbers. 2 cents.

heimer wrote:When you move the goalposts to the title game, all looks great.

When you just got beat in the regional semifinals for the umpteenth straight year and denied a state trip because of a "berthhog" (bigs, privates), the system doesn't look all that rosy.

You can take a micro view or a macro view. Your view is micro, and always has been: the state tournament.

My view is macro: 60-point blowouts in the regular season and Trinity winning by 2 do defeat the latest flavor to get close but not close enough.

Everytime Shiloh, Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, or a big get in, they defeated three schools to do so.

We have about 90 teams statewide, give or take. Shiloh and Oak Grove both there=6 of 90 that lost an unfair matchup in regionals, just short of 10 percent.

Expansion of A means a fighting chance for a trip to state for a lot of teams. The status quo means that, every year, a quarter of the field will not look like the other ones, or much like the 82 teams that stayed home.

colored font is Key right here...not 3 class, just an expansion.... Fargo North and Valley City and Belcourt or Dickinson all know what its like to not go far anymore.....it will be hard to get past the usuals in Class A too....but to have 6 teams total in the top class wont jive...

winner-within wrote:

heimer wrote:When you move the goalposts to the title game, all looks great.

When you just got beat in the regional semifinals for the umpteenth straight year and denied a state trip because of a "berthhog" (bigs, privates), the system doesn't look all that rosy.

You can take a micro view or a macro view. Your view is micro, and always has been: the state tournament.

My view is macro: 60-point blowouts in the regular season and Trinity winning by 2 do defeat the latest flavor to get close but not close enough.

Everytime Shiloh, Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, or a big get in, they defeated three schools to do so.

We have about 90 teams statewide, give or take. Shiloh and Oak Grove both there=6 of 90 that lost an unfair matchup in regionals, just short of 10 percent.

Expansion of A means a fighting chance for a trip to state for a lot of teams. The status quo means that, every year, a quarter of the field will not look like the other ones, or much like the 82 teams that stayed home.

colored font is Key right here...not 3 class, just an expansion.... Fargo North and Valley City and Belcourt or Dickinson all know what its like to not go far anymore.....it will be hard to get past the usuals in Class A too....but to have 6 teams total in the top class wont jive...

I have no idea why we have this "expansion of A" idea at all. It's pretty much common knowledge that Class A has larger numbers, and therefore, more talent to choose from. That's why we scream for BCPs to go up a level. But, as the Bishop Ryan-Shanley game showed in GBB, they still can't compete up there. So what is so bad about 3 CLASSES? No hybrid system, no two levels of A, just three classes, with their own champions. How is that so hard to comprehend?

HammerTime wrote:

winner-within wrote:

heimer wrote:When you move the goalposts to the title game, all looks great.

When you just got beat in the regional semifinals for the umpteenth straight year and denied a state trip because of a "berthhog" (bigs, privates), the system doesn't look all that rosy.

You can take a micro view or a macro view. Your view is micro, and always has been: the state tournament.

My view is macro: 60-point blowouts in the regular season and Trinity winning by 2 do defeat the latest flavor to get close but not close enough.

Everytime Shiloh, Trinity, Ryan, Oak Grove, or a big get in, they defeated three schools to do so.

We have about 90 teams statewide, give or take. Shiloh and Oak Grove both there=6 of 90 that lost an unfair matchup in regionals, just short of 10 percent.

Expansion of A means a fighting chance for a trip to state for a lot of teams. The status quo means that, every year, a quarter of the field will not look like the other ones, or much like the 82 teams that stayed home.

colored font is Key right here...not 3 class, just an expansion.... Fargo North and Valley City and Belcourt or Dickinson all know what its like to not go far anymore.....it will be hard to get past the usuals in Class A too....but to have 6 teams total in the top class wont jive...

I have no idea why we have this "expansion of A" idea at all. It's pretty much common knowledge that Class A has larger numbers, and therefore, more talent to choose from. That's why we scream for BCPs to go up a level. But, as the Bishop Ryan-Shanley game showed in GBB, they still can't compete up there. So what is so bad about 3 CLASSES? No hybrid system, no two levels of A, just three classes, with their own champions. How is that so hard to comprehend?

The idea is not hard to comprehend. People get what a 3-Class system would be. The part that's hard is that if you had 10 people in a room, you would probably get 10 different views on how those three classes should be divided. Same as always.......who's the middle class, where do you draw the line? Then, for the sake of argument, let's say there is a three class system in place right now. Do we really believe that people wouldn't still be complaining about the "Big-C" or the bigger schools in the middle class? How about the opposite of that: If it's Class A, Class B, and Class C, people will always be saying that the smallest schools in those said classes don't have the competitive advantages as the bigger schools. Not saying a 3-Class system wouldn't work, but it's not going to fix a lot of the problems being discussed on here.

heimer wrote:Hammer, the point still valid. They hadn't won a title because they were A. No one bumps Valley City down to B so they can win a title just because they haven't won one since 61 (I think that was their last title, may be 60). Maybe we should put that number back to 400 and rejoice when the Hi-Liners hoist the B trophy.

Same thing.

Oh that's right, they aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.

was the number really 400 back then?.........never a given on hoisting, no matter the class or cut off

No, the 400 reference was to the one-year deal where the number was moved to 400.

the number has always been 325. Why should Watford City or Valley City be an exception to the rule. Who do they think they are????