Bisonguy06 wrote:The dream scenario is that no school is more than double the size of any of its opponents. We're real close.
AAA - Minot is 2.07x the size of South. Minot may split soon.
AA - Jamestown is 2.61x the size of Central Cass. Cass is growing. Jamestown could grow out of AA.
A - All ratios are under 2:1
9man - Virtually all ratios under 2:1. The very smallest schools are your best candidates for six man football.
Your school and any of its potential co-op partners will know their placement ahead of time. There would be no guessing game.
I'll invite anyone to poke holes in this plan as you see fit.
Bisonguy06 wrote:I’m proposing that we accept odd numbers of teams in divisions and regions across the board in this plan and pitch it to the AD’s to figure out scheduling.
South would stay in AAA.
Bisonguy06 wrote:It’s a good question, thanks.
By requiring an even number of teams, previous plans have had some true misfits land in the top divisions. Here it’s all enrollment based, with follow up needed on how to make some odd numbers work. (It can be done)
PS - St. Mary’s is a potential opt up. They beat Shanley, Mandan and Williston this year. Growing school, new building and athletic complex, ect. I’m not certain they’d make that move, but it’s possible.
Bisonguy06 wrote:If the elimination of the free and reduced lunch multiplier is a deal breaker for you, I'm fine with including it. The grouping of the top 14 schools in AAA and the next 10 in AA would not change.
Schools will grow, schools will shrink, schools will add and drop co-op partners, and the plan accommodates all of these things because the enrollment cutoffs were fair to begin with.
Bisonguy06 wrote:Now let's talk about the real world, where people have to come together and compromise. Let's also lighten the mood a bit, and compare football plans to pizza toppings.
I love pizza. I'm OK with many different combinations of pizza toppings.
But if you put anchovies on my pizza, I'm out, no matter how much I might like the other toppings.
In North Dakota football, the "opt down" is the pizza topping that I can't stomach. If the overall structure of the plan (the crust of this pizza) is solid, then the "opt down" shouldn't exist. Somehow, we're allowing schools in the largest metro areas of our state, with over 500 boys, to opt down and out of the top division. That teaches all the wrong lessons.
I'm out on any plan that has fewer than the largest 14 schools in AAA football.
I'm out on any plan that has "opt down" built in.
Get those anchovies off my pizza.
In a fantasy world where I would get to pitch this plan to the decision makers, I think it would be a tough sell to get rid of the socioeconomic status multiplier. People like that topping. I'd personally compare it to pineapple, a topping that I'd rather leave off, but it doesn't ruin the pizza.
Sportsrube wrote:Bisonguy06 wrote:Now let's talk about the real world, where people have to come together and compromise. Let's also lighten the mood a bit, and compare football plans to pizza toppings.
I love pizza. I'm OK with many different combinations of pizza toppings.
But if you put anchovies on my pizza, I'm out, no matter how much I might like the other toppings.
In North Dakota football, the "opt down" is the pizza topping that I can't stomach. If the overall structure of the plan (the crust of this pizza) is solid, then the "opt down" shouldn't exist. Somehow, we're allowing schools in the largest metro areas of our state, with over 500 boys, to opt down and out of the top division. That teaches all the wrong lessons.
I'm out on any plan that has fewer than the largest 14 schools in AAA football.
I'm out on any plan that has "opt down" built in.
Get those anchovies off my pizza.
In a fantasy world where I would get to pitch this plan to the decision makers, I think it would be a tough sell to get rid of the socioeconomic status multiplier. People like that topping. I'd personally compare it to pineapple, a topping that I'd rather leave off, but it doesn't ruin the pizza.
I agree 100% that opting down should never be an option.
If the socioeconomic factor is used for football, why not for other sports?
Bisonguy06 wrote:Now let's talk about the real world, where people have to come together and compromise. Let's also lighten the mood a bit, and compare football plans to pizza toppings.
I love pizza. I'm OK with many different combinations of pizza toppings.
But if you put anchovies on my pizza, I'm out, no matter how much I might like the other toppings.
In North Dakota football, the "opt down" is the pizza topping that I can't stomach. If the overall structure of the plan (the crust of this pizza) is solid, then the "opt down" shouldn't exist. Somehow, we're allowing schools in the largest metro areas of our state, with over 500 boys, to opt down and out of the top division. That teaches all the wrong lessons.
I'm out on any plan that has fewer than the largest 14 schools in AAA football.
I'm out on any plan that has "opt down" built in.
Get those anchovies off my pizza.
In a fantasy world where I would get to pitch this plan to the decision makers, I think it would be a tough sell to get rid of the socioeconomic status multiplier. People like that topping. I'd personally compare it to pineapple, a topping that I'd rather leave off, but it doesn't ruin the pizza.
The Schwab wrote:I like the pizza analogy. I feel that if we are going to have a socioeconomic multiplier for what are considered negative factors we need to have one for the positive factors. I stated this in my plan but I'll add it here as well.
Set the mean free and reduced percentage across the state (I don't know what that number will be). Give a plus or minus 5% (or whatever deviation you want) of that number. Those schools would have their number multiplied by 1 (no change). If your schools free and reduced percentage is greater than that top cut off number your enrollment will be multiplied by .7, if it's less than the lower cut off you multiply it by 1.3.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests