HammerTime wrote:I also really agree like this plan. But it isn't without its faults. Class A should not be an East/West setup. The schools are really too small, and the travel too get from, say Bottineau to Standing Rock, is insane for a regional Class A game.
Second of all, I have always thought Hazen, Carrington and Rugby belong in AA. They aren't small schools. They are not small schools and have decent enough programs where they draw a large amount of kids each year.
Third, having 10 teams in the higher divisions and then having the best 8 make up the playoffs is ridiculous. 80% of teams should not make the playoffs each year. Ever. If you're going to have that few teams, you should have a max of 6 teams make the playoffs each year.
I really like the idea, and this system does need to change. Also, Heimer, thank you for creating a topic we can argue about again. This was why I made my account.
HammerTime wrote:I didn't include Bottineau because, they don't have a football team that draws kids. I honestly see them only playing JV in a few years. When you have to play 8th graders because you don't have enough high school players, you should not be in AA.
HammerTime wrote:I didn't include Bottineau because, they don't have a football team that draws kids. I honestly see them only playing JV in a few years. When you have to play 8th graders because you don't have enough high school players, you should not be in AA.
ndlionsfan wrote:I also agree with this along with possibly a few other schools such as Botno. I believe the NDHSAA needs to go to some type of weighted system for coops. Griggs Co, Barnes Co N, Midkota, Pingree Buchanon, and Kenal while total enrollment wise have more students than the previously mentioned schools are not going to get the same participation rate as a single school would. Same goes for Hillsboro/CV and MV/Enderlin in that AA division.
NDplayin wrote:ndlionsfan wrote:I also agree with this along with possibly a few other schools such as Botno. I believe the NDHSAA needs to go to some type of weighted system for coops. Griggs Co, Barnes Co N, Midkota, Pingree Buchanon, and Kenal while total enrollment wise have more students than the previously mentioned schools are not going to get the same participation rate as a single school would. Same goes for Hillsboro/CV and MV/Enderlin in that AA division.
This is a whole new discussion here but it is hard to argue. While I will forever adamantly argue that enrollment is the only fair and objective way to determine divisions, we do have a singular precedent by which we "subjectively" adjust that enrollment. The NDHSAA already adjusts enrollment numbers for schools who have a certain percentage of their enrollment qualifying for free and reduced lunch. Call me a hypocrite, but I accept this adjustment for 2 reasons: 1) There is a correlation, verifiable by research, that poverty levels impact participation rates, and 2) Not one of these schools has dominated the division the adjustment puts them in- in most cases they still wouldn't even be considered average teams.
Based on the the success of the free and reduced lunch adjustment, would I personally be okay with a weighted system for co-ops? I would; however, I think it would have to be a very complicated formula based on mileage. I don't think co-ops have smaller participation rates because they are co-ops- it's an indirect result of the additional daily travel miles created by the co-op. I look at South Heart/Belfield (12 miles apart) and Washburn/Wilton (16 miles apart). I don't think either of those co-ops should receive any kind of enrollment adjustment- the mileage simply doesn't warrant it, and I would bet that their participation numbers would verify that. On the other hand, I think the daily miles covered by the Central Dakota and MV/E Co-op would warrant an adjustment because that type of distance does impact participation.
How would it work in my mind? It would be complicated- there would have to be a scale set-up whereby the more miles traveled, the larger the adjustment. Furthermore, the adjustment would only apply to the portion of the enrollment subject to that daily travel. If you're a school of 100 boys and practice is always at your school, but you co-op with a school of 20 boys fifty miles away, That 50 mile adjustment would only apply to the 20 boys, not to the combined enrollment of 120. If practice facilities rotate between two or more locations, the travel would have to be averaged out to equal a "daily commitment."
NDplayin wrote:HammerTime wrote:I didn't include Bottineau because, they don't have a football team that draws kids. I honestly see them only playing JV in a few years. When you have to play 8th graders because you don't have enough high school players, you should not be in AA.
HammerTime- In years past on this site I would "hammer" this point to death, but it's been a long "time" and it bears repeating.
We absolutely cannot create a classification or division system based on how successful the program's tradition is. Enrollment is the only logical way to do it. I understand to temptation to put programs who play at the same level together, but it can't be done. For one, it's variable. Second, it's subjective. And the worst of all, it punishes the smaller school that builds a strong program and rewards the bigger school whose program is a failure. It just doesn't work and it never will... The most likely end results is the decline of the strong, smaller programs.
I believe in the opt-up. Any school that wants to be up a division should be allowed up.
I do not believe in the "opt-down." If you are above the enrollment cutoff, you should have to play in that division. You should not be given the option to move down simply because a smaller school mans-up and opts-up.
HammerTime wrote:I did not say what I said based on Bottineau's lack of success. This is a matter of participation. You literally can not compete if you do not have the kids come out and play. I realize that is a very complicated factor to take into account, but as I said before, if you don't have kids playing, you can't compete, regardless of your school's size.
HammerTime wrote:That is a fair point. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded, but what happens when you lose an entire program? Bottineau isn't exactly a shrinking town. It's definately not 9-man size. It's not a co-op that can split up. You mentioned Bottineau has 94 boys right? Is that a total for 7-12, or just 9-12? Sometimes schools put 7-12 to make them look bigger and healthier.
HammerTime wrote:That is a fair point. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded, but what happens when you lose an entire program? Bottineau isn't exactly a shrinking town. It's definately not 9-man size. It's not a co-op that can split up. You mentioned Bottineau has 94 boys right? Is that a total for 7-12, or just 9-12? Sometimes schools put 7-12 to make them look bigger and healthier.
I can agree with your statement that in scenarios like you describe, something needs to be done. I just can't agree that anything external needs to be done- I still think it needs to be fixed locally.HammerTime wrote:But I'm getting off topic. I realize Bottineau isn't and shouldn't be a focus for a new football plan, but when a program is so bad so few high schoolers play that 8th graders can play varsity, there is a serious problem. Participation is an important aspect of football, and if you can't get kids out what do you do? When you were talking about co-ops and how there needs to be a system of weighting them, participation was at least a factor for you. But when it's a single school that doesn't have people that want to come out for football, you say it's not a factor and it's the school's own fault and they need to fix it on their own. I realize that co-ops are at a disadvantage, with having to travel everyday and all, but a school like Bottineau can't simply fix this. It turns into a cycle. Without good seasons, you don't get players. And without players, you don't get good seasons. This isn't a cycle that can be broken easily. In a case like this, it would require outside help. A suggestion would be allowing a team to go down a level for a couple of seasons, get their act together and move back up. However, during this time, they can not be a part of playoffs and championships and stuff like that.
I don't really know how to answer a problem like this, but something has to happen. You can at least agree with that, right?
HammerTime wrote:And please, do not call me a Bottineau apologist because of this argument. I simply think that as this is high school football, not college, semi-pro, or pro, the playing field shouldn't be so uneven. Especially at these low levels when some kids play football simply because they have nothing better to do with their time. At this level, enrollment and participation are everything.
HammerTime wrote:I think we seem to be saying very similar things, except in different words. Something needs to be done.
Would you agree with a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years simply to get some wins and get some participation. But while in this time period, they are not a part of a region, and cannot be a part of the postseason. This way, a school can get some wins, bring up participation and move back up. But at the same time, not taking away championships and playoff spots and regional wins from the schools that are supposed to be at that level.
NodakQ2 wrote:HammerTime wrote:I think we seem to be saying very similar things, except in different words. Something needs to be done.
Would you agree with a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years simply to get some wins and get some participation. But while in this time period, they are not a part of a region, and cannot be a part of the postseason. This way, a school can get some wins, bring up participation and move back up. But at the same time, not taking away championships and playoff spots and regional wins from the schools that are supposed to be at that level.
No...It's a cycle. Bottineau will be back. Simply put, moving a team down so it's "easier" for them while they "develop" a program is what is gravely wrong with society today. Make everyone a winner...C'mon man. The NDHSAA does the fairest division possible the way they do it now. Not everyone can win every year.
In an earlier thread a guy made the statement that Ellendale should be 9 man and Carrington should be AAA! Based on what??? Ellendale has higher enrollment numbers than Carrington...Too many people base class on historical success of programs. If a program wants to opt up a class...Go for it, but moving someone down a class because they've had a tough run...ludicrous.
HammerTime wrote:I think we seem to be saying very similar things, except in different words. Something needs to be done.
Would you agree with a solution where a team goes down a level for a few years simply to get some wins and get some participation. But while in this time period, they are not a part of a region, and cannot be a part of the postseason. This way, a school can get some wins, bring up participation and move back up. But at the same time, not taking away championships and playoff spots and regional wins from the schools that are supposed to be at that level.
B-oldtimer wrote:I have been reading that 50% participation level is even a weak level of participation level but if you look at lot of the schools these past few years participation for a number of schools have been much less than that. Coops have had effect on participation reducing the number of kids, also kids are not playing sports like they did in the past and football I believe has parents not wanting their kids to play football with risk of injury so they are not encouraging their kids to play football and even discouraging them from playing football. The days where schools had 75 to 80% participation has passed and I believe that were going to see a lot of schools be lucky to reach the 33% level in the coming years.
I think like I said on injury topic parents and kids are both looking at injuries happening in football and deciding its not worth the risk. I have seen number of kids hurt this season that only were they injured for football but they will miss basketball season and may miss whole school year for other sports. This is having effect on other kids participating in football too they don't want to miss a year of all the sports. What I have seen then is your left with kids that only play football or is there main sport they play the kids that play other sports and consider them there first love will not go out for football. I looked at number of schools and there rosters and most are around that 50% level and number were even down to 30% level or less. All I know is that enrollment numbers are not total picture whether schools are evenly matched because of participation this is going to very across the state and from school to school because attitudes of parents and communities whether they want their kids to play football.
B-oldtimer wrote:Yes winning has something to it and also expectations that are part of sports is also playing into it for participation and injuries. In these smaller schools we have wide variance of kids participating in football it not like large schools where majority of the kids are concentrating on football. The kids in these schools lift and prepare for football year around. Now in lower classes of football some schools are getting this but a lot of schools we have few kids that may lift and work on football year around but a lot of kids are going out to play and participate but they play other sports too that may be there true sports. Now you these kids are running up against these schools or kids that are totally concentrating on football and you get mismatches and injuries because of strength differences. Also you see this in scores and wins by various schools against each other. Back in my day kids played sports for each of the seasons and moved on to next sport there was no lifting and training year around that was something done at the college level. Now we have this mixture of the old way and kids that are preparing to play at the next level. This I believe why were seeing number of injuries, wide variance in programs, and why they are having such hard time to come to competitive balance. I also believe this why participation numbers are down for majority of schools kids don't want to work at sport year around it becomes a job not something they do for fun and they can move on to the next sport and have fun. I can hear each side of this that kids don't want to work at there sports but lets face it majority of kids will never play beyond highschool and even the ones that do number that play into college for four years are few and far between. I don't have solution for this problem especially for small schools because were caught between where sports were activity for fun for kids and now being feeder program for colleges. The problem is that being as small as these schools are were going to have to soon decide how much participation and training is going be allowed for each sport year around.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests