Some more stats from 2015 State

[KarlHungus]

The two sides are looking at the same data and seeing different things, the argument that your side uses data, while the other is simply using emotion is an emotional argument itself.

 

No. Pointing out a logical fallacy is not an argument from emotion.  

 

I think we are all seeing the same thing from the statistics.  It is whether anything should be done about it or not is where the debate has evolved.

[Super_Fan]

Why didn't you ask Poppe about his worthless Michigan state medals? He has a couple, ask him how his high school gets 50 kids out for the team too. Wait it's classed he's worthless and his medal it tainted right?

 

The data shows small schools are struggling mightily, yet you fail to see this and can't comprehend it due to living in Turtleland. A one class system isn't designed so that certain groups have advantages, it is designed because everyone is perceived to be equal.

Obviously reading isn't your forte, so I'll say it again.

 

Kids will have EXTRA MOTIVATION to put more time into the sport instead of having less motivation. Will they? Some will, some won't. If more kids do extra work it improves our wrestling.

Lol extra motivation call it whatever you want but the fact of the matter is they are wrestling more than they were before which is working harder lol

[randalllynch]

Should the system work to the determine the best 14 on a given tournament, or to test the skils of as many individuals as possible.  I saw kids this year celebrate excessively when they qualified to regional in 4th place and those kids looked much happier than the kids on the podium at Indy.  Their accomplishment to them will be the highlight of their athletic career, the "best of the best" argument only rings true to a VERY small minority of kids in the tournament or even in Indiana.

[warsawwrestling]

For every small school that has a tradition better than a big school I will show you 10 that have it worse than all big schools.

 

 

My point is simple.  If 1 school can do it other can also.  You guys are not using the correct multiplier.  More students = more people that grow up to come back to teach, coach or whatever.  Which means, since programs are not started by the little kids (current population) that are in it and by coaches and people (combination of past students) who care about wrestling, "your stats" are skewed.

[ENoblewrestling]

Why didn't you ask Poppe about his worthless Michigan state medals? He has a couple, ask him how his high school gets 50 kids out for the team too. Wait it's classed he's worthless and his medal it tainted right?

 

The data shows small schools are struggling mightily, yet you fail to see this and can't comprehend it due to living in Turtleland. A one class system isn't designed so that certain groups have advantages, it is designed because everyone is perceived to be equal.

Obviously reading isn't your forte, so I'll say it again.

Kids will have EXTRA MOTIVATION to put more time into the sport instead of having less motivation. Will they? Some will, some won't. If more kids do extra work it improves our wrestling.

I never said that his medals were worthless, it isn't like a state medal still wouldn't be an accomplishment.  I just see the data and think that it shows that our system is pretty fair to individuals. The percents are about where you would expect them at all levels, except for state placers which I have admitted is a concerning stat, but not something that is necessarily impossible to explain.

[KarlHungus]

But classing wrestling won't give small kids any more free time in the summer specialize. Which we agreed is needed and simply sounds like your saying they need to work harder...

 

Again.  It is not an all or nothing proposition.  More success and more recognition will logically cause more wrestlers to place a higher priority on off season opportunities, thus improving their overall skill level.

[warsawwrestling]

Again.  It is not an all or nothing proposition.  More success and more recognition will logically cause more wrestlers to place a higher priority on off season opportunities, thus improving their overall skill level.

Till they go to an ISWA tournament and can't place after winning State.  Rocky vs. Mr. T.

[ENoblewrestling]

No. Pointing out a logical fallacy is not an argument from emotion.  

 

I think we are all seeing the same thing from the statistics.  It is whether anything should be done about it or not is where the debate has evolved.

I can promise you that I am not the only one who see's your 14 enter sectionals so each class should have 33.3% make it to state argument as being illogical.  The overall student population matters when populating your team.

Edited March 6, 2015 by buscowrestling

[bog190]

I never said that his medals were worthless, it isn't like a state medal still wouldn't be an accomplishment.  I just see the data and think that it shows that our system is pretty fair to individuals. The percents are about where you would expect them at all levels, except for state placers which I have admitted is a concerning stat, but not something that is necessarily impossible to explain.

 

Then explain it.

[KarlHungus]

I can promise you that I am not the only one who see's your 14 enter sectionals so each class should have 33.3% make it to state argument as being illogical.  

 

Of course it's illogical.  Geez.  If all individuals are equal (which is your contention) that is what the numbers should be.  The numbers are not even close to 33.3% because individuals are not equal.  Individuals not being equal is justification for classing.

 

Your stance on this is issue is logically inconsistent.  

[warsawwrestling]

Of course it's illogical.  Geez.  If all individuals are equal (which is your contention) that is what the numbers should be.  The numbers are not even close to 33.3% because individuals are not equal.  Individuals not being equal is justification for classing.

 

Your stance on this is issue is logically inconsistent.  

or wrestle backs

[ENoblewrestling]

Then explain it.

I think that the skill set needed to be a state qualifier is so rare that it simply doesn't exist in the population of all small schools.  This would explain the reason that we start to see the number of state qualifiers and state placers become less than the 13% you would expect.  You are looking at such a rare occurrence that many of the schools simply don't have anyone with the attributes needed.

If instead of wrestling ability we were tracking something else, like lets say height.  And we were looking for people who were 7 foot tall. There would be 7 foot tall people spread all over the population, and they would be at big schools, medium schools, and small schools.  You would obviously expect more 7 foot tall people to be at big schools, and for the sake of argument you could probably expect at least one 7 foot tall person with-in the schools with large populations.  While some small schools would have a 7 foot tall person, most wouldn't.  It is so rare that when we cap the populations that we are looking for 7 foot tall individuals they simply are not found, and thus we begin to see the lowering of the numbers.  I don't know if that made any sense to anyone but me, but for me it seems like a reasonable possibility.

 

Of course it's illogical.  Geez.  If all individuals are equal (which is your contention) that is what the numbers should be.  The numbers are not even close to 33.3% because individuals are not equal.  Individuals not being equal is justification for classing.

 

Your stance on this is issue is logically inconsistent.  

My stance is that 63% of the population should produce 63% of the state qualifiers.  24% should produce 24%, and 13% should produce 13%.  The numbers usually hold pretty true to that.

Edited March 6, 2015 by buscowrestling

[KarlHungus]

 

My stance is that 63% of the population should produce 63% of the state qualifiers.  24% should produce 24%, and 13% should produce 13%.  The numbers usually hold pretty true to that.

 

This does not mesh with your argument that each Individual is equal.  

[Super_Fan]

I think that the skill set needed to be a state qualifier is so rare that it simply doesn't exist in the population of all small schools.  This would explain the reason that we start to see the number of state qualifiers and state placers become less than the 13% you would expect.  You are looking at such a rare occurrence that many of the schools simply don't have anyone with the attributes needed.

If instead of wrestling ability we were tracking something else, like lets say height.  And we were looking for people who were 7 foot tall. There would be 7 foot tall people spread all over the population, and they would be at big schools, medium schools, and small schools.  You would obviously expect more 7 foot tall people to be at big schools, and for the sake of argument you could probably expect at least one 7 foot tall person with-in the schools with large populations.  While some small schools would have a 7 foot tall person, most wouldn't.  It is so rare that when we cap the populations that we are looking for 7 foot tall individuals they simply are not found, and thus we begin to see the lowering of the numbers.  I don't know if that made any sense to anyone but me, but for me it seems like a reasonable possibility.

 

 

My stance is that 63% of the population should produce 63% of the state qualifiers.  24% should produce 24%, and 13% should produce 13%.  The numbers usually hold pretty true to that.

this would be logical... they have also talked themselves into pretty much saying if small school kids want to go to state they need to dedicate more off season time to wrestling. By "extra motivation" in their terms or "hard work" in ours...

This does not mesh with your argument that each Individual is equal.

 

But it DOES

[bog190]

I think that the skill set needed to be a state qualifier is so rare that it simply doesn't exist in the population of all small schools.  This would explain the reason that we start to see the number of state qualifiers and state placers become less than the 13% you would expect.  You are looking at such a rare occurrence that many of the schools simply don't have anyone with the attributes needed.

If instead of wrestling ability we were tracking something else, like lets say height.  And we were looking for people who were 7 foot tall. There would be 7 foot tall people spread all over the population, and they would be at big schools, medium schools, and small schools.  You would obviously expect more 7 foot tall people to be at big schools, and for the sake of argument you could probably expect at least one 7 foot tall person with-in the schools with large populations.  While some small schools would have a 7 foot tall person, most wouldn't.  It is so rare that when we cap the populations that we are looking for 7 foot tall individuals they simply are not found, and thus we begin to see the lowering of the numbers.  I don't know if that made any sense to anyone but me, but for me it seems like a reasonable possibility.

 

 

Do you not see that this is illogical? On one hand you argue individually everyone is on an even playing field, and in the same statement you argue that the skill set doesn't exist in the small school setting.  By your logic 13% of the state champions and 13% of placers should be from 1a. Again I ask, why is that no where near the case?

[warsawwrestling]

This does not mesh with your argument that each Individual is equal.  

what stats are we pulling out to show that motivation and attitude should be equal.  I need to know, I have a meeting with a few of my kids and I want to make sure they are not using too little or too much, but just right.

Plus point to 1 great 1a kid and I can probably find 2-3 that should have been in a 1a, but somehow found their way somewhere else.  We can deny it happens and be blind to this also.  SKEWED

Edited March 6, 2015 by warsawwrestling

[Y2CJ41]

this would be logical... they have also talked themselves into pretty much saying if small school kids want to go to state they need to dedicate more off season time to wrestling. By "extra motivation" in their terms or "hard work" in ours...

 

But it DOES

So kids that go to state would go to state whether they put in time in the offseason or not? These kids are so good they only need to show up at sectional and they'll pave their way to state? That's illogical to think kids can't work their way to becoming a state qualifier. I've seen it, I guess you haven't.

[ENoblewrestling]

Do you not see that this is illogical? On one hand you argue individually everyone is on an even playing field, and in the same statement you argue that the skill set doesn't exist in the small school setting.  By your logic 13% of the state champions and 13% of placers should be from 1a. Again I ask, why is that no where near the case?

 

Because as you get a smaller and smaller skill set, that set of skills is not found in all of the populations. 

 

So at each level we are looking at you would actually be eliminating  some small schools from the equation at each level.

 

Back to the height idea.

 

If we said 6 Foot tall= sectional roster.  It would be expected that all schools regardless of size would have 14 six foot tall kids.

If regional s= 6'5'' Then it is probably safe to assume that most schools have at least 1 kid walking the halls that is 6'5".  You would naturally expect there to be more 6'5'' kids at a big school, but most schools would still meet this criteria.

Semi-state- a bigger jump so lets say 6'10, at this point most big schools would still have a 6'10'' kid, or maybe a few walking around.  Several small schools would too, but now you would start to eliminate several small schools entirely, because they simply do not have a 6'10'' kid walking around their population.  The pool of schools at this point is lessened, this is why you would see the drop off. Now instead of 100% of the 13% we are dealing with 75% of that 13%.  At the same time we are probably dealing with lets say 90% of the 24% (2A schools) and 100% of the 63% (big schools).

 

State= 7' Now we would see that not even all big schools would have a 7' kid walking around.  Small schools it would be very rare, but there would still be  some schools with a 7' kid. So now lets say were are looking at a populations of 30 % of the small schools, 45% of the medium schools, and 75% of the big schools.

 

I could keep going on with this, but the point is that as the skill set becomes smaller, the % of schools that had a kid with that skill set to begin with gets lower, thus why we see the small disparity in qualifiers, and the larger on in placers. 

Edited March 6, 2015 by buscowrestling

[warsawwrestling]

So kids that go to state would go to state whether they put in time in the offseason or not? These kids are so good they only need to show up at sectional and they'll pave their way to state? That's illogical to think kids can't work their way to becoming a state qualifier. I've seen it, I guess you haven't.

Something we agree on.  You are correct in our "current" system this for the most part cannot happen.  Add wrestle backs and it would be less.

Edited March 6, 2015 by warsawwrestling

[Y2CJ41]

Something we agree on.  You are correct in our "current" system this for the most part cannot happen.  Add wrestle offs and it would be less.

It doesn't happen in a class system either. Kids still do a ton of work to become state qualifiers/placers/champions.

 

So again, why should we have a system designed that kids must be one sport athletes? Even you posted an argument against this.

[Rookies03]

How about if  those twins each are heavyweights who are 285 pounds. Twin #1 at the big school has 2 other guys over 250lbs to practice with. Twin #2 at the little school has a guy who wrestles 220 but only weighs 188lbs. The next biggest guy he has to practice with weighs under 180lbs. Do you still think they have the same chance to get to state?

Yes I do.

[KarlHungus]

Because as you get a smaller and smaller skill set, that set of skills is not found in all of the populations. 

 

So at each level we are looking at you would actually be eliminating  some small schools from the equation at each level.

 

Back to the height idea.

 

If we said 6 Foot tall= sectional roster.  It would be expected that all schools regardless of size would have 14 six foot tall kids.

If regional s= 6'5'' Then it is probably safe to assume that most schools have at least 1 kid walking the halls that is 6'5".  You would naturally expect there to be more 6'5'' kids at a big school, but most schools would still meet this criteria.

Semi-state- a bigger jump so lets say 6'10, at this point most big schools would still have a 6'10'' kid, or maybe a few walking around.  Several small schools would too, but now you would start to eliminate several small schools entirely, because they simply do not have a 6'10'' kid walking around their population.  The pool of schools at this point is lessened, this is why you would see the drop off. Now instead of 100% of the 13% we are dealing with 75% of that 13%.  At the same time we are probably dealing with lets say 90% of the 24% (2A schools) and 100% of the 63% (big schools).

 

State= 7' Now we would see that not even all big schools would have a 7' kid walking around.  Small schools it would be very rare, but there would still be  some schools with a 7' kid. So now lets say were are looking at a populations of 30 % of the small schools, 45% of the medium schools, and 75% of the big schools.

 

I could keep going on with this, but the point is that as the skill set becomes smaller, the % of schools that had a kid with that skill set to begin with gets lower, thus why we see the small disparity in qualifiers, and the larger on in placers. 

 

13% of the 7 footers should still be at small schools.

[Y2CJ41]

Because as you get a smaller and smaller skill set, that set of skills is not found in all of the populations. 

 

So at each level we are looking at you would actually be eliminating  some small schools from the equation at each level.

 

Back to the height idea.

 

If we said 6 Foot tall= sectional roster.  It would be expected that all schools regardless of size would have 14 six foot tall kids.

If regional s= 6'5'' Then it is probably safe to assume that most schools have at least 1 kid walking the halls that is 6'5".  You would naturally expect there to be more 6'5'' kids at a big school, but most schools would still meet this criteria.

Semi-state- a bigger jump so lets say 6'10, at this point most big schools would still have a 6'10'' kid, or maybe a few walking around.  Several small schools would too, but now you would start to eliminate several small schools entirely, because they simply do not have a 6'10'' kid walking around their population.  The pool of schools at this point is lessened, this is why you would see the drop off. Now instead of 100% of the 13% we are dealing with 75% of that 13%.  At the same time we are probably dealing with lets say 90% of the 24% (2A schools) and 100% of the 63% (big schools).

 

State= 7' Now we would see that not even all big schools would have a 7' kid walking around.  Small schools it would be very rare, but there would still be  some schools with a 7' kid. So now lets say were are looking at a populations of 30 % of the small schools, 45% of the medium schools, and 75% of the big schools.

 

I could keep going on with this, but the point is that as the skill set becomes smaller, the % of schools that had a kid with that skill set to begin with gets lower, thus why we see the small disparity in qualifiers, and the larger on in placers. 

Height isn't a skill, a skill is something learned, height isn't learned....or well I must not have been paying attention in that class.

 

If there are 14 state champions even in your unequal...but equal world there should be 13% of them coming from 1A. How is that "skill" evenly distributed just fine for a qualifier level, but not at the placer or champion level?

[Rookies03]

Yet in Indiana our state association sponsors a tournament that demands year round commitment as early as possible to compete at the state level.  Illogical.

If we went to a 2 class system or even 3 class the IHSAA would continue to sponsor a tournament that demands year round commitment... at least for the 3A. Isnt that one of your arguments for a class system. The little guys cant commit to year round because the big guys can. So in the big class wouldn't the wrestlers need to commit to year round wrestling to be able to make it?

[Super_Fan]

So kids that go to state would go to state whether they put in time in the offseason or not? These kids are so good they only need to show up at sectional and they'll pave their way to state? That's illogical to think kids can't work their way to becoming a state qualifier. I've seen it, I guess you haven't.

Lol no i completely agree if you want to be elite you have to put in the dedication... Big school or small... and like you have said at small schools because of various reasons they do not do this... but classing wrestling wont increase the time that kids with dreams of being elite will spend wrestling.... those kids are already doing it...

 

I'm saying that at one point you say this "work harder" mentality is stupid but at the same time you agree thats what it takes to be elite