classB4ever wrote:Some rambling observations concerning this topic. These are not intended as pros or cons for either side and are certainly debatable.
1. Participation at the state b is fairly predictable. This is not meant as a bad thing, just really historical and geographical numbers. Of the 8 regions, 3 of them do not really have big schools (3, 4, 8 ). That means there is generally going to be a minimum of 38% small schools every year. Of the remaining 5 regions, one small school is generally going to represent one of those regions, bringing the total to 50% smalls. Of the remaining 4 regions, chances are 2 bigger schools and 2 parochial schools will be representing.
The consistency you refer to is not limited to enrollment. One of the many things pointing this way is how consistently deep smalls are making it when they do go to state. Furthermore, it may not be as exactly as consistent as you think... Region 7 is usually considered to have the most "bigs." In the last 5 years, Beulah (244) has gone twice; Dickinson Trinity (166), Bowman (139), and Mott-Regent (68) have each gone once... That's pretty good balance.
classB4ever wrote:2. Just saying "Go out and build a program if you want to compete" is not always that easy. First of all, to do it you must be willing to realize the "return on the investment" is at best 5 years and more then likely 7-9 years away. There is always a certain amount of DNA, timing and good luck to figure into the equation as well. Every year there is proof that it has been done in communities across the state. It takes players, parents, fans and coaches to buy in and the results are generally pretty obvious. However, it does take numbers to make these programs sustainable.
It better not be that easy. In the words of Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan (A League of Their Own), "It's supposed to be hard; if it wasn't hard, everybody would do it. The hard is what makes it great."
You're right, the return on the investment takes plenty of time. You're also right... there are several other factors that "play into the equation as well." That's why we need to quit using enrollment as the lone scapegoat of failure. While it's hard work, all of the recent history in front of us shows it's a reasonable accomplishment... it's just not as easy as crying about how you want your own class.
classB4ever wrote:3. IMO, comparing boys and girls basketball in this topic is unfair. If making the state tournament is the true ultimate goal, I think that a girl's basketball team with a star caliber player and average players around her has a legitimate shot at achieving it. I do not believe it is the same in boys. IMO, it seems that you have to have some star power, some above average players and some role players.
If the topic is a 3 class system, we better compare boys and girls because it affects boys and girls equally. If there is a 3 class system for boys basketball there will be one for girls basketball as well. There will also be one for Volleyball. Girls Basketball and Volleyball may not be the fan favorites, but they are 2/3rds of the equation.
I also took the liberty of bolding one of your lines. I think that's part of the real problem... making the state tournament is the only tangible measure for success we have, but with only 8 going it would be an extremely lofty goal for most teams in most years. That's one of the reasons I advocate moving to 4 regions instead of 8... Make it an accomplishment to make the regional tournament again, give programs a more attainable goal for the years they are down or rebuilding, and you will hear less three class complaining from those who didn't make the state tournament. Different teams in different years need different goals. We need to establish a middle marker for those who aren't in a year where state is realistic.