EHS1998 wrote:For District 5, there really weren't a lot of close games, especially on the top side, until the Championship game, which in my opinion, was an instant classic with great crowds from each side really into it in a very positive way.
However, I think what is better evidence of the value of District tournaments is what Midkota did. The Midkota crowd during the Oakes game was exceptional. You could tell how much it meant to them. Oakes and EKM was well always seem to have great crowd participation at the District tournament.
I hope districts never go away completely but I do understand the other side of the argument.
wem wrote:LionsFan; the statement you make about they shouldn't be called playin games makes me ask the question; What difference does it make? Are you worried about hurt feelings? Very interested in your response?
theallaroundballer wrote:Super regions are a step in the right direction, but can be improved in several ways. My solution that I think would benefit athletes, fans, and communities the most is as follows:
I want a 23 game regular season for every team. There's more than enough time in early November (girls) and early December (boys), as well as over Christmas break, to accommodate an expanded regular season. The almost two-week layoff before tournament play for the top seeds in the current super regions is absurd. Kids should not have to practice for that long this deep in the season before a game. News flash to the Activities Association, more games= more $$ to schools and happier kids. Contrary to their logic, students having to leave school two periods early for at a max of four additional road games is not going to perpetually stunt their educational growth. Tragic, I know.
Now as far as the schedule goes, current district alignments are kept, but the tournament is conducted as a super regional. Every team plays everyone in their region once, teams in your district twice, and the rest are non-region games until you hit a total of 23. I'm from Region 4, which has seven teams in D7 and six teams in D8. So, teams play 12 region opponents, 5 or 6 additional games against district opponents, and either five or six non-region games for a 23 game regular season. You're better served to have region teams make up the bulk of your regular season so you're familiar with them if you meet in the tournament.
And a few non-region games allow historical rivalries to be preserved that would otherwise disappear if a team were to switch regions. Now I understand it's tougher for Regions 6 and 8 with 15 teams (only two or three non-region games). But the best rivalries are among teams in those regions anyway, and there's so many schools within the Minot and Williston areas now, realignment is almost nonexistent for them.
Tournament time- Regions 3,4, and 5 (13 teams): Top three teams get byes. Regions 6 and 8 (15 teams): #1 seed gets bye. Sub-quarterfinal matchups are held at a common venue, NOT at higher seeds' home sites, on Friday. It's the only way to retain a true tournament atmosphere throughout. And the traditional 8 team field held Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday after that. Not very difficult to implement and the three current super regions have handled it well, albeit with some hiccups. But this format is the future of B basketball; it's time to embrace it and stop letting your nostalgia for district tourneys in the 70s and 80s blind you from this reality. Would love to get people's opinions on this and hear feedback on this.
wan2bqb wrote:theallaroundballer wrote:Super regions are a step in the right direction, but can be improved in several ways. My solution that I think would benefit athletes, fans, and communities the most is as follows:
I want a 23 game regular season for every team. There's more than enough time in early November (girls) and early December (boys), as well as over Christmas break, to accommodate an expanded regular season. The almost two-week layoff before tournament play for the top seeds in the current super regions is absurd. Kids should not have to practice for that long this deep in the season before a game. News flash to the Activities Association, more games= more $$ to schools and happier kids. Contrary to their logic, students having to leave school two periods early for at a max of four additional road games is not going to perpetually stunt their educational growth. Tragic, I know.
Now as far as the schedule goes, current district alignments are kept, but the tournament is conducted as a super regional. Every team plays everyone in their region once, teams in your district twice, and the rest are non-region games until you hit a total of 23. I'm from Region 4, which has seven teams in D7 and six teams in D8. So, teams play 12 region opponents, 5 or 6 additional games against district opponents, and either five or six non-region games for a 23 game regular season. You're better served to have region teams make up the bulk of your regular season so you're familiar with them if you meet in the tournament.
And a few non-region games allow historical rivalries to be preserved that would otherwise disappear if a team were to switch regions. Now I understand it's tougher for Regions 6 and 8 with 15 teams (only two or three non-region games). But the best rivalries are among teams in those regions anyway, and there's so many schools within the Minot and Williston areas now, realignment is almost nonexistent for them.
Tournament time- Regions 3,4, and 5 (13 teams): Top three teams get byes. Regions 6 and 8 (15 teams): #1 seed gets bye. Sub-quarterfinal matchups are held at a common venue, NOT at higher seeds' home sites, on Friday. It's the only way to retain a true tournament atmosphere throughout. And the traditional 8 team field held Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday after that. Not very difficult to implement and the three current super regions have handled it well, albeit with some hiccups. But this format is the future of B basketball; it's time to embrace it and stop letting your nostalgia for district tourneys in the 70s and 80s blind you from this reality. Would love to get people's opinions on this and hear feedback on this.
100% in favor of 23 games. Dont know if you need to make the district thing (2games) mandatory. But you could allow teams to set there own schedule. Most would follow this because of distance of travel but not all. Allows the stronger programs the chance to find tougher games, and allows rebilding rograms the chance to find better compitition.
theallaroundballer wrote:Super regions are a step in the right direction, but can be improved in several ways. My solution that I think would benefit athletes, fans, and communities the most is as follows:
I want a 23 game regular season for every team. There's more than enough time in early November (girls) and early December (boys), as well as over Christmas break, to accommodate an expanded regular season. The almost two-week layoff before tournament play for the top seeds in the current super regions is absurd. Kids should not have to practice for that long this deep in the season before a game. News flash to the Activities Association, more games= more $$ to schools and happier kids. Contrary to their logic, students having to leave school two periods early for at a max of four additional road games is not going to perpetually stunt their educational growth. Tragic, I know.
Now as far as the schedule goes, current district alignments are kept, but the tournament is conducted as a super regional. Every team plays everyone in their region once, teams in your district twice, and the rest are non-region games until you hit a total of 23. I'm from Region 4, which has seven teams in D7 and six teams in D8. So, teams play 12 region opponents, 5 or 6 additional games against district opponents, and either five or six non-region games for a 23 game regular season. You're better served to have region teams make up the bulk of your regular season so you're familiar with them if you meet in the tournament.
And a few non-region games allow historical rivalries to be preserved that would otherwise disappear if a team were to switch regions. Now I understand it's tougher for Regions 6 and 8 with 15 teams (only two or three non-region games). But the best rivalries are among teams in those regions anyway, and there's so many schools within the Minot and Williston areas now, realignment is almost nonexistent for them.
Tournament time- Regions 3,4, and 5 (13 teams): Top three teams get byes. Regions 6 and 8 (15 teams): #1 seed gets bye. Sub-quarterfinal matchups are held at a common venue, NOT at higher seeds' home sites, on Friday. It's the only way to retain a true tournament atmosphere throughout. And the traditional 8 team field held Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday after that. Not very difficult to implement and the three current super regions have handled it well, albeit with some hiccups. But this format is the future of B basketball; it's time to embrace it and stop letting your nostalgia for district tourneys in the 70s and 80s blind you from this reality. Would love to get people's opinions on this and hear feedback on this.
scc wrote:wan2bqb wrote:wem wrote:LionsFan; the statement you make about they shouldn't be called playin games makes me ask the question; What difference does it make? Are you worried about hurt feelings? Very interested in your response?
I'll answer with my reasoning, it shouldn't be called a super regional just a regional because that's what it is. Also it is set up without reseeding of the "play in" teams. Its a bracket formula with a 1st round, quarter final, semi's and finals. Call it what it is a regional tournament with 4 rounds and 3 byes given. Until the reseed the teams after the first round it is a single tournament. Period! My opinion is the three regions currently in the "super regional" format wanted to feel special therefore the "Super" name.
YES! Thank you for this post.
theallaroundballer wrote:
The 2 game districts don't have to be mandatory, no. If teams want to play them twice, play half once a year on a rotational basis, or just play everybody once, is totally fine with me. I just want to see more games. Most teams play 19 in the reg. season, and there's multiple week-plus layoffs throughout the winter for teams. The memories kids make from high school are on the court, the field, the diamond, building lifelong friendships and having stories to tell to their kids. They're not made in a class they'll forgot all the material from over the summer. Kids deserve to have more opportunities to perform in front of a home crowd. It lets people from the community socialize, catch up, reminisce about their younger days. This is starting to stop schmaltzy so I'll stop here, but I guarantee almost everybody supports this, except of course for the jamokes in Valley City running the show. It's a shame.
Flip wrote:theallaroundballer wrote:
The 2 game districts don't have to be mandatory, no. If teams want to play them twice, play half once a year on a rotational basis, or just play everybody once, is totally fine with me. I just want to see more games. Most teams play 19 in the reg. season, and there's multiple week-plus layoffs throughout the winter for teams. The memories kids make from high school are on the court, the field, the diamond, building lifelong friendships and having stories to tell to their kids. They're not made in a class they'll forgot all the material from over the summer. Kids deserve to have more opportunities to perform in front of a home crowd. It lets people from the community socialize, catch up, reminisce about their younger days. This is starting to stop schmaltzy so I'll stop here, but I guarantee almost everybody supports this, except of course for the jamokes in Valley City running the show. It's a shame.
Just do the same format Regions 1 and 2 use. I'm guessing it's the same for 7 too. Definitely down for 23 games though.
As for the bolded I'm quite confident Rick Smith is against this idea.
theallaroundballer wrote:Super regions are a step in the right direction, but can be improved in several ways. My solution that I think would benefit athletes, fans, and communities the most is as follows:
I want a 23 game regular season for every team. There's more than enough time in early November (girls) and early December (boys), as well as over Christmas break, to accommodate an expanded regular season. The almost two-week layoff before tournament play for the top seeds in the current super regions is absurd. Kids should not have to practice for that long this deep in the season before a game. News flash to the Activities Association, more games= more $$ to schools and happier kids. Contrary to their logic, students having to leave school two periods early for at a max of four additional road games is not going to perpetually stunt their educational growth. Tragic, I know.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests