Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) School size matters for TEAMS not individuals. More practice partners wont make better practice partners and so on. If you took the whole student population of garret and swapped it out with the same number of kids from a large school there would likely be just as many good wrestlers from the new population as the old. Its just due to the probability of having and exceptional athlete within a certain sample size. Obviously the larger the sample size the higher the probability. Now this isn't saying that a big schools exceptional wrestlers are any better than a small schools exceptional wrestlers... This is determined by the effort and time they spend on the mat. "The kids will start at a younger age and they will also choose wrestling over the other sports during the off-season. I would venture to say state qualifiers do more in the offseason than semi-state qualifiers, and semi-state qualifiers put more time in the offseason than regional qualifiers, and so on. Would you not agree?" So your saying the exact same thing the other guy is... The way you get better is by investing more time and energy into the sport... not by simply being at a big school Edited March 5, 2015 by Super_Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 School size matters for TEAMS not individuals. More practice partners wont make better practice partners and so on. If you took the whole student population of garret and swapped it out with the same number of kids from a large school there would likely be just as many good wrestlers from the new population as the old. Its just due to the probability of having and exceptional athlete within a certain sample size. Obviously the larger the sample size the higher the probability. Now this isn't saying that a big schools exceptional wrestlers are any better than a small schools exceptional wrestlers... This is determined by the effort and time they spend on the mat. "The kids will start at a younger age and they will also choose wrestling over the other sports during the off-season. I would venture to say state qualifiers do more in the offseason than semi-state qualifiers, and semi-state qualifiers put more time in the offseason than regional qualifiers, and so on. Would you not agree?" So your saying the exact same thing the other guy is... The way you get better is by investing more time and energy into the sport... not by simply being at a big school Does this mean you will take the bet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So kids at small schools should be forced to do all sports even if they do not want to? Is that what you are saying? Small school kids must do 2-3 sports or sports die. I can't think of one example in 22 years of coaching where a kid was forced or pressured to play a sport they didn't want to. That's a recipe for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldandbroke Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 What if the Ihsaa would get rid of the rules that say your kids can't wrestle in clubs, rtc's etc during the season...What if your 120 pounder could drive 30 minutes a couple times a week to meet a kid at another school to practice, say a 126 pounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chambers Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 School size matters for TEAMS not individuals. More practice partners wont make better practice partners and so on. If you took the whole student population of garret and swapped it out with the same number of kids from a large school there would likely be just as many good wrestlers from the new population as the old. Its just due to the probability of having and exceptional athlete within a certain sample size. Obviously the larger the sample size the higher the probability. Now this isn't saying that a big schools exceptional wrestlers are any better than a small schools exceptional wrestlers... This is determined by the effort and time they spend on the mat. "The kids will start at a younger age and they will also choose wrestling over the other sports during the off-season. I would venture to say state qualifiers do more in the offseason than semi-state qualifiers, and semi-state qualifiers put more time in the offseason than regional qualifiers, and so on. Would you not agree?" So your saying the exact same thing the other guy is... The way you get better is by investing more time and energy into the sport... not by simply being at a big school The school size does matter for individuals. I coach at Tecumseh. We are a small school with 282 students. Around half of those are boys. On my team this year we had a forfeit at 113. In the entire school there were just three boys that were small enough to wrestle 113. One of them was my 106. Another was my 120. He could have cut to 113 if his parents signed the paperwork for the weight control program. Then I would have had a forfeit at 120. The only other boy in the school who could have been 113 is on the swimming team. My 106 was a first year wrestler who moved into the school this year. Now I will compare that to Castle because they are nearby and I saw their JV team at a few tournaments. Castle has 1861 students. IF I remember right they had around 4 106 pound wrestlers this year. I don't know how many 113s they had. My 106 has to practice with our 120 or 126. He gets a lot out of it because those guys have been wrestling awhile and can teach him alot. The problem is that the guy wrestling him gets very little out of the time they are practicing with the 106 because they are so much better. I like the effort I get from our 106 and I think he will turn out to be a good wrestler in time. Right now as a practice partner he is not a positive. The 120 and 126 can do anything they want at anytime and he cannot stop them. Castle on the other hand has several guys at each weight so they can find a good practice partner for all of their varsity guys. IU89, KarlHungus and RAJR 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Does this mean you will take the bet? It means his bet is ludacris. Obviously when i have a sample size of hundreds of thousands I would be more likely to pick more state caliber wrestlers than if i have a sample size of tens of thousands no matter how many from each we picked... If you wanted to make this bet it would have to be a random drawling from students in the ENTIRE sample size to make it fair, not just the varsity line up. The school size does matter for individuals. I coach at Tecumseh. We are a small school with 282 students. Around half of those are boys. On my team this year we had a forfeit at 113. In the entire school there were just three boys that were small enough to wrestle 113. One of them was my 106. Another was my 120. He could have cut to 113 if his parents signed the paperwork for the weight control program. Then I would have had a forfeit at 120. The only other boy in the school who could have been 113 is on the swimming team. My 106 was a first year wrestler who moved into the school this year. Now I will compare that to Castle because they are nearby and I saw their JV team at a few tournaments. Castle has 1861 students. IF I remember right they had around 4 106 pound wrestlers this year. I don't know how many 113s they had. My 106 has to practice with our 120 or 126. He gets a lot out of it because those guys have been wrestling awhile and can teach him alot. The problem is that the guy wrestling him gets very little out of the time they are practicing with the 106 because they are so much better. I like the effort I get from our 106 and I think he will turn out to be a good wrestler in time. Right now as a practice partner he is not a positive. The 120 and 126 can do anything they want at anytime and he cannot stop them. Castle on the other hand has several guys at each weight so they can find a good practice partner for all of their varsity guys. So how would class wrestling get you any more kids in that weight class to come to your school district? It wouldn't you have what you have... You say "The problem is that the guy wrestling him gets very little out of the time they are practicing with the 106 because they are so much better." Isn't this just proving the point that by just having more kids on the team doesn't equate to BETTER kids on the team? or BETTER kids overall in the state? In my opnion having more qualifiers for the state tourny is the best solution for both sides. It makes it more "fair" for you class advocates but still allows for a compilation of the best wrestlers from the whole state. And here is why i think this: As Y2 stated before in this thread a DI college program isn't likely to give an athletic scholarship to even a state champion from a small school division. So when we class wrestling aren't we now telling kids if they want a college scholarship to wrestle they have to go to a big school anyways? Isn't this going to limit the overall potential of a small school wrestler who decides he wants to commit to the time and effort it takes on the mat to reach that level? If we just have more qualifiers it will still allow those few individuals at small schools that want to devote their time and effort to wrestling to still have the exact same spot light a wrestler from a big school would have. Edited March 5, 2015 by Super_Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So you are saying that school size matters then right? Because if you are then that is the reason we have chosen to class athletics. So are you saying that the stud wrestler/ good football that really wants to reach his ultimate goal of being a state champion and wants to make the decision to focus only on wrestling in order to do something for HIMSELF that means ALOT to him, that kid has to sacrifice the time he could spend working hard to achieve his dream of getting a state wrestling title to instead spend his time playing football so he doesn't let down his team? And just because he is from a small school? That is the message I am getting from your example of Zach McCray. So kids at small schools should be forced to do all sports even if they do not want to? Is that what you are saying? I understand why kids doing other sports at small schools are important. I live that life everyday, but what I do not agree with is making a kid put his goal on hold for another sport if that's not what he wants to do. That seems to be what you are implying. You seem to misunderstand the dynamics of small school athletics which baffles me since you are at a small school. What you fail to realize is that there are 50 Zac's roaming the halls at Carroll, the football team gets a few, the baseball team gets a few, wrestling gets a few, etc. At Garrett we had a couple of them...and if we wanted to be successful we had to share him. He's a one sport athlete at Carroll, he's a 2-3 sport athlete at Garrett. Add to that he gets three or four state level practice partners at Carroll versus one at Garrett. I'm sure that makes a difference also. That in a nutshell is the difference between big and small schools, which you are the last person that I should be explaining that to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chambers Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It means his bet is ludacris. Obviously when i have a sample size of hundreds of thousands I would be more likely to pick more state caliber wrestlers than if i have a sample size of tens of thousands no matter how many from each we picked... If you wanted to make this bet it would have to be a random drawling from students in the ENTIRE sample size to make it fair, not just the varsity line up. So how would class wrestling get you any more kids in that weight class to come to your school district? It wouldn't you have what you have... You say "The problem is that the guy wrestling him gets very little out of the time they are practicing with the 106 because they are so much better." Isn't this just proving the point that by just having more kids on the team doesn't equate to BETTER kids on the team? or BETTER kids overall in the state? In my opnion having more qualifiers for the state tourny is the best solution for both sides. It makes it more "fair" for you class advocates but still allows for a compilation of the best wrestlers from the whole state. And here is why i think this: As Y2 stated before in this thread a DI college program isn't likely to give an athletic scholarship to even a state champion from a small school division. So when we class wrestling aren't we now telling kids if they want a college scholarship to wrestle they have to go to a big school anyways? Isn't this going to limit the overall potential of a small school wrestler who decides he wants to commit to the time and effort it takes on the mat to reach that level? If we just have more qualifiers it will still allow those few individuals at small schools that want to devote their time and effort to wrestling to still have the exact same spot light a wrestler from a big school would have. Class wrestling would not get me more 113's because the kids just are not there in the school. What I might get is more 120's or 126's. That way 50% of my varsity 120 or varsity 126's time would not be spent wrestling with the 106. It could be spread around more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Class wrestling would not get me more 113's because the kids just are not there in the school. What I might get is more 120's or 126's. That way 50% of my varsity 120 or varsity 126's time would not be spent wrestling with the 106. It could be spread around more. So these new 120 or 126 kids would magically be better than the 106? They would likely still be on the same skill level as the 106 so now they just get to wrestle kids that weigh more but are just as lacking skill wise..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chambers Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So these new 120 or 126 kids would magically be better than the 106? They would likely still be on the same skill level as the 106 so now they just get to wrestle kids that weigh more but are just as lacking skill wise..... Who said anything about the new 120 or 126 being better (magically or any other way) than the 106? The varsity 120 and 126 I have can wrestle each other. The new 120 or 126 could wrestle the 106. They would be at the same skill level as you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So these new 120 or 126 kids would magically be better than the 106? They would likely still be on the same skill level as the 106 so now they just get to wrestle kids that weigh more but are just as lacking skill wise..... More kids on the team is a good thing, isn't it? Or do you only want good wrestlers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It means his bet is ludacris. Obviously when i have a sample size of hundreds of thousands I would be more likely to pick more state caliber wrestlers than if i have a sample size of tens of thousands no matter how many from each we picked... If you wanted to make this bet it would have to be a random drawling from students in the ENTIRE sample size to make it fair, not just the varsity line up. Why would you select potential state finalists from wrestlers not in the varsity line up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 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? Reminder, this is the bet... You get 7x as many wrestlers in your stable. If the 1A wrestlers simply need to work hard enough and that's it, then this is clearly slanted in the 1A selector's favor, unless the person declining the 1A pool feels that the 1A wrestlers, in fact don't work as hard as the 3A wrestlers. If both groups work equally as hard, and a large school wrestler does not have a significant advantage over a small school wrestler, this clearly favors the 1A selector. It would be ludicrous to turn down a bet such as this. Even if the number of 1A varsity wrestlers at sectional is half that of 3A, then the advantage only increases for the 1A selector. Again, unless you think that the 1A wrestlers don't work as hard as the 3A wrestlers, and by a substantial margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 School size matters for TEAMS not individuals. More practice partners wont make better practice partners and so on. If you took the whole student population of garret and swapped it out with the same number of kids from a large school there would likely be just as many good wrestlers from the new population as the old. Its just due to the probability of having and exceptional athlete within a certain sample size. Obviously the larger the sample size the higher the probability. Now this isn't saying that a big schools exceptional wrestlers are any better than a small schools exceptional wrestlers... This is determined by the effort and time they spend on the mat. "The kids will start at a younger age and they will also choose wrestling over the other sports during the off-season. I would venture to say state qualifiers do more in the offseason than semi-state qualifiers, and semi-state qualifiers put more time in the offseason than regional qualifiers, and so on. Would you not agree?" So your saying the exact same thing the other guy is... The way you get better is by investing more time and energy into the sport... not by simply being at a big school If school size doesn't matter for individuals then why won't you take me up on my bet? You get 700 individuals and I get 100 individuals. True or False: Every wrestler that enters the sectional tournament has an equal chance of making it to state. They each have to win 5-6 matches to qualify for the state finals. Galagore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Who said anything about the new 120 or 126 being better (magically or any other way) than the 106? The varsity 120 and 126 I have can wrestle each other. The new 120 or 126 could wrestle the 106. They would be at the same skill level as you said. So now the 106 kid losses out... Either way someone loses More kids on the team is a good thing, isn't it? Or do you only want good wrestlers? More kids is good. But that doesn't mean that kids will be BETTER. As we discussed earlier if kids want to reach that elite level they have to put in the mat time. 2 average kids wrestling each other likely wont create a state caliber kid. Your bet is ludacris because the fact of the matter is those 3A schools have selected 14 kids for their vasity team out of THOUSANDS. 1A schools have selected 14 kids out of a few HUNDRED. BEFORE we even pick our 700/100 kids... So the sample size isn't the varsity teams the sample size is the student population... How don't you guys understand this fact??? So the bet really looks like this: I get to pick 700 out of 10,000 kids to make it to state While you get to pick 100 out of 150,000 kids to make it to state. Who has better odds of having more state caliber wrestlers??? Edited March 5, 2015 by Super_Fan ENoblewrestling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So now the 106 kid losses out... Either way someone loses More kids is good. But that doesn't mean that kids will be BETTER. As we discussed earlier if kids want to reach that elite level they have to put in the mat time. 2 average kids wrestling each other likely wont create a state caliber kid. Your bet is ludacris because the fact of the matter is those 3A schools have selected 14 kids for their vasity team out of THOUSANDS. 1A schools have selected 14 kids out of a few HUNDRED. BEFORE we even pick our 700/100 kids... So the sample size isn't the varsity teams the sample size is the student population... How don't you guys understand this fact??? Because the student population isn't on the mat sectional Saturday. The varsity wrestler is. These are individuals, not teams. So why do these large school individuals seem more preferable than the small school ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chambers Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So now the 106 kid losses out... Either way someone loses More kids is good. But that doesn't mean that kids will be BETTER. As we discussed earlier if kids want to reach that elite level they have to put in the mat time. 2 average kids wrestling each other likely wont create a state caliber kid. Your bet is ludacris because the fact of the matter is those 3A schools have selected 14 kids for their vasity team out of THOUSANDS. 1A schools have selected 14 kids out of a few HUNDRED. BEFORE we even pick our 700/100 kids... So the sample size isn't the varsity teams the sample size is the student population... How don't you guys understand this fact??? Explain how you think the 106 kid loses out? I believe that he would actually be helped. At this time my 106 can drill with the varsity 120 or 126. He also has to wrestle live with the varsity 120 or 126. He gets nothing out of wrestling live with the varsity 120 or 126 because they are so much better he can not work anything. A new 120 or 126 would give him someone he could work some moves on and get match like experience. Y2CJ41 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So now the 106 kid losses out... Either way someone loses More kids is good. But that doesn't mean that kids will be BETTER. As we discussed earlier if kids want to reach that elite level they have to put in the mat time. 2 average kids wrestling each other likely wont create a state caliber kid. Your bet is ludacris because the fact of the matter is those 3A schools have selected 14 kids for their vasity team out of THOUSANDS. 1A schools have selected 14 kids out of a few HUNDRED. BEFORE we even pick our 700/100 kids... So the sample size isn't the varsity teams the sample size is the student population... How don't you guys understand this fact??? So the bet really looks like this: I get to pick 700 out of 10,000 kids to make it to state While you get to pick 100 out of 150,000 kids to make it to state. Who has better odds of having more state caliber wrestlers??? How is the 106lber losing out? He has two more practice partners....again what is bad about that? More kids on the team is good, more kids exposed to wrestling is good. I don't care if the kid is going to be a state champ or JV for life, if he works hard and has a good attitude I want him on the team. It's funny you say more kids coming out for wrestling won't make the sport better...then you go and say that schools with MORE kids are better and have better kids. Our sample sizes are the same, varsity wrestlers in the state of Indiana, which are about 3600. That is our sample. I don't care about any other kids, whether they wrestle or not. I'll give you 700 of those varsity wrestlers and I'll take 100 of them. Why won't you take my bet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 How is the 106lber losing out? He has two more practice partners....again what is bad about that? More kids on the team is good, more kids exposed to wrestling is good. I don't care if the kid is going to be a state champ or JV for life, if he works hard and has a good attitude I want him on the team. It's funny you say more kids coming out for wrestling won't make the sport better...then you go and say that schools with MORE kids are better and have better kids. Our sample sizes are the same, varsity wrestlers in the state of Indiana, which are about 3600. That is our sample. I don't care about any other kids, whether they wrestle or not. I'll give you 700 of those varsity wrestlers and I'll take 100 of them. Why won't you take my bet? I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. No one is saying that bigger schools shouldn't be expected to have more state qualifiers. What they are saying is that it doesn't have that big of an effect on any one individuals chance at state.Your bet your putting out there gives you a choice of 100 kids that statistically should make up 63 percent of the state qualifiers. The other side gets to choose 700 kids out of a group that statistically should make up 13% of the state qualifiers. I don't see how people can't see that. The 100 is the better choice because you should expect 63 percent of the state qualifiers to come from that group. Not because of some advantage that they have, but simply because they make up 63% of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. No one is saying that bigger schools shouldn't be expected to have more state qualifiers. What they are saying is that it doesn't have that big of an effect on any one individuals chance at state. Your bet your putting out there gives you a choice of 100 kids that statistically should make up 63 percent of the state qualifiers. The other side gets to choose 700 kids out of a group that statistically should make up 13% of the state qualifiers. I don't see how people can't see that. The 100 is the better choice because you should expect 63 percent of the state qualifiers to come from that group. Not because of some advantage that they have, but simply because they make up 63% of the population. Those 100 kids you are pointing to make up 3% of the population of varsity wrestlers. I'm not talking about any other group of people other than varsity wrestlers in Indiana. Why should I include the 2000 kids at Carroll who aren't even on the wrestling team or the 350 kids at Churubusco that aren't on the wrestling team? Those people have no bearing what-so-ever on wrestling state qualifiers in the state. None, zilch, nada, NOTHING to do with whether Josh Garman gets to state or if Chase Downing gets to state. If you can identify a group of these 3600 wrestlers and say "this group has one thing in common and it gives them an advantage" then you should want to class individual wrestling. Everyone has an equal shot at making it to state right? Everyone has to win 5 or 6 matches to qualify for state, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winwithike Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Narrowing it down to just varsity wrestlers is your problem. JV guys count too. The journey doesn't start at sectionals, it starts back in October when practices start. Everyone that makes varsity and gets to enter the tourney has beaten out everyone else in their weight class at their school. At the beginning of the season everyone that wrestles has an equal chance at making it to state, varsity or JV or whatever. By comparing only varsity you are eliminating a huge percentage of wrestlers and saying they don't matter and thats not fair. Wrestlers at a bigger school likely have a tougher journey before sectionals start and that shouldn't be discredited. If a guy has to beat out 4 others just to make varsity, he is likely better than a guy who only had to beat out one other and in turn has a better chance to advance, that's basic math. But the comparison shouldn't be between the two, but rather the 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) If you are basing it on population, 1a (which has 13% of the state's student population) should get 29 qualifiers (13% of 224), the last 5 years 1a has 21 (9.4%), 26 (11.6%), 20 (8.9%), 21 (9.4%) and 24 (10.7%). If all is fair individually as you say, the placers should follow student population as well and 1a should have 14.5 placers per year, lets call it 14. The last 5 years 1a has had 5 (4.5%), 1 (less than 1%), 8 (7.1%), 7 (6.3%) and 9 (8%). Each of the past 5 years they have been short on qualifiers, and extremely short on placers. Why is this? Busco, you wanted me to respond to you so badly, so please explain why there is such a shortfall of qualifiers and especially placers compared to student population, since the size of the school doesn't matter for individuals. Edited March 5, 2015 by bog190 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Narrowing it down to just varsity wrestlers is your problem. JV guys count too. The journey doesn't start at sectionals, it starts back in October when practices start. Everyone that makes varsity and gets to enter the tourney has beaten out everyone else in their weight class at their school. At the beginning of the season everyone that wrestles has an equal chance at making it to state, varsity or JV or whatever. By comparing only varsity you are eliminating a huge percentage of wrestlers and saying they don't matter and thats not fair. Wrestlers at a bigger school likely have a tougher journey before sectionals start and that shouldn't be discredited. If a guy has to beat out 4 others just to make varsity, he is likely better than a guy who only had to beat out one other and in turn has a better chance to advance, that's basic math. But the comparison shouldn't be between the two, but rather the 7 But the selection is made at sectional. So varsity rosters are already established. Also, suppose the large school population is significantly larger. That would make only getting 100 chances to select state qualifiers MORE difficult than selecting 700 candidates from a smaller population. Supposing, of course that each individual has an equally likely opportunity to qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) But the selection is made at sectional. So varsity rosters are already established. Also, suppose the large school population is significantly larger. That would make only getting 100 chances to select state qualifiers MORE difficult than selecting 700 candidates from a smaller population. Supposing, of course that each individual has an equally likely opportunity to qualify.But they don't simply based on probability of having an elite athelete in your school district. Most 1a varsity kids would be jv at a 3a school because at the 3a school they would have a much higher probability of having an elite athelete... Make sense? Idk how else to explain this to you guys. Maybe you should sit in on the prob and stats class at your high school and they could do a better job explaining it to you since we are failing at it...Busco, you wanted me to respond to you so badly, so please explain why there is such a shortfall of qualifiers and especially placers compared to student population, since the size of the school doesn't matter for individuals.Maybe it's because most 3a school don't want to waste their time wrestling schools with (due to probability) only a couple state level kids on the whole team. So when these kids make it to state they lack the experience throughout the season to wrestle well under the pressure of being at state??? Just a thought though Edited March 5, 2015 by Super_Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Busco, you wanted me to respond to you so badly, so please explain why there is such a shortfall of qualifiers and especially placers compared to student population, since the size of the school doesn't matter for individuals. Qualifiers are generally with-in 2-3% of what you would expect, I wouldn't see that as being this devastating statistic that others consider it, and if we looked close I am sure there are a myriad of reasons for that missing 2-3%. Placers is the only stat that I do see as being truly statistically off of where it should be from simply looking at the population statistics. That was a tough one to explain, but I think you could probably look at it as being that having a state placer is such a rare occurrence that the characteristics simply do not exist with-in that population from year to year. What I mean by this is we are tracking a skill- wrestling ability. At each round of the tournament that skill gets refined more and more. Each time we go to another level of the tournament there are fewer people who have this skill. I would say that the drop in qualifiers and placers at the small schools is simply that with-in their populations no one has the skill which we are looking at, not to the fault of anything other than their population not having someone with that skill. Super_Fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts