KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I don't think you understand my point. I am not arguing that smalls school individuals aren't working hard or that they need to work harder. I am saying that 75% of the state qualifiers coming from a group that has 75% of the student population and therefore likely has 75% of the natural talent to begin with doesn't demonstrate that the system provides an unfair advantage to individuals from big schools. If going to a big school provided an individual from a big school with a net advantage over an individual from a small school, more than 75% of the state qualifiers would be from big schools. Let me use a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. Let?s say right before sectional, we took every student in Indiana and randomly assigned them to a new school such that after the redistribution each school still had the same number of students (and the same number of male and female students). Big schools still have 75% of the individuals and small schools still have 25%. We then have the state tournament series. Wouldn?t you predict that close to 75% of the state qualifiers would come from the new big school group since they would likely have 75% of the individuals that had the talent to become a state qualifier at the start of the tournament series? That's all I am arguing. Big schools start with 75% of the talent because they have 75% of the students. If going to a big school provided an individual with an advantage over an individual from a small school, more than 75% of the state qualifiers would come from big schools. ive already agreed with your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 If we only want to produce elite wrestlers we should just have one weight class. That way we can tell who truly is the most elite wrestler in the state. Even if someone's goal was to produce the most elite wrestlers, there is obviously a competing goal of safety - we don't want a 103 pounder wrestling someone that is nearly 3x as big as him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Well, i guess wrestler A could always quit baseball or track.... wrestler A is not obligated or "forced" to play the other sports, even Karl has said this. He has a choice to play the other sports. Besides, large schools have multi sport athletes as well. So with me this argument does not fly, and i doubt it will ever fly with me, but heck more miraculous things have happened. Forced? I'm glad I don't get all bent out of shape when you put words in my mouth because this is at least the 2nd time you have done it. If you don't think more small school kids don't feel obligated to play spring sports, your living in a fantasy world. Do you have any experience with a small school athletic program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Did our single class system make Andrew Howe, Reece Humphrey or Angel Escobedo any better? No it did not do a single thing for them. They were highly recruited because of how they performed in meets far away from Indiana and not under the spotlight in Indianapolis. Our single class system has done NOTHING for our elite wrestlers. Not sure how you can say it did nothing for them. In what regard? Maybe that was their goal and what drove them. Maybe not. But I think it's a stretch to say it didn't do a single thing for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 It is great that you don't agree so you call it whining. I guess we are going back to calling something I don't like whining by the other person. Actually, i didn't call you a whinner, i didn't say you were whinning this time. Notice that i said "sounds like" and said "whether you are or not." If a person makes hooting sounds like an owl and "sounds like" and owl, does that make them an owl? Of course it doesn't, and anyone who said that they were would be considered absurd! The goals for a small school athletic program are much bigger than just ONE sport. Do not the goals for all athletic programs go beyond one sport? So since a small school athlete chooses to participate in other activities they should be punished. What a great thing to teach kids, hey if you're a team player screw you! Awesome life lesson to teach a kid, that is what we are about right? They are not being punished, they are learning that all choices have consequences and benefit. This goes beyond wrestling, this is life! I mean do we say that parents are being punished when they choose work over their families to give them a better life? Or when parents choose not to work overtime and as a result get paid less? Do we say that they are being punished for either making more money and spending less time with their families or by not getting paid as much? umm no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Lets see, i have never worked at a small school, but I have never worked at a large school. However, I have worked with numerous kids who go to both small and large schools, but what the heck does it matter? I never clamed to be an authority, there goes Y2 putting words into my mouth again. My point is, and has been, that students must learn to make choices, and there are benefits and consequences to those choices. And in this situation the choice is, become the greatest wrestler that they can be or play 3 sports throughout the year. where did he put words in your mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I guess we should let 16-17 year old kids have more of a say in what they like and dislike. Maybe we should let them decide when to drive or when they should be home. Heck lets vote them for president because they should know what is best for the world with their vast experiences. I guess someone that has coached at both a big school and a small school wouldn't know as much as a 16 year old kid. So as someone who has coached at both a big school and a small school, and that admittedly loved the single class system as a competitor, what makes a classed individual tournament better for the actual athletes competing in it that would prefer a single class? And I still stand by my point - if your goal is to grow interest in those items you mentioned, it would make sense to let those participating have a say in what they prefer. It all depends on what the goal is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Well, so neither side helps or hurts, so why change? A very smart professor of mine once said, "if change is to occur, it is on the proponets of change to prove that their way is correct." So again, I ask, if neither class nor classless wrestling makes better wrestlers or will not enhance national standing and thus college recruiting, then why the change? There have been numerous other advantages that you have continued to ignore. You cite no increase of college recruiting only at the national level. We have repeatedly said class would help recruiting at the D2 D3 and NAIA level because those coaches would have more opportunity to see kids earlier in their HS careers. Class would also help grow the sport at small schools because many kids at small schools could have a realistic shot at team success and an increased shot at individual success. Small school coaches could promote wrestling the same way baseball, basketball and football coaches do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Not sure how you can say it did nothing for them. In what regard? Maybe that was their goal and what drove them. Maybe not. But I think it's a stretch to say it didn't do a single thing for them. No one in the state was even close to them in quality at either big schools or small schools. They got to the elite level by wrestling out of state comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Actually, i didn't call you a whinner, i didn't say you were whinning this time. Notice that i said "sounds like" and said "whether you are or not." If a person makes hooting sounds like an owl and "sounds like" and owl, does that make them an owl? Of course it doesn't, and anyone who said that they were would be considered absurd! Do not the goals for all athletic programs go beyond one sport? They are not being punished, they are learning that all choices have consequences and benefit. This goes beyond wrestling, this is life! I mean do we say that parents are being punished when they choose work over their families to give them a better life? Or when parents choose not to work overtime and as a result get paid less? Do we say that they are being punished for either making more money and spending less time with their families or by not getting paid as much? umm no. He did not say you called him a whiner. Your quote shows it. But you can be the Semantics Warrior if you want. The point is that big schools have the pool of athletes to choose from and kids can choose to specialize. Small schools don't have that luxury. And if you pull half of america's names out of a hat you will get 35% that are skiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimtown 138 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I have always stated that the competitor in me doesn't want to class the sport, but I feel that it is best for the sport as a whole that wrestling is classed. We didn't lose to any schools with over 900 students this year, so obviously we don't care who is in front of us. Now that whole statement confuses me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 No one in the state was even close to them in quality at either big schools or small schools. They got to the elite level by wrestling out of state comp. By the time they were seniors that was true. You don't think being an Indiana state champ was a goal of theirs that drove them at some point in their career? I just think it doesn't make sense to say it didn't do a single thing for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 By the time they were seniors that was true. You don't think being an Indiana state champ was a goal of theirs that drove them at some point in their career? I just think it doesn't make sense to say it didn't do a single thing for them. I think the point is that they would be at their present level whether we had class wrestling or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 By the time they were seniors that was true. You don't think being an Indiana state champ was a goal of theirs that drove them at some point in their career? I just think it doesn't make sense to say it didn't do a single thing for them. Just like being a state champion was Logan or Hunter Stieber's goal in Ohio. No difference. College coaches did not go after those three due to them winning a single class state championship, they went after them because they were multiple time Fargo placers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 Buscowrestling, you are a fairly new coach in the area, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you put Whitko's coach at Carroll or Homestead for 3-5 years, there is little chance Garrett and Whitko would compete with them. If you could clone him, put him at Carroll and Whitko at the exact same time, Carroll would DOMINATE!!! If you don't believe that, you have much to learn. You are in a good situation at Busco because of the other coaches you work with outside of the wrestling program. They are phenomenal coaches and avid wrestling supporters, maybe that is part of why you like it there. When you put in the time that Y2 does in the off season with your kids, then he will probably listen to your points. Quote from Ace2212 I want to respond to a couple of things here. First off I agree with Ace on the point that those around our wrestling program (AD, Football, Track coaches) support wrestling and that does help us. We also work with them by lifting the BFS program that in my opinion helps all of our Athletes. I am fine with my guys doing mulltiple sports. IMO it is acctually benificial. Our team had 27 wrestlers this year. Between 17-20 of them are three sport Atheletes. I think this is good for them and makes them better than just offseason wrestling. Track makes them better atheletes, football makes them stronger and more mentally tough, and then wrestling continues this process. We have kids lifting the same program all year, training all year, and to me this is an advantage for our wrestling program. At the same time we have more and more kids doing off season work and going to RTC's, so if they are willing to make the sacrifice they can and will have success. Its up to the kids, they can do three sports and still put in the extra time for wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 As for the other parts of the quote- I think that this statement is very dispariging toward Carrols coaches. If anyone can tell me how it isn't I want to know. For me to say that ________________(insert coach) could go to Carroll and it would be a winner is a very low blow towards Carrol's coaches, if it isn't please let me know how. They do a great job, and have great wrestlers and a very stong program. I don't see why if a new coach came in then all of a sudden no one could compete with them. Secondly very few put in the off season work that Y2 does, so dont go telling me that is a reason that he shouldn't have to listen to what I am saying. I think he does a good job, I think I do a good job. So why can't we have resonable discussion about things? We both put in alot of time, and love the sport. We may have differing opinions on classing the indivual side, but that doesn't mean we can't have discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 As for the other parts of the quote- I think that this statement is very dispariging toward Carrols coaches. If anyone can tell me how it isn't I want to know. For me to say that ________________(insert coach) could go to Carroll and it would be a winner is a very low blow towards Carrol's coaches, if it isn't please let me know how. They do a great job, and have great wrestlers and a very stong program. I don't see why if a new coach came in then all of a sudden no one could compete with them. Secondly very few put in the off season work that Y2 does, so dont go telling me that is a reason that he shouldn't have to listen to what I am saying. I think he does a good job, I think I do a good job. So why can't we have resonable discussion about things? We both put in alot of time, and love the sport. We may have differing opinions on classing the indivual side, but that doesn't mean we can't have discussion. I have to agree with buscowrestling. Carroll's coaching staff has had some very solid success in the last few years. They aren't the best program to use as an example of what school would be much improved with better coaching. A much better example would be CC. Look at what they were under Randy Kirby, and look at what they instantly became as soon as he left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 I have to agree with buscowrestling. Carroll's coaching staff has had some very solid success in the last few years. They aren't the best program to use as an example of what school would be much improved with better coaching. A much better example would be CC. Look at what they were under Randy Kirby, and look at what they instantly became as soon as he left! I dont know if that is fair either, a lot goes in to a coaching change and I think the guys at CC are working hard to get things going well again. I may be wromg but to blame all of a teams success or lack of it one a coaching change is a bit short sighted. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimtown 138 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I dont know if that is fair either, a lot goes in to a coaching change and I think the guys at CC are working hard to get things going well again. I may be wromg but to blame all of a teams success or lack of it one a coaching change is a bit short sighted. What do you guys think? I think it's about time for a hijacking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 Can I hijack a thread that I started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 As for the other parts of the quote- I think that this statement is very dispariging toward Carrols coaches. If anyone can tell me how it isn't I want to know. For me to say that ________________(insert coach) could go to Carroll and it would be a winner is a very low blow towards Carrol's coaches, if it isn't please let me know how. They do a great job, and have great wrestlers and a very stong program. I don't see why if a new coach came in then all of a sudden no one could compete with them. Secondly very few put in the off season work that Y2 does, so dont go telling me that is a reason that he shouldn't have to listen to what I am saying. I think he does a good job, I think I do a good job. So why can't we have resonable discussion about things? We both put in alot of time, and love the sport. We may have differing opinions on classing the indivual side, but that doesn't mean we can't have discussion. i think it was meant to be disparaging. Ace must know where the Carroll kids are getting better at. (hint: it ain't at Carroll) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimtown 138 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Can I hijack a thread that I started? I don't know, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 SilenceDogood, here are some stats for you, note that this is not including this year Small Schools Big Schools Total 23.68% 24.72% 76.32% 75.28% Top 5 23.83% 22.07% 76.17% 77.93% Top 10 24.32% 21.53% 75.68% 78.47% Top 15 24.55% 21.07% 75.45% 78.93% The first number is percentage of students, the second is percentage of state qualifiers. The top 5 is with the top 5 extremes on both ends taken out The top 10 is the top 10 extremes on both ends taken out The top 15 is the top 15 extremes on both ends taken out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 i think it was meant to be disparaging. Ace must know where the Carroll kids are getting better at. (hint: it ain't at Carroll) Wow, that was a low one. So would you say the same about the Culver kids who go to the RTC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Wow, that was a low one. So would you say the same about the Culver kids who go to the RTC? Would I say what? That culver kids that go an RTC get better? Of course I would say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts