Mike Ditka wrote:You mention that smaller schools have stayed somewhat competitive (great facts) but that is grouping them together. For every small school that has made it to state and competed how many have never made it at all? How many have waited on a group of kids to grow and invested time only to run into a bigger school with a larger talent pool and couldn't win. To me a school playing a school 5 times the size of it (new england vs Hazen 50 vs 250) is a remarkable difference in size. Especially when competing year in and year out.
Your argument that looking at the success of individual schools instead of groups of schools lumped together based on their enrollment works very well both ways. Let's actually look at some individual schools. You used Hazen vs. New England as an example... so let's look at Hazen first:
Hazen has a 9-12 enrollment of 216 students. This year their Class B regular season record was 8 wins and 11 losses. Their season ended in the regional tournament at the hands of the very New England team you reference.
Most telling of all, Hazen and its 216 high school students have been to the Class B boys state tournament a grand total of one time and that was 1965. Small schools from Hazen's own region that have gone to state more recently than 1965 include: South Heart, Glen Ullin, Belfield, Hettinger, Bowman, Mott-Regent, Richardton, Scranton, New England. How many times has Hazen waited on a group of kids to grow and invested time only run into a smaller school with fewer students just to lose to that school?
It is obvious that a school with over 200 kids has a statistical advantage over a school with under 100 kids. However, a school with 100 kids has a statistical advantage over a school with 95 kids. The question isnt if there is an advantage or not, the question is if the advantage is too great for us to reasonably expect schools to compete against each other. There is this idea is some peoples heads that the really big schools are dominating Class B, I would like to know where that idea came from. Hazen surely isn't dominating Class B. Let's look at some more individual schools
Central Cass is the largest school to make the boy's state tourney in the last 11 years. They have an enrollment of 282. In those last 11 years the only year they made it was 2005. I don't consider one state appearance in 11 years "dominating Class B."
Beulah has 257 students. They have been to state once in the last 11 years (2010).
Bottineau has 224 students. They have been to state once in the last 11 years (2005).
However, Turtle Lake- Mercer, Parshall, North Star/Cando, Mandaree, Lamoure, and Berthold have each made the state tournament twice in last 11 years (thats more than C Cass, Beulah, and Bottineau for those keeping score at home). The largest of those schools is Lamoure with an enrollment of 91.
Grafton and Watford are the only schools over 200 to make the tournament twice in the last 11 years. No school over 200 has made it three times in the last 11 years. However, Four Winds (109) and New Rockford-Sheyenne (113) have made it three years.
I guess whether I'm looking a groups of schools lumped together by enrollment or if I'm looking at individual schools, I don't see the same unreasonable advantage/disadvantage that you see. And I certainly don't see the big schools dominating Class B.
Mike Ditka wrote:-there are co-ops out there that on their own are larger than schools that aren't combined with another. Belfield and south heart for example compared to Scranton, new england. It is hard for me to imagine that they aren't combined knowing that it gives them a competitive edge. That being said....if a 3rd class was made....they would be in the middle class due to their size...do we really think they wouldn't want to separate to compete alone against the smaller schools???
Scranton and Hettinger are co-opping next year, my sources tell me the decision to do so rested not on if they were competing, but that they were begining to struggle to fill out varsity and sub-varsity squads. I applaud New England for still flying solo. It is a testimate to their strength. I hope they can continue to do so forever, but if their downward enrollment trend continues... it is only a matter of time, regardless of how many classes there are.
Again, talking co-ops only further complicates the issue. When we talk class systems we must talk total number of students available. When we talk co-ops, the issue isnt numbers available but numbers participating. The participation percentage at every school is not created equally, and no matter how many students you have in your school, if not enough are participating, its hard for you to stand on your own. In your South Heart/Belfield example, I believe at least one of the schools (ironically I think it was the larger school Belfield) was struggling to get enough participants to stand on its own. Do we all wish a higher percentage of students would choose the life long benefits that come from participating in high school athletics? Yes. Is changing class systems going to increase those participation percentages? No.
I would say there are extremely few cases where schools that have formed a co-op could break up and each of the schools still be able to field their own team. Even in those cases, so much (money and effort) goes into the forming of a co-op. Gym floors are repainted, new uniforms are purchased, new scoreboards, new mascots and more. Even if another class was added, you aren't going to see many (if any) co-ops break up.
Mike Ditka wrote:-I understand how the voting works and I do believe that most schools get a vote? I also know that superintendents....not athletic directors or coaches have the final vote. Also....many of the smaller schools that vote no are the schools that are right on the edge and wouldn't want to be stuck with higher competition without the less successful smaller schools to beat.
Every school gets a vote, one vote. Even schools who are co-opped for sports get individual votes. Ex: South Heart and Belfield each get one vote even though athletically the combine to form one team. Superintendents get the final vote.... I pity any school where the Superintentent, Athletic Director, and Coaches aren't meeting together to try to determine what is in the best interests of the school. 3 classes gets voted down consistently by the majority of schools, and the majority of schools would be in the smallest of 3 classes.
Mike Ditka wrote:-tough to argue that it takes more athletes to compete in football than basketball....but....Montana also has 6 man 8 mam 9 man and 11 man football to help keep their small "c" schools competing. I realize that they have more schools in mt...but that doesn't mean we couldn't have a 32 team class "c" and it wouldn't be great in its own right.
The whole point of the fact that football requires more athletes to compete than basketball was to illustrate that it is pointless to compare a football class plan to a basketball class plan. You are right, Montana has both 6man and 8man football in order to help out the schools that can't put 11 varsity athletes on the field. I don't know how that could possibly apply to this topic unless you suggest that the 32 teams North Dakota would put in a "Class C" play 3 on 3 instead of 5 on 5.
It seems that you desperately want 3 classes, and I don't have an illusions that I am going to quell that desire in you. However, you started this thread asking for legit reasons why North Dakota shouldnt add a third class. There are several reasons and I'm listing them as they come up in the debate. In all honesty, I think it would be much much more difficult to come up with a statistical, fact-based argument that ND should add a third class. The evidence isn't there.