Bison-Vikes #1 wrote:A few things could be done, but it will take all AD's to get on board and use some common sense. The district tournaments for instance need to be done away with. This is not going to be popular because it is a major money maker in some districts. But in reality, they are having 3 nights of basketball to reduce the field from 6 to 4 in many districts. I repeat, 3 nights of basketball to get from 6 teams to 4 teams. These teams are playing one another 3 to 4 times during the season as it is. It is ludicrous. The system mentioned in above thread isn't a bad idea. Can you imagine having 4 regional tournaments like that? These Regionals would be miniature state tournaments against like opponents. They would truly be Super Regionals. To make up for the money lost at the district level, 2 more games would be gained in regular season. If some of these higher ups would use a little round table thinking, the beginning round of these Super Regionals could even be played at the home court of the higher seed, also helping to offset the loss in income from the district tourneys. It's mind blowing that they cannot come up with a better system to what we've had for 50 years considering the change in ND's landscape and population base.
One should keep in mind that what is common sense to one might be complete lunacy to another. So it is with some of this post.
What I can agree with is the 3 nights of ball to eliminate 2 teams is crazy. It leads to bleacher butt or fan burnout, especially when more and more games are being televised. Of all the things that have changed in class B ball, the 8-team region is not one of them. The 3 nights of regional tournaments are a significant revenue source for the NDHSAA and the NDHSAA is not willing to restrict that cash cow. One must remember there is no direct payback to the schools from the regional level. Tournament participation does factor in to the payment plan/formula of the NHDSAA, but is certainly NOT a direct payment like revenue sharing from district tournaments.
Where I rise in opposition is the notion that two additional regular season games are going to offset the revenue derived from district tournaments. An administrator was able to shed some light on this for me. In our particular district, schools will quite likely get a profit sharing from just the girls tournament alone that will be over $1000, noting that our admission was down this year. In our community, on an average night, our administration is happy with a gate of $700. However on an average night, more than $500 goes to paying officials. Lets see, $1000 vs. $200.
You might think, wait, you get to schedule two extra games. Yes, but one will be on the road and there will be no revenue at all. You also need to keep in mind, chances are that in your 19-game schedule you are already playing those teams the closest distance. To add two more games, you are going to increase travel distance. Increase travel distance, and you decrease gate revenue. Adding two games is not the answer.
Even in super regionals, that's the NDHSAA's money. If the money would stay at the home site, it might be a little more than the $200 mentioned above, but only 3 or 4 teams are going to get that. If the money were shared, then take that total from the three four sites and divide by 11 or 12. Tell me, how is that replacing the district tournament profit mentioned above?
I just keep hoping that one day, someone smarter than us will figure all this out.....some day.