bog190 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Yet you see no disadvantage for the smaller schools within the logic you just posted? If all is fair on an individual basis, why is that skill set not available within the 1a population? Are the kids not putting in the work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Yet you see no disadvantage for the smaller schools within the logic you just posted? If all is fair on an individual basis, why is that skill set not available within the 1a population? Are the kids not putting in the work?It is but just on a smaller basis. When you have 2000 kids in each school you will have a higher probability of kids having those skills compared to a school with only 500 kids. The disadvantage is that those schools only have 500 kids in their student population. If every school had the same population it would be as "fair" as you guys want. Edited March 5, 2015 by Super_Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 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. If being a qualifier or skill based and not genetics or numbers dependent, there have to be other factors that cause the huge disparity in the number of qualifiers/placers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It is but just on a smaller basis. When you have 2000 kids in each school you will have a higher probability of kids having those skills compared to a school with only 500 kids. The disadvantage is that those schools only have 500 kids in their student population. If every school had the same population it would be as "fair" as you guys want. But it should be proportional with the size of the population then, right? 1a should have 13% of the qualifiers, 13% of the placers and 13% of the champs. Why don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It is but just on a smaller basis. When you have 2000 kids in each school you will have a higher probability of kids having those skills compared to a school with only 500 kids. The disadvantage is that those schools only have 500 kids in their student population. If every school had the same population it would be as "fair" as you guys want. If it is a skill that can be learned, the 14 for for Busco should be able to be as skilled as Carroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldandbroke Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 There are a lot of kids putting in the work. But the depth of the room kills the elite kids going to the smaller schools. Unless you're extremely lucky and have two wrestlers close in age and size or a very good coach for them to wrestle with, the skills developed during the off season are not as sharp as the season progresses. Everyone agrees the odds of two elite kids being at the same small school not very high... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 But it should be proportional with the size of the population then, right? 1a should have 13% of the qualifiers, 13% of the placers and 13% of the champs. Why don't they? It should be, but eventually that skill set becomes so refined that it simply may not exist in every small school. Lets Say 1 in every 1200 have the skill set needed to be a state placer. That would mean that in a school with 1200 kids there would be 1 kid with the skill to be a qualifier. Lets say you have a group of small schools- 200, 200, 500, 500 kids. That means that out of those schools combined 1 kid would have the needed skill set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It should be, but eventually that skill set becomes so refined that it simply may not exist in every small school. Lets Say 1 in every 1200 have the skill set needed to be a state placer. That would mean that in a school with 1200 kids there would be 1 kid with the skill to be a qualifier. Lets say you have a group of small schools- 200, 200, 500, 500 kids. That means that out of those schools combined 1 kid would have the needed skill set. Skills are learned ability. Should have nothing to do with enrollment numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It should be, but eventually that skill set becomes so refined that it simply may not exist in every small school. Lets Say 1 in every 1200 have the skill set needed to be a state placer. That would mean that in a school with 1200 kids there would be 1 kid with the skill to be a qualifier. Lets say you have a group of small schools- 200, 200, 500, 500 kids. That means that out of those schools combined 1 kid would have the needed skill set. You are proving my point. The skills aren't proportional to population, which is the metric you wanted to use, 1a should have 13% of the qualifiers, placers and champs, but they don't, and aren't close on the higher end. Why is this? Because it certainly isn't because there are disadvantages, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Sam, Answer these three questions 1. True or False: At sectional each kid has an equal chance of making the state finals, becoming a state placer, and becoming a state champion. 2. There are 138lbers from three schools, Garrett, Churubusco, and Carroll. All good programs with good coaching, if you are a betting man which one will you put your money on to make the state finals? 3. Why do we class athletics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 But it should be proportional with the size of the population then, right? 1a should have 13% of the qualifiers, 13% of the placers and 13% of the champs. Why don't they? They are a few percentage short how is this the worst thing in the world? If we class wrestling we now have an even distribution across the board. 50% and 50% when there is a much smaller group of people to compete against and still win a state championship isn't this an even BIGGER advantage for small schools than the few percentage problem we have now??? I would go on to bet that if we increased the numbers slightly to include more wrestlers at state we would see the numbers come a little closer to what they should be... If it is a skill that can be learned, the 14 for for Busco should be able to be as skilled as Carroll. But the fact is it is a combination of all those things. (Genetics, skill, mental toughness, coachability and so on...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldandbroke Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 What would the current tourney lose by classing? About 20 kids from small schools that all but about 5 go home Friday night. So if you class it, you non class guys should be happy since we now have removed most of the "Lucky draw" kids out and allow another 20 or so elite guys that have been putting in the work and should have been there to now wrestle. The little schools can go wrestle in their little kiddy tourney and if they are happy winning it you can always tell them it's not a real championship. They could wrestle the kiddy tourney on a week night at a High school somewhere so it won't interfere with or be confused with the real tourney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 They are a few percentage short how is this the worst thing in the world? If we class wrestling we now have an even distribution across the board. 50% and 50% when there is a much smaller group of people to compete against and still win a state championship isn't this an even BIGGER advantage for small schools than the few percentage problem we have now??? I would go on to bet that if we increased the numbers slightly to include more wrestlers at state we would see the numbers come a little closer to what they should be... But the fact is it is a combination of all those things. (Genetics, skill, mental toughness, coachability and so on...) ....and practice partners and coaching and access to off-season training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Sam, Answer these three questions 1. True or False: At sectional each kid has an equal chance of making the state finals, becoming a state placer, and becoming a state champion. 2. There are 138lbers from three schools, Garrett, Churubusco, and Carroll. All good programs with good coaching, if you are a betting man which one will you put your money on to make the state finals? 3. Why do we class athletics? 1. False (Because carroll has 2000 kids to find 14 good wrestlers and garrett has say only 500 kids to find 14 good wrestlers. So obviously carroll should be able to have a more sound group of 14 wrestlers.) 2. Carroll because of the fact stated above 3. We class athletics because proportionate to school population larger schools have a higher probability of finding a GROUP of individuals that excell at a certain task. Not that because the larger school 138 pounder is better than a small schools 138 pounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 They are a few percentage short how is this the worst thing in the world? If we class wrestling we now have an even distribution across the board. 50% and 50% when there is a much smaller group of people to compete against and still win a state championship isn't this an even BIGGER advantage for small schools than the few percentage problem we have now??? I would go on to bet that if we increased the numbers slightly to include more wrestlers at state we would see the numbers come a little closer to what they should be... But the fact is it is a combination of all those things. (Genetics, skill, mental toughness, coachability and so on...) If we add 56 qualifiers the percentages will still be nearly identical. Of those 56 qualifiers you're still only going to get 10-16 more 1A kids to state. Instead we could make it so we have 16 big school qualifiers and 8 small school qualifiers and increase the number of qualifiers at small schools by 28. On top of that we would guarantee that those kids bring home more medals and obviously more championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 They are a few percentage short how is this the worst thing in the world? If we class wrestling we now have an even distribution across the board. 50% and 50% when there is a much smaller group of people to compete against and still win a state championship isn't this an even BIGGER advantage for small schools than the few percentage problem we have now??? I would go on to bet that if we increased the numbers slightly to include more wrestlers at state we would see the numbers come a little closer to what they should be... A few percentage points? 1a had 4.5% of placers this year, and less than 1% last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 ....and practice partners and coaching and access to off-season training And how would any of these things change just by cutting off 1A schools from competing with 3A schools? Now if a kid wants to be an elite wrestler and wrestle in college he is now forced to move to a 3A school so he can get that scholarship. What would the current tourney lose by classing? About 20 kids from small schools that all but about 5 go home Friday night. So if you class it, you non class guys should be happy since we now have removed most of the "Lucky draw" kids out and allow another 20 or so elite guys that have been putting in the work and should have been there to now wrestle. The little schools can go wrestle in their little kiddy tourney and if they are happy winning it you can always tell them it's not a real championship. They could wrestle the kiddy tourney on a week night at a High school somewhere so it won't interfere with or be confused with the real tourney. We lose the possibility for those 1A kids that want to be elite athletes having the opportunity to do so... Now they are stuck only winning state in the "Kiddies tourny". Do you think they are going to get that full ride scholarship to penn state? or is it going to go to the 3A state champion? If we add 56 qualifiers the percentages will still be nearly identical. Of those 56 qualifiers you're still only going to get 10-16 more 1A kids to state. Instead we could make it so we have 16 big school qualifiers and 8 small school qualifiers and increase the number of qualifiers at small schools by 28. On top of that we would guarantee that those kids bring home more medals and obviously more championships. And thats all they get... Good job in high school now your DI college wrestling dreams go up in smoke because you went to the 1A school. A few percentage points? 1a had 4.5% of placers this year, and less than 1% last year. and if we change to a classed system we should still only want 13% but end up with 50% which is further off the goal??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 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... 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 A few things.... 1. I hold a Bachelor's degree in mathematics and currently teach advanced mathematics. 2. No, it does not make sense. One class people routinely say if an individual works hard enough, he has the same chance to qualify for state as anyone else. If that is true, and informed person should have an equal likelihood of looking over all 1A sectional wrestlers and selecting state qualifiers as looking over 3A sectional wrestlers. 3. If the likelihood is not the same then either A. The 1A kids don't work as hard as the 3A kids or B. The 3A kids have an advantage over the 1A kids. You aren't selecting programs, school, teams, populations. You are selecting individuals. Individuals who you have said have an equal chance of qualifying for state, provided they work hard enough to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 And how would any of these things change just by cutting off 1A schools from competing with 3A schools? Now if a kid wants to be an elite wrestler and wrestle in college he is now forced to move to a 3A school so he can get that scholarship. No you don't, do you think guys like Jason Tsirtsis, Andrew Howe, Stevan Micic, etc. were "made" because of our 1 class system? Do you think if we were multi-class it would have those kids work less hard? What about a guy like Logan Stieber who was from a small school in Ohio in a classed state? I'm fairly certain it didn't hurt him getting a scholarship. We lose the possibility for those 1A kids that want to be elite athletes having the opportunity to do so... Now they are stuck only winning state in the "Kiddies tourny". Do you think they are going to get that full ride scholarship to penn state? or is it going to go to the 3A state champion? And thats all they get... Good job in high school now your DI college wrestling dreams go up in smoke because you went to the 1A school. and if we change to a classed system we should still only want 13% but end up with 50% which is further off the goal??? So a kid can't be an elite athlete at small schools in a classed system? REALLY, REALLY, REALLY? Are you saying that since we have a classed system in football kids can't be elite athletes in 1A or 2A? Come on man! Why do we WANT 13%? It's a single class system EVERYONE is equal. School size doesn't matter. When my kid steps on the mat with a Churubusco kid they are equal, they weighed the same. If they are not equal based on school size there is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 and if we change to a classed system we should still only want 13% but end up with 50% which is further off the goal??? What are you even tying to say here? Do you realize how little sense it makes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 And how would any of these things change just by cutting off 1A schools from competing with 3A schools? Now if a kid wants to be an elite wrestler and wrestle in college he is now forced to move to a 3A school so he can get that scholarship. We lose the possibility for those 1A kids that want to be elite athletes having the opportunity to do so... Now they are stuck only winning state in the "Kiddies tourny". Do you think they are going to get that full ride scholarship to penn state? or is it going to go to the 3A state champion? And thats all they get... Good job in high school now your DI college wrestling dreams go up in smoke because you went to the 1A school. and if we change to a classed system we should still only want 13% but end up with 50% which is further off the goal??? Plenty of elite wrestlers wrestle in their state's smallest division....the doomsday prophecy holds no water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldandbroke Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 Uh Super Fan, I am not extremely familiar with Penn States Roster but Indiana wrestlers aren't exactly setting the world on fire there now in our unclassed state. But if you look, the Big Ten rosters are full of kids from classed states from all different levels in those states. Programs like Penn State are not that worried about how many state championships you have unless you can back it up on the National scene....So I don't think that argument holds water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 A few things.... 1. I hold a Bachelor's degree in mathematics and currently teach advanced mathematics. 2. No, it does not make sense. One class people routinely say if an individual works hard enough, he has the same chance to qualify for state as anyone else. If that is true, and informed person should have an equal likelihood of looking over all 1A sectional wrestlers and selecting state qualifiers as looking over 3A sectional wrestlers. 3. If the likelihood is not the same then either A. The 1A kids don't work as hard as the 3A kids or B. The 3A kids have an advantage over the 1A kids. You aren't selecting programs, school, teams, populations. You are selecting individuals. Individuals who you have said have an equal chance of qualifying for state, provided they work hard enough to do so. And your really going to make me walk through the numbers in order to explain this to you??? ok so here goes nothing... Lets say i have two different school sizes. 1A schools consist of 400 students and 2A school that consist of 2000 students... I'm the wrestling coach and need to find 14 "elite" wrestlers. Who has a better chance of having 14 "elite" wrestlers mr. math? So if this is true, simply based on probability, wouldn't you say that the larger schools 14 wrestlers would typically be better than the 14 wrestlers from the smaller school? What are you even tying to say here? Do you realize how little sense it makes? Im saying if size of schools matter then we would still only want 1A schools to make up 13% of the "elite" wrestlers in the state? If its more than that then obviously its too many and watered down... Currently we have 5% or whatever you said but with a classed system 50% of the "elite" wrestlers (State champions) would be from 1A schools... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Does school size matter? I'm curious because it seems as if you are saying yes and no. From my understanding we have chosen to class athletics based on the notion that school size matters. If school size matters then we should class individual wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 You're missing the point. Are 1a schools at a disadvantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts