Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WadeDuPont

Team State Qualifying

Recommended Posts

I have seen in many posted comments that say the IHSAA does it this way or that way, which makes me assume the committee is trying to get something the IHSAA would adopt. For Example the enrollment numbers for re-classification every two years.

If that is the case, why wouldn't the tournament success factor be in play as well?

Can some one please explain to the wrestling community what the end goal is and why we use the IHSAA as a model for some things and not others.

What exactly is the end goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some topics discussing the same thing from years past

http://indianamat.com/index.php?/topic/42588-ihswca-team-tournament-questions/&tab=comments#comment-45435

The IHSWCA tends to talk out both sides of their mouths when discussing things like this. They want to keep with IHSAA standards in number of classes and the 2 or less sectional competitors rule, but with this IHSAA standard they tend to just ignore it without saying much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Y2

Sure doesn't appear the question was answered back in 2013.

I also still would like to know if the end goal is to have the IHSAA take this over someday. If it is the committee HAS to start looking at what the IHSAA would accept, one I would bet my annual salary on that will not be accepted is a formula based system that uses previous years results as a baseline.

However, they will use the re-classification of every two years, a tournament success factor, the number of competitors. 

If the IHSWCA goal is to continue as the owner of this event, there is no need to worry about what the IHSAA does or doesn't do or worry about complying with their procedure in regards to re-classification, tournament success factor or number of competitors.

I asked on another thread why is re-classification  done every two year's. Answer was "Because that's the way the IHSAA does it."

I guess now I have two questions, that hopefully I can understand this.

1. Why isn't a tournament success factor considered in classification? It is the way IHSAA does it, so to be consistent with the IHSAA re-classification procedures shouldn't this be adopted as well?

2. What is the end goal of this tournament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I dive deeper into this, I want to make sure I read the scoring rules correctly.

If you have a wrestler who say qualified for Semi State in 2016 but was injured and could not participate due to said injury, he can be calculated in as competitor and score points even though he didn't weigh in at sectional for a tournament that is two years after he competed when in no way is their a guarantee he would advance at all in 2017.

But if you have a wrestler who in fact did weigh in at sectional but failed to make weight for whatever reason, he doesn't count as a competitor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WadeDuPont said:

As I dive deeper into this, I want to make sure I read the scoring rules correctly.

If you have a wrestler who say qualified for Semi State in 2016 but was injured and could not participate due to said injury, he can be calculated in as competitor and score points even though he didn't weigh in at sectional for a tournament that is two years after he competed when in no way is their a guarantee he would advance at all in 2017.

But if you have a wrestler who in fact did weigh in at sectional but failed to make weight for whatever reason, he doesn't count as a competitor.

 

That's correct. The idea is to promote the qualifying being a competition just like the regular season as much as possible--with the one exception being that a guy who couldn't be involved at all because of circumstances outside his control can have some points brought in. But your guy who misses weight screwed up (if that happened to you, for example) and was a detriment to your attempt to compete and win. 

And also your assessment of the guy who got to semi-state being given those same points this year is off significantly if you look at all the info. On average, juniors and seniors improve a nice bit on their previous season's result but we limit them to their younger year result. And we only grant the points for guys that wrestled a significant part of the season (so they're clearly "in" the program for the long haul OR they have to go through the effort of getting a signed doctor's note saying they had a legit reason to miss the whole season and are definitely on track to come back).  There's no evidence that a hurt guy is any less likely to come back than anyone on your sectional roster.  I think you know that. 

You guys rightfully got to team state one year because of this provision--you should be praising it. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maligned, I am not against the system at all. However, as I have asked, what is the end goal? If it is for the IHSAA to take this over, they are not going to use a Power Poll Index to invite teams. So until we understand what the end goal is I am fine with the current system, except it seems we pick and choose what IHSAA procedures to use.

Can you explain why when reclassifying, we use the two year school enrollment numbers to reclassify...but did not adopt the success factor?

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, WadeDuPont said:

Maligned, I am not against the system at all. However, as I have asked, what is the end goal? If it is for the IHSAA to take this over, they are not going to use a Power Poll Index to invite teams. So until we understand what the end goal is I am fine with the current system, except it seems we pick and choose what IHSAA procedures to use.

Can you explain why when reclassifying, we use the two year school enrollment numbers to reclassify...but did not adopt the success factor?

Thanks,

I've said this in other years: proposals have been presented to the selection committee on all of these issues you bring up. If a particular issue isn't in place right now, it's because it got voted down or because another option was chosen instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, by the way, an easy solution to the "all-in" versus "genuine team minimum" for classification purposes is this: Count all teams with at least 3 members as we do now, but set a strict quota of 95 teams in 3A and 2A, with all the rest in 1A. The result would be roughly the same number of teams in each of the 3 classes having 7+ members--plus we would be including all teams with at least 3 members, which has been a sticking point for the majority of coaches in voting. But again, this didn't pass when it's been voted on a couple times alongside the strict 7+ option and the strict 3+ option.

I'm not sure, exactly, why a success factor doesn't pass--maybe it feels less like a long-held tradition than other things? Maybe we're early on in our classed event lives so it's nice to build up some traditionally strong programs? Not sure exactly what's driven it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, maligned said:

In my opinion, by the way, an easy solution to the "all-in" versus "genuine team minimum" for classification purposes is this: Count all teams with at least 3 members as we do now, but set a strict quota of 95 teams in 3A and 2A, with all the rest in 1A. The result would be roughly the same number of teams in each of the 3 classes having 7+ members--plus we would be including all teams with at least 3 members, which has been a sticking point for the majority of coaches in voting. But again, this didn't pass when it's been voted on a couple times alongside the strict 7+ option and the strict 3+ option.

I don't know if I haven't paid enough attention or if it's not been posted here, but this seems like a pretty good compromise.

It's silly regardless to include teams that can't win a dual.  It's unfortunate that the committee doesn't make their reasoning public on these topics, and instead rely on you to be the middle man.

Edited by bog190

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, maligned said:

In my opinion, by the way, an easy solution to the "all-in" versus "genuine team minimum" for classification purposes is this: Count all teams with at least 3 members as we do now, but set a strict quota of 95 teams in 3A and 2A, with all the rest in 1A. The result would be roughly the same number of teams in each of the 3 classes having 7+ members--plus we would be including all teams with at least 3 members, which has been a sticking point for the majority of coaches in voting. But again, this didn't pass when it's been voted on a couple times alongside the strict 7+ option and the strict 3+ option.

I'm not sure, exactly, why a success factor doesn't pass--maybe it feels less like a long-held tradition than other things? Maybe we're early on in our classed event lives so it's nice to build up some traditionally strong programs? Not sure exactly what's driven it.

I like the proposal if the end goal is for the IHSWCA to keep the tournament. However, as I have said in previous post its highly doubtful the IHSAA will adopt a formula based system to determine state finalist. Who do we ask these questions too? I would like to know the answer to what the end goal is and why the success factor is not used if we are trying to align with the IHSAA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WadeDuPont said:

 its highly doubtful the IHSAA will adopt a formula based system 

There's a zero percent chance of this. I don't think anyone would ever argue with that. The IHSAA would always find a way to do an all-in event if they ever considered team state again. We obviously only do it because we're crippled in terms of schedule flexibility.

Honestly, if the end game is genuinely to see a classed team state adopted, I think we're probably navel gazing a bit too much. I think it would take finding other individual sports that want classes for their team tournaments also and coming with multi-sport proposals that would force the IHSAA to consider things from different angles. There has to be a foundational change in perspective at the IHSAA on the issue of classing individual sports ( (at least the team tournaments) or none of the rest of it really matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, maligned said:

 I think it would take finding other individual sports that want classes for their team tournaments also and coming with multi-sport proposals that would force the IHSAA to consider things from different angles.

Cross-County based on how competitions work would could run an individual competition and then invite all the top teams per class to a separate team event.   Although the nature of their competition could almost have individual and team together too, but they would mean a more crowded field.  I’m sure golf and gymnastics would be similar to CC.  And tennis, which is the most similar to wrestling’s set up, already has a team event so they would just need to arrange it as a class competition.  Swimming and Track would be harder to arrange as a separate individual and team competition.  

Edited by MattM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot speak for any voting member except for myself on this. Again I am only one vote on the committee.  When it comes to the issue of “all in” vs 7 or more. I vote for the “all-in” idea.  Conceptually I have a problem with having an all-in tournament and then not counting all teams.  Each team had an opportunity to have 14 wrestlers so in my mind if you have a team you should count.  If a team is 1-20 and had 8 wrestlers, they would count, I don't get why that team should be in, and a team that is 1-20 with 5 wrestlers shouldn't be.  What if we said only teams with winning records should count?  The tournament would be more difficult in that case, but it wouldn't accomplish what we are trying to accomplish with the tournemant.

To add to this, if we don’t count teams and start artificially creating the classes then we might get better teams to the team state, but is that the point?  We are trying to find the best team in three classes. I feel that counting all the teams helps to give more of an identity to the class structure. I totally understand a team like Oak Hill for example feeling that they would do really well in the 1A bracket, which without question they would. Someone unfortunately will be on the wrong side of the line when you have classes.  Just because we feel like a team is “small” or “1A” doesn’t make it so, someone will always be on the wrong side. It might be a good team, it might be a bad team, but there is going to be a line put in there at some point.

If a team drops down, they are potentially taking the spot of another team at the bottom of the qualification. Is our tournament more difficult if a school drops down and is added in? Yes. Is it better in terms of finding the best team in a class? I would say no because you have a team that would otherwise be 2A wrestling in the 1A class. If we think it is better to have teams we “feel” should be in a certain class we would be better-off scrapping the way we decide classes and just saying 550 and less is 1A, 551-1500 is 2A, everyone else is 3A, or something along those lines.

In terms of goals for the tournament I think it currently is to find the best team in three classes.  At one time I think the idea was that the IHSAA will see this tournament as a success, and may consider bringing back an all-in team state dual, that are classed.  There was never a thought that they would accept some sort of points system if they were to adopt this concept.  We don’t really have any other option but to use a point system, if scheduling allowed I am sure that the IHSWCA would adopt an all-in system with sectionals, regionals, then state to determine the champ, but it’s not realistic at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Ohio teams must have 7 wrestlers to be considered for their dual state championship series.

Counting teams that have no chance of being in the event is flat out dumb. Having 6 returning state champions and no other wrestlers will get a team 150 points and be out of range for 3A and 2A voting considerations and they MIGHT be in voting consideration in 1A. That should tell you enough if you should include them.

With 30+ teams not fielding at least 7 wrestlers it would make the classes more competitive, which should be a goal of the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

In Ohio teams must have 7 wrestlers to be considered for their dual state championship series.

Counting teams that have no chance of being in the event is flat out dumb. Having 6 returning state champions and no other wrestlers will get a team 150 points and be out of range for 3A and 2A voting considerations and they MIGHT be in voting consideration in 1A. That should tell you enough if you should include them.

With 30+ teams not fielding at least 7 wrestlers it would make the classes more competitive, which should be a goal of the event.

Ideally, we should just find a way to shift the class cut off upward, to account for those team but not let their addition to the list dictate the split between each class.   The problem with  excluding teams with 5 or 6 wrestlers from being counted towards next years event is that they may actually have 7 or more wrestlers the next year, due to returning from injury, new freshman, or someone else joining the team.  If we want to say we are as inclusive as possible we have to at least think about including the teams who could possibly field enough participants to win a dual their team state year.  I get in most case those additions wont skyrocket them to a team state title, but if we are to be inclusive we should at least account for the possibility of that team adding a few more wrestlers.  But were should that cut off reasonably be.  In my view I'd say 5 of 6 would be a reasonable line to draw rather than the current number.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, buscowrestling said:

If a team is 1-20 and had 8 wrestlers, they would count, I don't get why that team should be in, and a team that is 1-20 with 5 wrestlers shouldn't be.

There is a pretty clear difference in these two teams, in that one can mathematically qualify for the event and the other cannot, and one can mathematically win a dual against a full team while the other cannot.

