Smooth34 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 At no time have we said that we are running the team state duals in hopes that the IHSAA will take it over. The IHSAA had their chance to do something with this event, and they chose not to. The IHSWCA did this with the blessing from the IHSAA. This is why you can't consider the winners true State Champions. You can't have something not sanctioned by the IHSAA a state championship. Of course, the IHSAA doesn't care because they look at it like a regular season tournament. Why would they not give their blessing? They don't recognize these winners as State Champions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreparetoWin Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 haha I got moves like Jagger...TripleB and TSkin have the tandem Truffle Schuffle!!! If we dont get voted in I guess we could get on the board and cry about how good we are and because we have a "good tradition" we should automatically be voted in every year. Then have our alumni be embarrassed of our actions...oh wait that already been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blane Culp Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Putting my early entry in for the coaches dance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreparetoWin Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The Shuffle!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 All personal attacks aside, it's great that the IHSWCA has put together a tournament since the team state was taken away. The travesty is that we are forced to have a system in which teams are "voted" in, in the first place, rather than actually competing with their given team during that current season for a TEAM state title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I'd say it is a 90% chance that the two teams that get voted in are Madison and North Montgomery. The system seems built on favoring teams with board members and such. The two teams that got voted in last year with board members were North Montgomery and Churubusco. North Montgomery finished as class 2A runner-ups, and Churubusco finished as champs in class 1A. It is pretty obvious that the two teams that were invited deserved to be there. I don't get how you can make a statement insinuating that these teams were invited based on board member preferences when they finished runner-up and champion in their classes. It really is hilarious to me that you can make a statement like this still. I mean really the board should be receiving praise for getting the correct teams there, and instead you make a claims of favoritism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Yea, but the committee didn't choose Cass which, I think would have been right with both AC and Busco this year, and the system didn't allow Bellmont to be voted in, and I believe that they were every bit as good as North Montgomery. Hopefully, the expansion to 12 teams can help to eliminate these errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Now updated through state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julio Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Sometimes the simple way is the best way. The multiplier and points changing from round to round is what is confusing everybody. Would it not just be easier to say for example: Champion is worth 10 points Runner Up is worth 8 3rd place is worth 6 4th place is worth 4 Alternate is worth 2 Qualifier is worth 1 and multiply the teams total points by the strength of their tournament and that is how many points the team earns for that specific tournament? Seems to me this would be easier to figure out than trying to say well in the 1st round you earn x points but if you win you get y points and if you lose you get a points and then change it after the 2 nod round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Sometimes the simple way is the best way. The multiplier and points changing from round to round is what is confusing everybody. Would it not just be easier to say for example: Champion is worth 10 points Runner Up is worth 8 3rd place is worth 6 4th place is worth 4 Alternate is worth 2 Qualifier is worth 1 and multiply the teams total points by the strength of their tournament and that is how many points the team earns for that specific tournament? Seems to me this would be easier to figure out than trying to say well in the 1st round you earn x points but if you win you get y points and if you lose you get a points and then change it after the 2 nod round. There are specific points for each advancement level (as you suggest). Then your kids who lost first round of semi-state or sooner have their points multiplied by the multiplier. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Yea, but the committee didn't choose Cass which, I think would have been right with both AC and Busco this year, and the system didn't allow Bellmont to be voted in, and I believe that they were every bit as good as North Montgomery. Hopefully, the expansion to 12 teams can help to eliminate these errors. buscowrestling, where is your reply to this? Do you think the expansion to 12 teams will make situations like this much more unlikely in the future? I think it has a chance to do that, but I think in 1A especially, it will be very difficult from having a Cass-like situation every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 buscowrestling, where is your reply to this? Do you think the expansion to 12 teams will make situations like this much more unlikely in the future? I think it has a chance to do that, but I think in 1A especially, it will be very difficult from having a Cass-like situation every year. In my opinion, there's a difference between an "error" and "impossible to predict". The season of course showed that Bellmont was probably better than 4-5 of the teams in the 2A field (and on par with all others but Yorktown). However, their performance last year did not, in any way, shape, or form, warrant inclusion. They were only about the 12th best 2A team last year AND lost 10 seniors AND underperformed in the state tournament (2 underclassmen past sectional). By what scoring system would they have earned their way in? Cass was of course seriously considered in the voting, but a couple of other teams had very good resumes too. West Central came from exactly the same sectional as them and had one more guy coming back and the same number of underclassmen or more at every advancement level. So the committee chose West Central. The year showed Cass was probably a little better, but was it an "error" or did Cass not perform in the tournament to the level needed to prove they were better than West Central and Busco? In 1A especially, where lineup turnover makes "predicting" the best teams nearly impossible, you HAVE to win matches in the state tournament series and prove it. I definitely hope we'll keep refining the system to catch flaws that really are "errors" (there were a couple of things last year that we adjusted for this year, and we'll adjust a little more for next year to make things as fair as possible for people to prove their ability). And hopefully we can keep adding teams and sooner than later have an all-in event like we all want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julio Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is there a place where I can look and see just how specifically the points are scored? Not the results, but where I can go and calculate my team points by myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greco165 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Accurate or not, anybody notice Yorktown has the highest score of any team, regardless of class? Just ahead of Penn at 441 and MD at 425. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrecoCoach Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is there a place where I can look and see just how specifically the points are scored? Not the results, but where I can go and calculate my team points by myself. Here's a link to everything there is to know about how the scores are calculated: https://sites.google.com/site/inwrestlingcoaches/resources/teamstateselection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 In my opinion, there's a difference between an "error" and "impossible to predict". The season of course showed that Bellmont was probably better than 4-5 of the teams in the 2A field (and on par with all others but Yorktown). However, their performance last year did not, in any way, shape, or form, warrant inclusion. They were only about the 12th best 2A team last year AND lost 10 seniors AND underperformed in the state tournament (2 underclassmen past sectional). By what scoring system would they have earned their way in? Cass was of course seriously considered in the voting, but a couple of other teams had very good resumes too. West Central came from exactly the same sectional as them and had one more guy coming back and the same number of underclassmen or more at every advancement level. So the committee chose West Central. The year showed Cass was probably a little better, but was it an "error" or did Cass not perform in the tournament to the level needed to prove they were better than West Central and Busco? In 1A especially, where lineup turnover makes "predicting" the best teams nearly impossible, you HAVE to win matches in the state tournament series and prove it. I definitely hope we'll keep refining the system to catch flaws that really are "errors" (there were a couple of things last year that we adjusted for this year, and we'll adjust a little more for next year to make things as fair as possible for people to prove their ability). And hopefully we can keep adding teams and sooner than later have an all-in event like we all want. Bellmont did not have 10 seniors last year. I think they had more like 9 or 10 underclassmen. The system also doesn't account for 2 freshman state qualifiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I understand that judging a team based on the previous year's body of work, is all that we have right now, but I think that it's not a great method. "Predicting" is what we need to get away from. Trying to "predict" an unpredictable sport, wrestled by kids at an unpredictable age is an impossible task. I think the majority of us at Bankers Life recognized this, on Friday and Saturday. I do commend the effort. I think that adding more teams will hopefully help, and an all in event is the answer. Once we eliminate the multipliers and voting I think we will really have something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth34 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 In my opinion, there's a difference between an "error" and "impossible to predict". The season of course showed that Bellmont was probably better than 4-5 of the teams in the 2A field (and on par with all others but Yorktown). However, their performance last year did not, in any way, shape, or form, warrant inclusion. They were only about the 12th best 2A team last year AND lost 10 seniors AND underperformed in the state tournament (2 underclassmen past sectional). By what scoring system would they have earned their way in? You can't base this year's "tournament" on a past year's results. There might not be a better solution, other than the one we gave up, but that doesn't mean its not absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Bellmont did not have 10 seniors last year. I think they had more like 9 or 10 underclassmen. The system also doesn't account for 2 freshman state qualifiers. Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of 11-12. That year they had 10 seniors and only 2 underclassmen past sectional. Last year, they had 9 or 10 underclassmen, but only 3 total guys past regional. It was easily the worst 2-year stretch for them in the 15 years I've watched closely. I looked back at the 5 years prior to 11-12 after they struggled that year and their results would have put them easily into the State Duals every year. Probably for 10 years before that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of 11-12. That year they had 10 seniors and only 2 underclassmen past sectional. Last year, they had 9 or 10 underclassmen, but only 3 total guys past regional. It was easily the worst 2-year stretch for them in the 15 years I've watched closely. I looked back at the 5 years prior to 11-12 after they struggled that year and their results would have put them easily into the State Duals every year. Probably for 10 years before that too. What about the freshman? Is there any way of dealing with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 What about the freshman? Is there any way of dealing with that? I guess I didn't understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Accurate or not, anybody notice Yorktown has the highest score of any team, regardless of class? Just ahead of Penn at 441 and MD at 425. The scoring systems for each class are slightly different. Not that it matters, but with the 3A scoring, Yorktown would have 439--just behind Penn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greco165 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The scoring systems for each class are slightly different. Not that it matters, but with the 3A scoring, Yorktown would have 439--just behind Penn. I see, I didn't realize there were scoring differences between classes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMAWRESTLER Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I think that there should be some kind of common sense rule. The numbers aren't always correct. Peru is not in the same league as Yorktown, but we have had several seniors that have been Journeymen behind good kids getting their first shot at varsity. Peru had a strong dual team in 2012-13, and came back with a strong program this season. 2013-14 Season: Dual Record 17-3 with their only losses to 3A schools (Mishawaka, Lowell, and Plymouth) Al Smith Invitational-Belmont and Peru were the only 2A schools to finish in the top 10 Twin Lakes Champions MIC Champions Sectional Champions Regional Champions 4th place at semi-state 3 state qualifiers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 I think that there should be some kind of common sense rule. The numbers aren't always correct. Peru is not in the same league as Yorktown, but we have had several seniors that have been Journeymen behind good kids getting their first shot at varsity. Peru had a strong dual team in 2012-13, and came back with a strong program this season. 2013-14 Season: Dual Record 17-3 with their only losses to 3A schools (Mishawaka, Lowell, and Plymouth) Al Smith Invitational-Belmont and Peru were the only 2A schools to finish in the top 10 Twin Lakes Champions MIC Champions Sectional Champions Regional Champions 4th place at semi-state 3 state qualifiers You had a very good team this year. You had a good amount coming back this year and were in the group of teams being voted on for this year's event. Unfortunately, that group also had North Montgomery, New Prairie, Evansville Memorial...among others. With only 8 spots available and about 20 teams at similar levels, it made it very tough. I think you were better than a couple teams at this year's event, but I also think there were a number of teams at your level or better that joined you on the outside looking in. As far as next year goes, you return only 7 starters and only 2 of those made it out of your regional, which is comprised mostly of schools rated in the bottom half of the state. It just doesn't add up with the types of teams many others are bringing back, unfortunately. I think that this 12-team event would have included you last year or the year before (or both), you're just a little unlucky to be returning less quality in the year that the event is expanding. Even if the event never expands more (and I think it will) I fully expect to see Peru in very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts