Team State Debate

[KarlHungus]

 

4. The childish argument that if we want a one class tourny to determine a true champion is the same as wanting no weight classes.  Using that same logic couldn't I argue to those in favor of class wrestling, why don't we have thousands of weight classes due to the advantage of a wrestlers weight? Isn't it unfair for a 141 lbs. Wrestler to wrestle a 145 lbs wrestler?  We need a 141 lbs weight class.  Its the same logic as what you use to argue against the one class tournament, and both are obviously ridiculous.  Yet you acctually have people on here who back that argument. It makes your side look childish and weak.

 

There is a difference between backing an argument for a one weight class tournament and using it as an example to show the silliness of the the "watered-down" argument.

 

No one is actually advocating one weight class.  They are using that example to show that individual weight classes have changed over time to create competitive balance. 

 

Classing the individual side based on school size (like they do in 40+ other states) is just an extrapolation of the same logic.  Far from being silly or childish, the one weight class example is merely an exaggeration to make a point that the "watered-down" argument really holds no water.  Of course it would be watered down...just like it is other sports and other states that class based on school size.  The bigger issue is the health of the sport and those that believe in the classing of the individual tournament feel that the health of the sport is far better off with a multi class individual tournament than with "saving" team state.

 

[ENoblewrestling]

There is a difference between backing an argument for a one weight class tournament and using it as an example to show the silliness of the the "watered-down" argument.

 

No one is actually advocating one weight class.  They are using that example to show that individual weight classes have changed over time to create competitive balance.  

 

Classing the individual side based on school size (like they do in 40+ other states) is just an extrapolation of the same logic.  Far from being silly or childish, the one weight class example is merely an exaggeration to make a point that the "watered-down" argument really holds no water.  Of course it would be watered down...just like it is other sports and other states that class based on school size.  The bigger issue is the health of the sport and those that believe in the classing of the individual tournament feel that the health of the sport is far better off with a multi class individual tournament than with "saving" team state.

 

 

Ok so by this same logic I could use the exaggeration that we need to have a weight class for every pound instead of every 5-10 pounds and this would be just as useful as yours stating that if you want a true champion then we should have one weight class.  This is the same argument really just used the opposite way.  So you really believe that if everytime this discussion came up  I could write  that the advantage of being 5  pounds heavier than your opponent is to much so we need a class for each pound would be a useful exagration to show that we dont need  class wrestling?  You really dont seen how that is a childish example and one that is really just arguing for the sake of arguing, they are the same argument.

 

Also do you really believe that the team aspect is not important to growing the sport in our stae?  Why can't we work for both.  I mean do you really think that because it would be easier to have five studs that that is a better way to choose our champion than the best team? I believe that a classed team tourny is the most important thing to our sport right now. Why don't we work for this  ?  I dont see how this would do anything but help our sport.

[ENoblewrestling]

One last thing please do not try to tell me that these two exagerations are different becasue they are the exact same thing.  One says that if you want one class in wrestling then you need a ridiculously low number of weight classes, the other says that if you want classes in wrestling then you need a ridiculosly high number of wieght classes.  They are the same I just dont use this exageration as a valide thought in the class wrestling arument.

 

If you do class the indivdual side you could very realistically argue that all you are doing is lowering the standard of being a state qualifier.  You are not creating a better, more competitive sport.  What you are essentiallty doing is changing the definition of achievement.  It would be the same if we expanded the single class tournament to say 32 wrestlers.   You don't make the additional 16 wrestlers better, you just change the idea of success. Its a false sense of achievment.  I know you will bring up tournament expansion in the past, and I in no way feel that expansion is something that is never needed. I just personally dont think that to make our wrestlers better in college, or just to create a more solid sport in our state,that we need to lower the expecations for our top wrestlers.

[KarlHungus]

Ok so by this same logic I could use the exaggeration that we need to have a weight class for every pound instead of every 5-10 pounds and this would be just as useful as yours stating that if you want a true champion then we should have one weight class.  This is the same argument really just used the opposite way.  So you really believe that if everytime this discussion came up  I could write  that the advantage of being 5  pounds heavier than your opponent is to much so we need a class for each pound would be a useful exagration to show that we dont need  class wrestling?  You really dont seen how that is a childish example and one that is really just arguing for the sake of arguing, they are the same argument.

 

 

You failed to get the point I was making.

[sniderpanthers]

i feel that having the number of weight classes(14) is a bit to much.I feel 11 or 12 would make every class packed with talent, and this should also help the smaller schools solidify a strong lineup to compete with the bigger schools.However, that would mean less varsity spots for each team and that may leave a few out to dry. i come from a unique situation though, so i am unbiased, my school(Snider) is a pretty big school but we have struggled to compete with the bigs (Bellmont, Homestead, etc.).any opinions???

[ENoblewrestling]

I understand the point that you were attempting to make, the problem is that when this argument is made it is ussually a sarcastric remark to some who has made the one true champ argument, not a a way to show the silliness of the watered down argument.  Generally when some one brings up the watered down argument the go to is that ohio kids don't feel it is watered down.

Given that the argument is used more often than not to sarcastically say that we should have one weight class if we want to havea true champion then my example is the exact same as yours a sarcastic reaction to the idea that we need to have more divisions with in wrestling for competitive balance. Y2 himself says uses it against the one true champ argument in this very thread.  I understand what you were saying, but you were not telling us how you actual use this lame argument.

[ENoblewrestling]

That was also the first time that I have seen a class supporter admit on this site that classes water down the event. Generally it is argued that a 2a football team, or a kid from Ohio is still happy with their ribbon.  Now that you admit that it waters the tourny down can you see how some would see this as a negative aspect of class wrestling?

 

I also haven't seen you or Y2 answer the question abour the best way to deside a team champion.

[KarlHungus]

One last thing please do not try to tell me that these two exagerations are different becasue they are the exact same thing. 

One says that if you want one class in wrestling then you need a ridiculously low number of weight classes, the other says that if you want classes in wrestling then you need a ridiculosly high number of wieght classes.  They are the same I just dont use this exageration as a valide thought in the class wrestling arument.

 

No they are different.  My exaggeration is actually based on historical fact.  Weight classes and classifications have consistently EXPANDED over time.  To stay consistent you would have to argue that the quality of wrestling has decreased because of this expansion.  If you think that the quality of wrestling has decreased since the tournament has expanded to include more wrestlers, you logic would be consistent but not many would agree with you.

 

If you do class the indivdual side you could very realistically argue that all you are doing is lowering the standard of being a state qualifier.  You are not creating a better, more competitive sport.  What you are essentiallty doing is changing the definition of achievement.  It would be the same if we expanded the single class tournament to say 32 wrestlers.  You don't make the additional 16 wrestlers better, you just change the idea of success. Its a false sense of achievment.  I know you will bring up tournament expansion in the past, and I in no way feel that expansion is something that is never needed. I just personally dont think that to make our wrestlers better in college, or just to create a more solid sport in our state,that we need to lower the expecations for our top wrestlers.

 

How can you logically approve of expanding the semi-state and not expanding the state tournament?  It is awfully difficult to debate someone who is in favor of watering down what it means to be semi state qualifier but is opposed watering down the what it means to be a state qualifier.

[sniderpanthers]

I understand the point that you were attempting to make, the problem is that when this argument is made it is ussually a sarcastric remark to some who has made the one true champ argument, not a a way to show the silliness of the watered down argument.  Generally when some one brings up the watered down argument the go to is that ohio kids don't feel it is watered down.

Given that the argument is used more often than not to sarcastically say that we should have one weight class if we want to havea true champion then my example is the exact same as yours a sarcastic reaction to the idea that we need to have more divisions with in wrestling for competitive balance. Y2 himself says uses it against the one true champ argument in this very thread.  I understand what you were saying, but you were not telling us how you actual use this lame argument.

thats where i need more experienced minds haha.im just a second year wrestler stating my opinions and ideas.someone help a brotha out

[KarlHungus]

That was also the first time that I have seen a class supporter admit on this site that classes water down the event. Generally it is argued that a 2a football team, or a kid from Ohio is still happy with their ribbon.  Now that you admit that it waters the tourny down can you see how some would see this as a negative aspect of class wrestling?

 

I also haven't seen you or Y2 answer the question abour the best way to deside a team champion.

 

Not really because I see high school sports as an opportunity.  These opportunities have historically been expanded over time to provide more kids from more schools the chance at achieving success as well as trying to ensure competitive balance.  Football went from 3 classes to 5.  Basketball from 0 to 4.  Soccer is classing their sport.  In every case, what it means to be a state champion, I suppose, is watered down.  However, 5 years after it's classed no one will care because there will be no kids with experience in a one class system.

 

What you will be left with is more schools and more kids with the opportunity to compete at the state level.  I see that as great opportunity for the growth of wrestling in Indiana.

[ENoblewrestling]

Snider most of this discussion is arguments used by both sides in the class wrestling debate, not acctually about rthe number of weight classes.

 

Karl I really doubt that most factor in the historical elements to your one class argument.  The argument that I made is inhearently dumb and is ussless, most people I feel see the one weight class argument the same way. Rthey aere both ridiculous even if yours has a historical basis it is from a time so long ago it is no longer relavant. I know that you won't admit it and will not stop arguing so I guys you win. Either way even if you don't admit iit any reasonable person sees that argument as worthless.

 

I see a few of your points wirh the class side, I really do I just don't think that lowering our level for the most important event we have is good, I know ypou donrt agree, but many don't want our finals to be weakend.

 

I see the semi-state as a lower achievment that it is ok to allow more people into, plus it gives more the chance to make it to the ultimate goal, the state finals which are speacial, and different from the rest of the tournament and should be just for the best of the best.

[KarlHungus]

I understand the point that you were attempting to make, the problem is that when this argument is made it is ussually a sarcastric remark to some who has made the one true champ argument, not a a way to show the silliness of the watered down argument.  Generally when some one brings up the watered down argument the go to is that ohio kids don't feel it is watered down.

Given that the argument is used more often than not to sarcastically say that we should have one weight class if we want to havea true champion then my example is the exact same as yours a sarcastic reaction to the idea that we need to have more divisions with in wrestling for competitive balance. Y2 himself says uses it against the one true champ argument in this very thread.  I understand what you were saying, but you were not telling us how you actual use this lame argument.

 

I'm fairly certain Y2 uses the one weight class example to show how silly the "watered-down" argument is.  Again, it comes down to opinion.  You think an expanded state finals harms the integrity of the sport and what it means to be a state qualifier.  (however, you are in favor of the expansion of semi state???).  I am merely stating that what it means to be state qualifier is historically relative.  Years ago I believe there were only 4 or 8 state qualifiers per weight and fewer weight classes.  The expansion that has occurred over the past 25-30 years has not seemed to harm the integrity of what it means to be a state qualifier.  The truth is that a few years after a change is made no one really cares.  If they are coaching or competing, they are not worried about something being watered down, they are worried about doing the best they can.  With an individually classed tournament more kids get to experience it and I can't see that as a bad thing.

[KarlHungus]

Snider most of this discussion is arguments used by both sides in the class wrestling debate, not acctually about rthe number of weight classes.

 

Karl I really doubt that most factor in the historical elements to your one class argument.  The argument that I made is inhearently dumb and is ussless, most people I feel see the one weight class argument the same way. Rthey aere both ridiculous even if yours has a historical basis it is from a time so long ago it is no longer relavant. I know that you won't admit it and will not stop arguing so I guys you win. Either way even if you don't admit iit any reasonable person sees that argument as worthless.

 

I see a few of your points wirh the class side, I really do I just don't think that lowering our level for the most important event we have is good, I know ypou donrt agree, but many don't want our finals to be weakend.

 

I see the semi-state as a lower achievment that it is ok to allow more people into, plus it gives more the chance to make it to the ultimate goal, the state finals which are speacial, and different from the rest of the tournament and should be just for the best of the best.

 

Indiana used to qualify only 8 to the state finals not that long ago.

[Y2CJ41]

My alma mater is  a large school (Castle) which would have made many state team finals before the last two years if a small school (Mater Dei) wasn't in our regional.  We would have been there most years and probably could have competed in a few of them for the title.

 

That being said I am not for class wrestling.  One thing about Ohio is that it has almost twice our population.  I taught in Arizona which has about our same population at the beginning of my career, and all you had to do to make the individual state tournament was finish in the top 4 in our conference.  We had 6 teams in our conference.  I will never forget the experience of pulling out a win against a kid that was better than me by putting him on his back with a few seconds left in the ticket round at semi-state.  Class wrestling destroys the epic journey that many young Hoosier men have taken to "make it to state."

 

Just look at the state of Indiana basketball since class.  Revenue down, and from what I 've seen there is a lot less pride and fun in most gyms on Friday nights.

 

Making it to state is a great accomplishment right now in our great state.

 

Team tourney is fun.  Isn't Yorktown like 2A?  Several of the state teams were not large schools. 

 

I don't think MD would mind winning the small team tourney every year.

Can you please show me the statistics to back up your claims?  I have a hard time believing that several of the state teams were not large schools.  Please also show me how revenue is down in the basketball tournament.  I have never seen the numbers, but if the IHSAA was losing money they are smart enough to go back to the single class system.  The IHSAA likes to make money and aren't shy about changing the tournament format to make more money.

[Y2CJ41]

Y2 here are a few more holes in your argument.

1. The watering down of the tourny- earlier I stated that in a two class system I would have had eight state qualifiers over the last two years.  Why would this not be the case?  If a kid from a small school can make it to semi-state or in some cases even regionals when taking on superior big school competion, then I would find it a fairly logical assumption that they would be able to make it to state if you cut out the half that they are unable to compete against.  In a tournament filled with inferior competion I would. Think that a small school kid who makes it to semi-state now would obviosly be able to make it to state in a classed system.  I think that this is a resonable assumption.

I went through the semi-state brackets and figured who was the top four in the small schools in those weights.  Even Richards would not be a given as he could have drawn someone like Jordan Dulaney in the ticket round.  You only had 7 semi-state qualifiers on top of that. 

2009

McParlan had McCray, Mosier, Kurtz, and Davenport ahead of him

Hill was beaten by Morrissey and had Rieke, Suel, Biberstine, Shultz and Lantz ahead of him

2010

Nicodemus- bubble as there are a handful of kids that were close

Siddons- Lost to Grant Brown and had Taylor Scott ahead of him.  Another bubble kid.

 

I am smart enough to research it more than just spouting it off without looking.  Very, very, very, very few kids that would be regional qualifiers would make it to state in a two class system.  I would venture to say there are around 35% semi-state qualifiers from small schools already.

 

2. You state that finding five studs would be easier than finding a team of fourteen studs when asked about the best way to find a team champion.  First of that still doesn't answer the intended question of what is the best way to determine a team champion.  If you really believe that the team that contains the best individuals is the bewst team then why didn't Griffith ever win the team state competion?  I also thought that you want what's best for Indiana wrestling not just Garrett High School. You guys would also be competive in a classed team tournament right away.  You almost make it to regionals as is, which despite what you may believe is a great accomplishment.  I know we would be happy to win a sectional, not happy that we don't have to wrestle team regionals as you earlier stated your team felt last year.

I am just answering questions the same way you do. Classing the individual state finals affects almost every team.  Classing the team state finals affects only the top 20%, if that.  Do you really believe that classing the team state will help Concordia or Northrop or Eastside?  Come on, get real!

 

As you said I want what is best for EVERYONE not just the top teams.  The team series no matter if it is classed or not is only for a select few teams.  Growing the sport means growing it in areas that are not the best.  Growing wrestling at Garrett shouldn't be a priority, but growing it at schools like Eastside, Central Noble, Westview, etc should be a priority.  Again, if I were only caring about Garrett, I would be jumping all over this because if we go to three classes or more, we are an instant contender.

 

3. Why didn't you state your feelings about how unimportant a classed team state would be at the IHSWCa meeting?  Everyone who was there voted and ageeed that a classed team state was what we wanted. Why didn't you say that you think the old system is better there?  Also if we had discussed classing the indivdual tourny I really doubt we would have had 100 percent aggreement like we did on classing the team tournament.

Everyone didn't vote on it, nothing was voted on. 

 

4. The childish argument that if we want a one class tourny to determine a true champion is the same as wanting no weight classes.  Using that same logic couldn't I argue to those in favor of class wrestling, why don't we have thousands of weight classes due to the advantage of a wrestlers weight? Isn't it unfair for a 141 lbs. Wrestler to wrestle a 145 lbs wrestler?  We need a 141 lbs weight class.  Its the same logic as what you use to argue against the one class tournament, and both are obviously ridiculous.  Yet you acctually have people on here who back that argument. It makes your side look childish and weak.

If you are so concerned about the integrity of our state tournament and how gosh darn tough it is you should be advocating the advancement of less kids to state.  Every year there are at least 15 kids that are not necessarily the top 16 in their weight class, therefore it waters down our tournament.  Why aren't you all over that?  If you are concerned about watering down our tournament why do you approve of watering down semi-state? 

[Y2CJ41]

One last thing please do not try to tell me that these two exagerations are different becasue they are the exact same thing.  One says that if you want one class in wrestling then you need a ridiculously low number of weight classes, the other says that if you want classes in wrestling then you need a ridiculosly high number of wieght classes.  They are the same I just dont use this exageration as a valide thought in the class wrestling arument.

 

If you do class the indivdual side you could very realistically argue that all you are doing is lowering the standard of being a state qualifier.  You are not creating a better, more competitive sport.  What you are essentiallty doing is changing the definition of achievement.  It would be the same if we expanded the single class tournament to say 32 wrestlers.   You don't make the additional 16 wrestlers better, you just change the idea of success. Its a false sense of achievment.  I know you will bring up tournament expansion in the past, and I in no way feel that expansion is something that is never needed. I just personally dont think that to make our wrestlers better in college, or just to create a more solid sport in our state,that we need to lower the expecations for our top wrestlers.

So we should go back to allowing only eight to qualify for state like back in the day right?  Just say it, I want to hear that you want to only have eight kids at state.

 

What will happen is with more kids qualifying for state you will increase interest in the sport at the schools who get one state qualifier every 10 years.  When you increase interest you will get more people involved with the sport.  I know it is crazy to think that.  In Oregon they added classes because of the increased interest at the smaller schools.  Wow that is pure crazyness to increase interest in our sport instead of wanting to just allow the elite kids to have success in it.

 

I would really love for you to go to Mr. Etzler on Monday and tell him that the sectional title they just won is giving them a false sense of achievement because they are no way near a top 8 team in the whole state.  Please do that for me, I would be curious of what he will say in response to that.

[ENoblewrestling]

Y2 there is a lot that was covered in the last few points so I'm not going to address them all.  So just two things that stood out to me.  First off if all of those wrestlers mentioned earlier had so many small school kids ahead of them then why do we need to class it?  You just proved that in all of the weight classes that I had semi-staters in thewre were a lot of guys from small schools allready right there with them. What's the need to class when they are all ready competing?

You mention schools in our sectional that would not be affected by a team statre, why not?  When I was in high school Northrop was very goood, they had several tough teams and that was only ten years ago.  In the 1990s eastside was a top 20 ranked team in the state.  Concordia had a state champion or runner up, can't rember, in lebau (sp) just a few years back.  They may be down a bit right now, but I think they are all getting better, and don't see what the reason would be for them never being able to have success again if they did in the past.

I wouldn't tell coach etzler that what he did was not an great accomplishment.  I have never said that I am against classing the team side.  I know you don't agree with this, but I think that the team side and individual side aee different things.  In team sports it takes a team to have success.  You are at a disadvantage if you have less people to fill your team.  In an individual sport you only need one person.  With my way of thinking then big schools will also have more individual success, because with more people you will be more likely to have more good individuals.  That is just the way it is.  It is not unfair in my opinion, just the way that stats work.  I know you don't agree with those numbers and will tell me that I am wrong, but that is the that I believe most of the one class supporters see it.  

[ENoblewrestling]

This discussion started out about team state, can we get back to that?  We are not going to agree on classing the indivdual side so kts a waste of time.

As far a the team side goes do you think that it is important, or are we better with the individual state deciding it all?  I think that is something we could discuss.

Also at the IHSWCA meeting we all had the chance to speak up if we were for or against the classed team state.  While no vote was taken the questioned was asked for anyone who was against it to raise their hand.  While no official vote was taken there was a chance to voice opinion against it and not one person in the room did.  I felt it was pretty unanimous that most were in favor of it.

[KarlHungus]

You mention schools in our sectional that would not be affected by a team statre, why not?  When I was in high school Northrop was very goood,

 

That was when they had coaches committed to building and maintaining a program, something they haven't had since Matt Land left

 

In the 1990s eastside was a top 20 ranked team in the state. 

 

Would love to see some documentation of this.  They were a very good team but top 20 seems like a reach.  Again this is a program that has shown no life in the past 5 years.  Rumor has it that the program might be scrapped if more budget cuts come.

 

Concordia had a state champion or runner up, can't rember, in lebau (sp) just a few years back.

 

That was 13 years ago.  Turkey Run had a state champ too.  I doubt if they think classed team state will help them much in growing their program as they scored a whopping 17.5 pts in last years sectional.

 

They may be down a bit right now, but I think they are all getting better, and don't see what the reason would be for them never being able to have success again if they did in the past.

 

They have been down for 10 plus years and show no evidence of getting better.  Eastside scored zero points at sectional last year.  None have scored over 100 points in the sectional since it has been expanded.  No one is saying they can't get better, but there is ample evidence that they are not getting any better over the past 10 years.

 

[KarlHungus]

This discussion started out about team state, can we get back to that?  We are not going to agree on classing the indivdual side so kts a waste of time.

As far a the team side goes do you think that it is important, or are we better with the individual state deciding it all?  I think that is something we could discuss.

 

I think team state in its present format is a dead duck.  So I guess we are not going to agree on the whether saving team state is a worthy cause either.  Doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to discuss it though.  I would support a classed individual and team state or a classed individual state with individuals deciding the team championship.  I would prefer the first option but could live with the second.

[ENoblewrestling]

Woould you support a class team, and one class individual?  I'm have no real statistics but I really feel from just talking to others, and the little polls on here, and the IHSWCA meetings that it wlould be a situation thart could get great suppport from the wrestling community.  I really feel that it would be the favored option by most.

I also feel that for the class supporters it is a step in the right direction and one we could achieve and not loose the team championship series.

[KarlHungus]

I have seen no evidence that the state would consider a classed team state.  It appears that the single class team state is about 99% dead after this year.  What makes you think that the IHSAA would then turn around and start a classed team state?

[Y2CJ41]

When you say these things you are talking out both sides of your mouth.

What you are essentiallty doing is changing the definition of achievement.  It would be the same if we expanded the single class tournament to say 32 wrestlers.  You don't make the additional 16 wrestlers better, you just change the idea of success. Its a false sense of achievment. 

 

RE: A 1A sectional championship

I wouldn't tell coach etzler that what he did was not an great accomplishment. 

 

If classing the individual side waters down and dilutes the competition, so will classing the team side.  Plain and simple! 

 

You say that classing the team side will help grow the sport by giving more teams and individuals an opportunity to succeed and yet it won't do the same if you do it to the individual side.  That makes no sense what so ever!!!!

[Y2CJ41]

 

Last spring the four class events combined to draw 438,430 spectators, [glow=red,2,300]a little more than half as many as the final single-class tournament[/glow]. Postseason basketball has been like the weak candidate at the top of a ticket, dragging down interest during the regular season, too.

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1027660/index.htm#ixzz14eVVg86q

 

This is from a few years ago, but I doubt the revenue has raised since then.

 

P.S. Nothing like living in the 1950's in that article isn't it? 

 

 

 

I don't know for sure but aren't Yorktown, and Roncalli smaller?  What about he team Atwood is from?  MD has around 500 students.

True or False

Revenue and attendance was falling in basketball BEFORE they went to class basketball

 

Please look up the information on IHSAA.org, they have all kinds of fun things like school enrollment figures.

[Big Hawaiian]

Y2,

 

Are you willing to compromise at all? Everyone plain and simple will not agree with everything you propose (hence the last 14 pages), so look for a compromise you can get most to support! I do not think classing team state is best but if it will get us 90% support of the wrestling community behind it to make a strong represented proposal to IHSAA then I would agree to it, but you really remind me of the child that takes his ball and leaves because he doesn't get his way! I think it is very important to keep team state in some form.