Saturday, March 8, 2008

Review: State C Boys (Guest Blogger)

Hey everyone, Slim here. Sorry it took a little longer to get this State C Boys Tourney review out, but it's been a busy week around here. But without further ado...here we go!

The boys finished up their seasons last weekend in Butte, where Winifred beat Rocky Boy in the state championship, and Big Sandy beat Scobey in the consolation game. That means the top three teams in the state came from the Northern Division. I was not at all surprised to see Winifred win the tournament. I watched them earlier in the season, and they put on a solid performance. Ending the season with a zero in the loss column is nearly impossible (just ask the New England Patriots), and Winifred did just that. Congratulations to the Red Raiders on an excellent season.

Twin Bridges and Plenty Coups have to be disappointed with the way their seasons turned out. Both met superior competition in the semi-finals, and then had tough losses in loser-out action on Saturday. Drawing Big Sandy in their first loser-out game was a very difficult draw for the Longhorns out of Wibaux. I thought Wibaux might be able to upset a team or two in the tourney, but their small, aggressive lineups didn’t work very effectively at this level.

But the story of the tournament was the play of Winifred and the rest of the Northern Division. I used to play in the Northern Division, so I am a little biased, but this division is the most competitive in Class “C,” and maybe in the entire state. The Class “C” champion has come from the Northern Division seven out of the last 10 years (for all of the past champions, click here).

In 2006 the state tournament expanded to allow for three teams from the Northern Division to qualify in an effort to provide division-equality (the North has more teams in it than the other divisions do). This year, the three from the North finished first, second, and third. Last year, the North finished first and second. Maybe, instead of giving the North more teams in the tournament, they should be limited to one…in an effort of parity.

Just a thought ;)

No comments: