AJ Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Tell me why only 25% of the state qualifiers are from small schools? You say this as if all big schools are evenly accounted for in state qualifiers. When one big school takes 10 and another 8 this tends to throw off the data (examples not a specific). Is your 25% from last year or from a certain collection of years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 You say this as if all big schools are evenly accounted for in state qualifiers. When one big school takes 10 and another 8 this tends to throw off the data (examples not a specific). Is your 25% from last year or from a certain collection of years? From the past 11 years. There are 11 big schools over the past 11 years that have failed to have a state qualifier There are 44 small schools that have failed to do this Over the past 11 years big schools have averaged 12.8 state qualifiers, just over one per year, while small schools averaged 4.5, which isn't even a qualifier every other year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetYourChicken140 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Kieth Kunura(215) Football Austin Bowman(140) Football Check him out on youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Lets do some math to figure out the unjustices done on to you y2. Yorktown has 708 kids Garrett 572. Thats 136 extra students. We devide that in half to get boys. Now were at 68. We devide that into the four grades and we have 17 extra male students to pick from per grade. A good coach gets arround 10-15% of the kids to wrestle per grade. So now were looking at arround 1.5 extra wrestlers per grade. We forgot to mention the fact that Yorktown also has swimming and Garrett does not. I am not sure how to calulate that so I will just take off .5 wrestler per grade and now were left with 4 extra wrestlers on Yorktowns team. Is that enough for you to say it isn't fair? I mean you probably haven't beaten them in 20 years, but is it really because of there extra 4 wrestlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 I have never done any deviding in my lifetime, can you explain this to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachbum21 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 I mean you probably haven't beaten them in 20 years, but is it really because of there extra 4 wrestlers. If Yorktown's 4 extra wrestlers are named D. Jackson, D. Bevan, A. Hiestand and R. Janney then I would say, YES that could be why. Now If Garrett had these 4 extra wretlers maybe the cards would be turned. ;D...but we will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Why are only 22% of the kids ranked from small schools then? Tell me why only 25% of the state qualifiers are from small schools? You didn't disprove ANYTHING, you just showed that good athletes are good wrestlers...I could have told you that a lot sooner. Again, small schools having 25% of the state qualifiers is exactly in line with them having 25% of the students and presumably 25% of the talent to begin with. You have argued that it should be 50/50 because small schools have 50% of the sectional entrants. But this doesn't mean they have 50% of the talent to begin with. As I said previously, compare it to the 100m dash. In the 100m dash, each school can enter 2 individuals at sectional. If we broke it down into same two categories you have for wrestling, big schools have 75% of the students and small schools have 25% of the students. Even though the small schools and big schools would have the same number of participants entered into the sectional, it would be ridiculous to expect them to have the same number of state qualifiers because big schools would presumably have 75% of the individuals that have the natural speed to be a state qualifier to start with. The same would be true in wrestling - big schools presumably have 75% of the individuals with the natural talent to begin with. Therefore, one would expect that they would have somewhere close to 75% of thestate qualifiers. If you disagree, where am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Again, small schools having 25% of the state qualifiers is exactly in line with them having 25% of the students and presumably 25% of the talent to begin with. You have argued that it should be 50/50 because small schools have 50% of the sectional entrants. But this doesn't mean they have 50% of the talent to begin with. As I said previously, compare it to the 100m dash. In the 100m dash, each school can enter 2 individuals at sectional. If we broke it down into same two categories you have for wrestling, big schools have 75% of the students and small schools have 25% of the students. Even though the small schools and big schools would have the same number of participants entered into the sectional, it would be ridiculous to expect them to have the same number of state qualifiers because big schools would presumably have 75% of the individuals that have the natural speed to be a state qualifier to start with. The same would be true in wrestling - big schools presumably have 75% of the individuals with the natural talent to begin with. Therefore, one would expect that they would have somewhere close to 75% of thestate qualifiers. If you disagree, where am I wrong? You make a strong case for class wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 Again, small schools having 25% of the state qualifiers is exactly in line with them having 25% of the students and presumably 25% of the talent to begin with. You have argued that it should be 50/50 because small schools have 50% of the sectional entrants. But this doesn't mean they have 50% of the talent to begin with. As I said previously, compare it to the 100m dash. In the 100m dash, each school can enter 2 individuals at sectional. If we broke it down into same two categories you have for wrestling, big schools have 75% of the students and small schools have 25% of the students. Even though the small schools and big schools would have the same number of participants entered into the sectional, it would be ridiculous to expect them to have the same number of state qualifiers because big schools would presumably have 75% of the individuals that have the natural speed to be a state qualifier to start with. The same would be true in wrestling - big schools presumably have 75% of the individuals with the natural talent to begin with. Therefore, one would expect that they would have somewhere close to 75% of thestate qualifiers. If you disagree, where am I wrong? If you are stating that big schools SHOULD have more state qualifiers then aren't you also stating that small schools are at a disadvantage? If you are stating that, isn't that why we have classes in other sports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 You make a strong case for class wrestling. I have said that this definitely supports classing the team portion. My argument is that the statistics cited by Y2 do not indicate any unfairness with regard to the individual tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 If you are stating that big schools SHOULD have more state qualifiers then aren't you also stating that small schools are at a disadvantage? If you are stating that, isn't that why we have classes in other sports? How does saying that a group that presumably has 25% of the natural talent would likely have 25% of the individual state qualifiers demonstrate a disadvantage for that group? Why does it matter on the individual level whether the small schools as a group have as many state qualifiers as the big schools as a group? Other team sports are classed because you need more than one person to make up a team and if the big schools are more likely to have the numbers it isn't a level playing field on a team vs. team basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 I have used this example before. Say you have Group A with 800 people and Group B with 200 people. Each group can pick their 50 best runners for the 100m dash (each group therefore starts with the same number of participants). Do you expect the top 10 to be 5 from Group A and 5 from Group B? Or do you expect it to be closer to 8 from Group A and 2 from Group B? How is the individual wrestling tournament different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 How does saying that a group that presumably has 25% of the natural talent would likely have 25% of the individual state qualifiers demonstrate a disadvantage for that group? Why does it matter on the individual level whether the small schools as a group has as many state qualifiers as the big schools as a group? Other team sports are classed because you need more than one person to make up a team and if the big schools are more likely to have the numbers it isn't a level playing field on a team vs. team basis. If you are stating that the size of the school affects the team aspect, won't that also directly affect the individual too? You keep stating that big schools should have more state qualifiers and that is the problem. When you state what you have said, then you are making a case for class wrestling because everything is NOT equal. 75 does not equal 25 no matter how you want to put it. The reason for classing sports is to level the playing field so every team/individual has an equal shot at state championships. If a sport is not classed it means that there is no difference between the biggest school or the smallest school in terms of individuals and teams. My statistics prove there is a difference, therefore wrestling should be classed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 If you are stating that the size of the school affects the team aspect, won't that also directly affect the individual too? You keep stating that big schools should have more state qualifiers and that is the problem. When you state what you have said, then you are making a case for class wrestling because everything is NOT equal. 75 does not equal 25 no matter how you want to put it. The reason for classing sports is to level the playing field so every team/individual has an equal shot at state championships. If a sport is not classed it means that there is no difference between the biggest school or the smallest school in terms of individuals and teams. My statistics prove there is a difference, therefore wrestling should be classed. I have explained why the 75/25 breakdown makes sense for the individual tournament based on the probable talent distribution (big schools have 75% of the students). You have argued that it should be 50/50 based on the same number of participants in sectional. I have argued that this reasoning is incorrect - look at my example of the Group A/Group B 100m dash competition. Do you expect Group A and Group B to each have 5 of the top 10 in that scenario? If so why? And if not, how is it different than the individual wrestling tournament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 I have explained why the 75/25 breakdown makes sense for the individual tournament based on the probable talent distribution (big schools have 75% of the students). You have argued that it should be 50/50 based on the same number of participants in sectional. I have argued that this reasoning is incorrect - look at my example of the Group A/Group B 100m dash competition. Do you expect Group A and Group B to each have 5 of the top 10 in that scenario? If so why? And if not, how is it different than the individual wrestling tournament? So since big schools should get more kids to state, and do, everything is equal? There is no hole in the system that promotes big schools having more success than small schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 The reason for classing sports is to level the playing field so every team/individual has an equal shot at state championships. If a sport is not classed it means that there is no difference between the biggest school or the smallest school in terms of individuals and teams. My statistics prove there is a difference, therefore wrestling should be classed. But a kid at a large school is at a disadvantage and will never be on an equal playing field because of the fact that 75% of students attend big schools. He/she will have to do things other kids at a small school wont have t do. Like maybe wrestle freshman and then jv for 2 years and only have 1 shot at varsity. I am sure this happens more at bigger schools, so do they get the same opportunity as a kid at a small school who gets to wrestle varsity for 2, 3, or 4 years? Maybe a small argument, but I believe one that has some merit. Athletes at bigger schools have issues as well and I think we tends to forget about those issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 But a kid at a large school is at a disadvantage and will never be on an equal playing field because of the fact that 75% of students attend big schools. He/she will have to do things other kids at a small school wont have t do. Like maybe wrestle freshman and then jv for 2 years and only have 1 shot at varsity. I am sure this happens more at bigger schools, so do they get the same opportunity as a kid at a small school who gets to wrestle varsity for 2, 3, or 4 years? Maybe a small argument, but I believe one that has some merit. Athletes at bigger schools have issues as well and I think we tends to forget about those issues. You mean he might have to quit football and focus solely on wrestling? That would be horrible. While at the same time his small school brethren can play three sports and keep his varsity spot. BRILLIANT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdanteague Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 But a kid at a large school is at a disadvantage and will never be on an equal playing field because of the fact that 75% of students attend big schools. He/she will have to do things other kids at a small school wont have t do. Like maybe wrestle freshman and then jv for 2 years and only have 1 shot at varsity. I am sure this happens more at bigger schools, so do they get the same opportunity as a kid at a small school who gets to wrestle varsity for 2, 3, or 4 years? Maybe a small argument, but I believe one that has some merit. Athletes at bigger schools have issues as well and I think we tends to forget about those issues. That don't make no sense. Grapplin JV and gettin plenty of mat time with kids of equal skill level helps those programs and individuals. little school dude that gets his brains bashed in cuz he ain't ready will often quit. Youngster gain confidence at dem big schools and thats how you get semi-state qualifiers like Eddy and Danny Abu at programs like Mishawaka. Ain't gonna happen at the LaVille's and the Wes-Dels of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 You mean he might have to quit football and focus solely on wrestling? That would be horrible. While at the same time his small school brethren can play three sports and keep his varsity spot. BRILLIANT! Nope, not what I mean at all but nice try at trying to slant it to make me look as if I do not nor can not form an argument or an opinion. BRILLIANT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 That don't make no sense. Grapplin JV and gettin plenty of mat time with kids of equal skill level helps those programs and individuals. little school dude that gets his brains bashed in cuz he ain't ready will often quit. Youngster gain confidence at dem big schools and thats how you get semi-state qualifiers like Eddy and Danny Abu at programs like Mishawaka. Ain't gonna happen at the LaVille's and the Wes-Dels of the world. What about all the youngsters at dem big schools that quit because they know they will not see any varsity action? That happens as well. What about the kids at the small schools who get their heads bashed in but stick with it and become very good wrestlers? My point was that how can a field be level if some kids get more of an opportunity to play on that field than others. I was simply stating something. A person does not have to agree with a person, but to simply through out arguments or statements you dont like or agree with is ridiculous. I know people have their views, but this is crazy. I see parts of both sides, but I do come down on the sidle of a single class individual tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Don't worry AJ, Y2 loses his "niceness" when it comes to class wrestling. It's pretty obvious that they feel a school of 100 should have the same number of state qualifiers each year as a school of 4000. It is a fundamental difference at how you look at it. Here is another example. When I won the Lilly Endowment scholarship, they didnt give each county in Indiana 10 scholarships. They gave each county a number of scholarships based on population. Doesn't it make sense that the Lilly Foundation would want to give more full-ride scholarships to students in Marion county than in Adams county? Why in the world would they want to give 10 kids from Adams County and 10 kids from Marion County a full-ride? By probability alone, there are going to be more top-notch students in the Marion County schools (which everyone complains about being so bad) than there are at Bellmont, Adams Central, and South Adams. It is a fundamental disagreement when School A has 4000 students and they have had 40 state qualifiers the last 10 years. and School B has 100 students and they have had 1 state qualifier the last 10 years. and one side says "That's exactly how it should be." and the other "That's totally unfair." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 I guess I should add that I totally respect both sides of the argument and still don't know where I fall sometimes. I can feel Y2 breathing down my neck right now, but I think it is a POV that won't change no matter how much we argue about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 If they said they have 100 scholarships to give out to anyone in the state and they said they have 500 candidates for them, 250 from small schools and 250 from big schools. They were going to draw all 100 scholarships out of hat since everyone was evenly matched and 75% of the scholarships went to big school kids.... is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
base Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 If they said they have 100 scholarships to give out to anyone in the state and they said they have 500 candidates for them, 250 from small schools and 250 from big schools. They were going to draw all 100 scholarships out of hat since everyone was evenly matched and 75% of the scholarships went to big school kids.... is that fair? Due to your statement that everyone was evenly matched, this example fails. Academic scholarships would go to the students who score the highest on the test scores. Some students from bigger schools may have better teachers or better equipment in science, and therefore PERFORM BETTER than their small school counterparts. Scholarships would be performance based and so 75% may go to the big school students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 Why can't everyone be evenly matched and equal, isn't a small school kid equal to a big school kid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts