Class This!!!!

[Silence Dogood]

Leaving aside the team tournament argument for now, I continue to question what evidence there is that an individual from a small school is at an inherent disadvantage against an individual from a big school based solely on the size of the school.  The numbers I have seen previously posted and discussed on this board don?t really bear out any advantage/disadvantage either way when it comes to the individual tournament.

 

Also, there are obviously a number of other factors that go into an individual?s success ? natural ability, length of time wrestling, involvement in a USA wrestling program, coaching, parent?s willingness and ability to send to tournaments/camps, distractions outside of school/athletics. Should we class based on those factors?

 

One argument has been that small school athletes aren?t able to concentrate on one sport like counterparts at a big school may be able to.  If this makes competition between them unfair, should we make classes based on how many sports an individual participates in (since not all small school athletes play multiple sports, and not all big school athletes concentrate on only one)?

 

Another argument has been that other, more successful states have classes for their individual tournament.  Is that the only reason they are successful though? Can?t we try to find out what other factors might be influencing their success and try to emulate those factors before reforming our entire individual tournament on the basis of the speculation that it will improve quality and interest?

 

Is the issue over fairness or improving the quality and interest in the sport?  If it?s fairness, where?s the evidence that a single class is unfair when it comes to the individual tournament.  If it?s quality and interest in the sport, I think we should do more thinking and exploring about what is driving other states? success before overhauling the system. 

 

[Y2CJ41]

Silence,

Welcome back...not really

 

Why have states not "righted" their wrong with class wrestling if it is so bad for the sport?  Why is there not big movements to unclass states like Ohio, Michigan and Illinois?  Why did Illinois coaches vote to move from two classes to three?  I can't remember the statistic, but it was something around 70-80% of the coaches voted to go to three classes.

 

Classing based on what you are saying, parent involvement, number of sports participated in, etc is frivolous and I am sure you know it.  You argument about the statistics has some merit, but you fail to accept that at sectional each team only has 14 shots at getting a state qualifier.  Of those 14 shots at getting a state qualifier if you are from a big school, you have a 3X greater chance of making it to state.  Everyone knows Lawrence North gets 14 shots at a state qualifier, the same as Garrett, Eastside, Churubusco, Northrop, Mishawaka, etc.  Yet for some reason LN gets three times more kids to state on average.

[Y2CJ41]

Then why aren't we competitive?  Because we are small?

Because you spend too much time on here.

[GladSwede]

I graduated from a school that lists a current enrollment of 446 students. My data does not go back very far but the number of wrestlers participating have dropped in recent years.  This year the team ff 2 weight classes.  20 years ago the team fielded a complete varsity and jv team. Most weight classes had 3 backups. They had won 3 or 4 consecutive sectional titles against a 4a school. The next 8 years saw 6 or 7 more sectional championships.

The next two years were not kind to the wrestlers as over half jv team  from the year before were either injured (playing football/wrestling), academically ineligible, or did not come out so they could work.  They did not win a sectional title and did not win their conference title for the first time in 14 years. In 98 2 freshmen started not because they were ready but because they weighed the right amount. In 2000 5 first time wrestlers "made" varsity; there was no jv. In 2001 the team once again won the sectional title with 5 seniors and 6 juniors.  In the next 9 years the team won 3 sectionals and has not had more than 4 jv wrestlers. The last 4 years the team has not been able to field a full lineup.

*disclaimer* I've included the sectional championships, but remember correlation does not imply causation. This is a very small sample size  and I make no claim to the accuracy of the data although I believe that it is correct.  

 

[base]

My personal opinion is that the state team tournament should be classed, but the individual tournament should not.

 

I think there are some other factors that have kept the participating numbers down for wrestling that haven't been mentioned yet:

 

1.  Tradition/knowledge.  Most fathers know how to play baseball/football/basketball.  A good coach will have a technical expertise far beyond the normal dad on all of these sports, yet many parents consider themselves "armchair experts" because they've understand the basic rules and have grown up around these mainstream sports.  Most parents do *not* possess a good working knowledge of wrestling -- neither technique or rules/scoring.  A non-wrestling parent is highly unlikely (in my opinion) to enroll a youngster into a youth wrestling program, while they are probably highly likely to at least try little league baseball or soccer.

 

2.  Marketing.  Basketball is still the king in Indiana, why do wrestling programs try to compare themselves in terms of crowds/attendance to basketball or football.  Football games are once a week, on a weekend night (Friday) and are therefore an "event" much more so than a weekday wrestling meet would be.  If you are familiar with any of the semi-pro teams around Indiana, what do they do to set themselves apart and develop a following?  Marketing, is my opinion.  Have a "pack the gym" night with free admission, strobe lights, heavy metal music....whatever it takes to develop a following at your school.  I see it as the only way to get non-wrestling fans introduced to the sport, and hopefully they will learn to love the excitement, energy, and adrenaline rush of a great wrestling meet.

 

3.  One concern I have of putting the schools in classes -- to me, this is no guarantee that more people would come out for the small school programs.  And really, would a meet with both teams having 6 forfeits be any less exciting than one where one school forfeits 6 matches to a large school?

 

Just random thoughts, thanks all for the ideas expressed and it's clear everyone really does want to continue to improve wrestling in Indiana.

[chambers]

I can only talk Bloomington South cuz that is where my son goes. Wrestling has a bad reputation as far as work goes ( as I am sure most programs have)

 

We have an enrollment of 1736 so we are a large school.

 

So  we start the year with 65-70 Wrestlers right....Wrong!

 

Averages over the last 4 years (thats all I have)

 

Start of Season Day one we average 34 wrestlers. That is returning wrestlers 2-3 new non Freshmen and the Freshmen from the middle schools.

 

Start of wrestling (1st dual) actual roster average 26. ( the rest have quit)

 

 

 

Start of Sectionals / post season actual roster average of 22 (injury or quit)

 

22 wrestlers and we continuously compete ( we have one the sectional 21 of the past 22 years)

 

I am guessing even the smallest schools can produce those numbers. The difference is the 22 that remain have been in the feeder system for an average of 9 years! It is hard for a small school to develop a feeder system, but it can be done.

 

I challenge you to show me a school that has support for wrestling that cannot produce those numbers.

 

You may need 75 boys to make a football team, but 25 wrestlers with the right mind-set can be enough to win!

 

 

The problem is that at a small school getting those 25 guys to wrestle is not as easy as you make it sound. At the school I am coaching at we have 140 boys. For me to have 25 wrestlers I would need to have 1 out of every 5 boys go out for wrestling. If you had the same percentage of boys go out for wrestling at your school you would have had 173 wrestlers. You did have 34 actually start this year. That is 1 out of every 25 boys. At my school that same average would give me 6 wrestlers. Out of the 140 boys at my school around 25 are on the basketball team. 7 are on the swimming team and 12 came out for the wrestling team. 1 guy that was a first year wrestler quit the team after the first match and 3 others had season ending injuries within the last two weeks before sectional.  When you account for the kids that have to work and can not do sports that cuts down on possible wrestlers as well as the kids that will not do enough work to be eligible to do sports.

[Disco]

Leaving aside the team tournament argument for now, I continue to question what evidence there is that an individual from a small school is at an inherent disadvantage against an individual from a big school based solely on the size of the school.  The numbers I have seen previously posted and discussed on this board don?t really bear out any advantage/disadvantage either way when it comes to the individual tournament.

 

Also, there are obviously a number of other factors that go into an individual?s success ? natural ability, length of time wrestling, involvement in a USA wrestling program, coaching, parent?s willingness and ability to send to tournaments/camps, distractions outside of school/athletics. Should we class based on those factors?

 

One argument has been that small school athletes aren?t able to concentrate on one sport like counterparts at a big school may be able to.  If this makes competition between them unfair, should we make classes based on how many sports an individual participates in (since not all small school athletes play multiple sports, and not all big school athletes concentrate on only one)?

 

Another argument has been that other, more successful states have classes for their individual tournament.  Is that the only reason they are successful though? Can?t we try to find out what other factors might be influencing their success and try to emulate those factors before reforming our entire individual tournament on the basis of the speculation that it will improve quality and interest?

 

Is the issue over fairness or improving the quality and interest in the sport?  If it?s fairness, where?s the evidence that a single class is unfair when it comes to the individual tournament.  If it?s quality and interest in the sport, I think we should do more thinking and exploring about what is driving other states? success before overhauling the system. 

 

Again this argument is correct, the only thing that has come to the surface, which  I see from the class side ,is the coaches want to look good for their efforts with all the other programs in the school. And that still boils down to change for change sake .

[chambers]

Leaving aside the team tournament argument for now, I continue to question what evidence there is that an individual from a small school is at an inherent disadvantage against an individual from a big school based solely on the size of the school.  The numbers I have seen previously posted and discussed on this board don?t really bear out any advantage/disadvantage either way when it comes to the individual tournament.

 

Also, there are obviously a number of other factors that go into an individual?s success ? natural ability, length of time wrestling, involvement in a USA wrestling program, coaching, parent?s willingness and ability to send to tournaments/camps, distractions outside of school/athletics. Should we class based on those factors?

 

One argument has been that small school athletes aren?t able to concentrate on one sport like counterparts at a big school may be able to.  If this makes competition between them unfair, should we make classes based on how many sports an individual participates in (since not all small school athletes play multiple sports, and not all big school athletes concentrate on only one)?

 

Another argument has been that other, more successful states have classes for their individual tournament.  Is that the only reason they are successful though? Can?t we try to find out what other factors might be influencing their success and try to emulate those factors before reforming our entire individual tournament on the basis of the speculation that it will improve quality and interest?

 

Is the issue over fairness or improving the quality and interest in the sport?  If it?s fairness, where?s the evidence that a single class is unfair when it comes to the individual tournament.  If it?s quality and interest in the sport, I think we should do more thinking and exploring about what is driving other states? success before overhauling the system.  

 

One disadvantage kids at small schools have is not always having someone to practice with that is a good match. For example at times this year at my small school we had a 103,140,145,152,160,171,285 at practice . Who does my 103lber get a quality practice with? What about the 285?

[Y2CJ41]

Again this argument is correct, the only thing that has come to the surface, which  I see from the class side ,is the coaches want to look good for their efforts with all the other programs in the school. And that still boils down to change for change sake .

Since Lawrence North has 2800 students do they get more entries into the state tournament over Garrett with 500 students?  I am just curious as the sectional I come from, no matter the size of the school, we are all only allowed 14 sectional entries and 14 shots at getting someone to state.

[KarlHungus]

Again this argument is correct, the only thing that has come to the surface, which  I see from the class side ,is the coaches want to look good for their efforts with all the other programs in the school. And that still boils down to change for change sake .

 

Anyone who says this clearly has not followed the debate over the years.

[IMAWRESTLER]

The thing that I have witnessed week in and week out is that the power teams in Indiana have these coaches that are at every tournament coaching the next set of studs that will keep them on top, where they deserve to be.  I traveled to Muntser this weekend with some of our wrestlers, coach Harper was there running back and forth coaching studs and average kids alike. It takes both to build championship teams. I?m sure he had a long day on Saturday, but he was there till dark.  Coach Tonte and Snyder do the same. Quit complaining and get out in the trenches.

 

[NickS]

We have discussed this in the past.  The type of kid that Division one programs recruit already have plenty of head to head competition in spring and summer wrestling.  Classing would expose more kids to the Division two and three coaches allowing more kids to wrestle in college.  Those kids would than be more likely to come back and coach at some level.  Overall quality of coaching would be increased.

 

This is where I think your logic is flawed.  You assume that if you class wrestling, that more kids will be exposed.  However, it has alot more to do with expanding the tournament that is getting more kids exposed, not classing per se.  If we went to a 2-class system, that's double the state participants we have right now.  Just expanding the tournament would have the same effect, as far as exposure is concerned.  This is assuming that the IHSAA, with their infinite wisdom, decide to stay with the 16-man weight classes for state of course.

 

On top of that, I don't care if we had 5 classes, college coaches aren't flocking to Indiana to scout out wrestlers.  If you want to be recognized, you hit up the national tournaments and get your name out there.  Even Y2's admitted to this.  They're probably only a couple of state tournaments in the country that can hold any value to recruiters, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Even then, I'd assume that kids from those states still need some national events to add to their resumes.  So kids, if you really want exposure.  Start writing letters to colleges, hit up the national events, and make a name for yourself.

[Galagore]

The thing that I have witnessed week in and week out is that the power teams in Indiana have these coaches that are at every tournament coaching the next set of studs that will keep them on top, where they deserve to be.  I traveled to Muntser this weekend with some of our wrestlers, coach Harper was there running back and forth coaching studs and average kids alike. It takes both to build championship teams. I?m sure he had a long day on Saturday, but he was there till dark.  Coach Tonte and Snyder do the same. Quit complaining and get out in the trenches.

 

 

Sorry.  Some of us are also coaching Tracksters....and Footballers....and weight lifters....not all of us have the luxury of being a one sport coach....the reason?  If we aren't coaching all of the sports we do, THE PROGRAMS DIE.  Life at smalls schools is different than life at big schools.  That's why classing is fair.

[IMAWRESTLER]

Sorry.  Some of us are also coaching Tracksters....and Footballers....and weight lifters....not all of us have the luxury of being a one sport coach....the reason?  If we aren't coaching all of the sports we do, THE PROGRAMS DIE.  Life at smalls schools is different than life at big schools.  That's why classing is fair.

 

Then what ever sport is your passion support it and find a way to make it the best you can.  Don't spread yourself so thin.  P.S. I'm from a small school and we have individual coaches for all sports.

[KarlHungus]

Then what ever sport is your passion support it and find a way to make it the best you can.  Don't spread yourself so thin.  P.S. I'm from a small school and we have individual coaches for all sports.

 

Your in a good situation then.  But not the norm at small schools.

[Galagore]

Then what ever sport is your passion support it and find a way to make it the best you can.  Don't spread yourself so thin.   P.S. I'm from a small school and we have individual coaches for all sports.

 

This is unbelievable.  If that's all you took out of my post, then this isn't worth debating.

[KarlHungus]

wcs:

 

I agree with your expanding the tournament theory.  I just think that expanding it with the class system currently used in the other sports would be most beneficial.

 

The reason why classes would be more beneficial is because more kids at both big and small schools would experience the kinds of team and individual success that will spur them to think about wrestling in college earlier in their high school career.  For most small school wrestlers that are three sport athletes it is not likely to be at the D1 level because they can not wrestle all spring and summer due to commitments to other sports.

 

I would argue that a kid who is a 3 time state qualifier and two time placer in a classed system is more likely to look at wrestling in college as an option than a kid who is a one-time regional. one-time semi-state, and then maybe making it state his senior year.  That type of kid is not likely D1 material but due to his success and exposure he is more likely to look at D2, D3, and NAIA programs.

[Silence Dogood]

Based on the probable talent distribution, a school with 3x as many students would likely have 3x as many individuals with the natural talent to be a state qualifier.  Assuming everything else was equal, we would predict that the school would have 3x as many state quality individuals as a school with 1/3 as many students. 

 

Thus, with each team starting with a different distribution of talent, it doesn?t make sense to assume that they would have the same number of qualifiers just because they have the same number of roster slots to fill.  That would be like assuming that the starting 5 on every basketball team in the state should be equal because each school has the same number of slots to fill.  While, I concede that this supports the argument of classing the team tournament, I don?t see what it has to do with the individual tournament.

 

This is because saying that a school that is 3x bigger is likely to have 3x as many state qualifiers is not the same thing as saying that an individual from a large school is 3x as likely to be a state qualifier compared to an individual from a small school as you have argued.  More state qualifiers come from bigger schools because they start with a larger pool in the first place.  If there was an advantage to being from a big school one would expect more than 3x as many state qualifiers to come from big schools if they start with 3x as many students (and likely start with 3x as many individuals with natural talent). 

 

Your statement that an individual from LN is 3x more likely to make it to state than an individual from Garrett, makes it sound like the size of the school is the sole determining factor. Do you really think that?s the case?  What about the factors I mentioned?  Do you agree that those factors play a significant role?  If so, how much of an impact do you think the factors I mentioned play vs. the impact the size of the school the individual happens to attend has? 

 

I am in favor of growing the quality and interest in the sport.  I am in favor of considering any and all options to do so (as well as the reasons for a particular option).  You have argued that a single class individual tournament is not good for the sport because it puts an individual from a small school at an inherent disadvantage vs. an individual from a large school.  I have argued that the numbers do not support this argument.  I have argued that other factors, such as the ones I posted previously, have a greater impact on an individual's success.  Are there ways to make such factors more prevalent throughout the state?  How have other states done so?  Is classing the only answer? Is it the best answer?

 

I think its important and beneficial to generate quality discussion on both sides of the debate.

 

 

 

[Galagore]

Based on the probable talent distribution, a school with 3x as many students would likely have 3x as many individuals with the natural talent to be a state qualifier.  Assuming everything else was equal, we would predict that the school would have 3x as many state quality individuals as a school with 1/3 as many students. 

 

Thus, with each team starting with a different distribution of talent, it doesn?t make sense to assume that they would have the same number of qualifiers just because they have the same number of roster slots to fill.   That would be like assuming that the starting 5 on every basketball team in the state should be equal because each school has the same number of slots to fill.  While, I concede that this supports the argument of classing the team tournament, I don?t see what it has to do with the individual tournament.

 

This is because saying that a school that is 3x bigger is likely to have 3x as many state qualifiers is not the same thing as saying that an individual from a large school is 3x as likely to be a state qualifier compared to an individual from a small school as you have argued.  More state qualifiers come from bigger schools because they start with a larger pool in the first place.  If there was an advantage to being from a big school one would expect more than 3x as many state qualifiers to come from big schools if they start with 3x as many students (and likely start with 3x as many individuals with natural talent). 

 

Your statement that an individual from LN is 3x more likely to make it to state than an individual from Garrett, makes it sound like the size of the school is the sole determining factor. Do you really think that?s the case?  What about the factors I mentioned?  Do you agree that those factors play a significant role?  If so, how much of an impact do you think the factors I mentioned play vs. the impact the size of the school the individual happens to attend has? 

 

I am in favor of growing the quality and interest in the sport.  I am in favor of considering any and all options to do so (as well as the reasons for a particular option).  You have argued that a single class individual tournament is not good for the sport because it puts an individual from a small school at an inherent disadvantage vs. an individual from a large school.  I have argued that the numbers do not support this argument.  I have argued that other factors, such as the ones I posted previously, have a greater impact on an individual's success.  Are there ways to make such factors more prevalent throughout the state?  How have other states done so?  Is classing the only answer? Is it the best answer?

 

I think its important and beneficial to generate quality discussion on both sides of the debate.

 

 

 

 

No, actually is sounds like that particular factor increases the chances by 200%.  There is a difference between being a sole factor and a very important factor. 

[Y2CJ41]

What you are saying is you expect smaller schools to have less kids at state, but a single class system means everyone is equal isn't it?  It means that all 103lbers in the state have an equal chance of being a state champion or qualifier, yet if you are from a small school you aren't as likely to be a qualifier.  To me that does not make sense if everyone is "equal."  If you are saying that everyone is not equal, then that is supporting an individual class system.

[IMAWRESTLER]

What you are saying is you expect smaller schools to have less kids at state, but a single class system means everyone is equal isn't it?  It means that all 103lbers in the state have an equal chance of being a state champion or qualifier, yet if you are from a small school you aren't as likely to be a qualifier.  To me that does not make sense if everyone is "equal."  If you are saying that everyone is not equal, then that is supporting an individual class system.

Again please tell me why you think kids at a big school are better than kids at a small school on an individual basis? 

[Y2CJ41]

Again please tell me why you think kids at a big school are better than kids at a small school on an individual basis? 

Because 74% of the state qualifiers the past 11 years are from big schools.  That to me tells me that they are better.

[IMAWRESTLER]

Because 74% of the state qualifiers the past 11 years are from big schools.  That to me tells me that they are better.

Times are a changing why are the Bellmont,Yorktown,Peru,Garret,Whitco, and all the other small school teams producing quality teams?  Because training has changed in Indiana,  you had your kids and yourself in the Mishawaka room this summer.  Expose your kids to great wrestlers and they will get better its not numbers its training.

 

[Silence Dogood]

What you are saying is you expect smaller schools to have less kids at state, but a single class system means everyone is equal isn't it?  It means that all 103lbers in the state have an equal chance of being a state champion or qualifier, yet if you are from a small school you aren't as likely to be a qualifier.  To me that does not make sense if everyone is "equal."  If you are saying that everyone is not equal, then that is supporting an individual class system.

 

I never said, and I do not believe, that a single class system means every individual is equal. I would be willing to wager that Cody Phillips (school enrollment of 511) has a far better chance to be a state qualifier than the 103 pounder from the largest school.  But based on your argument, the 103 pounder from the largest school is more likely to be a state qualifier than Cody Phillips simply because he comes from a much bigger school.  

 

The problems is that you are trying to argue that because a group is 3x as likely to have individuals that meet a certain criteria compared to another group, that each individual within that group will be 3x as likely to meet the criteria compared to each individual in the other group. That's obviously not the case.  

 

[Y2CJ41]

I never said, and I do not believe, that a single class system means every individual is equal. I would be willing to wager that Cody Phillips (school enrollment of 511) has a far better chance to be a state qualifier than the 103 pounder from the largest school.  But based on your argument, the 103 pounder from the largest school is more likely to be a state qualifier than Cody Phillips simply because he comes from a much bigger school. 

 

The problems is that you are trying to argue that because a group is 3x as likely to have individuals that meet a certain criteria compared to another group, that each individual within that group will be 3x as likely to meet the criteria compared to each individual in the other group. That's obviously not the case. 

 

For every Cody Phillips there are three Zac Stevens'.