Coaches changing schools

[Silence Dogood]

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

 

 

Just to clarify what you mean by taking out the extremes - are you removing the schools with the largest enrollments from the big school group and the schools with the smallest enrollments from the small school group.  I haven't had statistics for a while, so I am not sure what doing that is supposed to demonstrate. 

[KarlHungus]

Just to clarify what you mean by taking out the extremes - are you removing the schools with the largest enrollments from the big school group and the schools with the smallest enrollments from the small school group.  I haven't had statistics for a while, so I am not sure what doing that is supposed to demonstrate. 

 

That y2 is a geek????

[Y2CJ41]

Just to clarify what you mean by taking out the extremes - are you removing the schools with the largest enrollments from the big school group and the schools with the smallest enrollments from the small school group.  I haven't had statistics for a while, so I am not sure what doing that is supposed to demonstrate. 

I'm taking out the extremes of the number of qualifiers. 

[Silence Dogood]

I'm taking out the extremes of the number of qualifiers. 

 

Why? What is that supposed to demonstrate?  If we are talking about the advantages the big school group as a whole vs. the small school group as a whole, why wouldn't we count them all?

 

And how are you doing it?  On a year by year basis? Or in the aggregate?

[Y2CJ41]

It is demonstrating that after the top and bottom teams are taken out it is a totally different story of your continued dialogue that number of students and state qualifiers equals out.

 

For instance if you would say there are 20 good and 20 bad programs that are big and small, meaning 40 good and 40 bad programs.  Take those programs out and the statistics are very differnt

At the small school level they would account for 24.54% of the students, but only 20.60% of the state qualifiers.  At the big school level the would account for 75.46% of the students and 79.40% of the state qualifiers.

 

[Silence Dogood]

It is demonstrating that after the top and bottom teams are taken out it is a totally different story of your continued dialogue that number of students and state qualifiers equals out.

 

For instance if you would say there are 20 good and 20 bad programs that are big and small, meaning 40 good and 40 bad programs.  Take those programs out and the statistics are very differnt

At the small school level they would account for 24.54% of the students, but only 20.60% of the state qualifiers.  At the big school level the would account for 75.46% of the students and 79.40% of the state qualifiers.

 

 

So basically what this is showing is that when you take out the best and worst programs, going to a big school appears to provide some advantage to a big school individual (in your top 15 example, big schools have 75.45% of the students and 78.93% of the state qualifiers).  But when you leave the best and worst programs in, small schools are able to overcome that disadvantage through other factors that the best small school programs are apparently exploiting.  In fact, they are able to do even better than the percentages would predict - as small schools in the example with none taken out have 23.68% of the students and 24.72% of the state qualifiers.

 

Anyway you slice it, it doesn't demonstrate that simply attending a big school as opposed to a small school causes an individual to be 3x as likely to be a state qualifier as you have argued in the past.  If anything, it demonstrates a small advantage that is somehow being overcome by the best small programs.

 

[Y2CJ41]

It shows that at the small schools they are very top heavy with a few very good schools while big schools it is more evenly spaced out.  28.61% of the state qualifiers at small schools can be attributed to six schools out of 155, while the top six big schools only account for 16.47% of the state qualifiers.

 

Mater Dei skews the small school statistics drastically with 86 state qualifiers.  The next most is Lawrence North with 62.  Mater Dei is classified as a small school in this data.  They account for almost 13% of ALL small school state qualifiers and 3.2% of all state qualifiers.  If you put MD in the big school category

 

The data shows that a few small schools are doing well in this system, while an overwhelming majority are not.

[ENoblewrestling]

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)

no would you say that the culver kids arnt getting better in the culver room

[KarlHungus]

no would you say that the culver kids arnt getting better in the culver room

 

Now if i thought that, I doubt I would be coaching.  Might want to ask ace in a pm what he thinks about the carroll situation rather than air dirty laundry on here.

[pin2win1]

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?

 

you said they are not "forced"..... here ya go..

 

No one said small school kids are "forced" to play spring sports.  Small schools have less athletes to choose from overall, this often plays out in the lack of practice room partners.

 

 

[pin2win1]

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?

 

by implying that i said i was an authority..... i never claimed to be an authority.....

 

I am curious as to what experiences you have that make you an authority on knowing how a small school works?

 

never would I claim to be an authority, and never have I.

[pin2win1]

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.

 

you say it would.... i say it wouldn't help that much if at all.... I mean if smaller colleges already are not recruiting all of our "top 16" year in and year out, then why would they recruit those below out "top 16?"

[pin2win1]

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. 

 

Umm actually my quote does not show i called him a whiner..... when i wrote it, I specifically made sure i didn't call him a whiner specifically. I said he sounded like he was a whiner. Saying one sounds like a whiner and being a whiner are completely different things.

 

And you need help.... why don;t you go to the casinos and put 20 bucks on black 1000 times if that is the case, under your thinking you would know you are only going to lose a couple hundred at the most, it will even out right? Randomness is based off of odds, and both randomness and odds are not overly predictable no matter the sample size. Sorry.

[Silence Dogood]

It shows that at the small schools they are very top heavy with a few very good schools while big schools it is more evenly spaced out.  28.61% of the state qualifiers at small schools can be attributed to six schools out of 155, while the top six big schools only account for 16.47% of the state qualifiers.

 

Mater Dei skews the small school statistics drastically with 86 state qualifiers.  The next most is Lawrence North with 62.  Mater Dei is classified as a small school in this data.  They account for almost 13% of ALL small school state qualifiers and 3.2% of all state qualifiers.  If you put MD in the big school category

 

The data shows that a few small schools are doing well in this system, while an overwhelming majority are not.

 

So the small schools are somehow able to leverage more out of the programs that are successful.  What are those programs doing that is allowing them to have such a big effect on the overall numbers. 

 

And how does all this demonstrate that the current system provides an unfair advantage to an individual who attends a big school as opposed to a small school? 

[Y2CJ41]

So the small schools are somehow able to leverage more out of the programs that are successful. 

Small schools have Mater Dei who accounts for 15.81% of ALL of their state qualifiers, so yes they make small schools look good.  Take away the top 15 schools and the percentage of state qualifiers is 21% while the percentage of students is 24.5%.

 

What are those programs doing that is allowing them to have such a big effect on the overall numbers. 

Mater Dei charges $4000 a year for a student to go there and Beech Grove hasn't been lighting the world on fire the past six years with only seven state qualifiers, in the previous six years they had 27. 

 

And how does all this demonstrate that the current system provides an unfair advantage to an individual who attends a big school as opposed to a small school? 

Because all along you have stated that since the percentage of students is equal to the percentage of state qualifiers that there is no distinct advantage.  Now I have shown you that taking out 10% of the top and bottom schools in both the big school class and small school class that there are distinct differences. 

 

Please tell me you are not one of those people that say if Mater Dei can do it everyone can.  If you are, I am done conversing with you since it is a lost cause.

[KarlHungus]

you said they are not "forced"..... here ya go..

 

 

 

You are correct, I misread your original post

[KarlHungus]

you say it would.... i say it wouldn't help that much if at all.... I mean if smaller colleges already are not recruiting all of our "top 16" year in and year out, then why would they recruit those below out "top 16?"

 

They aren't recruiting our top 16?  You state this like you know for a fact they don't. 

[KarlHungus]

 

 

Umm actually my quote does not show i called him a whiner..... when i wrote it, I specifically made sure i didn't call him a whiner specifically. I said he sounded like he was a whiner. Saying one sounds like a whiner and being a whiner are completely different things.

 

And you need help.... why don;t you go to the casinos and put 20 bucks on black 1000 times if that is the case, under your thinking you would know you are only going to lose a couple hundred at the most, it will even out right? Randomness is based off of odds, and both randomness and odds are not overly predictable no matter the sample size. Sorry.

 

Semantic Warrior strikes again!!!  and the odds say you poll a random half of america and you get 35% skiers

[pin2win1]

They aren't recruiting our top 16?  You state this like you know for a fact they don't.

 

well, i am just taking a wild guess, but does everyone who makes state end up getting strong offers from colleges to wrestle there?

 

Semantic Warrior strikes again!!!  and the odds say you poll a random half of america and you get 35% skiers

 

hey, I love nothing more than to be labled correctly, and I would gladly take your name if it fit, but id doesn't fit. Because fact is, randomness can not be predicted accurately and with great confidence.

[Silence Dogood]

Small schools have Mater Dei who accounts for 15.81% of ALL of their state qualifiers, so yes they make small schools look good.  Take away the top 15 schools and the percentage of state qualifiers is 21% while the percentage of students is 24.5%.

Mater Dei charges $4000 a year for a student to go there and Beech Grove hasn't been lighting the world on fire the past six years with only seven state qualifiers, in the previous six years they had 27.  

Because all along you have stated that since the percentage of students is equal to the percentage of state qualifiers that there is no distinct advantage.  Now I have shown you that taking out 10% of the top and bottom schools in both the big school class and small school class that there are distinct differences.  

 

Please tell me you are not one of those people that say if Mater Dei can do it everyone can.  If you are, I am done conversing with you since it is a lost cause.

 

I'm definitely not saying if Mater Dei can do it everyone can.  What do the numbers look like if the only school you take out is Mater Dei since they skew things so much?

 

It looks like there is a greater impact going from the all schools category to having the top 5 taken out (which would obviously include Mater Dei), than the incremental changes that are seen when the top 10, top 15, and top 20 are taken out.  

 

Not sure what the Beech Grove numbers prove, other than at one time they were a successful small school and now aren't doing as well as they were.  

 

And again, even if the numbers without Mater Dei show some difference, the "distinct advantages" aren't as dramatic as the 3x greater advantage you have argued in the past.  For example, with the numbers you have provided so far, in the instance where you take out the top 15, the big school group has 75.45% of the students and 78.93% of the state qualifiers.  This 3.48% difference comes out to less than 8 wrestlers in a year (224 state qualifers x 3.48%).

[Y2CJ41]

So since the numbers are fine according to you, I guess small schools should just wilt away since they just aren't good enough.  Survival of the fittest!

[Silence Dogood]

So since the numbers are fine according to you, I guess small schools should just wilt away since they just aren't good enough.  Survival of the fittest!

 

If you disagree with the points I made, why not address them instead of mischaracterizing them?  When have I ever said that small schools should wilt away? I have merely argued that the numbers don't demonstrate the unfairness that you are arguing they do.  

 

If your argument is that classing the individual tournament is necessary to save small school programs that are wilting away, that's completely different than arguing that it's necessary because a single class is unfair, especially when that argument (as you have made it) is based a faulty interpretation of the statistics  (i.e., attending a big school causes an individual to be 3x as likely to be a state qualifier).  

[ace2212]

Buscowrestling,

 

My comments may/may not have been intended to be disparaging toward Carroll's coaching staff, but there are different degrees of coaches, some are bad, some are good, some are great, and IMNSHO, I believe Whitko's coach is better.  That is not to say that Voight is bad, just Koontz (sp) is VERY GOOD, as was Randy Kearby.  I'm sure Tom Brands could improve the Garrett program, I'm guessing Y2 would agree with that statement.  Coach Etzler wasn't a bad track coach, but Coach Dock has certainly taken it to new heights.  Look at the Snider program, while Ester was there and compare to now.

 

I also did not say or imply whether or not you are doing a good job.  First, you do not need my approval, and second it is not my job to evaluate you or the direction of the Busco program.  The only thing I said was that you had only been a head coach/in the area for 2 years (I know I still had a LOT to learn my second year coaching) and that Y2 puts in a ton of time.  Many class wrestling opponents site "Just work harder".  My point was nobody works harder than him and many of his kids.  I'm also not sure about your post regarding the BFS work and such, kind of confused me as to the direction or point you were making there.

 

 

[ace2212]

I have read through all these posts about class wrestling, and as of yet I fail to find any reasons to stay with a single class system that is actually beneficial to kids.  They all have to do with emotions (we know the real champion, under the lights, better atmosphere, etc...), while Y2 and Karl cite specific reasons, not emotional responses/personal gratification, as to why they believe class is better for wrestling as a whole.  I understand that these emotional reasons helped form your opinion against class wrestling, but we need to look at what is best for kids and the sport.  Usually, decisions are backed by facts and data, and as of yet, I haven't seen any refuting that class wrestling would benefit the sport.  Could someone please provide this evidence.

[pin2win1]

funny ace, i have yet to see anything f real significance that would make the sport better for anyone if we go to indifvidual class wrestling. So why change?