The Myth Part 3

Class B Boys
Forum rules
Please do not post just to complain about players, coaches, teams, officials, fans, or anyone else. Lets all try to demonstrate the spirit of good sportsmanship. Posts may be edited or deleted that do not comply.

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby B Historian » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:24 pm

lennylive wrote:
OldSchoolBaller wrote:The shot clock is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only, and that is to make it easier for the better team to win. I believe it was implemented a year or 2 after Shiloh played stall ball against TLMM (maybe it was just TLM at the time) to get to state. As a fan of basketball the last thing that I want to see when I go to a game is stall ball, and the shot clock does not allow this to happen.


A good defense wont allow stall ball... and the better shooting team will win no matter if there is a 3 point shot or not... so your point is?.... all that a shot clock does is make for a higher scoring game...period...I myself would rather watch a great defense and a great offense go at it.....rather than a Saturday morning race horse show... with a lot of ohs and ahs for someone canning 3 pointers behind the arc. To me a well run offense that can score inside, drive the lane, work of screens is more entertainment than an offense throwing up the 3 all night, and a defense that can stop that is even more impressive.


Would you rather see a 62-60 shot clock game with no flow and 35% shooting or a 60-58 game with no shot clock, some rhythm to it and 45-50% shooting? I know what I would choose.

People that want the shot clock will always point to that one game where someone held the ball as the reason for it. The fact is that it rarely happens anymore in HS basketball.
B Historian
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:13 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby classB4ever » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:39 pm

heimer wrote:

At the same time, Red River and Davies and Bismarck and Minot (my God, Minot) fielding one team from student bodies of 1200, 1300, 1600, and 2000 is ridiculous. We open basketball to 15 kids out of 2000? That's opportunity?

Screw this crap. Move the big Bs, the privates, the small As, and make every school with, what, 750 kids ore more? (just a thought) field a top team that is tryout based, and then one team for every 500 kids they have in school that is draft-based. Put all of those teams in the middle division, and see how much money you'll make. By my count, you'd have a robust division about about, what, I lost count at 35, probably 50 teams, maybe? Organize it however the heck you want, two divisions, small and large, four each to state, I don't care. I guarantee you'll open up a world of participation to kids not playing, that don't go out because making a team is hopeless, and allow small schools to stay on their own another 25 years before they have to co-op again.

This. Would. Work.


This is very interesting. It could possibly increase participation numbers by 20%+ in one year.
Last edited by classB4ever on Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
classB4ever
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby kboftw » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 pm

B Historian wrote:
Flip wrote:Hillsboro didn't need a co-op, but I think it's fair to say CV would struggle to get numbers without one.


Agree that CV probably needed the co-op but my point was that Hillsboro did not. I think Hillsboro was tired of not making it to state and entering into the co-op made them one of the big schools again. Having a few Henningsgards in the pipeline made it an easy decision.
Co-op talks fell through with Hillsboro in 2010. After that, Central Valley approached Thompson about a co-op. Those talks also didn't lead to any solutions.

In early 2012, Hillsboro and Central Valley revisited talks because Central Valley was going to be in danger of not being able to field some sports teams in 2012 and on into 2013. The two schools had already co-oped in baseball for many years, then they co-oped in softball in 2012. A full sports co-op followed. It was a logical place for the Central Valley students to participate in sports based on history.

Hillsboro's numbers have been growing in recent years. Central Valley's have declined slightly during that same time. If Central Valley had co-oped with someone else, people would be complaining about Thompson-Central Valley, MPCG-Central Valley, etc.
kboftw
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:47 am

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby lamontcranston » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:12 pm

kboftw wrote:
B Historian wrote:
Flip wrote:Hillsboro didn't need a co-op, but I think it's fair to say CV would struggle to get numbers without one.


Agree that CV probably needed the co-op but my point was that Hillsboro did not. I think Hillsboro was tired of not making it to state and entering into the co-op made them one of the big schools again. Having a few Henningsgards in the pipeline made it an easy decision.
Co-op talks fell through with Hillsboro in 2010. After that, Central Valley approached Thompson about a co-op. Those talks also didn't lead to any solutions.

In early 2012, Hillsboro and Central Valley revisited talks because Central Valley was going to be in danger of not being able to field some sports teams in 2012 and on into 2013. The two schools had already co-oped in baseball for many years, then they co-oped in softball in 2012. A full sports co-op followed. It was a logical place for the Central Valley students to participate in sports based on history.

Hillsboro's numbers have been growing in recent years. Central Valley's have declined slightly during that same time. If Central Valley had co-oped with someone else, people would be complaining about Thompson-Central Valley, MPCG-Central Valley, etc.

Hillsboro also revisited talks because of a legitimate concern the co-op with Thompson would go through.
lamontcranston
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:38 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby Flying Wallenda » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:04 am

B Historian wrote:
Flip wrote:Hillsboro didn't need a co-op, but I think it's fair to say CV would struggle to get numbers without one.


Agree that CV probably needed the co-op but my point was that Hillsboro did not. I think Hillsboro was tired of not making it to state and entering into the co-op made them one of the big schools again. Having a few Henningsgards in the pipeline made it an easy decision.


Or maybe Hillsboro was being a good neighbor and wanted to help out the CV kids that weren't going to be able to field a team in football and gbb?
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby Flying Wallenda » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:06 am

B Historian wrote:
Run4Fun2009 wrote:
B Historian wrote:
Flip wrote:Hillsboro didn't need a co-op, but I think it's fair to say CV would struggle to get numbers without one.


Agree that CV probably needed the co-op but my point was that Hillsboro did not. I think Hillsboro was tired of not making it to state and entering into the co-op made them one of the big schools again. Having a few Henningsgards in the pipeline made it an easy decision.


CV tried to coop with Thompson first, I believe.


Yes, if my memory serves me right that is correct. It's a good thing for those CV kids that it didn't happen. Even with all that talent Thompson would have found a way to mess it up like they always seem to do.

Thompson has been the dominant force in region 2 in girls sports for years, recently won a football state championship, always tough in baseball, and super competitive in bball. Its not like they have had hands down the best team year after year and have choked in boys bball. I think they're doing ok for themselves.
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby BISONFAN18 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:39 am

winner-within wrote:the one thing you never hear.....are student/players more deprived of playing a sport they love where there are 1,000 students in their School vs a School with 79 students?..............there are a pile of situations where 9 sophs and freshman from those Big A Schools could easily make up another competitive Class B Varsity team in the State .....

my point being, who is dealing with the most deprivation of the sport they love, the basketball player from Big Big (wait your turn....and many many don't even go out that would in a small school) or the small smalls? (where you start as an 8th grader but win 15 games in 5 years).....nobody is going to feel sorry for the student in the big big....saying they chose to live there (but did they) and everybody will feel sorry for the small small because they have no choice but to live there (or do they)..............

and yes, If the private can reach out and bring players in, then they have the best scenario going down.....

the only reason Basketball times have changed is because of what has changed in agriculture in our State along with Technology and it has all been driven by the generation who is complaining about how it is now!


you could balance it to 5 classes and never get to where everybody is over 500 for the season and the championship is won in overtime every year!


No one hears about it because the debate is small town basketball. Basketball is "different" in small towns. It use to be anyway.
BISONFAN18
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:32 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby BISONFAN18 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:43 am

B Historian wrote:
lennylive wrote:
OldSchoolBaller wrote:The shot clock is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only, and that is to make it easier for the better team to win. I believe it was implemented a year or 2 after Shiloh played stall ball against TLMM (maybe it was just TLM at the time) to get to state. As a fan of basketball the last thing that I want to see when I go to a game is stall ball, and the shot clock does not allow this to happen.


A good defense wont allow stall ball... and the better shooting team will win no matter if there is a 3 point shot or not... so your point is?.... all that a shot clock does is make for a higher scoring game...period...I myself would rather watch a great defense and a great offense go at it.....rather than a Saturday morning race horse show... with a lot of ohs and ahs for someone canning 3 pointers behind the arc. To me a well run offense that can score inside, drive the lane, work of screens is more entertainment than an offense throwing up the 3 all night, and a defense that can stop that is even more impressive.


Would you rather see a 62-60 shot clock game with no flow and 35% shooting or a 60-58 game with no shot clock, some rhythm to it and 45-50% shooting? I know what I would choose.

People that want the shot clock will always point to that one game where someone held the ball as the reason for it. The fact is that it rarely happens anymore in HS basketball.


Way off topic but the effect of the shot clock is not making the game worse.
BISONFAN18
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:32 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby OldSchoolBaller » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:51 am

B Historian wrote:
lennylive wrote:
OldSchoolBaller wrote:The shot clock is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only, and that is to make it easier for the better team to win. I believe it was implemented a year or 2 after Shiloh played stall ball against TLMM (maybe it was just TLM at the time) to get to state. As a fan of basketball the last thing that I want to see when I go to a game is stall ball, and the shot clock does not allow this to happen.


A good defense wont allow stall ball... and the better shooting team will win no matter if there is a 3 point shot or not... so your point is?.... all that a shot clock does is make for a higher scoring game...period...I myself would rather watch a great defense and a great offense go at it.....rather than a Saturday morning race horse show... with a lot of ohs and ahs for someone canning 3 pointers behind the arc. To me a well run offense that can score inside, drive the lane, work of screens is more entertainment than an offense throwing up the 3 all night, and a defense that can stop that is even more impressive.


Would you rather see a 62-60 shot clock game with no flow and 35% shooting or a 60-58 game with no shot clock, some rhythm to it and 45-50% shooting? I know what I would choose.

People that want the shot clock will always point to that one game where someone held the ball as the reason for it. The fact is that it rarely happens anymore in HS basketball.


Personally as long as there is pace to the game that is all that I care about. The thing is if you are a bad shooting team, and there is not a shot clock you are going to try to shorten the game and take the air out of the ball. That is what I don't want to see.

For instance say one team is a regular 40% shooting team and the other shoots 50% on average and there is an average of 50 shots for each team per game. That means on a average night the 50% shooting team wins by 5 shots. So in order to win the 40% team has to have enough go right for them to get 12.5 more possessions than the 50% shooting team whether through offensive rebounds, steals etc. Now if the 40% shooting team is allowed to take the air out of the ball and cut those overall possessions in half then they only have to make up 6.25 possessions. Therefore the game is slow, and not as enjoyable to watch IMO, and the better team may not be as likely to win. And to be quite honest if your team can't consistently find a decent shot with a 35 second shot clock then you probably don't deserve to win.

To address the 3 point shot, we don't need to bring basketball back to the 70's to have a good game.
“It’s not the will to win that matters – everyone has that. It’s the will to prepare to win that matters.” - Paul "Bear" Bryant
OldSchoolBaller
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:06 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby Flip » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:55 am

OldSchoolBaller wrote:For instance say one team is a regular 40% shooting team and the other shoots 50% on average and there is an average of 50 shots for each team per game. That means on a average night the 50% shooting team wins by 5 shots. So in order to win the 40% team has to have enough go right for them to get 12.5 more possessions than the 50% shooting team whether through offensive rebounds, steals etc. Now if the 40% shooting team is allowed to take the air out of the ball and cut those overall possessions in half then they only have to make up 6.25 possessions. Therefore the game is slow, and not as enjoyable to watch IMO, and the better team may not be as likely to win. And to be quite honest if your team can't consistently find a decent shot with a 35 second shot clock then you probably don't deserve to win.


I was neutral on the idea of having a shot clock when they were first introduced, but now that we have it I'd much rather have it than not have it.

I get what you're saying in your example, but that is a complete over simplification. You can also generate more possessions/create or limit shots by getting more offensive rebounds or creating more turnovers.

To address the 3 point shot, we don't need to bring basketball back to the 70's to have a good game.

I have no idea what this would like today, but I would like to see it.
Flip
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:35 am

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby kboftw » Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:49 am

lamontcranston wrote:
kboftw wrote:
B Historian wrote:
Flip wrote:Hillsboro didn't need a co-op, but I think it's fair to say CV would struggle to get numbers without one.


Agree that CV probably needed the co-op but my point was that Hillsboro did not. I think Hillsboro was tired of not making it to state and entering into the co-op made them one of the big schools again. Having a few Henningsgards in the pipeline made it an easy decision.
Co-op talks fell through with Hillsboro in 2010. After that, Central Valley approached Thompson about a co-op. Those talks also didn't lead to any solutions.

In early 2012, Hillsboro and Central Valley revisited talks because Central Valley was going to be in danger of not being able to field some sports teams in 2012 and on into 2013. The two schools had already co-oped in baseball for many years, then they co-oped in softball in 2012. A full sports co-op followed. It was a logical place for the Central Valley students to participate in sports based on history.

Hillsboro's numbers have been growing in recent years. Central Valley's have declined slightly during that same time. If Central Valley had co-oped with someone else, people would be complaining about Thompson-Central Valley, MPCG-Central Valley, etc.

Hillsboro also revisited talks because of a legitimate concern the co-op with Thompson would go through.
From what I understand, the schools were pretty far apart from making anything happen with playing time concerns, naming, etc. (This coming from someone familiar with all three administrations of the schools we're talking about.) Still wouldn't have made sense to break up H-CV's existing co-ops in other sports, imo.
kboftw
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:47 am

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby OldSchoolBaller » Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:57 am

Flip wrote:
OldSchoolBaller wrote:For instance say one team is a regular 40% shooting team and the other shoots 50% on average and there is an average of 50 shots for each team per game. That means on a average night the 50% shooting team wins by 5 shots. So in order to win the 40% team has to have enough go right for them to get 12.5 more possessions than the 50% shooting team whether through offensive rebounds, steals etc. Now if the 40% shooting team is allowed to take the air out of the ball and cut those overall possessions in half then they only have to make up 6.25 possessions. Therefore the game is slow, and not as enjoyable to watch IMO, and the better team may not be as likely to win. And to be quite honest if your team can't consistently find a decent shot with a 35 second shot clock then you probably don't deserve to win.


I was neutral on the idea of having a shot clock when they were first introduced, but now that we have it I'd much rather have it than not have it.

I get what you're saying in your example, but that is a complete over simplification. You can also generate more possessions/create or limit shots by getting more offensive rebounds or creating more turnovers.

To address the 3 point shot, we don't need to bring basketball back to the 70's to have a good game.

I have no idea what this would like today, but I would like to see it.


I believe I addressed the bolded in my original statement. I simplified it all first and then brought the steals/turnovers and offensive rebounds that you would need to compensate for a lower shooting %.
“It’s not the will to win that matters – everyone has that. It’s the will to prepare to win that matters.” - Paul "Bear" Bryant
OldSchoolBaller
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:06 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby heimer » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:12 am

This isn't about shot clock or no shot clock.

I'm telling you now, if we don't move to support three classes, you will lose basketball as we know it.

Wyndmere and Lidgerwood should have a class where they can exist on their own, not be forced to co-op for survival.

The shot clock has not made the game worse, except at the A girls level, where it's only 30 seconds. That needs to change.

Lets get back on point.
God is bigger than football.
heimer
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:11 pm
Location: Rupert's Land

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby vikingman » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:19 am

Can anyone give me the rationale for WHY the girls shot clock is different from the boys?
vikingman
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:24 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby The Schwab » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:51 am

As far as the shot clock goes I will throw this out. When talking recently to basketball coaches in South Dakota (who now have both the shot clock and a 3 class system) they said they would want the 3 class system over the shot clock any day.

I know most of you disagree with heimer, but he's not wrong. The three class system would lead to better basketball, more kids participating and a tremendous amount of excitement.
The Schwab
User avatar
The Schwab
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:38 am
Location: The Peace Garden State

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby BISONFAN18 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:16 pm

The Schwab wrote:As far as the shot clock goes I will throw this out. When talking recently to basketball coaches in South Dakota (who now have both the shot clock and a 3 class system) they said they would want the 3 class system over the shot clock any day.

I know most of you disagree with heimer, but he's not wrong. The three class system would lead to better basketball, more kids participating and a tremendous amount of excitement.


It will absolutely lead to better basketball.
BISONFAN18
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:32 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby B Historian » Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:42 pm

OldSchoolBaller wrote:
B Historian wrote:
lennylive wrote:
OldSchoolBaller wrote:The shot clock is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only, and that is to make it easier for the better team to win. I believe it was implemented a year or 2 after Shiloh played stall ball against TLMM (maybe it was just TLM at the time) to get to state. As a fan of basketball the last thing that I want to see when I go to a game is stall ball, and the shot clock does not allow this to happen.


A good defense wont allow stall ball... and the better shooting team will win no matter if there is a 3 point shot or not... so your point is?.... all that a shot clock does is make for a higher scoring game...period...I myself would rather watch a great defense and a great offense go at it.....rather than a Saturday morning race horse show... with a lot of ohs and ahs for someone canning 3 pointers behind the arc. To me a well run offense that can score inside, drive the lane, work of screens is more entertainment than an offense throwing up the 3 all night, and a defense that can stop that is even more impressive.


Would you rather see a 62-60 shot clock game with no flow and 35% shooting or a 60-58 game with no shot clock, some rhythm to it and 45-50% shooting? I know what I would choose.

People that want the shot clock will always point to that one game where someone held the ball as the reason for it. The fact is that it rarely happens anymore in HS basketball.


Personally as long as there is pace to the game that is all that I care about. The thing is if you are a bad shooting team, and there is not a shot clock you are going to try to shorten the game and take the air out of the ball. That is what I don't want to see.

For instance say one team is a regular 40% shooting team and the other shoots 50% on average and there is an average of 50 shots for each team per game. That means on a average night the 50% shooting team wins by 5 shots. So in order to win the 40% team has to have enough go right for them to get 12.5 more possessions than the 50% shooting team whether through offensive rebounds, steals etc. Now if the 40% shooting team is allowed to take the air out of the ball and cut those overall possessions in half then they only have to make up 6.25 possessions. Therefore the game is slow, and not as enjoyable to watch IMO, and the better team may not be as likely to win. And to be quite honest if your team can't consistently find a decent shot with a 35 second shot clock then you probably don't deserve to win.

To address the 3 point shot, we don't need to bring basketball back to the 70's to have a good game.


High school basketball in other states does just fine without a shot clock. Again, the shot clock forces rushed shots from kids that aren't that skilled and it's a bad combo.

Without the shot clock, a poorer shooting team can play at a slower pace to get better shots and that's not a bad thing. I have already demonstrated that at the state and regional tournament levels in ND the shot clock has had a negligible effect on scoring. If the scoring difference is small, I would rather see games with longer possessions and better shooting then games with a bunch of rushed shots and low shooting percentages.
B Historian
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:13 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby B Historian » Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:48 pm

heimer wrote:This isn't about shot clock or no shot clock.

I'm telling you now, if we don't move to support three classes, you will lose basketball as we know it.

Wyndmere and Lidgerwood should have a class where they can exist on their own, not be forced to co-op for survival.

The shot clock has not made the game worse, except at the A girls level, where it's only 30 seconds. That needs to change.

Lets get back on point.


What do you mean by lose basketball as we know it? Please elaborate.

Wyndmere has 70 kids in HS and Lidgerwood 61. They should exist on their own in basketball but everyone is saying Central Valley can't do it with 62 kids?
B Historian
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:13 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby B Historian » Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:57 pm

Flying Wallenda wrote:
B Historian wrote:
Run4Fun2009 wrote:
B Historian wrote:
Flip wrote:Hillsboro didn't need a co-op, but I think it's fair to say CV would struggle to get numbers without one.


Agree that CV probably needed the co-op but my point was that Hillsboro did not. I think Hillsboro was tired of not making it to state and entering into the co-op made them one of the big schools again. Having a few Henningsgards in the pipeline made it an easy decision.


CV tried to coop with Thompson first, I believe.


Yes, if my memory serves me right that is correct. It's a good thing for those CV kids that it didn't happen. Even with all that talent Thompson would have found a way to mess it up like they always seem to do.

Thompson has been the dominant force in region 2 in girls sports for years, recently won a football state championship, always tough in baseball, and super competitive in bball. Its not like they have had hands down the best team year after year and have choked in boys bball. I think they're doing ok for themselves.


Thompson has done great in the other sports, but I was only talking basketball. This is just a few of the things that have gone wrong for Thompson on the basketball court over the last 10 years:

2009- ranked 8th in final poll, beat Dakota Prairie by 16 in district final but lose to unranked Grafton in region semis. Dakota Prairie goes on to win the region and finish second in the state.

2010- ranked 8th in final poll, heavy favorite to win region but blow 10-point second half lead to unranked Cavalier in region championship game.

2016- RV in final poll. Lose 50-48 in region semis to HCV after holding a 7-point lead in the 4th quarter. Had already beaten HCV in regular season.

2017- ranked 7th in final poll, lose to HCV in OT in region title game after beating HCV by 16 in the regular season.

2018- ranked 10th in final poll, lose to Grafton by 1 in region semis after blowing 6-point lead in the final 2 minutes. Also blew late leads against HCV (twice) and Minot Ryan in the regular season.

So, Thompson definitely has a problem with choking in the big games. But just like clockwork as soon as this season ends someone will be on here anointing Thompson as the favorite again next year despite the fact that they can't ever win when it counts.
B Historian
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:13 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby ndlionsfan » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:50 pm

B Historian wrote:
heimer wrote:This isn't about shot clock or no shot clock.

I'm telling you now, if we don't move to support three classes, you will lose basketball as we know it.

Wyndmere and Lidgerwood should have a class where they can exist on their own, not be forced to co-op for survival.

The shot clock has not made the game worse, except at the A girls level, where it's only 30 seconds. That needs to change.

Lets get back on point.


What do you mean by lose basketball as we know it? Please elaborate.

Wyndmere has 70 kids in HS and Lidgerwood 61. They should exist on their own in basketball but everyone is saying Central Valley can't do it with 62 kids?


I think it's interesting to look at Region 8. Very few coops and many schools that have HS enrollments in the 40s and still field their own teams and have for many years with those numbers. Also, have the big schools in WC, NT, and Stanley plus a private school although very small. How does this area do it, but other areas of the state have to co-op so much? Just curious.
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3692
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby ndlionsfan » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:56 pm

B Historian wrote:SD has had a 3-class system for over 30 years and yet they have several co-ops, most of them in the smallest class:

http://www.sdhsaa.com/Athletics/ClassificationInformation/Cooperatives.aspx

I think a 3-class system in ND would probably stem the tide of further co-ops but I don't think more than a handful of current ones would dissolve if there were three classes.

After doing a little analysis, there is one interesting fact about ND Class B schools: Over the next several years, the public Class B schools will actually be gaining enrollment overall. Right now there are about 2500 seniors at such schools across the state while there are about 3200 in kindergarten. It will be interesting to see how this effects basketball going forward.


I counted 18 co-ops for SD. Going through the list for ND I counted 25 true co-ops. I did not count Rolette/Wolford, Strasburg/Zeeland, Grafton/St. Thomas, etc. as co-ops as one piece of those co-ops is so small they would have no chance of standing on their own. Also did not count the Class A/middle schools that are also listed as an official co-op. So the actual number goes way up. Do not know anything on if there are similar co-ops for SD. I was surprised that I thought it would actually be much higher in ND than what I found.
"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"
User avatar
ndlionsfan
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 3692
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Central ND

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby Pit Bull » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:12 pm

BISONFAN18 wrote:
Pit Bull wrote:
Sniper wrote:
District12guy wrote:For some privates it's simply not possible to move up a class. For example, I know for a fact that Bishop Ryan and Our Reedemers aren't big schools enrollment wise, and most of their players have been there for their entire high school careers, so "recruiting" isn't an issue. Plenty of small town schools have more students. Is it really fair to move these schools up a class simply because they are private schools? Or because they are located in Minot? I don't know anything about any of the other privates, all I'm saying is not all of them have an overwhelming advantage as many here seem to believe. In fact, in region 6 the most dominant teams for a few years have been teams like Rugby and Berthold.


I think the “recruiting” associated with private schools is mostly pointed at the amount of students Shiloh has had transfer in over the years, which is a lot and many of them just happen to be good athletes. Also the advantages most people refer to when talking about private schools is living in towns that offer many more opportunities to improve in athletics. You can’t tell me living somewhere that you have little league sports, acceleration programs available, a YMCA, summer camps does not help. And yes schools like Thompson have a similar advantage living near bigger cities that offer this but I would rather have them be the “bad guys” than the schools located within those cities.


Curious who the boys have recruited over the years? Ogbu was a rare exception. So other than him since I'm sure you think he was recruited, who else in their boys program? Just curious since you seem to think it's rampant.


There have been multiple people get jobs at Shiloh whos children happen to be star athletes there. Call it what you wish. It is just one of the perks of the location I guess. Don't pretend it does not happen.


I would estimate that a lot of employees at Shiloh have kids attending the school. It has nothing to do with athletics, but more to do with convenience. Most of these employees could make a lot more money in the Public school system believe me. This assumption is ridiculous.
Pit Bull
NDPreps Starter
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:06 am

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby BISONFAN18 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:18 pm

ndlionsfan wrote:
B Historian wrote:SD has had a 3-class system for over 30 years and yet they have several co-ops, most of them in the smallest class:

http://www.sdhsaa.com/Athletics/ClassificationInformation/Cooperatives.aspx

I think a 3-class system in ND would probably stem the tide of further co-ops but I don't think more than a handful of current ones would dissolve if there were three classes.

After doing a little analysis, there is one interesting fact about ND Class B schools: Over the next several years, the public Class B schools will actually be gaining enrollment overall. Right now there are about 2500 seniors at such schools across the state while there are about 3200 in kindergarten. It will be interesting to see how this effects basketball going forward.


I counted 18 co-ops for SD. Going through the list for ND I counted 25 true co-ops. I did not count Rolette/Wolford, Strasburg/Zeeland, Grafton/St. Thomas, etc. as co-ops as one piece of those co-ops is so small they would have no chance of standing on their own. Also did not count the Class A/middle schools that are also listed as an official co-op. So the actual number goes way up. Do not know anything on if there are similar co-ops for SD. I was surprised that I thought it would actually be much higher in ND than what I found.
Just to compair apples to apples, how many SD coops are "true" coops?
BISONFAN18
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:32 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby BISONFAN18 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:23 pm

Pit Bull wrote:
BISONFAN18 wrote:
Pit Bull wrote:
Sniper wrote:
District12guy wrote:For some privates it's simply not possible to move up a class. For example, I know for a fact that Bishop Ryan and Our Reedemers aren't big schools enrollment wise, and most of their players have been there for their entire high school careers, so "recruiting" isn't an issue. Plenty of small town schools have more students. Is it really fair to move these schools up a class simply because they are private schools? Or because they are located in Minot? I don't know anything about any of the other privates, all I'm saying is not all of them have an overwhelming advantage as many here seem to believe. In fact, in region 6 the most dominant teams for a few years have been teams like Rugby and Berthold.


I think the “recruiting” associated with private schools is mostly pointed at the amount of students Shiloh has had transfer in over the years, which is a lot and many of them just happen to be good athletes. Also the advantages most people refer to when talking about private schools is living in towns that offer many more opportunities to improve in athletics. You can’t tell me living somewhere that you have little league sports, acceleration programs available, a YMCA, summer camps does not help. And yes schools like Thompson have a similar advantage living near bigger cities that offer this but I would rather have them be the “bad guys” than the schools located within those cities.


Curious who the boys have recruited over the years? Ogbu was a rare exception. So other than him since I'm sure you think he was recruited, who else in their boys program? Just curious since you seem to think it's rampant.


There have been multiple people get jobs at Shiloh whos children happen to be star athletes there. Call it what you wish. It is just one of the perks of the location I guess. Don't pretend it does not happen.


I would estimate that a lot of employees at Shiloh have kids attending the school. It has nothing to do with athletics, but more to do with convenience. Most of these employees could make a lot more money in the Public school system believe me. This assumption is ridiculous.
What assumption? There have been star athletes transfer to Shiloh and their parents have received employment there. That is a fact. I did not assume any wrong doing. I actually said it was a perk of being in a good location.
BISONFAN18
NDPreps Reserve
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:32 pm

Re: The Myth Part 3

Postby Sniper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:20 pm

BISONFAN18 wrote:
Pit Bull wrote:
BISONFAN18 wrote:
Pit Bull wrote:
Sniper wrote:
District12guy wrote:For some privates it's simply not possible to move up a class. For example, I know for a fact that Bishop Ryan and Our Reedemers aren't big schools enrollment wise, and most of their players have been there for their entire high school careers, so "recruiting" isn't an issue. Plenty of small town schools have more students. Is it really fair to move these schools up a class simply because they are private schools? Or because they are located in Minot? I don't know anything about any of the other privates, all I'm saying is not all of them have an overwhelming advantage as many here seem to believe. In fact, in region 6 the most dominant teams for a few years have been teams like Rugby and Berthold.


I think the “recruiting” associated with private schools is mostly pointed at the amount of students Shiloh has had transfer in over the years, which is a lot and many of them just happen to be good athletes. Also the advantages most people refer to when talking about private schools is living in towns that offer many more opportunities to improve in athletics. You can’t tell me living somewhere that you have little league sports, acceleration programs available, a YMCA, summer camps does not help. And yes schools like Thompson have a similar advantage living near bigger cities that offer this but I would rather have them be the “bad guys” than the schools located within those cities.


Curious who the boys have recruited over the years? Ogbu was a rare exception. So other than him since I'm sure you think he was recruited, who else in their boys program? Just curious since you seem to think it's rampant.


There have been multiple people get jobs at Shiloh whos children happen to be star athletes there. Call it what you wish. It is just one of the perks of the location I guess. Don't pretend it does not happen.


I would estimate that a lot of employees at Shiloh have kids attending the school. It has nothing to do with athletics, but more to do with convenience. Most of these employees could make a lot more money in the Public school system believe me. This assumption is ridiculous.
What assumption? There have been star athletes transfer to Shiloh and their parents have received employment there. That is a fact. I did not assume any wrong doing. I actually said it was a perk of being in a good location.


I am very confused at what Pit Bull thinks we are all assuming. Every school has teachers who’s children go to the school they teach at. I highly doubt every single athlete that I listed who transferred to Shiloh in the past few years transferred because their parents got a teaching job at the school. Let’s face it transferring out of the public schools in Bismarck to Shiloh allows for athletes to continue playing when they might of not made it in the bigger schools. It’s not Shilohs fault for this happening, it’s just an advantage of being located in one of the biggest cities in the state. You cannot deny that Shiloh has had students transfer in recently whether it’s in elementary, middle or high school. It is what it is.
Sniper
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:30 am
Location: Bismarck, ND

PreviousNext

Return to Boys

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests