KarlHungus Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Yeah mock our greatest president. Voted on by the people. He has done more for our country then you have done for the sport of wrestling I garentee that. He said it, not me. And it is not Ronald Reagan I was mocking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The 3 class breakdown and 2 class breakdown set forth on the second tab seem to support the position that an individual from a big school does not have any net advantage over an individual from a small school when it comes to developing into a state qualifier. The percentages of students in each class compared to the number of state qualifiers from each class is almost identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boot Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Most kids when they are in high school might play 2 sports few play 3.........but thats up to the kid. Will the kids that play 2 sports be great at either maybe you have those kids that just are athletic but if most kids put in time at one sport will they be great much better chances. Not the person to tell someone to not play another sport.....allot of things actually help like football and baseball can help wrestler out with reaction time and differant areas. But mat time is like nothing else. How many D I, D II , or D III kids play 2 sports not a lot. I went to a DIII school and was a 2 sport athlete, as were a lot of students. There are a few, rare, 3 sport athletes. Just to add some confusion to the mix... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Kendrick Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Have you ever coached or attended a small school? The numbers are extremely higher of multi-sport athletes at Garrett than at a school like say Lawrence North. At Garrett alone, we had six starters that are three sport athletes. We had six starters that are two sport athletes. Y2 i agree with you! I coach at a small 3A school and 18 our 20 wrestlers this year were multiple sport athletes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcarter Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm not trying to jump into this class argument but I went to a big school and our best wrestlers were multi sport athletes, except our best who wrestled all year around. All I'm saying is that at no matter how big your school is the best ATHLETES are probably going to play multiple sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm not trying to jump into this class argument but I went to a big school and our best wrestlers were multi sport athletes, except our best who wrestled all year around. All I'm saying is that at no matter how big your school is the best ATHLETES are probably going to play multiple sports. The best athletes at small schools are almost always 3 sport guys, the rest are almost always 2 sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 The 3 class breakdown and 2 class breakdown set forth on the second tab seem to support the position that an individual from a big school does not have any net advantage over an individual from a small school when it comes to developing into a state qualifier. The percentages of students in each class compared to the number of state qualifiers from each class is almost identical. Welcome back Dogood, but please in the future throw out some insults when addressing me, it is now standard procedure in this debate. Thank you. Now to answer your question. According to you(I believe) enrollment does not matter(if I am wrong please correct me). If enrollment did not matter then the two class breakdown should be around 50/50(I wouldn't even be disappointed in a 60/40). In the three class breakdown it should therefore be close to 33/33/33 then. If enrollment of a school affects the amount of state qualifiers then I believe that is a reason for class wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central111 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Why not make a 4 class system if there going to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 Why not make a 4 class system if there going to do it Four classes are too many at this current time. After looking at the number of teams in each division in other states I feel each division should have around 100-150 schools. If after 10+ years there looks to be a need for another class or two, then so be it. States like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon have increased the number of classes after feeling there is a need to do so and I feel the same would need to be done in Indiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinedad Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Ok, lets assume that the IHSAA decides to class wrestling. We have a few knowns in this equation that we all agree on. The 1st is that the IHSAA is not going to re-invent the wheel when it comes to wrestling, which means that we are going to have to fall in line with the other classed sports. This means a 4 class system. I don't see them developing a special classing system for our sport. With 309 teams we get 77-78 teams per class. I dont see that as a viable option, there are to few teams, and with only 78 kids per class, not much of an individule state series either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Ok, lets assume that the IHSAA decides to class wrestling. We have a few knowns in this equation that we all agree on. The 1st is that the IHSAA is not going to re-invent the wheel when it comes to wrestling, which means that we are going to have to fall in line with the other classed sports. This means a 4 class system. I don't see them developing a special classing system for our sport. With 309 teams we get 77-78 teams per class. I dont see that as a viable option, there are to few teams, and with only 78 kids per class, not much of an individule state series either. I think a 2 or 3 class system could be done. Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois all have differing amount of classes for different sports. With the right presentation and a receptive IHSAA, I don't think that is a obstacle that could not be overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinedad Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Ok, lets assume that the IHSAA decides to class wrestling. We have a few knowns in this equation that we all agree on. The 1st is that the IHSAA is not going to re-invent the wheel when it comes to wrestling, which means that we are going to have to fall in line with the other classed sports. This means a 4 class system. I don't see them developing a special classing system for our sport. With 309 teams we get 77-78 teams per class. I dont see that as a viable option, there are to few teams, and with only 78 kids per class, not much of an individule state series either. I think a 2 or 3 class system could be done. Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois all have differing amount of classes for different sports. With the right presentation and a receptive IHSAA, I don't think that is a obstacle that could not be overcome. 2 very key words there...receptive IHSAA. I understand that I am just a father, and have a very limited perception of the IHSAA and how it works, but I have yet to see anything that suggests that they are or would be receptive to something that would be for wrestling only. I dont care what they do in MI, OH, IL, we have to deal with our governing body, and they dont seem to be very interested at all in helping us promote wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 2 very key words there...receptive IHSAA. I understand that I am just a father, and have a very limited perception of the IHSAA and how it works, but I have yet to see anything that suggests that they are or would be receptive to something that would be for wrestling only. I dont care what they do in MI, OH, IL, we have to deal with our governing body, and they dont seem to be very interested at all in helping us promote wrestling. Very true but I have heard that there is a chance for a more receptive IHSAA in the future. That combined with a more united coach's assoiciation might be able to get some things done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinedad Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 2 very key words there...receptive IHSAA. I understand that I am just a father, and have a very limited perception of the IHSAA and how it works, but I have yet to see anything that suggests that they are or would be receptive to something that would be for wrestling only. I dont care what they do in MI, OH, IL, we have to deal with our governing body, and they dont seem to be very interested at all in helping us promote wrestling. Very true but I have heard that there is a chance for a more receptive IHSAA in the future. That combined with a more united coach's assoiciation might be able to get some things done. I would say this year is the best shot that any single coaches association will have, the IHSAA just got a bit of a scare from the legislature. And as far as the coaches association, you are correct, we need to do a better job of getting our coaches involved in the one organization that is there to help them. However, I would suggesat that the best way to grow our sport is to not look to the IHSAA, but rather we need to do the things that we can control. I.E. getting our coaches into clinics to help them become better coaches, getting our kids into camps and clinics to help them be better wrestlers. Coaches like you and Y2 that are dedicated to your kids and the sport are way to rare. If every coach, from either a big or small school devoted the kind of time into putting together a program as you two have, we would not be having discussions about class or not, we would be complaining that the college coaches are always on the phone with our kids.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 If and when there is class wrestling on the individual level, it would probably come for all individual sports and not just wrestling. It would probably take a coalition of coaches from track, golf, tennis, wrestling, etc to get the measure passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinedad Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If and when there is class wrestling on the individual level, it would probably come for all individual sports and not just wrestling. It would probably take a coalition of coaches from track, golf, tennis, wrestling, etc to get the measure passed. Do you see them agreeing to class the team without classing the individual. Also, just devils advocate here, but we cant get our coaches association to agree on anything, how do you propose we get all the other sports to go along with it. You proponents of class wrestling might actually be better off approaching the other sports coaches associations and getting them to make the proposal and having wrestling just kind of follow along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 If and when there is class wrestling on the individual level, it would probably come for all individual sports and not just wrestling. It would probably take a coalition of coaches from track, golf, tennis, wrestling, etc to get the measure passed. Do you see them agreeing to class the team without classing the individual. Also, just devils advocate here, but we cant get our coaches association to agree on anything, how do you propose we get all the other sports to go along with it. You proponents of class wrestling might actually be better off approaching the other sports coaches associations and getting them to make the proposal and having wrestling just kind of follow along. The best bet in the nearest future would be for the IHSAA board members to decide it is best for Indiana as a whole to class everything with very little input from the coaches associations. That would be the easiest way, since I believe it will be an all or nothing type thing for the IHSAA. I know the cross country coaches do a class All-State team every year, so it seems to me there are in somewhat favor of it. I don't think our coaches association would be the one to initiate the talks, but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 The 3 class breakdown and 2 class breakdown set forth on the second tab seem to support the position that an individual from a big school does not have any net advantage over an individual from a small school when it comes to developing into a state qualifier. The percentages of students in each class compared to the number of state qualifiers from each class is almost identical. Welcome back Dogood, but please in the future throw out some insults when addressing me, it is now standard procedure in this debate. Thank you. Now to answer your question. According to you(I believe) enrollment does not matter(if I am wrong please correct me). If enrollment did not matter then the two class breakdown should be around 50/50(I wouldn't even be disappointed in a 60/40). In the three class breakdown it should therefore be close to 33/33/33 then. If enrollment of a school affects the amount of state qualifiers then I believe that is a reason for class wrestling. My position is that, based on the numbers in the spreadsheet you put together, a school's enrollment does not have a net affect on whether an individual will be a state qualifier. I disagree with your position that a two-class breakdown should be 50/50 and a three-class breakdown should be 33/33/33. The reason I disagree is that I believe that the probable distribution of natural talent, based on the numbers in your spreadsheet, would be such that in the two-class breakdown Class AA schools would have 75% of the individuals that have the natural talent to be state qualifiers because they have 75% of the students. If being an individual from a Class AA school provided a net advantage to such an individual, more than 75% of the state qualifiers should come from Class AA schools (because the net advantage would cause the individuals at the Class AA schools who had less natural talent than their counterparts at the Class A schools to overcome the natural talent gap). But the numbers in your spreadsheet indicate that this isn't happening. Let's say, hypothetically, we were having a tournament with no school affiliations. We divide the wrestlers up into two groups - one group has 75% of the wrestlers and the other has 25%. We then say each group has to enter the same number participants into the tournament. Would you expect the group with only 25% to start with to have the same success as the group that starts with 75%? Do you think it matters for a particular individual in this scenario which group the individual happens wind up in? My guess is that the group with 3x as many wrestlers would be approximately 3x as successful as the group with 1/3 as many wrestlers. But an individual's performance in such a tournament would not be affected by which group he happens to be placed in. It's the same when we talk about Class AA individuals and Class A individuals. If there was an advantage to being an individual from a Class AA school, the data should indicate that Class AA schools have more state qualifiers than would be predicted by the probable talent distribution. But the actual numbers are exactly in line with what would be predicted. Therefore, there is no net advantage in being an individual from a Class AA school when it comes to being a state qualifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 Again you failed to throw out personal insults, if you don't do it in the next post I will not respond My position is that, based on the numbers in the spreadsheet you put together, a school's enrollment does not have a net affect on whether an individual will be a state qualifier. I disagree with your position that a two-class breakdown should be 50/50 and a three-class breakdown should be 33/33/33. The reason I disagree is that I believe that the probable distribution of natural talent, based on the numbers in your spreadsheet, would be such that in the two-class breakdown Class AA schools would have 75% of the individuals that have the natural talent to be state qualifiers because they have 75% of the students. If being an individual from a Class AA school provided a net advantage to such an individual, more than 75% of the state qualifiers should come from Class AA schools (because the net advantage would cause the individuals at the Class AA schools who had less natural talent than their counterparts at the Class A schools to overcome the natural talent gap). But the numbers in your spreadsheet indicate that this isn't happening. Let's say, hypothetically, we were having a tournament with no school affiliations. We divide the wrestlers up into two groups - one group has 75% of the wrestlers and the other has 25%. We then say each group has to enter the same number participants into the tournament. Would you expect the group with only 25% to start with to have the same success as the group that starts with 75%? Do you think it matters for a particular individual in this scenario which group the individual happens wind up in? My guess is that the group with 3x as many wrestlers would be approximately 3x as successful as the group with 1/3 as many wrestlers. But an individual's performance in such a tournament would not be affected by which group he happens to be placed in. It's the same when we talk about Class AA individuals and Class A individuals. If there was an advantage to being an individual from a Class AA school, the data should indicate that Class AA schools have more state qualifiers than would be predicted by the probable talent distribution. But the actual numbers are exactly in line with what would be predicted. Therefore, there is no net advantage in being an individual from a Class AA school when it comes to being a state qualifier. If everyone is equal as you stated you shouldn't even be looking at the enrollment numbers. If I have two varsity wrestlers, one from a small school and one from a big school, which wrestler is more likely to be a state qualifier and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Again you failed to throw out personal insults, if you don't do it in the next post I will not respond My position is that, based on the numbers in the spreadsheet you put together, a school's enrollment does not have a net affect on whether an individual will be a state qualifier. I disagree with your position that a two-class breakdown should be 50/50 and a three-class breakdown should be 33/33/33. The reason I disagree is that I believe that the probable distribution of natural talent, based on the numbers in your spreadsheet, would be such that in the two-class breakdown Class AA schools would have 75% of the individuals that have the natural talent to be state qualifiers because they have 75% of the students. If being an individual from a Class AA school provided a net advantage to such an individual, more than 75% of the state qualifiers should come from Class AA schools (because the net advantage would cause the individuals at the Class AA schools who had less natural talent than their counterparts at the Class A schools to overcome the natural talent gap). But the numbers in your spreadsheet indicate that this isn't happening. Let's say, hypothetically, we were having a tournament with no school affiliations. We divide the wrestlers up into two groups - one group has 75% of the wrestlers and the other has 25%. We then say each group has to enter the same number participants into the tournament. Would you expect the group with only 25% to start with to have the same success as the group that starts with 75%? Do you think it matters for a particular individual in this scenario which group the individual happens wind up in? My guess is that the group with 3x as many wrestlers would be approximately 3x as successful as the group with 1/3 as many wrestlers. But an individual's performance in such a tournament would not be affected by which group he happens to be placed in. It's the same when we talk about Class AA individuals and Class A individuals. If there was an advantage to being an individual from a Class AA school, the data should indicate that Class AA schools have more state qualifiers than would be predicted by the probable talent distribution. But the actual numbers are exactly in line with what would be predicted. Therefore, there is no net advantage in being an individual from a Class AA school when it comes to being a state qualifier. If everyone is equal as you stated you shouldn't even be looking at the enrollment numbers. If I have two varsity wrestlers, one from a small school and one from a big school, which wrestler is more likely to be a state qualifier and why? Without knowing anything else about the individuals, I would pick the person from the big school because it is 3x as likely that the big school individual has the natural talent based on the probable distribution of talent (big schools have 3x as many students). But going to the big school doesn't cause any individual from a big school to be more naturally talented - they either are or they aren't. The numbers indicate that, in the aggregate, big schools and small schools aren't doing anything to change what is predicted by the natural distribution of talent. What are your thoughts on the hypothetical tournament I proposed in my previous post? As for the personal insults, it looks like manvswild1 is doing enough for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midget5589 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If everyone is equal as you stated you shouldn't even be looking at the enrollment numbers. If I have two varsity wrestlers, one from a small school and one from a big school, which wrestler is more likely to be a state qualifier and why? That would have to depend on who the wrestlers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 Just two random varsity wrestlers from random teams throughout the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KoKo B-Ware Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Y2 says that the bigger school wrestler will win...they are better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
former130 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Y2 says that the bigger school wrestler will win...they are better By the stats he has backed it up with it looks like he is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Y2 says that the bigger school wrestler will win...they are better He doesn't say it, the statistics say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts