Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
buscowrestling

Team State Vote-In Results

Recommended Posts

Team State Vote In Results

Congratulations to the following teams on being invited to next years team state.

3A
Warren Central
Carmel

2A
Southridge
Rochester

1A
Centerville
Southern Wells

All Teams have accepted their invite.

 

Other News

Committee voted 4-2 (with 1 member abstaining from voting) to change the minimum number of wrestlers needed for a team to qualify for consideration for team state to 7 wrestlers.  Previously the minimum threshold was 3 wrestlers.

Possible changes in venue and structure of the tournament were discussed, but tabled until a later date.

Committee

Greg Ratliff- President IHSWCA (Edgewood High School)
Jake O’Neill- Vice President IHSWCA (Wabash High School)
Sam Riesen- Secretary IHSWCA (Churubusco High School)
Tyson Skinner- Madison High School- Former IHSWCA President
Dustin Betz- Madison High School
Eric Myers- Jay County High School
Alex Johns- New Palestine High School
Josh Holden- Greenfield Central High School
Mike Reiser- Indianamat individual Rankings Coordinator
Dane Fueling- Indianamat Team Rankings Coordinator

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feels ridiculous to me.  Garrett has overshot their expectations the last few years.  Unseeded and placing 7th, with two injured starters two yeas ago. This season we were seeded 4th and placed 2nd losing 37-33 to Wawassee.  So, when in vote in consideration you don't vote the returning runner up who has exceeded expectations the last two, three seasons actually...seems pretty illogical.  The "we want new blood in the tournament" would be a pretty crappy argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nkraus said:

Feels ridiculous to me.  Garrett has overshot their expectations the last few years.  Unseeded and placing 7th with two injured starters two yeas ago. This season we were seeded 4th and placed 2nd losing 37-33 to Wawassee.  So, when in vote in consideration you don't vote the returning runner up, who has exceeded expectations the last two, even three seasons actually...seems pretty illogical.  The "we want new blood in the tournament" would be a pretty crappy argument.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ said:

How many starters does Garrett have returning?

Just 8.  Plus two others kids who have started in the last two years.  So 10 of our starters next year will have been starters in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, nkraus said:

Just 8.  Plus two others kids who have started in the last two years.  So 10 of our starters next year will have been starters in the past. 

    Genius   Genius rank   Ret state Semi State Regional
School  Record 2018   2018    qualifers Qual return Qual Retu
Garrett 22-3 60.96   30th   0 2 6
                 
Rochester 13-6 45.59   103rd   0 6 7
Southridge 20-12 55.17   63rd   1 4 10
Edited by Wrestling Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the tale of the tape,  Rochester and Southridge look to be more solid candidates based on prior year state tournament performance of returners.  Not sure if anybody has any Freshman big hitters or any other info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Wrestling Scholar said:
    Genius   Genius rank   Ret state Semi State Regional
School  Record 2018   2018    qualifers Qual return Qual Retu
Garrett 22-3 60.96   30th   0 2 6
                 
Rochester 13-6 45.59   103rd   0 6 7
Southridge 20-12 55.17   63rd   1 4 10

I can’t speak about Southridge but I would guarantee a larger amount of returning Regional and Semi State Qualifiers if we were in the Peru Sectional/Regional two of the weakest in the State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, poppem215 said:

I can’t speak about Southridge but I would guarantee a larger amount of returning Regional and Semi State Qualifiers if we were in the Peru Sectional/Regional two of the weakest in the State.

I don't really care which way the decision goes here.  However, since you brought this up its worth pointing out that according to our Team State Points Value Categories, the Carroll's Sectional (Garrett) is just one point ahead of Peru's Sectional (Rochester) which is designed to give additional credit when coming out of a harder grouping of teams.  And both Carroll and Peru are at the exact same Regional Point level.   Plus, currently Peru's sectional and regional point value falls in what I would consider the middle range rather than the bottom/weakest.  Although the calculations may not be perfect I trust they are pretty close based on all the data maligned has collected over the year. So while the numbers do place a slight advantage in Caroll's Sectional and Regional, the numbers would say its may not historically be as large of one as you seem to suggest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, buscowrestling said:

Committee voted 4-2 (with 1 member abstaining from voting) to change the minimum number of wrestlers needed for a team to qualify for consideration for team state to 7 wrestlers.  Previously the minimum threshold was 3 wrestlers.

So does this mean that if a team has fewer than 7 wrestlers, that team does not count as an official team towards the classifications? For instance if 25 teams have fewer than 7 wrestlers, would we bump the cut lines by 25 between 3A/2A and 2A/1A, or would they simply not be eligible as a team? I assume it's the first, since they never would have qualified to begin with having less than 7 wrestlers, but I'd like to clarify.

Share this post


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

How many starters does Garrett have returning?

Actually, we will have 11 kids who have been varsity starters over the last two years.  Yes, I did put that in our team state notes/criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garrett not getting in and Carmel over Mishawaka seem to be the biggest arguements... 

Would love to see somebody put together head to head dual predictions for these teams (for fun). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The teams with 7 wrestlers will be added into a total pool. If that number is something like 270 for example, each class will have 90 teams in it. The teams with less than 7 will be added into 1 A at the bottom, but have no realistic chance of being a factor.

Share this post


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

The teams with 7 wrestlers will be added into a total pool. If that number is something like 270 for example, each class will have 90 teams in it. The teams with less than 7 will be added into 1 A at the bottom, but have no realistic chance of being a factor.

So realistically 3A and 2A could have 90 teams while 1A would have something like 110?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I'm shocked we weren't voted in considering no one on the committee has seen us wrestle in a dual, and most have probably never heard of us. We've been under the radar for the last couple year and we were hoping this would be our coming out party. In my biased opinion we are a top 5 2A team next year. We thrashed #9 New prairie worse than any team they wrestled at team state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that when we get to the vote in teams there will always be arguments to be made on either side. It's not clear cut either way.  I doubt it was a unanimous vote.

I suppose when you end up 'just out' it simply gives you motivation to make a statement next year.  I know it is especially nice if you get to face some of those teams that got in above you in head to head duals.

Present your case for the error on the mat:)

Just my 2 cents worth...

Share this post


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

So realistically 3A and 2A could have 90 teams while 1A would have something like 110?

Realistically yes. But that can be brought back up to the committee within a few weeks. 
The idea was to keep it "all-inclusive". Maybe the better idea would be just to not put them in any class.

To me, it is really irrelevant, because those teams will not qualify regardless. But I understand your point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a couple of years I've been thinking 6-8 of the teams that get left out on the bubble (any class) should just for a super-dual on the same date.  That way if you are a contender you have the date open, if not you have a back-up plan annually.

Share this post


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

Man, I feel like we suck...

At least your team got voted in.  We just to keep scratching our heads and looking over statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GMSCoach said:

At least your team got voted in.  We just to keep scratching our heads and looking over statistics.

He's being sarcastic bc everyone is stating their case. They bring back all 14, including 4 ticket rounders and 6 total SS qualifiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This was a very tight vote for this spot.  And I feel your pain.  I was on the committee when my own team Madison didn't get selected in the vote to compete in 2A State Finals.

Edited by tskin

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  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.