You are using IHSAA logic with the "best team" garbage.  Narrowing the classes makes the event better, I think it's pretty hard to debate that.

As much as I disagree with you every year on these topics, I, and I'm sure others, appreciate that you are one of the few that actually posts the logic behind your votes on this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, buscowrestling said:

If we think it is better to have teams we “feel” should be in a certain class we would be better-off scrapping the way we decide classes and just saying 550 and less is 1A, 551-1500 is 2A, everyone else is 3A, or something along those lines.

^ This right here. Go to something like this and all this debate is over.  Figure out the enrollment cutoff that roughly balances the 3 classes and just set it at that for 4 years (2 enrollment cycles) then realign the cutoffs at that point.  Schools will still move up or down, but it is more straightforward and no worries about what to do if a school closes, combines, or adds wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MattM said:

Ideally, we should just find a way to shift the class cut off upward, to account for those team but not let their addition to the list dictate the split between each class.   The problem with  excluding teams with 5 or 6 wrestlers from being counted towards next years event is that they may actually have 7 or more wrestlers the next year, due to returning from injury, new freshman, or someone else joining the team.  If we want to say we are as inclusive as possible we have to at least think about including the teams who could possibly field enough participants to win a dual their team state year.  I get in most case those additions wont skyrocket them to a team state title, but if we are to be inclusive we should at least account for the possibility of that team adding a few more wrestlers.  But were should that cut off reasonably be.  In my view I'd say 5 of 6 would be a reasonable line to draw rather than the current number.   

Adding wrestlers next year won't get them into the event even if they have all returning state champions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you were to take out the teams with 7+ forfeits, the 3 classes would look something like this I assume.

 

    3A SCHOOLS (88)    
State Enroll Rank School     Enrollment
1 Carmel High School 5000
2 Ben Davis High 4362
3 North Central (Indpls.) 3772
4 Warren Central High 3736
5 Penn High School 3345
6 Pike High School 3306
7 Fishers High School 3250
8 Lake Central High 3219
9 Hamilton Southeastern HS 3118
10 Avon High School 2891
11 Noblesville High School 2882
12 Crown Point High 2763
13 Franklin Central High 2659
14 Brownsburg High School 2629
15 Portage High School 2520
16 Center Grove High 2500
17 Lawrence North High 2469
18 Perry Meridian High 2351
19 Homestead Senior High 2348
20 Lawrence Central High 2340
21 Carroll (F.W.) High 2280
22 Merrillville High Sch 2214
23 Southport High School 2185
24 Warsaw Community HS 2176
25 Westfield High School 2146
26 F.W. Northrop High 2097
27 Valparaiso High School 2082
28 Chesterton Senior High 2076
29 Jeffersonville High School 2066
30 Lafayette Jefferson High 2031
31 Columbus North High 2017
32 LaPorte High School 1946
34 Castle High School 1934
35 Anderson High School 1933
36 Zionsville Community High 1928
37 Harrison (W.Laf.) High 1905
38 Goshen High School 1866
39 Terre Haute North 1854
40 F.W. Snider High 1850
41 Whiteland Community High 1845
42 New Albany Senior 1843
43 S.B. Adams High 1794
44 Terre Haute South 1778
45 McCutcheon High School 1769
46 Kokomo High School 1769
47 Decatur Central High 1767
48 Michigan City High 1753
49 Floyd Central High 1746
50 Bloomington High School 1742
51 Concord Community High 1716
52 Bloomington High School 1709
53 Elkhart Central High 1673
54 F.W. North Side 1672
55 Elkhart Memorial High 1648
56 Plainfield High School 1636
57 Evans. North High 1614
58 Huntington North High 1575
59 Muncie Central High 1551
60 Bedford-North Lawrence High 1542
61 Columbus East High 1534
62 Franklin Community High 1533
63 Munster High School 1510
64 Greenfield-Central High Sch 1510
65 Martinsville High School 1509
66 Seymour Senior High 1498
67 Mishawaka High School 1470
68 Pendleton Heights High 1421
69 F.W. South Side 1409
70 Mooresville High School 1402
71 Northridge High School 1392
72 Evans. Reitz High 1355
73 Hammond Morton Senior 1348
74 F.W. Wayne High 1340
75 Jennings County High 1332
76 Richmond High School 1331
77 East Central High 1302
78 Hobart High School 1265
79 East Noble High 1262
80 S.B. Riley High 1249
81 Evans. Harrison High 1243
82 East Chicago Central 1236
83 Logansport Comm High 1235
84 Mt. Vernon (Fortville) 1227
85 Greenwood Community High 1200
86 Lowell Senior High 1197
87 Evans. Central High 1185
88 Roncalli High School 1184
89 Indpls. Cathedral HS 1184
202 Evans. Mater Dei 529
         
    2A SCHOOLS (88)    
State Enroll Rank School     Enrollment
90 DeKalb High School 1170
91 Shelbyville Sr High 1156
92 Plymouth High School 1147
93 S.B. Clay High 1143
94 New Palestine High 1119
95 Highland High School 1117
96 Connersville Sr High 1111
97 Jasper High School 1093
98 Kankakee Valley High 1083
99 F.W. Bishop Dwenger 1075
100 Jay County High 1060
101 Columbia City High 1056
102 Marion High School 1053
105 New Castle Chrysler 1023
106 New Haven High 996
107 New Prairie High 993
108 Lebanon Senior High 976
109 Madison Consolidated High 966
110 Beech Grove Sr 949
111 Wawasee High School 945
113 S.B. Washington High 906
114 Hammond Gavit Mdl/High 904
115 Boonville High School 903
116 S.B. Saint Joseph's 896
117 NorthWood High School 883
118 Angola High School 876
119 Leo Junior/Senior High 872
120 Delta High School 871
121 South Dearborn High 868
122 Frankfort Senior High 861
123 Western High School 855
124 Mississinewa High School 845
125 Franklin County High 836
127 Owen Valley Community 813
128 Culver Academies   812
129 Edgewood High School 811
130 Hammond High School 810
131 Evans. Bosse High 802
132 Yorktown High School 801
133 Griffith Senior High 800
134 Scottsburg Senior High 794
136 Danville Community High 791
137 F.W. Concordia Lutheran 781
138 Twin Lakes Senior 773
139 Norwell High School 769
140 Hammond Clark Md/HS 760
141 Guerin Catholic HS 758
142 Greensburg Community High 750
144 Rushville Consolidated High 742
146 West Lafayette Jr/Sr 734
147 Batesville High School 733
148 Hamilton Heights High 728
149 West Noble High 723
151 Vincennes Lincoln High 716
152 Charlestown Senior High 707
153 Crawfordsville Sr High 702
154 Indpls. Bishop Chatard 700
157 Bellmont Senior High 691
158 Evans. Reitz Memorial 690
159 North Harrison   689
160 Hanover Central High 680
161 Maconaquah High School 666
162 Calumet High School 664
163 Peru High School 659
164 Mt. Vernon High 658
165 Brown County High 657
166 Gibson Southern High 654
168 Indian Creek Sr 631
169 Tri-West Senior High 624
170 North Montgomery High 620
171 Lawrenceburg High School 619
172 Heritage Hills High 619
174 F.W. Bishop Luers 617
176 Jimtown High School 605
177 Heritage Jr/Sr High 596
178 Tippecanoe Valley High 595
179 Sullivan High School 591
180 Garrett High School 590
181 Pike Central High 588
182 Benton Central Jr-Sr 585
183 Knox Community High 584
184 Glenn High School 580
185 West Vigo High 577
187 Lakeland High School 577
189 Fairfield Jr-Sr High 565
191 Northwestern Sr High 562
194 Greencastle Senior High 556
195 Wheeler High School 553
196 Southmont Sr High 550
         
    1A SCHOOLS (87)    
State Enroll Rank School     Enrollment
197 South Vermillion High 546
198 Woodlan Jr/Sr High 534
199 Rensselaer Central High 531
200 Southridge High School 531
204 Monrovia High School 527
206 Rochester Community High 524
207 Tipton High School 524
208 Speedway Senior High 523
209 Oak Hill High 511
210 Manchester Jr-Sr High 511
211 Alexandria-Monroe High School 506
212 Boone Grove High 499
213 North Posey Sr 498
215 Andrean High School 492
216 Eastern (Greentown) Jr 491
219 Frankton Jr-Sr High 480
220 Eastern (Pekin) High 473
221 Lapel Sr High 470
222 Paoli Jr & 468
223 Triton Central High 468
224 Cass Jr-Sr High 466
226 Centerville Sr High 463
229 Crawford County Jr-Sr 457
230 Cascade Senior High 457
231 North Putnam Sr 456
232 Indpls. Scecina Memorial 449
233 Elwood Community High 447
235 Winchester Community High 446
236 Union County High 444
237 Bluffton High School 443
238 Shenandoah High School 442
239 North Newton Jr-Sr 440
240 River Forest Jr-Sr 439
242 Whiting High School 434
243 Delphi Community High 430
244 Wabash High School 427
245 Eastern Hancock High 425
246 Tell City Jr-Sr 421
247 Northeastern High School 419
248 Westview Jr-Sr High 416
249 Prairie Heights Sr 415
251 Milan High School 411
252 South Spencer High 407
255 Switzerland County   404
257 Madison-Grant   401
257 North Knox High 398
261 Central Noble High 393
- Parke Heritage   383
262 Cloverdale High School 382
263 Lake Station Edison 381
264 Knightstown High School 381
266 Winamac Community High 377
268 Seeger Memorial Jr-Sr 375
269 Adams Central High 375
270 Eastside Junior-Senior High 372
272 Monroe Central Jr-Sr 370
273 Hebron High School 370
274 South Adams High 369
277 Churubusco Jr-Sr High 367
280 LaVille Jr-Sr High 363
281 South Putnam High 363
287 Carroll (Flora) Jr-Sr 353
288 Fountain Central High 350
291 Hagerstown Jr-Sr High 341
293 Cambridge City Lincoln 331
294 Clinton Prairie Jr-Sr 330
296 Sheridan High School 329
297 North Miami Middle/High 320
298 Rossville Senior High 313
304 Northfield Jr-Sr High 304
305 Fremont High School 303
308 Southwood Jr-Sr High 295
309 Lafayette Central Catholic 291
312 Tri Junior-Senior High 285
314 West Central Senior 280
315 Union City Community 280
316 Daleville Jr/Sr High 279
323 Clinton Central Junior-Senior 274
326 Tri Central Middle-High 271
334 Southern Wells Jr-Sr 266
335 North White Jr/Sr 265
338 Triton Jr-Sr High 261
341 West Washington   257
363 Attica High School 223
364 South Newton Senior 220
367 Oldenburg Academy   210
369 Faith Christian School 203
370 Frontier Jr-Sr High 202

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we raise the number of wrestlers to be included would teams with good wrestlers but borderline numbers push a little harder to get a few more guys? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bwoodjc89 said:

If we raise the number of wrestlers to be included would teams with good wrestlers but borderline numbers push a little harder to get a few more guys? 

Possibly, but not if that team does feel a Team State bid is within reach and/or don't believe Team State is a useful event.     I'm sure all coaches are pushing to increase numbers, but I'm not sure an off chance of getting invited to Team State will increase their effort more.  If it was a much larger field maybe, but I think most coaches see Team State as nice but still a far off thing right now especially if they have some number issues. 

I do think going to Team State and the school making a big deal of it is helping increase numbers further at some schools.  But those are already schools who have the numbers to make Team State to begin with.

Edited by MattM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams that have 6 or less wrestlers don't care about being included. I would guess they don't even look at the scores because they can't qualify.

When we have our first team with only 6 wrestlers and they all win state maybe we can include them in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Y2CJ41 said:

Teams that have 6 or less wrestlers don't care about being included. I would guess they don't even look at the scores because they can't qualify.

I bet most of them do care about the scores because it help them compare their results with other team in their area, of their size, and in their sectional.  Now they may not worry to much about making it to Team State, but I best most team like to see where their scores puts them against their competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×