Some more stats from 2015 State

[Bash513]

.the ONLY argument ... hilarious !

What other argument is there?  I don't buy the whole "pride of being the only state champion" thing because I've never seen anyone in a classed state be disappointed in a state medal from a lower division.  I firmly believe that adding a second class would still leave us with an exclusive class of wrestlers at state AND would help increase the popularity of the sport.  

[MattM]

I've never seen anyone in a classed state be disappointed in a state medal from a lower division. 

I do not think too many people ever would show disappointment about winning any big tournament.  But, their would likely be some looming questions about how they really would fair against the state champions of the other classes.  Wrestlers by nature tend to like things cut and dye, so having that unanswered question may be something many class wrestling state champions experience.  Not saying that is a argument for or against the class topic, but that experience maybe more of what they have compared to being "disappointed."     

Edited March 3, 2015 by MattM

[jetwrestling]

_{As I read the posts, I think there are two separate issues that are driving the responses. One side is arguing for deciding who the one true individual state champion is. The other side is arguing for what they see will advance participation in the sport as a whole. These two issue get blurred when talking about classing our sport. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that classing the team duals has helped us recruit kids out of the hall for our program as we have been fortunate enough to participate each year in the IHSWCA State duals. It is something that we set as a team goal each year, We also feel that we can compete on a state level individually, but we are at a slight disadvantage compared to larger schools. Our program has had at least one State qualifier in 35 of the last 36 years. This year was our first placer in 6 years. This is a 1A school with a 400 kid enrollment. The "just work harder" argument bothers me a little. We work out all year like all other programs. We intentionally schedule matches with tougher and larger schools to prepare us for the tournament series. Our trouble is that we can't generate big numbers in the off season as most of our kids are 2-3 sport athletes. If we try to get the kids to specialize, then all our school's athletic programs will suffer. Any training academy is at least an hour to hour and half drive one way. We will continue to work hard and try to compete with everyone regardless of how the set up is.}

_{Tony Currie}

_{Adams Central}

Edited March 3, 2015 by jetwrestling

[randalllynch]

I'd do not think too many people ever would show disappointment about winning any big tournament.  But, their would likely be some looming questions about how they really would fair against the state champions of the other classes.  Wrestlers by nature tend to like things cut and dye, so leaving those unanswered questions may be something many class wrestling state champions experience.  Not saying that a argument one way or the other on this topic, but it maybe more of what they go through compared to saying they are or are not showing disappointment.     

 

A lot of the questions about how well they do against opponents they don't meet in the tournament get answered at the ISWA/USA tournaments.  Some of the great matches I have seen at ISWA are Lahue/Hughs and James/Cash or even James/Red durinng the summer jump out to me for  starters.  If wrestlers want to know they will find a way to measure themselves against the others.  Does it have to be in the IHSAA tournament?

[ENoblewrestling]

What other argument is there? I don't buy the whole "pride of being the only state champion" thing because I've never seen anyone in a classed state be disappointed in a state medal from a lower division. I firmly believe that adding a second class would still leave us with an exclusive class of wrestlers at state AND would help increase the popularity of the sport.

 

I question the increase in popularity for our sport aspect of classing. The way our finals are currently set-up gives Indiana a very unique situation were winning the state title really stands out. The kids that won in their interviews pretty much all said that there is no other tournament like ours, some even brought up that winning our tournament was a better experience than big national events. That for me is something that makes our sport better, and also makes it popular here in Indiana.

I coach at a small school. I recruit kids like crazy. I have heard a million excuses come out of kids mouths, they work, it's weird to them, they don't like the singlets on and on. I have never had a kid tell me that they cannot win, or that they couldn't be a state qualifier given for a reason not to come out.

Beyond that if the only way to grow our sport is to create more state qualifiers then I think we are pushing in the wrong direction anyhow. You can have success and gain a lot from the sport without being a state champion. I have gotten way more kids out for the team by telling them they could be part of a team championship than telling them they could be a state champion. Why not push the kids in that way. We had two kids make semi-state, finished 2nd a couple of tournaments, 5th at team state and finished a match above .500 as a team. It wasn't a perfect season, acctually we were pretty average in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't say that nothing good came of it because we didn't have a state qualifier. Our guys know that they need to work harder if they want to improve and get there next year. If having a state qualifier is the only way to promote our sport you are going to end up with a lot disappointed kids classed or not.

Edited March 3, 2015 by buscowrestling

[MattM]

If wrestlers want to know they will find a way to measure themselves against the others.  Does it have to be in the IHSAA tournament?

In some ways I would say that could be a measuring stick for the wrestler or the fans.  But, that idea would go back to the argument of if a different style "counts," or if certain off season competition count towards the logic of if you are the best guy in the state.  In most cases I'm it comes down to the personal opinion of that athlete, but I'd say the winner of the matches at those events would feel more like it counted compared to the person on the losing end.  The fans that get into those comparisons I'm sure have their own personal feelings on it.   While their are many variables at play I'm guessing most people would point to the high school state finals as the best proving ground who showing if they are the top guy in state at folkstyle or would point to the state finals as at least one event when most wrestlers are at peak performance level for the year.   Like I said I'm not sure it makes an argument one way or the other but rather than the "disappointment" statement mentioned earlier I'd say more class state champions have more of the "what if" type thought process going through their heads.  

Edited March 3, 2015 by MattM

[KarlHungus]

I question the increase in popularity for our sport aspect of classing. The way our finals are currently set-up gives Indiana a very unique situation were winning the state title really stands out. The kids that won in their interviews pretty much all said that there is no other tournament like ours, some even brought up that winning our tournament was a better experience than big national events. That for me is something that makes our sport better, and also makes it popular here in Indiana.

I coach at a small school. I recruit kids like crazy. I have heard a million excuses come out of kids mouths, they work, it's weird to them, they don't like the singlets on and on. I have never had a kid tell me that they cannot win, or that they couldn't be a state qualifier given for a reason not to come out.

Beyond that if the only way to grow our sport is to create more state qualifiers then I think we are pushing in the wrong direction anyhow. You can have success and gain a lot from the sport without being a state champion. I have gotten way more kids out for the team by telling them they could be part of a team championship than telling them they could be a state champion. Why not push the kids in that way. We had two kids make semi-state, finished 2nd a couple of tournaments, 5th at team state and finished a match above .500 as a team. It wasn't a perfect season, acctually we were pretty average in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't say that nothing good came of it because we didn't have a state qualifier. Our guys know that they need to work harder if they want to improve and get there next year. If having a state qualifier is the only way to promote our sport you are going to end up with a lot disappointed kids classed or not.

 

A classed team tournament helps you recruit more athletes to your program.

 

A classed individual tournament would not help you recruit.

 

Does not compute.....

[Y2CJ41]

 I have gotten way more kids out for the team by telling them they could be part of a team championship than telling them they could be a state champion.

That is because it's an attainable goal to be a fake team champion like you claim. Being an individual state champion isn't that attainable when your school doesn't even get sectional or regional champions.

[ENoblewrestling]

A classed team tournament helps you recruit more athletes to your program.

 

A classed individual tournament would not help you recruit.

 

Does not compute.....

There is a big difference between the two. Making it to state will still be difficult classed or not. So it isn't like small schools would be able to walk the hallways and say "hey Johnny the tournament is easier now, come out and you'll be a stater this year". Pushing individual goals takes long term focus either way. My kids who say they want to be state qualifiers have generally seen what our finals are about, and they push to get there. I don't think completely changing the make up if the event would help that.

Recruiting a kid to come our for the team to help the team is much easier and offers much more in the way if instant gratification. "Johnny come out, make weight, and we are better than we were without you." From there you hope he can grow to really like the sport and what it offers.

I genuinely don't think that leasing the tournament for the individuals would.make.that much of a difference. The kids who wrestle obviously hope for success in the individual tournament, but usually have to realize that it is long term goal either way. If I'm recruiting that they can be a state qualifier it is going to take them at least three years if its classed or not.

[Y2CJ41]

Sam,

I have a challenge for you with $1000 on the line.

 

Next year at sectional you can identify 700 1A wrestlers as potential state qualifiers. I will identify 100 potential 3A state qualifiers(3 classes). The one who gets the most to state wins. Note you will get over half the 1A wrestlers to choose from, while I'll only get about 7%.

 

Wanna take me up on this bet?

[ENoblewrestling]

That is because it's an attainable goal to be a fake team champion like you claim. Being an individual state champion isn't that attainable when your school doesn't even get sectional or regional champions.

Actually you can recruit kids to help with conference championships, or to help the team be above .500, or to get better at football, there are ways to get kids out for the team besides completely changing the state tournament.

As far as the second part of your statement it's too bad people have that mentality. We don't, every kid on our team believes that someday they could have a chance to be a state qualifier, and you know what I would say that about 75-80% of the kids who wrestle all four years do have a realistic shot. They may not accomplish it, but they could have a fighters chance to make it. Really how many kids are not coming out because they really think they won't be state qualifiers?

[Y2CJ41]

Actually you can recruit kids to help with conference championships, or to help the team be above .500, or to get better at football, there are ways to get kids out for the team besides completely changing the state tournament.

As far as the second part of your statement it's too bad people have that mentality. We don't, every kid on our team believes that someday they could have a chance to be a state qualifier, and you know what I would say that about 75-80% of the kids who wrestle all four years do have a realistic shot. They may not accomplish it, but they could have a fighters chance to make it. Really how many kids are not coming out because they really think they won't be state qualifiers?

You had 6 seniors this year with only one of them making it to semi-state and one other making it to regional...that isn't a 75-80% shot of being a state qualifier.  That is 33% have making it to regional...

[Rookies03]

Wrestling is a one on one sport of contestants of equal size and the size of the school doesn't change this. Better wrestling partners, better coaching, better opportunities of off season training, better facilities, more school support are advantages that some wrestlers have over others but this too is not 100% determined by the size of the school. If it was then Carmel, Ben Davis, Penn, North Central would be dominating Wrestling. Ben Davis went 30+ years without a state champ. Penn went 40+ years without a state champ. I use these two as examples because it was noted this year during the State finals.

 

So my first questions would be if there was multiple class wrestling would it change the factors of:

1. better wrestling partners - more kids might go out but will they be better partners?

2. better coaching - I think this is determined by how much a school corp pays and will a few state qualifiers change how much a school pays?

3. better off season training - wont those small schools still be farther away from RTC and different opportunities?

4. better facilities - Would a school build a big wrestling room or weight room because of a few state qualifiers?

5. school support - I can see this improving but not sure how that would translate into better wrestlers?

 

I don't know the answers to these questions I just think that the justification for class wrestling can sometimes get lost.

 

If the goal is to improve Wrestling overall then wouldn't increasing the number of qualifiers within a 1 class system improve wrestling? Shouldn't the focus be on this vs class wrestling? Or is the goal to give an easier path for small schools to get to the state? Isnt that really what class wrestling does?

[KarlHungus]

There is a big difference between the two. Making it to state will still be difficult classed or not. So it isn't like small schools would be able to walk the hallways and say "hey Johnny the tournament is easier now, come out and you'll be a stater this year". Pushing individual goals takes long term focus either way. My kids who say they want to be state qualifiers have generally seen what our finals are about, and they push to get there. I don't think completely changing the make up if the event would help that.

Recruiting a kid to come our for the team to help the team is much easier and offers much more in the way if instant gratification. "Johnny come out, make weight, and we are better than we were without you." From there you hope he can grow to really like the sport and what it offers.

I genuinely don't think that leasing the tournament for the individuals would.make.that much of a difference. The kids who wrestle obviously hope for success in the individual tournament, but usually have to realize that it is long term goal either way. If I'm recruiting that they can be a state qualifier it is going to take them at least three years if its classed or not.

 

You are making up your own criteria again.

 

I noted that your claim that a team state tournament helps you recruit and a class individual tournament is not logical.

 

You twist it into talking about state qualifiers.

 

It is a state tournament....Busco would have more individual sectional champs, regional qualifiers, semi state qualifiers, and occasional state qualifiers.  Instant gratification for some, more realistic long term possibilities for others.  A win, win.  Come to the dark side of logical consistency.

Wrestling is a one on one sport of contestants of equal size and the size of the school doesn't change this. Better wrestling partners, better coaching, better opportunities of off season training, better facilities, more school support are advantages that some wrestlers have over others but this too is not 100% determined by the size of the school. If it was then Carmel, Ben Davis, Penn, North Central would be dominating Wrestling. Ben Davis went 30+ years without a state champ. Penn went 40+ years without a state champ. I use these two as examples because it was noted this year during the State finals.

 

So my first questions would be if there was multiple class wrestling would it change the factors of:

1. better wrestling partners - more kids might go out but will they be better partners?

2. better coaching - I think this is determined by how much a school corp pays and will a few state qualifiers change how much a school pays?

3. better off season training - wont those small schools still be farther away from RTC and different opportunities?

4. better facilities - Would a school build a big wrestling room or weight room because of a few state qualifiers?

5. school support - I can see this improving but not sure how that would translate into better wrestlers?

 

I don't know the answers to these questions I just think that the justification for class wrestling can sometimes get lost.

 

If the goal is to improve Wrestling overall then wouldn't increasing the number of qualifiers within a 1 class system improve wrestling? Shouldn't the focus be on this vs class wrestling? Or is the goal to give an easier path for small schools to get to the state? Isnt that really what class wrestling does?

 

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

4. Yes

[ENoblewrestling]

You had 6 seniors this year with only one of them making it to semi-state and one other making it to regional...that isn't a 75-80% shot of being a state qualifier. That is 33% have making it to regional...

let's say getting to semi-state at least gives you a shot to be a stater that's generally how we look at it, get to.semi-state who knows what will happen.

 

106 beat several semi-staters during the year. Lost two close matches to guys he beat earlier at sectionals. He had a shot.

 

126 was a semi-state qualifier the year before. He had a shot

 

132 semi-state ticket rounder. He had a shot

 

152 bad ankle sprain two weeks before sectionals beat somesemi-state qualifiers during the year. He had a shot

 

160 beat the regional champion in the first round of sectionals, lost two close ones the next two rounds. He had a shot.

 

285- regional qualifier, one match from semi-state he had a shot.

 

Our 182 also was unable to finish the season, he pinned the semi-state runner-up at 195 earlier in the season. He would have had a shot.

 

Point being just because they do not nesacarilly get to where they want to all of those kids still fought hard and in my opinion did have a fair and realistic shot at state. All of them believed that they could have gotten there and we worked to push them to get there. Even if it was unlikely for all of them to make itn they all believed they had a chance which is really all that matters. Instead of complaining about the tournament set-up, pushing the kids to believe in themselves has always seemed like a better coaching technique to me.

Edited March 3, 2015 by buscowrestling

[Y2CJ41]

Wrestling is a one on one sport of contestants of equal size and the size of the school doesn't change this. Better wrestling partners, better coaching, better opportunities of off season training, better facilities, more school support are advantages that some wrestlers have over others but this too is not 100% determined by the size of the school. If it was then Carmel, Ben Davis, Penn, North Central would be dominating Wrestling. Ben Davis went 30+ years without a state champ. Penn went 40+ years without a state champ. I use these two as examples because it was noted this year during the State finals.

 

Schools like Garrett, Churubusco, Central Noble, Southern Wells, Eastside, Fremont, Westview, South Adams, etc have NEVER had a state champion.....NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! You want to pick a few random examples of schools with a state championship drought, but yet fail to realize I can name twice as many that have NEVER even had a state champion. Heck, Westview has yet to even have a state qualifier.

 

1. better wrestling partners - more kids might go out but will they be better partners?

More kids coming out for wrestling means better partners. This is a pretty simply equation...if I have 50 kids on the team my 132lber has a better chance of a quality partner(s) than if we have 20 on the team.

 

2. better coaching - I think this is determined by how much a school corp pays and will a few state qualifiers change how much a school pays?

Coaches aren't in it for the pay...coaches aren't getting paid by the state qualifier. Instead, in the long run more kids will be exposed to college wrestling because they'll be recruited earlier and more often. Thus, they come back to high schools or youth programs and help coach. Another positive for the sport.

 

3. better off season training - wont those small schools still be farther away from RTC and different opportunities?

They type of off-season training and locations won't change. However, if a kid has a successful year(round to go, state qualifier, state placer) they are probably more likely to pursue those opportunities to reach that next level. More kids doing that will be good.

4. better facilities - Would a school build a big wrestling room or weight room because of a few state qualifiers?

No...facilities aren't going to change...better facilities don't happen unless there is a need such as too small of a room for X amount of kids.

5. school support - I can see this improving but not sure how that would translate into better wrestlers?

It will improve, the more success you get...the more support from school and community you will get. People LOVE being associated with winners.

 

 

If the goal is to improve Wrestling overall then wouldn't increasing the number of qualifiers within a 1 class system improve wrestling? Shouldn't the focus be on this vs class wrestling?

It would help some, but it still wouldn't help the smaller schools. They are still going to get a drastically small amount of kids to state.

 

Or is the goal to give an easier path for small schools to get to the state? Isnt that really what class wrestling does?

It will be an easier path to state if we make it a 32 man bracket...so you say we should increase the state bracket, but that won't be easier to qualify? Why not make it that only the semi-state champions qualify for state? That way we have the gosh darn toughest of the tough state tournament. Would that make kids work harder?

[Y2CJ41]

let's say getting to semi-state at least gives you a shot to be a stater that's generally how we look at it, get to.semi-state who knows what will happen.

 

106 beat several semi-staters during the year. Lost two close matches to guys he beat earlier at sectionals. He had a shot.

 

126 was a semi-state qualifier the year before. He had a shot

 

132 semi-state ticket rounder. He had a shot

 

152 bad ankle sprain two weeks before sectionals beat somesemi-state qualifiers during the year. He had a shot

 

160 beat the regional champion in the first round of sectionals, lost two close ones the next two rounds. He had a shot.

 

285- regional qualifier, one match from semi-state he had a shot.

 

Our 182 also was unable to finish the season, he pinned the semi-state runner-up at 195 earlier in the season. He would have had a shot.

 

Point being just because they do not nesacarilly get to where they want to all of those kids still fought hard and in my opinion did have a fair and realistic shot at state. All of them believed that they could have gotten there and we worked to push them to get there. Even if it was unlikely for all of them to make itn they all believed they had a chance which is really all that matters. Instead of complaining about the tournament set-up, pushing the kids to believe in themselves has always seemed like a better coaching technique to me.

Your 160 didn't beat the regional champion and got 6th at sectional

Your 106 was 5th at sectional...he lost to the 3rd guy and was 1-3 against the 4th placer

Your 126 had a losing record

Your 285 was 4th at sectional going against the semi-state champ first round....come on man!

[KarlHungus]

let's say getting to semi-state at least gives you a shot to be a stater that's generally how we look at it, get to.semi-state who knows what will happen.

 

106 beat several semi-staters during the year. Lost two close matches to guys he beat earlier at sectionals. He had a shot.

 

126 was a semi-state qualifier the year before. He had a shot

 

132 semi-state ticket rounder. He had a shot

 

152 bad ankle sprain two weeks before sectionals beat somesemi-state qualifiers during the year. He had a shot

 

160 beat the regional champion in the first round of sectionals, lost two close ones the next two rounds. He had a shot.

 

285- regional qualifier, one match from semi-state he had a shot.

 

Our 182 also was unable to finish the season, he pinned the semi-state runner-up at 195 earlier in the season. He would have had a shot.

 

Point being just because they do not nesacarilly get to where they want to all of those kids still fought hard and in my opinion did have a fair and realistic shot at state. All of them believed that they could have gotten there and we worked to push them to get there. Even if it was unlikely for all of them to make itn they all believed they had a chance which is really all that matters. Instead of complaining about the tournament set-up, pushing the kids to believe in themselves has always seemed like a better coaching technique to me.

 

You said 75-80% have a realistic shot at being a state qualifier.

 

And then you use your heavy being a regional qualifier as an example of someone who "had a chance".  

 

Do you not see the silliness?

[ENoblewrestling]

Your 160 didn't beat the regional champion and got 6th at sectional

Your 106 was 5th at sectional...he lost to the 3rd guy and was 1-3 against the 4th placer

Your 126 had a losing record

Your 285 was 4th at sectional going against the semi-state champ first round....come on man!

  

You said 75-80% have a realistic shot at being a state qualifier.

 

And then you use your heavy being a regional qualifier as an example of someone who "had a chance".  

 

Do you not see the silliness?

106 was 2-2 against the third place kid. 1-2 with the forth place. I guess he had no chance at all to ever beat either of those guys.

 

126 made it to semi-state the year before.

 

160 my bad he beat the regional runner-up at sectional.

 

285 did get fourth, but I think could have realistically taken second. Hell he lost in overtime to a returning semi-state ticket rounder the week before.

 

The silliness to me would be telling these kids who obviously had a shot, that they didn't that's a weak mentality.

 

How does this sound. Which of this six didn't have a realistic shot at getting to at least semi-state?

[Y2CJ41]

 

106 was 2-2 against the third place kid. 1-2 with the forth place. I guess he had no chance at all to ever beat either of those guys.

 

126 made it to semi-state the year before.

 

160 my bad he beat the regional runner-up at sectional.

 

285 did get fourth, but I think could have realistically taken second. Hell he lost in overtime to a returning semi-state ticket rounder the week before.

 

The silliness to me would be telling these kids who obviously had a shot, that they didn't that's a weak mentality.

 

How does this sound. Which of this six didn't have a realistic shot at getting to at least semi-state?

There is this thing called reality, I know where my kids stack up in reality. If you really thought every senior on your team had a shot at state then I'd be pretty disappointed in myself as a coach because you failed the kids.

[KarlHungus]

  

106 was 2-2 against the third place kid. 1-2 with the forth place. I guess he had no chance at all to ever beat either of those guys.

 

126 made it to semi-state the year before.

 

160 my bad he beat the regional runner-up at sectional.

 

285 did get fourth, but I think could have realistically taken second. Hell he lost in overtime to a returning semi-state ticket rounder the week before.

 

The silliness to me would be telling these kids who obviously had a shot, that they didn't that's a weak mentality.

 

How does this sound. Which of this six didn't have a realistic shot at getting to at least semi-state?

Shifting the goalposts again.

 

You said 75-80% have a realistic shot at being a state qualifier and then use silly examples trying to prove your point.  And now you are saying at least semi state.  

 

You seem fixated on state qualifiers but a classed individual tournament would also give you more sectional champs, regional qualifiers, etc, etc.  The same logic that allows you to recruit for a classed team tournament would help you recruit for a classed individual tournament.

Edited March 3, 2015 by KarlHungus

[ENoblewrestling]

Fair enough, you still didn't tell me which of those six didn't have a realistic shot at semi-state?

[Barry Humble Jr.]

Fair enough, you still didn't tell me which of those six didn't have a realistic shot at semi-state?

the 152

[Y2CJ41]

Fair enough, you still didn't tell me which of those six didn't have a realistic shot at semi-state?

Realistic shot at semi-state doesn't mean a realistic shot at state.

 

106, he was 1-4 against the 4th place guy...and wasn't going to see him first round anyway

126 losing record

160 got 6th at sectional...

285 4th...against a state ranked guy with three losses....not realistic

152 ehhh, maybe a semi-state guy if healthy, but wasn't

182...he only wrestled 3.5 seasons, not 4

 

1 senior out of now 7...if you realistically had 7 potential state qualifiers and only got 5 to even regional I would consider my year horrible and take a long hard look at my coaching.

[ENoblewrestling]

Shifting the goalposts again.

 

You said 75-80% have a realistic shot at being a state qualifier and then use silly examples trying to prove your point.  And now you are saying at least semi state.  

 

You seem fixated on state qualifiers but a classed individual tournament would also give you more sectional champs, regional qualifiers, etc, etc.  The same logic that allows you to recruit for a classed team tournament would help you recruit for a classed individual tournament.

I said in the next post that consider that making it to semi-state in my opinion means you have a realistic shot at state.

I'm not shifting anything. I am saying that I don't think we need class wrestling for kids to have a chance to do well in the tournament. I feel that they have generally have a fair shot with out it being classed.

As far as recruiting kids goes the fact that the kids believe they have a shot is just as important as adding a bunch of names to the wall because the tournament changed. Kids are not dumb they would know that the increase in champs came from the change and nothing else, so I really don't see it changing that much for us.