littlevito Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I saw that someone started one for the discussion of Class A rankings and results, so I took the time to compile results so far for the teams in the most recent vote. These are Dual Results of teams being voted in the top 10 and also teams that are receiving votes. I am making this thread just based on the simple fact that the coaches doing the voting don't take time to really understand who they are voting for. Sure a team may be 7-0 at the moment, but have they wrestled a team that fields more than 10 wrestlers?? Feel free to keep posting results and if you feel like you know a team that may deserve some recognition, go ahead and post their results. Take the time to really see who some of these schools competition really is... CLASS AA-UPDATED DEC. 25th 1 Yorktown (9) 90 2 Leo 62 3 North Montgomery 59 4 New Prairie 37 5 Peru 36 6t Bellmont 30 6t Evans. Memorial 30 8 Twin Lakes 29 9 Western 28 10 Heritage Hills 26 others receiving votes: Hanover Central 19, Southmont 18, Danville 14, Culver Academy 4, Jimtown 4, Lebanon 3, New Haven 3, Rochester 2, Mount Vernon (Posey) 1 Yorktown Results: (12-2) Yorktown 61 Bellmont 9 Yorktown 45 Cincinatti LaSalle(OH) 22 Yorktown 66 Monrovia 12 Yorktown 33 New Palestine 31 Yorktown 74 Western Boone 5 Edwardsville(IL) 37 Yorktown 27 Seckman(MO) 34 Yorktown 31 Yorktown 49 Eureka(MO) 16 Yorktown 40 Francis Howell Central(MO) 27 Yorktown 53 Kirkwood(MO) 21 Yorktown 44 Staley(MO) 25 Yorktown 51 Triad(IL) 18 Yorktown 39 North Montgomery 24 Yorktown 37 Lawrence North 25 Leo Results: (13-0) Leo 52 Western 30 Leo 61 Delta 15 Leo 49 Fishers 28 Leo 53 Western Boone 21 Leo 41 Leo 41 Leo 45 Adams Central 30 Leo 45 Fort Wayne Snider 29 Leo 61 Westview 18 Leo 42 DeKalb 33 Leo 61 Garrett 12 Leo 67 South Adams 10 Leo 72 Bluffton 12 Leo 78 Heritage 6 Leo 51 New Haven 18 Yorktown 60 Leo 18 Leo 65 Southern Wells 6 Leo 65 Prairie Heights 18 Leo 39 Elkhart Memorial 37 North Montgomery Results: (9-1) North Montgomery 77 North Vermillion 3 North Montgomery 84 Rockville 0 North Montgomery 71 South Vermillion 3 North Montgomery 81 Turkey Run 0 North Montgomery 74 West Vigo 6 North Montgomery 44 Danville 20 North Montgomery 76 Tri West 6 Yorktown 39 North Montgomery 24 North Montgomery 37 Southmont 33 North Montgomery 72 Crawfordsville 3 Twin Lakes Results: (7-3) Harrison (WL) 36 Twin Lakes 29 Twin Lakes 52 Culver Community 24 Twin Lakes 43 Kokomo 36 Hanover Central 49 Twin Lakes 24 Twin Lakes 67 North Judson 12 Twin Lakes 71 North Newton 12 Twin Lakes 38 North White 33 Twin Lakes 66 Pioneer 12 Twin Lakes 66 Rensselaer Central 18 West Lafayette 37 Twin Lakes 36 Heritage Hills Results: (12-3) Evansville Central 42 Heritage Hills 27 Heritage Hills 66 Davies County(KY) 15 Heritage Hills 60 Evansville Harrison 21 Heritage Hills 44 Evansville North 19 Heritage Hills 40 Pike Central 33 Heritage Hills 66 Princeton 10 Heritage Hills 74 South Spencer 6 Heritage Hills 58 North Posey 6 Heritage Hills 49 Forest Park 25 Heritage Hills 46 Tell City 25 Heritage Hills 37 Gibson Southern 36 Heritage Hills 58 Tecumseh 12 Heritage Hills 72 South Spencer 9 Southridge 36 Heritage Hills 27 Gibson Southern 38 Heritage Hills 37 Peru Results: (3-3) Peru 69 Manchester 10 Lowell 44 Peru 27 Mishawaka 42 Peru 30 Peru 69 Munster 11 Peru 50 Plymouth(JV) 28 Plymouth 45 Peru 24 Western Results: (8-3) Leo 52 Western 30 Western 47 Delta 30 Western 41 Fishers 36 Zionsville 52 Western 26 Western 70 Northfield 12 Kokomo 37 Western 28 Western 70 Clinton Central 9 Western 43 Hamilton Heights 36 Western 67 Northwestern 3 Western 39 South Bend St. Joseph 36 Western 60 Taylor 22 Danville Results: (8-4) Brownsburg 36 Danville 27 Danville 51 Bloomington North 22 Danville 48 Brown County 27 Danville 44 Martinsville 33 Danville 37 Terre Haute South 34 North Montgomery 44 Danville 20 Danville 47 Crawfordsville 24 Danville 51 Frankfort 28 Danville 54 Tri West 15 Danville 46 Western Boone 21 Southmont 39 Danville 27 Zionsville 55 Danville 13 New Prairie Results: (18-0) New Prairie 57 Glenn 18 New Prairie 60 Jimtown 18 New Prairie 60 Knox 18 New Prairie 72 LaVille 9 New Prairie 57 Mishawaka Marian 21 New Prairie 36 Rochester 30 New Prairie 51 Glenn 24 New Prairie 52 South Bend Adams 19 New Prairie 45 East Noble 30 New Prairie 53 Lake Central 20 New Prairie 52 Chesterton 21 New Prairie 60 Laporte 18 New Prairie 68 Munster 12 New Prairie 84 Hammond Bishop Noll 0 New Prairie 72 Michigan City 12 New Prairie 60 South Bend Washington 14 New Prairie 64 Winamac 16 New Prairie 53 South Bend Adams 12 Southmont Results: (13-3) Southmont 57 South Putnam 18 Southmont 69 Covington 9 Southmont 39 Danville 27 Southmont 68 Frankfort 12 Southmont 47 Harrison (WL) 27 Southmont 70 Tri West 3 Southmont 63 Western Boone 9 Southmont 42 Lebanon 26 Southmont 37 South Bend Riley 33 Indianapolis Cathedral 48 Southmont 18 Westfield 38 Southmont 18 Southmont 36 Mishawaka 34 Southmont 38 Valparaiso 30 Southmont 43 South Vermillion 33 Southmont 58 Crawfordsville 9 North Montgomery 37 Southmont 33 Bellmont Results: (6-3) Bellmont 39 Cincinatti LaSalle(OH) 37 Bellmont 57 Columbia City 12 Bellmont 66 Delta 9 Bellmont 69 New Albany 12 New Palestine 49 Bellmont 21 Yorktown 61 Bellmont 9 Bellmont 48 New Haven 19 Bellmont 60 Adams Central 14 Carroll 36 Bellmont 28 Hanover Central Results: (7-3) Hanover Central 72 Frontier 4 Hanover Central 74 North Newton 0 Hanover Central 74 South Newton 6 Hanover Central 49 Twin Lakes 24 Penn(JV) 37 Hanover Central 34 Harvest Classic 2nd Place Portage 47 Hanover Central 23 Hanover Central 69 River Forest 6 Lawrence North 36 Hanover Central 34 Hanover Central 39 South Bend Riley 32 Hanover Central 42 Floyd Central 32 Jimtown Results: (4-3) Jimtown 44 Glenn 27 Jimtown 63 LaVille 6 Knox 43 Jimtown 35 Mishawaka Marian 42 Jimtown 33 New Prairie 60 Jimtown 18 Jimtown 37 Westview 36 Jimtown 51 South Bend Washington 22 Kankakee Valley Results: (14-6) Kankakee Valley 74 Hobart 6 Kankakee Valley 56 Munster 21 Kankakee Valley 31 Valparaiso 30 Kankakee Valley 79 Attica -1 Kankakee Valley 78 Boone Grove 6 Kankakee Valley 63 Gary Westside 18 Kankakee Valley 48 Portage(JV) 24 Noblesville 49 Kankakee Valley 27 Kankakee Valley 53 Benton Central 19 Merrillville 59 Kankakee Valley 16 Penn (JV) 41 Kankakee Valley 20 Kankakee Valley 84 Wawasee 0 Kankakee Valley 51 Glenn 22 South Bend Clay 46 Kankakee Valley 27 Kankakee Valley 54 Rensselaer Central 21 Lowell 42 Kankakee Valley 30 Kankakee Valley 48 Kokomo 26 Kankakee Valley 72 Andrean 7 Perry Meridian(JV) 42 Kankakee Valley 27 Kankakee Valley 69 Hammond Clark 6 Delta Results: (13-7) Western 47 Delta 30 Zionsville 51 Delta 25 Bellmont 66 Delta 9 Carmel 55 Delta 19 Delta 57 Monrovia 23 Delta 39 New Albany 29 Delta 52 Western Boone 21 Leo 61 Delta 15 New Palestine 54 Delta 21 Delta 59 Muncie Central 21 Delta 34 Jay County 33 Delta 40 Greenwood 36 Delta 42 Greensburg 35 Delta 60 Triton 17 Delta 39 Jay County 33 Delta 48 Union City 33 Delta 57 Eastbrook 18 Delta 48 South Adams 36 Delta 61 Woodlan 16 Fishers 54 Delta 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 Just wondering why Danville and Twin Lakes are getting so many votes, while Bellmont and Hanover Central are on the outskirts looking in. Also North Montgomery's record is super inflated with the schedule they have wrestled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swain358 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 North Montgomery 24 Yorktown 39 Yorktown wins 8 matches.. North Montgomery wins 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Just wondering why Danville and Twin Lakes are getting so many votes, while Bellmont and Hanover Central are on the outskirts looking in. Also North Montgomery's record is super inflated with the schedule they have wrestled. Early on, there's some dependence on the exact order of qualifying scores for the IHSWCA duals. Although the 15 teams in the rankings discussion will remain pretty constant, the order will evolve as it did last year. Everyone wrestles some lighter competition at one time or another. You obviously have to look at the strong win by N. Montgomery over Danville and the aforementioned strong dual with Yorktown to put their quality in context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samaj Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 North Montgomery's performance last night against Yorktown is all I need to see to know they are legit. I wonder if the coaching staff at a certain HS cares as much that they aren't ranked as a certain individual does? I'm thinking probably not. I see issues with the ranking also, and I know the teams fairly well, but its not worth arguing over. I hope my team can turn some heads soon and get into the Top 10. If they don't, they dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 North Montgomery's performance last night against Yorktown is all I need to see to know they are legit. I wonder if the coaching staff at a certain HS cares as much that they aren't ranked as a certain individual does? I'm thinking probably not. I see issues with the ranking also, and I know the teams fairly well, but its not worth arguing over. I hope my team can turn some heads soon and get into the Top 10. If they don't, they dont. It's not all about one team, like I said in another thread about the 1A vote about someone giving South Adams a first place vote. How can you give a team a first place vote that is putting out a 10 man lineup that only has 3 tough legit wrestlers that you can most likely count on wins from? The whole point system put in is a little ridiculous. You are giving points to returning underclassmen. Sure they may have made it to regional or semi state, but we all know how weak some of the sectionals and regionals are around the state. We also know that some sectionals and regionals have a lot tougher competition, which can affect this whole scoring thing in a negative way for any team. You can't award a team for something they haven't done. You can't give them a pat on the back for this season just based off of last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 It's not all about one team, like I said in another thread about the 1A vote about someone giving South Adams a first place vote. How can you give a team a first place vote that is putting out a 10 man lineup that only has 3 tough legit wrestlers that you can most likely count on wins from? The whole point system put in is a little ridiculous. You are giving points to returning underclassmen. Sure they may have made it to regional or semi state, but we all know how weak some of the sectionals and regionals are around the state. We also know that some sectionals and regionals have a lot tougher competition, which can affect this whole scoring thing in a negative way for any team. You can't award a team for something they haven't done. You can't give them a pat on the back for this season just based off of last season. Im pretty sure maligned accounts for relative strength and weaknesses of the sectionals and regionals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Brown Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 This is some very helpful information, being a coach that is on the ranking committee I really appreciate it. My votes are consistant with what I have seen from the school and competing against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Im pretty sure maligned accounts for relative strength and weaknesses of the sectionals and regionals Yes, Maligned has a build in calculation adjustment, based on your sectional participants overall advancement in the state series, which slightly helps adjust for the in balance of sectional talent. I can't recall from past information if the same is done on a regional level, but it likely could be. While not perfect it is better than not taking into account the adjustment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjmcwhir1 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 It would be interesting to see what % of coaches that complain about the new system are the same coaches that sent JV kids to the old team tournament events. (Which is what I believe ultimately killed the IHSAA team state) As a coach for a team that has been invited to this years team state tournament, I think the current system is great. (I could be bias) Is the current system 100% fool proof? No, but neither was the old system. Short of every team wrestling every other team, there isn't a practical way to ensure that everyone has an equal/fair shot to be in the "top 8." This is true of the old or new system, someone will always feel slighted. What this new system does do is PREDICT POTENTIAL. Are the top 8 teams invited going to be the absolute best 8 in the state in their respective classes year in and year out? Probably not. But I'd be willing to bet they invite the best 2 or 4 teams every year. Aren't we ultimately trying to decide who the CHAMPION is, not the 6th place finisher? Its frustrating to read all of the posts telling us how terrible this new system is without any alternative ideas from the complainers. I think most people agree that a team state tournament is important... So how do we make it better? How do we, as a wrestling community, show the IHSAA that it is important and WE want to make it work? Certainly not by trying to degrade the current system or sending JV teams into the old tournament. Why would the IHSAA take us seriously? As for rankings: I cant begin to imagine how difficult it would be to compare all 350+ schools and rank them accordingly. For example, how could you begin to compare Twin Lakes to Jasper? I'd be willing to bet TL and Jasper go through the entire season and never have a common opponent. It seems like it would be incredibly difficult to get an accurate comparison of teams state wide. Additionally, how many teams have wrestled an event thus far with their entire varsity line-ups in their correct weights? 2 or 3 kids out or at different weights could change a teams strength (or weakness) significantly. Rankings become more clear as the sample size increases but there will always be questions. Do I think TL deserves to be ranked #4 in class AA? Probably not, but I think we will all(myself included) have a better idea of who belongs where in 2 weeks and a better idea yet 2 weeks after that. I think what is being done with the current system and rankings is a great step in the right direction. Continuing to focus on how terrible the current team state or rankings are draws the focus away from how to improve Indiana wrestling. Lots of hard work goes into the team tournament and rankings... and all of that work is to ensure that these kids have the best possible experience in wrestling. Lets not forget that that is really the goal here. TL Wrestling City Champs since 1963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 A little info for Kankakee Valley Kankakee Valley 74 Hobart 6 Kankakee Valley 56 Munster 21 Kankakee Valley 31 Valparaiso 30 Kankakee Valley 79 Attica -1 Kankakee Valley 78 Boone Grove 6 Kankakee Valley 63 Gary Westside 18 Kankakee Valley 48 Portage(JV) 24 Noblesville 49 Kankakee Valley 27 Kankakee Valley 53 Benton Central 19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samaj Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 People need to sit down, read, listen, and try to understand this very important point. I want to preface this with I am not in any way part of the IHSWCA other than by membership and I may not have even turned that in yet, I will need to check with my AD. haha The IHSWCA realizes that the way the teams are chosen for the State Duals is not the best way to do it. They wish it was different, but the way they go about it is the ONLY way it can be done at this point. People don't seem to realize that there cannot be an "in season qualifying all in tournament" and there cannot be an event AFTER the IHSAA State finals. The IHSWCA is doing the best they can with what they have to work with. There are people out there who feel this can be done or that can be done and 9 times out of 10 they are completely wrong. Our team was fortunate enough to qualify last year and we had a great time. We were crushed when we didn't "wrestle in" for this years tournament. We had a bad sectional day and it cost us. We knew what was at stake on thAT day "besides" just the IHSAA Sectional Championship and we failed. Hopefully we learn from it. Do I feel that my team still should have gotten at at large bid? Yes I do, but I'm not gonna gripe about it. We had a chance to qualify and we didn't take care of business. I know this much. The qualifying system is at thorough as any system can possibly be and I think it gets it right for the most part. I know it gets it as close as the old IHSAA system did!! Think about how many teams made the Team State from the weaker regionals?? It was never perfect then either. The IHSWCA Team State Duals is an awesome event that I hope continues. I hope it is so successful that the IHSAA takes notice and wants to begin a new version of their own. I'm not holding my breath on that because the root of the issue that wrestling is classified in the IHSAA Bylaws as an individual sport and therefor cannot be classed. And just to prove that I'm not totally on the side of the IHSWCA I will also add that I think it is CRAZY that they have not yet given Y2 the ok to promote the hell out of this event and thinks its insane that the only way that happens is if he drives three hours each way for a 30 minute face to face meeting. THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO IS BUSTING THEIR BUTTS TO MAKE THIS EVENT THE BEST IT CAN BE WITH THE LIMITATIONS THEY ARE DEALT WITH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Yes, Maligned has a build in calculation adjustment, based on your sectional participants overall advancement in the state series, which slightly helps adjust for the in balance of sectional talent. I can't recall from past information if the same is done on a regional level, but it likely could be. While not perfect it is better than not taking into account the adjustment. Basically, it's this: 1. Points are earned by underclassmen based on the average duals quality a returning starter of their advancement level will contribute to their team in the following season. 2. Points are earned by the whole team as its performance determines the estimate of their team's statewide average expected ability to replace lost starters. 3. Points scored by individuals losing at sectional, regional, and first round of semi-state are adjusted with an early-round multiplier meant to adjust for the collective DUALS quality represented by the teams in the sectional and regional of a given team. The point system will never be a perfect predictor of the following season's success, but it has correctly chosen an average of 7 season-ending top-ten teams per class for the following year from the three years I've checked the data, even with geographic requirements. As I've said many times, it's far from perfect. There will be a Top 5 team or two across the three classes that is not in the event every year. But it will be rare that a team that could legitimately have won state will not be in the event, and it will never happen that a team didn't have the chance to prove it belonged when it earned its points in the IHSAA tournament series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 14, 2013 Author Share Posted December 14, 2013 Why all the forfeits from Danville against Zionsville?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pug Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 One bad hip flexor, 2 concussions, 2 busted noses, 1 bad elbow, 1 bad knee and 1 sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Dang lighten up Pug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 16, 2013 Author Share Posted December 16, 2013 Delta Results: Western 47 Delta 30 Zionsville 51 Delta 25 Bellmont 66 Delta 9 Carmel 55 Delta 19 Delta 57 Monrovia 23 Delta 39 New Albany 29 Delta 52 Western Boone 21 Leo 61 Delta 15 New Palestine 54 Delta 21 Delta 59 Muncie Central 21 Delta 34 Jay County 33 Delta 40 Greenwood 36 Delta 42 Greensburg 35 Delta 60 Triton 17 Delta 39 Jay County 33 Delta 48 Union City 33 Delta 57 Eastbrook 18 Delta 48 South Adams 36 Delta 61 Woodlan 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 16, 2013 Author Share Posted December 16, 2013 Evansville Memorial Invitational 1 Evansville Memorial 278 2 Lafayette Jefferson 236 3 Evansville North 185 1/2 4 Evansville Harrison 99 5 Louisville Manual(KY) 88 1/2 6 Indian Creek 82 1/2 7 Providence 78 8 Paoli 68 9 Davies County(KY) 48 1/2 10 Evansville Bosse 43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 16, 2013 Author Share Posted December 16, 2013 North Montgomery 24 Yorktown 39 Yorktown wins 8 matches.. North Montgomery wins 6 Yorktown had 3 State Ranked wrestlers out of the lineup... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swain358 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 And Yorktown won by pin in each one of those 3 weight classes.. Two matches in which North Montgomery was ahead when we were pinned.. So technically the score would not have changed even if the three guys they had out would have wrestled.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greco165 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 And Yorktown won by pin in each one of those 3 weight classes.. Two matches in which North Montgomery was ahead when we were pinned.. So technically the score would not have changed even if the three guys they had out would have wrestled.. Top teams have never been been known to bump their lineups around when it would benefit them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swain358 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Top teams have never been been known to bump their lineups around when it would benefit them... You are right.. We would probably move our line up around a little bit next time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 18, 2013 Author Share Posted December 18, 2013 Southmont 43 South Vermillion 33 Bellmont 60 Adams Central 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 18, 2013 Author Share Posted December 18, 2013 JIMTOWN 51 South Bend Washington 22 Gibson Southern 38 HERITAGE HILLS 37 KANKAKEE VALLEY 54 Rensselaer Central 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Kankakee Valley Results - Lowell Duals - Saturday, December 21, 2013 Round #1 #19 Ranked Lowell 42 def Kankakee Valley 30 Round #2 Kankakee Valley 48 def Kokomo 26 Round #3 Kankakee Valley 72 def Andrean 7 Round #4 Perry Meridian JV 42 def Kankakee Valley 27 Round #5 Kankakee Valley 69 def Hammond Clark 6 Kankakee Valley Kougars UPDATED Dual Meet Record 14-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts