classB4ever wrote:2014-15 Class A High School Enrollment by Region
Most of these come from NDHSAA, but checked with 2014-15 district enrollment numbers and seem close.
West Fargo East 1608
Fargo Davies East 1190
Grand Forks Red River East 1129
Fargo South East 1101
Grand Forks Central East 951
West Fargo Sheyenne East 665
Devils Lake East 482
Wahpeton East 386
Valley City East 352
Fargo Shanley East 314
Minot West 2204
Bismarck Century West 1443
Bismarck High West 1403
Mandan West 1044
Williston West 1021
Dickinson West 904
Jamestown West 667
Bismarck Legacy West 534
Turtle Lake West 511
Bismarck St. Marys West 315
go maji wrote:Turtle Mountain lol
north1 wrote:Thanks classB4ever, the class B info is very interesting. Makes me appreciate teams like New England, Parshall, Solen, Ray(especially with the tragic loss they endured) even more. With numbers 2 to 4 times less than others it is amazing they can even compete, much less make it to state. Especially when you consider the increased opportunities for other sports and extra curricular activities kids have now. Not so long ago basketball was about the only major activity many of these schools had.
ndlionsfan wrote:
Using 150 enrollment as a cutoff for "big" Bs, 52 of the 90 (58%) of the qualifiers would fall in this category in the last 15 years. That includes region 3 which had none, and don't know if they would even have had any schools in the region over 150 enrollment in these years. That would change now with Oakes and Carrington in their region.
ndlionsfan wrote:Just throwing this out there to keep some discussion going now that the season is done. Looking at classb4ever's enrollment data, there are many different ways the state could go to a three class system. Based on the current 106 teams, here are 4 ways that it could work.
Based on enrollment....
Using 150-450 for the middle class (I chose that because its about the closest to a 3x difference between smallest and largest in each class) would give 16 teams AA, 29 teams A, 81 teams B.
Using 175-500 for the middle class would give 16 teams AA (Belcourt and DL could fall down soon, though), 21 teams in A (Little small in my opinion), and 89 in B.
Using something similar to the fball plan...
Top 16 in AA, Next 24 in A, remaining (86) in B
or
Top 16 in AA, Next 32 in A, remaining (78) in B, plans could be reevaluated every 5 years but then you have teams moving up/down all the time.
In any plan any team can opt up a division. To decrease on travel teams would not be required to play all the teams in their region. Postseason seeding could be determined by a power point system similar to SD. For instance, that would encourage good teams to play up a division for more points and get more interesting matchups across the state throughout the season. It would also be interesting to have a "Super A" format for all divisions state tournaments to keep the same three weekends in March, but not have it on two courts. Start earlier in the morning and play them all the way through alternating. Drop the 7th/8th place game at each tournament to save a few games if necessary. I rarely go to the state tournaments, but never miss a game on TV. If I could see the top 8 teams in boys/girls at one location on the same weekend I would be an attendee every year.
Like I said, not really advocating for a 3 class system per say, just throwing some ideas out there to keep some discussion going. I always have an open mind and would look at options to try something new in the state.
HammerTime wrote:You know, I've never gotten a reason for why people are opposed to a three class system. Why? Is it just "the way things have always been," or too much change from what we have right now, or they think it would ruin the atmosphere of the state tournament? I realize you could say, "why change? Why bother?" And I realize this entire forum has been the reasons for and against, but it really feels as though we just throw statistics and emotion at each other.
HammerTime wrote:You know, I've never gotten a reason for why people are opposed to a three class system. Why? Is it just "the way things have always been," or too much change from what we have right now, or they think it would ruin the atmosphere of the state tournament? I realize you could say, "why change? Why bother?" And I realize this entire forum has been the reasons for and against, but it really feels as though we just throw statistics and emotion at each other.
Hinsa wrote:HammerTime wrote:You know, I've never gotten a reason for why people are opposed to a three class system. Why? Is it just "the way things have always been," or too much change from what we have right now, or they think it would ruin the atmosphere of the state tournament? I realize you could say, "why change? Why bother?" And I realize this entire forum has been the reasons for and against, but it really feels as though we just throw statistics and emotion at each other.
Here is my opinion on why I don't like 3 classes. It is not based on facts and figures, it is based on my thoughts and feelings.
Adding another class waters down the achievement of making the state tournament, or winning the state tournament. To extend that thought, 3 classes gets right on the bandwagon of the "trophy for everyone" mentality.
For those 2 reasons, I cannot stomach the thought of 3 class basketball. Some examples:
Would the entire state remember the Epping Eagles were it not for the showdown against the big, bad, mighty Hillsboro team? If it was, oh, say Epping against Munich in a class C tourney, would it still have the instant recognition and memories that it now has? Of course not.
Would they have made a movie (Hoosiers) out of French Lick vs. Hanover in the state single A tournament (Indiana now has 4 classes up to four A) instead of Hickory (town of less than 1000) vs. Muncie Central (11th largest city in the state)? Of course not.
Yes, these are 2 extreme examples, but they prove the point. The bigger the underdog, the bigger the achievement. The bigger the mismatch, the more that people become emotionally invested. The bigger the achievement, the more emotional investment, the more exciting the tournament is.
More and more ND is contemplating water for more trophies. Hand out more, decrease the accomplishment, make sure everyone has a close to equal chance. Well dammit, that ain't the way life works! You hit the work world you are NOT competing on a level playing field. You do NOT have a close to equal chance to get the business job against an Ivy League grad. You do NOT have a close to equal chance to get an on air radio job if you have a nasal cavity that makes you sound like Peter Griffin from Family Guy. You will NOT become a professional gambler if you get major pits whenever you are trying to run a bluff.
Leave it at two classes. Teach kids about hard work. Let them learn how rewarding over-achieving can be. Let them learn that no matter how much they work and overachieve, it doesn't always work out.
Again, this is my opinion on the subject. I do not have all the answers, but I feel like lowering the bar is rarely a good answer.
classB4ever wrote:Really? Good response? Referencing a game from 1954? And it was Milan if I remember correctly. Then also bringing up Epping and Hillsboro, a game from 37 years ago. How did that turn out for Epping? Not in favor of giving anything for free, but don't give me this crap it's all about hard work. Are you insinuating that a player from a small school who just got knocked off in a region game for the 4th year in a row by a big didn't work hard enough? It's all fine and dandy to tell these kids to keep running into that brick wall. "Listen kids, just remember in 1954 a kid knocked a hole in that wall so keep running into it head first. And if you don't, you are a quitter and don't work hard enough." As long as you are the brick wall, who cares, right? You don't want to see real numbers or results because it might burst your bubble. If you want to debate, let's debate, but please tell me you have something better than a "Hickory" story from 1954.
If there isn't a better system than what what we have now, fine, but quit making up excuses and using the past for your arguments. Why are we introducing "Mercy Rules"? Hey, life isn't fair. I think they should be forced to keep their starters in until ahead by 50 points. Really give it to them. Teach them life isn't fair, right? And the excuse that it's illegal to adjust enrollment by a multiplier. But wait, ND does adjust its enrollments, doesn't it?
One thing I suggest every parent teach their kid: Work hard and good things will happen, but if it doesn't, just remember that life isn't always fair. And oh by the way, make sure you are the one who is writing the rules.
Sticks11 wrote:I didn't see it that way. I saw it as when you add a 3rd class it does take away from the accomplishment of what happened in two classes. I don't think it was degrading the "small school." On the other side of it, yes, I do agree with your reference of the small school getting knocked off for the 4th straight year by a big school. I just think that still happens in 3 classes.
Sticks11 wrote:I think the point being made was that if you look back historically, even in the recent past, let's pick 2011 - Do we look at North Star and their accomplishments the same way if they're winning that in the supposed "Class C?"
Sportsrube wrote:I still think that if you put all private schools in Class A, a lot of people complaining about the "unfairness" in Class B would be content with the system. I think there are more people upset about the private schools than the "big" Class B schools. (Just my opinion)
Sportsrube wrote:I still think that if you put all private schools in Class A, a lot of people complaining about the "unfairness" in Class B would be content with the system. I think there are more people upset about the private schools than the "big" Class B schools. (Just my opinion)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests