jasonbk2 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Ok I'm just a fan and I'm trying to figure out this team state thing. My question is why on earth would you take team scores from this year to figure out who is in next year. A team might have 6 or 7 seniors on it this year so next years team could be way down and totally different witch defeats the purpose. Why not have team state towards the end of the season and take the teams with the best records???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex White Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I'm not 100% sure but I think it's based off of your juniors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanatic46041 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Dont get them started on this...As a coach i disagree with this as well!! A: You have kid/kids move in B: Kids that wrestled the year prior and for sone reason sat out but are back (Seniors now) C: Coaches change which can change the impact it has on the program (Portage as an example) D: All sectionals arent equal in the way (Calumet 126" example) if that is your sectional your toast but you could have went to semi-state if you were somewhere else.. E injuries happen sometimes right hefore sectionals and 2 of them could ultimately cost you.. The list could go on and on!!! Why we just dont go from scores at Sectionals top 2 A Top 2 AA Top 2 AAA or would this be to rough? Then at Regionals you do the same and at the end of Regionals you'll have a better grasp on your teams at that point...Just not a fan because i know "As a coach to a new program" how big of a difference 1 year can make and it may mean nothing to these kids!! Edited February 10, 2015 by fanatic46041 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It's based off of a very well thought out formula that for the most part looks at your returning juniors, sophmores and freshmen. When they first came up with it I thought it was way way overkill but in helping out with compiling data the first year, it really makes a lot of sense. As with anything there are pros and cons but in the end the best teams are crowned, at least in my opinion. I'd like to see someone come up with something better if people think it's so bad...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonbk2 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Thanks guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastMode#31 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) It's definitely not perfect BUT I respect and appreciate the people who put in hours and hours of hard work to give us a great tournament. I think (and hope) it is on track to become a very popular and profitable event that will interest the IHSAA again. This will allow us to have extra weigh-ins and ideal tourney date (after individual state) and officially recognize class team state champions. My only complaint with the current system is that it puts senior-laden teams at a disadvantage. It also affects successful programs (Perry's, EMDs, Mishawakas, Yorktowns, etc.) who have state quality caliber kids wrestling JV. I understand the two "at large" teams voted in help mitigate this discrepancy. But again, it is a good alternative that lots of people have dedicated time and energy to promote when IHSAA yanked the team tourney from us. Edited February 10, 2015 by BeastMode#31 grecoref and jasonbk2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Dont get them started on this...As a coach i disagree with this as well!! A: You have kid/kids move in B: Kids that wrestled the year prior and for sone reason sat out but are back (Seniors now) C: Coaches change which can change the impact it has on the program (Portage as an example) D: All sectionals arent equal in the way (Calumet 126" example) if that is your sectional your toast but you could have went to semi-state if you were somewhere else.. E injuries happen sometimes right hefore sectionals and 2 of them could ultimately cost you.. The list could go on and on!!! Why we just dont go from scores at Sectionals top 2 A Top 2 AA Top 2 AAA or would this be to rough? Then at Regionals you do the same and at the end of Regionals you'll have a better grasp on your teams at that point...Just not a fan because i know "As a coach to a new program" how big of a difference 1 year can make and it may mean nothing to these kids!! I think you're suggesting a way to do a tournament in the same season. Unfortunately, we have no option for this. This is for several reasons: 1) the IHSAA won't allow us to have an event after the state finals, 2) the IHSAA won't grant us a weigh-in exemption to invite teams during the same season without them having to break contracts with other events, and 3) many teams and conferences are very set in wanting to keep their schedules how they've always had them. The end result of all of this is that we can only have an event on a weird weekend over the holidays and it involves teams we have to invite a year in advance so they can schedule it like any other event on their schedule. I'm involved in the selection process about as much as anyone, and I can tell you it's a very disappointing way to have to go about things. All of us would love to have any of the above 3 problems removed so that we could have an event that teams qualify for in the year it's held. With all of that said...the selection process isn't perfect, but almost all of the best teams have consistently been invited and we expect that to continue this year. If you get a chance, I would invite you, or anyone else interested, to read through the selection process (http://www.ihswca.org/news/selection2015). It's just a point system that gives you points for advancing to various levels of the state tournament. It's less complicated than NCAA division I national championship selection, for example, and everyone has learned how that works and tracks with how that works now. Our hope is that, if we have to be stuck in these circumstances for a while, we can make the most of it and people will gradually grow more accustomed to how it works and see how successful it's been at identifying the next season's top teams for each class every year through a point system that lets teams compete for positions. Edited February 10, 2015 by maligned BeastMode#31, Jon H and jasonbk2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktownwrestling Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I have been looking at the process to try and understand it a lot recently since Knightstown is in the mix in Class A. It is impressive to me all the variables that are part of the process. I think that makes it confusing but that is what it takes to get it right. And, if all else fails two teams can be selected at large to overcome the flaws. If there are criteria that need to be tweaked on a class by class basis then do it. Props to those who have taken it this far to make it work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I have been looking at the process to try and understand it a lot recently since Knightstown is in the mix in Class A. It is impressive to me all the variables that are part of the process. I think that makes it confusing but that is what it takes to get it right. And, if all else fails two teams can be selected at large to overcome the flaws. If there are criteria that need to be tweaked on a class by class basis then do it. Props to those who have taken it this far to make it work! When you boil it down, it's simply a point system that awards points based on your individuals' advancement level. It can feel a little messy because you see a few different charts for awarding the points in the necessary ways to be the most fair for each of the three classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktownwrestling Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Exactly, and I would rather it be a little complicated and account for all of the relevant factors that get the correct teams most of the time. 2 at large invites gives some room for cleaning up some things but someone will always feel overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 If some of the coaches wouldn't have screwed up IHSAA Team State in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. fanatic46041, zachpierson, AJ and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrestlerdad Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Full disclosure -- I coach at a small school in the Avon sectional. I appreciate all the hard work and time that has gone into making the IHSWCA Team State a top-notch event. Those who have taken the time to research and develop this system have done a tremendous job; however, I am not convinced that using data from the State Tournament Series for the previous three years is the most effective method to determine the strength of individual sectionals and regionals (and therefore the quota categories) for the current year. This method does not account for the sudden emergence of very strong teams (Brownsburg) or the decline of other teams in the paired sectional. I will use the Mooresville Regional as an example since it is the one with which I am familiar. I am sure there are other scenarios similar to this at other sites as well. The Mooresville sectional was given a quota category of 6, meaning that the top 6 placers from Mooresville would likely qualify for the regional in an average sectional. This implies that the Mooresville sectional is extraordinarily difficult and should therefore dominate an average sectional. The Avon sectional was given a quota category of 4, meaning that it is simply an average sectional. You would think that the category 6 sectional would completely dominate the category 4 sectional. In the case of the Mooresville regional though, the opposite proved true. Here are some numbers from the Mooresville regional: Regional Champions Avon -- 11 Mooresville -- 3 Regional Finalists Avon -- 16 Mooresville -- 12 SS Qualifiers Avon -- 29 Mooresville -- 27 Head-to-head Avon had the advantage 51-38 I am not trying to degrade the Mooresville sectional, there are many great wrestlers there. I am simply trying to show that it appears the IHSWCA quota formula missed the mark on this one. I know at least one instance where a 4th place finisher from the Avon sectional pinned a regional champ and another ss qualifier both from average quota regionals. This is a kid who may be a ss caliber wrestler, but according to the formula used to calculate Team State scores he is only a 4th place sectional finisher. There is a big difference between being a ss qualifier and a 4th place sectional finisher when you consider dual meet implications. I don't know the answer, but I am willing to offer a suggestion. Would it possible and/or feasible to calculate quotas based on the results of the current year State Tournament Series? Maybe a point system could be developed where sectionals and regionals within each individual SS could be assigned a quota based on the number of athletes who win, place, or qualify for the State Finals. For example, a sectional with 4 State Finalists, 2 State placers and 1 State Champion would obviously provide a much more difficult path than one with 1 State Qualifier. Again, I appreciate all the work that has gone into this system. I am just offering one possible tweak. jasonbk2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Full disclosure -- I coach at a small school in the Avon sectional. I appreciate all the hard work and time that has gone into making the IHSWCA Team State a top-notch event. Those who have taken the time to research and develop this system have done a tremendous job; however, I am not convinced that using data from the State Tournament Series for the previous three years is the most effective method to determine the strength of individual sectionals and regionals (and therefore the quota categories) for the current year. This method does not account for the sudden emergence of very strong teams (Brownsburg) or the decline of other teams in the paired sectional. I will use the Mooresville Regional as an example since it is the one with which I am familiar. I am sure there are other scenarios similar to this at other sites as well. The Mooresville sectional was given a quota category of 6, meaning that the top 6 placers from Mooresville would likely qualify for the regional in an average sectional. This implies that the Mooresville sectional is extraordinarily difficult and should therefore dominate an average sectional. The Avon sectional was given a quota category of 4, meaning that it is simply an average sectional. You would think that the category 6 sectional would completely dominate the category 4 sectional. In the case of the Mooresville regional though, the opposite proved true. Here are some numbers from the Mooresville regional: Regional Champions Avon -- 11 Mooresville -- 3 Regional Finalists Avon -- 16 Mooresville -- 12 SS Qualifiers Avon -- 29 Mooresville -- 27 Head-to-head Avon had the advantage 51-38 I am not trying to degrade the Mooresville sectional, there are many great wrestlers there. I am simply trying to show that it appears the IHSWCA quota formula missed the mark on this one. I know at least one instance where a 4th place finisher from the Avon sectional pinned a regional champ and another ss qualifier both from average quota regionals. This is a kid who may be a ss caliber wrestler, but according to the formula used to calculate Team State scores he is only a 4th place sectional finisher. There is a big difference between being a ss qualifier and a 4th place sectional finisher when you consider dual meet implications. I don't know the answer, but I am willing to offer a suggestion. Would it possible and/or feasible to calculate quotas based on the results of the current year State Tournament Series? Maybe a point system could be developed where sectionals and regionals within each individual SS could be assigned a quota based on the number of athletes who win, place, or qualify for the State Finals. For example, a sectional with 4 State Finalists, 2 State placers and 1 State Champion would obviously provide a much more difficult path than one with 1 State Qualifier. Again, I appreciate all the work that has gone into this system. I am just offering one possible tweak. This is a good example of a flaw. Would it not be more accurate to give quotas after the state tournament? It seems illogical to give a sectional or regional a quota before they are even wrestled. For instance, if Mooresville sectional turns out to have very few state qualifiers or placers, and Avon sectional ends up placing more or having more wrestlers advance further, shouldn't the numbers be adjusted? Just because a sectional or regional were weak last year does not mean the same will happen this year. Same goes for if a sectional or regional was strong and turns out not be do as well this year. The current year should be accounted for in the forumla. jasonbk2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Part of the reason for the high quota is because their route has to go through the other sectional at the regional level. It isn't based on their sectional alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Part of the reason for the high quota is because their route has to go through the other sectional at the regional level. It isn't based on their sectional alone. I understand that but if they (Moorseville sectional) are not as strong as the Avon sectional then they shouldn't have a higher quota. I'm not sure if there are other cases like this. It seems like Avon sectional proved to be slightly better, so a wrestler that got 5th or 6th at Avon sectional could have possibly done better if they were at Mooresville sectional. Therefore, Avon's quota would be equal or higher correct? Isn't that how the quota system is calculated or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 If some of the coaches wouldn't have screwed up IHSAA Team State in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. Well said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Regional Champions Avon -- 11 Mooresville -- 3 Regional Finalists Avon -- 16 Mooresville -- 12 SS Qualifiers Avon -- 29 Mooresville -- 27 Head-to-head Avon had the advantage 51-38 Thank you for the thoughtful post. We're always looking to make things work the best way possible for the qualifying system and all information and discussion is 100% valid and appreciated. We've often taken feedback here that's been influential in the selection process. First of all, there's a bit of a misunderstanding about how the sectional Categories are assigned. They are not based on any of the regional data you mention here. They are based on current full-season data about the strength of each team at your SECTIONAL and what history tells us about how many regional qualifiers teams of those levels deserve. It is very often the case that the high-end talent of one sectional is better than that of another, while the bottom-end depth of the opposite one is more. Here's a breakdown of the two sectionals and their expected regional qualifiers based on their current season quality level: Avon: Cloverdale 1.3 regional qualifiers expected North Put. 1.8 Cascade 3.1 Tri-West 3.6 South Put. 4 Greencastle 5 Danville 7 Ben Davis 9.7 Avon 12.7 Brownsburg 13.1 TOTAL = 61 expected regional qualifiers if each team wrestled at an "average" sectional 61/14 weight classes = 4.4 per weight class (which we can't do, so we had to round down to 4 as your assigned quota) Mooresville: Decatur Central 4.9 Indian Creek 5.6 Martinsville 6.6 Whiteland 6.6 Greenwood 6.7 Plainfield 7.5 Monrovia 9 Mooresville 9.4 Center Grove 10.6 Franklin 12 TOTAL = 78.4 expected regional qualifiers if each team wrestled in an "average" sectional 78.4/14 = 5.6 per weight class, which we have to round up to 6 So the second point I want to make is that the numbers were actually only about 1 guy per weight class different (5.6 vs. 4.4)--but one was just over a cut line and the other was just under a cut line. Avon got rounded down and Mooresville was rounded up. What these numbers tell us is simply this: the overall top-to-bottom duals-quality depth of Mooresville is a little more than Avon this season. That doesn't mean the top-end talent isn't more at Avon--clearly it is. We had Avon and Brownsburg as clearly the best 2 teams in the regional. When we then run expectation numbers for semi-state qualifiers, we end up with 41 for Mooresville and 34 for Avon (the gap is narrowing, as you can see). From that expectation, it's not strange at all that Avon would, on a given day, get slightly more semi-state qualifiers than Mooresville--especially since the bottom end is where we're saying Mooresville would begin to show separation from Avon...and those 5th and 6th guys didn't wrestle, so we have no way of looking at the impact of full sectional depth in the regional tournament data you presented, unfortunately. I hope all this makes sense! There's no perfect way to go about all of this, but we did a lot of research into how this quota system works and found it to be highly accurate if applied to past seasons. In the long run, I think you're going to see that the percentage of the top teams at each level that are ending up at team state is very high. Edited February 11, 2015 by maligned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Thanks maligned. That clears things up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Maligned, Can you explain how each individual team is assigned a number of expected Regional qualifiers? Interested in the math behind it.. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 The distribution of expected number of advancers to each level for teams of various team strengths is illustrated on page 4 of the procedures doc: http://www.ihswca.org/news/selection2015 Those lines were derived by using 3 seasons of all teams' data to predict what teams of each strength level will accomplish when we control for state series path difficulty. The line corresponds to a formula into which we put each team's current-season genius level and we get their expected output. We then compile those as i did above to get the composite sectional and regional values. The main point I want to make here is that the finished product is very accurate and I think people will be able to track well with the quota system once we've had a couple seasons to talk about it and see its simplicity. That said, if you need further blood and guts about where those lines came from b/c you have some math background, pm me and I'll explain more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 So the second point I want to make is that the numbers were actually only about 1 guy per weight class different (5.6 vs. 4.4)--but one was just over a cut line and the other was just under a cut line. Avon got rounded down and Mooresville was rounded up. Thats a pretty large affect due to rounding. Thats almost one whole wrestler. The Quota system is simpler to understand, I suppose we have to compromise with the rounding affect, as the prior percentage system would not have rewarded the Mooresville sectional as much. I see you really cant get around this, as you cant give a sectional 5.5 qualifiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Thats a pretty large affect due to rounding. Thats almost one whole wrestler. The Quota system is simpler to understand, I suppose we have to compromise with the rounding affect, as the prior percentage system would not have rewarded the Mooresville sectional as much. I see you really cant get around this, as you cant give a sectional 5.5 qualifiers. It is a compromise--you said it perfectly. The multiplier was too mysterious and this is more precise about exactly where teams deserve their boost or their cut. Edited February 11, 2015 by maligned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrestlerdad Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the explanation Maligned. So if I understand this correctly, the Genius rating for the current season is pivotal in determining the sectional quota. Is the Genius rating then contingent upon the results entered in the results section on this website? I know many schools do a great job posting results here, but there are still some with very few results posted. It would be nice if everyone understood the significance of posting accurate results in a timely manner. Again, thanks for all the work that you guys put into making Team State a great event. We hope to be back there again in the next couple of years. Edited February 12, 2015 by wrestlerdad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Thanks for the explanation Maligned. So if I understand this correctly, the Genius rating for the current season is pivotal in determining the sectional quota. Is the Genius rating then contingent upon the results entered in the results section on this website? I know many schools do a great job posting results here, but there are still some with very few results posted. It would be nice if everyone understood the significance of posting accurate results in a timely manner. Again, thanks for all the work that you guys put into making Team State a great event. We hope to be back there again in the next couple of years. Your highlighted statement is one of the most true things ever posted here. In reality the teams that don't post many results aren't ones that are in the running for team state. We had an average of 8 duals per team, which is a very good estimate to tell a team's strength. Of course it wouldn't hurt having the other 500ish duals we are missing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Is the Genius rating then contingent upon the results entered in the results section on this website? Yes. But when we have as much info as we do (teams in the top 200 are almost all directly "connected" to far, far more than 8 teams in the ratings), the ratings become very accurate even for teams with only 5 or 6 duals entered in the results. Right now, even if all results were entered, no team would move more than a few percentage points up or down...and the composite change for a full sectional would be virtually nothing (literally less than 1%). Joe likes to jump on these chances to encourage people to post all results because it's a big deal for promoting the sport in all of Indiana's wrestling communities...but in the terms we're discussing things, we have plenty of data to feel very secure in the accuracy of the numbers we use for the sectional and regional Category assignments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts