Y2CJ41 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 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. Since everything is fari are you willing to take my bet? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think that making it to regional means you have a realistic shot at making it to semi-state which in turn means you have a realistic shot at making it to state. Honyock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think making it to sectional makes it realistic you'll make it to regional, which makes it realistic that you'll make it to semi-state, which makes it realistic that you'll make it to state.... So REALISTICALLY you have a shot at state if you start at sectional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 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. The numbers don't support your first sentence. I trust the data more than your opinion. But just for kicks...What percentage of your semi-state qualifiers have qualified for state? Yes you are shifting the goalposts. You have done it throughout this thread. Your last sentence continues the theme of logical inconsistency. You have stated that a classed team tournament has helped you recruit kids....are these just the dumb Busco kids? Smart kids would realize that it is a classed tournament and your team success comes only because it is now classed? bog190 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 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? I appreciate your rationale on all of the questions I posed. I think this makes sense and is better than just answering YES. Yes a 32 or as some have proposed a 24 man bracket would be easier than a 16 but it is inclusive to all wrestlers. Doesn't increasing the number of kids at state accomplish all of your reasoning to the questions I asked? If we stay a 1 class system and have 32 kids make it to state wont: 1. More kids come out for wrestling.... 2. More kids go to college so they can come back to their HS to help coach.... 3. Make a kid more likely to attend offseason workouts.... 4. Numbers going up giving the chance for better facilities... 5. Increase school support.... So do you agree that increasing the state qualifiers from 16 to 32 accomplishes the above objectives? This doesn't prove that 1 class is better than multi class but rather just shows that more kids at state is better than less. So the most important question of all..... which is more likely to pass the IHSAA? Class wrestling or expanding our participants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki27 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 All 1A schools should just go through the Ft Wayne SS. Problem solved. UncleJimmy and SooperBod 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I appreciate your rationale on all of the questions I posed. I think this makes sense and is better than just answering YES. Yes a 32 or as some have proposed a 24 man bracket would be easier than a 16 but it is inclusive to all wrestlers. Doesn't increasing the number of kids at state accomplish all of your reasoning to the questions I asked? If we stay a 1 class system and have 32 kids make it to state wont: 1. More kids come out for wrestling.... 2. More kids go to college so they can come back to their HS to help coach.... 3. Make a kid more likely to attend offseason workouts.... 4. Numbers going up giving the chance for better facilities... 5. Increase school support.... So do you agree that increasing the state qualifiers from 16 to 32 accomplishes the above objectives? This doesn't prove that 1 class is better than multi class but rather just shows that more kids at state is better than less. So the most important question of all..... which is more likely to pass the IHSAA? Class wrestling or expanding our participants? 1. Marginal. Still benefits larger schools disproportionately 2. Marginal. Does very little for the smaller programs. 3. Marginal. Maybe a few. 4. Numbers unlikely to go up at smaller programs 5. Unlikely. Smaller school teams would not have any more success and the marginal number of small school increases would have limited effect. No....simply increasing the number would not have much of an effect. I would guess that classing cross country, track and wrestling would be easier than having 32 at state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I appreciate your rationale on all of the questions I posed. I think this makes sense and is better than just answering YES. Yes a 32 or as some have proposed a 24 man bracket would be easier than a 16 but it is inclusive to all wrestlers. Doesn't increasing the number of kids at state accomplish all of your reasoning to the questions I asked? If we stay a 1 class system and have 32 kids make it to state wont: 1. More kids come out for wrestling.... 2. More kids go to college so they can come back to their HS to help coach.... 3. Make a kid more likely to attend offseason workouts.... 4. Numbers going up giving the chance for better facilities... 5. Increase school support.... So do you agree that increasing the state qualifiers from 16 to 32 accomplishes the above objectives? This doesn't prove that 1 class is better than multi class but rather just shows that more kids at state is better than less. So the most important question of all..... which is more likely to pass the IHSAA? Class wrestling or expanding our participants? More kids to state overall would have an affect, but not at the same level as splitting into two classes. You would be way better off splitting into one class of 16 qualifiers and one of 8(small schools) and thus guaranteeing 112 state qualifiers from small schools and 14 champions along with 56 placers. That would do way more than having 100 state qualifiers and still only 13 state placers from 1A schools. Note those are based on a 2 class system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachkrulik Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I don't really respond to these posts (I'm a history teacher and hate anything that has to do with math and numbers). The bottom line is that it is up to the coaching staff to build relationships with community to increase their participation and involvement in wrestling...regardless of size. A great coach and a great staff from elementary on up can do great things for a community. It's simple; not easy, but simple. Hard work gets it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomer Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Ive been staying out of this discussion this year but i do have a question for any collage coaches who may be on hear. When recruiting and giving scholarship money out do you look at say a kid from Michigan who is a 2 time state qualifier from there small school division as a better recruit then say an Indiana kid who was a couple time regional qualifier and a 1 time semi-state qualifier. Giving they have the same win loss record over the last few years? Just trying to see if collages look at divisions from other states as a positive or negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Neither are getting athletic scholarship money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 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. how many of the large schools, in a 2 class system, have never had a state champion ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 how many of the large schools, in a 2 class system, have never had a state champion ? go figure it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 go figure it out wink ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I don't really respond to these posts (I'm a history teacher and hate anything that has to do with math and numbers). The bottom line is that it is up to the coaching staff to build relationships with community to increase their participation and involvement in wrestling...regardless of size. A great coach and a great staff from elementary on up can do great things for a community. It's simple; not easy, but simple. Hard work gets it done. Have you ever taught or coached in a small school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cward Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Y2… that stats you have posted are what stand out to me the most from all of this. I have always been against classes as I feel our tourney is special because it is such an honor to be the single best kid in each weight. I wrestled two Michigan state champs in a tourney and beat one 5-4, and got teched by the other one in the first period. I was no all star by any means. But back to the numbers, have you looked at years past to see if this is a trend? Curious if the # of qualifiers from 1a has increased or decreased over the years Y2… that stats you have posted are what stand out to me the most from all of this. I have always been against classes as I feel our tourney is special because it is such an honor to be the single best kid in each weight. I wrestled two Michigan state champs in a tourney and beat one 5-4, and got teched by the other one in the first period. I was no all star by any means. But back to the numbers, have you looked at years past to see if this is a trend? Curious if the # of qualifiers from 1a has increased or decreased over the years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachkrulik Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Have you ever taught or coached in a small school? I fail to see why this is relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the coaching staff I am a part of works tirelessly for 300+ days a year for our kids. Once again, time spent (i.e. hard work) will produce positive results. If you put in the time necessary you will have more success. The kids will see and respect your work ethic/high standards and it carries over. As previously stated; it's simple, not easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chambers Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I fail to see why this is relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the coaching staff I am a part of works tirelessly for 300+ days a year for our kids. Once again, time spent (i.e. hard work) will produce positive results. If you put in the time necessary you will have more success. The kids will see and respect your work ethic/high standards and it carries over. As previously stated; it's simple, not easy. How many kids did you have on your team this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I fail to see why this is relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the coaching staff I am a part of works tirelessly for 300+ days a year for our kids. Once again, time spent (i.e. hard work) will produce positive results. If you put in the time necessary you will have more success. The kids will see and respect your work ethic/high standards and it carries over. As previously stated; it's simple, not easy. It is relevant because you say that (implied: equivalent levels of) success and participation can be built regardless of size using the same basic formula. It would be difficult to ascertain this without experiencing both. Have you ever taught or coached at a small school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I fail to see why this is relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the coaching staff I am a part of works tirelessly for 300+ days a year for our kids. Once again, time spent (i.e. hard work) will produce positive results. If you put in the time necessary you will have more success. The kids will see and respect your work ethic/high standards and it carries over. As previously stated; it's simple, not easy. It is simple if you have a staff and kids that can give 300+ days a year. This not realistic for most small school staffs or kids. That is why the question was relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I fail to see why this is relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the coaching staff I am a part of works tirelessly for 300+ days a year for our kids. Once again, time spent (i.e. hard work) will produce positive results. If you put in the time necessary you will have more success. The kids will see and respect your work ethic/high standards and it carries over. As previously stated; it's simple, not easy. What if most your staff coaches another sport or two? How many kids at Perry are multi-sport athletes? For about 10 years I would spend every Wednesday driving to Mishawaka, every Saturday in a gym across the state, and another two days a week at our own club. I put 20,000 miles a year on my "weekend car" going to these places. The best that ever yielded was a sectional 2nd place and about 15 state qualifiers. At a school 4X the size I have almost half as many state qualifiers in only two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Last 5 years of data, semi-consistent [table] [/td] Qualifiers Placers Qualifiers Placers [td]1A2A 1A 2A 1A 2A 3A 1A 2A 3A 2015 43 181 13 99 21 62 141 5 23 84 2014 41 183 11 101 26 58 151 1 27 84 2013 44 180 20 92 20 56 148 8 28 76 2012 46 178 22 90 21 56 147 7 26 79 2011 56 168 26 86 24 59 141 9 29 74 [/table] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Humble Jr. Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Last 5 years of data, semi-consistent [table][/td]QualifiersPlacersQualifiersPlacers[td]1A2A1A2A1A2A3A1A2A3A201543181139921621415238420144118311101265815112784201344180209220561488287620124617822902156147726792011561682686245914192974[/table] numbers don't mean much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 For about 10 years I would spend every Wednesday driving to Mishawaka, every Saturday in a gym across the state, and another two days a week at our own club. I put 20,000 miles on my "weekend car" a year going to these places. The best that ever yielded was a sectional 2nd place and about 15 state qualifiers. At a school 4X the size I have almost half as many state qualifiers in only two years. But you were building a program... Garrett was growing in success, and even had some success again this year.. Who knows what would have happened if you would have chosen to stay? Maybe the upward trend would have continued at a higher rate... The school you coach at now was not building a program but rather already had one in place.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Humble Jr. Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 But you were building a program... Garrett was growing in success, and even had some success again this year.. Who knows what would have happened if you would have chosen to stay? Maybe the upward trend would have continued at a higher rate... The school you coach at now was not building a program but rather already had one in place.. How many coaches want or can put that much time into a few kids. 20,000 miles a week isn't cheap.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts