Silence Dogood 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. But the statistics don't show that going to a big school is causing an individual to be more likley to be a state qualifier. They simply demonstrate that 3x as many qualifiers are coming from big schools, which is what one would expect given that big schools have 3x as many students, and therefore are likely to have 3x the natural talent to start with. If the size of the school was actually causing a difference, the number of state qualifiers wouldn't be the same as the probable talent distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 The problem with the "3 to 1 ratio" argument is that it's not enough information to use to suggest our system is broken. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois could very well have the same 3 to 1 ratio between "big schools" and "small schools." The problem is we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author 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. But the statistics don't show that going to a big school is causing an individual to be more likley to be a state qualifier. They simply demonstrate that 3x as many qualifiers are coming from big schools, which is what one would expect given that big schools have 3x as many students, and therefore are likely to have 3x the natural talent to start with. If the size of the school was actually causing a difference, the number of state qualifiers wouldn't be the same as the probable talent distribution. Do you think that talent pool being greater helps develop a kid that doesn't have the natural talent to make it to state? Or even this scenario: A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has three quality practice partners that are semi-state level wrestlers. A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has one quality practice partner that is a regional level wrestler. Which one will have more success and a greater chance of going to state? After you think about that, where is that wrestler most likely going to be going to school? Just for me personally, I was lucky if I could find a regional qualifier within 20lbs of me in high school(as a 112lber). In college I was surrounded by STUDS and got tremendously better at a faster rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If you had "A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff" then the room would have more than 1 or 2 good drill partners because part of "all that good stuff" is quality leadership and team promotion. The talent level of the room would rise and he would make those regional qualifiers semistate qualifiers. The team improves, thus building a more positive environment for today's I only want to play if I can win society. More kids are now going out for wrestling, which means more athletes will be wrestling, which means it will be more entertaining, which will lead to more people wrestling. ;D Have fun everyone, and remember to keep your sense of humor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Do you think that talent pool being greater helps develop a kid that doesn't have the natural talent to make it to state? It does. But the data you have provided indicates that whatever advantages/disadvantages big schools give an individual are in the aggregate netted out against the advantages/disadvantages small schools give an individual. Maybe its because a good number of small schools are exploiting the advantages available to small schools and a good number of big schools aren't exploiting the advantages available to big schools. Your numbers indicate that in the aggregate it's all netting out so that there is no advantage to being an individual from a big school. My point is that the numbers you have compiled don't indicate any unfairness and they don't indicate that attending a big school causes an individual to be 3x as likely to be a state qualifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Do you think that talent pool being greater helps develop a kid that doesn't have the natural talent to make it to state? It does. But the data you have provided indicates that whatever advantages/disadvantages big schools give an individual are in the aggregate netted out against the advantages/disadvantages small schools give an individual. Maybe its because a good number of small schools are exploiting the advantages available to small schools and a good number of big schools aren't exploiting the advantages available to big schools. Your numbers indicate that in the aggregate it's all netting out so that there is no advantage to being an individual from a big school. My point is that the numbers you have compiled don't indicate any unfairness and they don't indicate that attending a big school causes an individual 3x as likely to be a state qualifier. Also, information needs to be compiled on other states with class (preferably the power states like OH, PA, IL) to prove that there's inconsistencies with Indiana. The problem is, those states are classed, so compiling the information would be rather difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 If you had "A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff" then the room would have more than 1 or 2 good drill partners because part of "all that good stuff" is quality leadership and team promotion. The talent level of the room would rise and he would make those regional qualifiers semistate qualifiers. The team improves, thus building a more positive environment for today's I only want to play if I can win society. More kids are now going out for wrestling, which means more athletes will be wrestling, which means it will be more entertaining, which will lead to more people wrestling. ;D Have fun everyone, and remember to keep your sense of humor! I will amend the question, now will you answer it? A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has three quality practice partners that were regional level wrestlers, but because they wrestled this talented wrestler became semi-state level wrestlers. A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has one quality practice partner that was a sectional level wrestler, but because je wrestled this talented wrestler is a regional level wrestler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Also, information needs to be compiled on other states with class (preferably the power states like OH, PA, IL) to prove that there's inconsistencies with Indiana. The problem is, those states are classed, so compiling the information would be rather difficult. What are the inconsistencies with Indiana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Also, information needs to be compiled on other states with class (preferably the power states like OH, PA, IL) to prove that there's inconsistencies with Indiana. The problem is, those states are classed, so compiling the information would be rather difficult. What are the inconsistencies with Indiana? The 3 to 1 ratio with big schools to small schools. If there can be data to prove that OH, PA, IL are closer to even on their big school to small school ratios. Then MAYBE a class system would be the way to go for Indiana. But like I said, compiling the data would be rather difficult since they're classed. But I'm under the belief that they have the same issues in those states as we do in our state. The difference is their systems hide that discrepancy, our system reveals it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If you had "A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff" then the room would have more than 1 or 2 good drill partners because part of "all that good stuff" is quality leadership and team promotion. The talent level of the room would rise and he would make those regional qualifiers semistate qualifiers. The team improves, thus building a more positive environment for today's I only want to play if I can win society. More kids are now going out for wrestling, which means more athletes will be wrestling, which means it will be more entertaining, which will lead to more people wrestling. ;D Have fun everyone, and remember to keep your sense of humor! I will amend the question, now will you answer it? A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has three quality practice partners that were regional level wrestlers, but because they wrestled this talented wrestler became semi-state level wrestlers. A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has one quality practice partner that was a sectional level wrestler, but because je wrestled this talented wrestler is a regional level wrestler. The numbers indicate that wherever this is happening at big schools it is happening in the same proportions at small schools - nothing that is being done (training, facilities, coaching, spending, etc) is, in the aggregate, changing the numbers from what would be predicted from the probable talent distribution. Some small schools do better than expected, some big schools do worse in than expected. The conclusion to be drawn from the numbers is that the size of the school isn't causing a net difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Also, information needs to be compiled on other states with class (preferably the power states like OH, PA, IL) to prove that there's inconsistencies with Indiana. The problem is, those states are classed, so compiling the information would be rather difficult. What are the inconsistencies with Indiana? The 3 to 1 ratio with big schools to small schools. If there can be data to prove that OH, PA, IL are closer to even on their big school to small school ratios. Then MAYBE a class system would be the way to go for Indiana. But like I said, compiling the data would be rather difficult since they're classed. But I'm under the belief that they have the same issues in those states as we do in our state. The difference is their systems hide that discrepancy, our system reveals it. Why is the 3 to 1 ratio of state qualifiers inconsistent? There are 3x as many students at big schools and therefore it is likely that 3x as many state caliber athletes attend big schools. Wouldn't you then expect them to have 3x as many state qualifiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 So according to you while school size does make a difference in the number of state qualifiers, school size does not matter? Is that how I am comprehending it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Also, information needs to be compiled on other states with class (preferably the power states like OH, PA, IL) to prove that there's inconsistencies with Indiana. The problem is, those states are classed, so compiling the information would be rather difficult. What are the inconsistencies with Indiana? The 3 to 1 ratio with big schools to small schools. If there can be data to prove that OH, PA, IL are closer to even on their big school to small school ratios. Then MAYBE a class system would be the way to go for Indiana. But like I said, compiling the data would be rather difficult since they're classed. But I'm under the belief that they have the same issues in those states as we do in our state. The difference is their systems hide that discrepancy, our system reveals it. Why is the 3 to 1 ratio of state qualifiers inconsistent? There are 3x as many students at big schools and therefore it is likely that 3x as many state caliber athletes attend big schools. Wouldn't you then expect them to have 3x as many state qualifiers? Inconsistent compared to other states I was getting at. For example if OH, PA, and IL were virtually even (hypothetical of course) then Indiana would be proven to be inconsistent with those other 3 states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 So according to you while school size does make a difference in the number of state qualifiers, school size does not matter? Is that how I am comprehending it? The bigger the school, the more likely it is that the school will have a state qualifier (based on the probable distribution of talent). But attending a big school does not cause an individual to be 3x as likely to be a state qualifier. I will repost a scenario I posted earlier: 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? The size of the group won't cause the individuals in the bigger group to be more successful, the bigger group just has 3x as much talent to start with. But the talented individuals in the smaller group aren't worse off just because they are in the smaller group - they are still just as talented as they were before the tournament started. So if we agree that Class AA schools will likely start with 3x as many state caliber athletes, if everything else is equal, they should have 3x as many state qualifiers. If there is an advantage to being an individual from a Class AA school, they should have more than 3x as many state qualifiers. I agree with your point that big schools are more likely to have more quality wrestlers and therefore more quality practice partners. But small schools have some advantages too. Many small schools are taking advantage of these opportunities to the point where the advantages/disadvantages are netting out and there are just as many state qualifiers from big schools and small schools as would be predicted by the probable talent distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 Ok, so we disagree that the system is fine and dandy. I think as I would call it in wrestling a stalemate. What do you think of the health of small school programs in the state? Is it good, bad, ugly, ok, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Ok, so we disagree that the system is fine and dandy. I think as I would call it in wrestling a stalemate. What do you think of the health of small school programs in the state? Is it good, bad, ugly, ok, etc? I don't know enough about small school programs other than the ones in my area that are doing well (Garrett, Adams Central, Yorktown, Bluffton, South Adams). That being said, I think there is plenty that can be done to improve wrestling throughout the state (e.g., the things some of the small schools listed above are doing - RTCs in the off season, taking groups to off season tournaments, traveling to other clubs, etc.). I think classing the team tournament would be a viable option for improving the health of small school programs. It could generate interest at schools that otherwise don't get much, which would likely lead to more individuals at those schools deciding to go out for wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Most programs are cyclical in their health. They are up for awhile then down for awhile. Only a select few stay on top. I would say some small schools are on the rise, while some are on the slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I think classing the team tournament would be a viable option for improving the health of small school programs. It could generate interest at schools that otherwise don't get much, which would likely lead to more individuals at those schools deciding to go out for wrestling. I concur here, I feel that we need to grow the sport through the team aspect. A school and community can rally behind a team, but it's very hard to do so for a few individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 If it helps to do it on the team side, won't it help on the individual side too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Of course it will. Team tournaments are comprised of individual wrestling matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If it helps to do it on the team side, won't it help on the individual side too? That is flawed logic. Just because a tylenol makes your headache go away does not mean it will cure your depression or alzheimers (sp?) or any other head/brain impairment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If it helps to do it on the team side, won't it help on the individual side too? I don't really see there being much controversy with classing team tournament. Based on the numbers, big schools start out with significantly more naturally talented individuals which gives them a distinct advantage in the team tournament. Therefore, it would be easy to get most reasonable people behind the idea. On the other hand, I think that classing the individual tournament would be controversial because the unfairness isn't apparent. So while it may be beneficial (I am not sure that it necessarily would be), it would likely be hard to get everyone (or even a majority) to support it. Therefore, my opinion is that classing the team tournament and leaving the individual tournament unclassed would be a simple, uncontoversial way to improve the health of small school programs. I'll throw it back to you - what would classing both do that can't be accomplished by classing just the team tournament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 classing the team tournament would be a way to measure some change from the impact of having classes without altering the current individual system. It might be able to give us data we need to improve the current discussions about class wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 classing the team tournament would be a way to measure some change from the impact of having classes without altering the current individual system. It might be able to give us data we need to improve the current discussions about class wrestling. But you just said two posts ago that they were completely separate entities and have no affect on eachother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire77 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 classing the team portion of the state tournament would be a step in the right direction. just like adding a forth qualifier from the semi state was in the individual tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts