Jump to content

Proposals to the IHSAA


Y2CJ41

Recommended Posts

From

http://www.ihsaa.org/Portals/0/ihsaa/documents/about%20ihsaa/minutes/2014-15/032715.pdf

 

1. Change team scoring to begin in the first round of three levels of the state tournament – regional, semi‐state, and state finals. 
2. Add wrestle backs at the regional and semi‐state levels. 
3. Allow for teams selected for the IWSWCA Team Stet Duals to have one extra weigh‐in. 
4. Allow for the 28 man sectional entry roster to allow kids to be put in at their lowest qualifying weight, but to move up multiple weight classes if needed. 
5. All for an exemption of one tournament or wrestling meet outside of the 300 mile competition rule.
 
My thoughts
1. We already score the first round of regional. I think we need to go back to scoring the sectional rat tail matches also. We do need to score the first rounds of all events. If there is a match it should score points.
2. It will get shot down, but would be great
3. See #2
4. That is good and it will help teams that are not as deep and not potentially hurt a kid if something happens late in the season.
5. Worthless proposal, it won't get passed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These proposals would all be great.  However, they ultimately fail because many are recycled past requests that were already denied by the IHSAA.  Not sure why we continue to recycle ideas that IHSAA has said “no” to multiple times. 


We need to propose a new idea.  And that new idea could encompass solutions to the recycled requests.

 

There seems to be a general consensus that expanding individual state to 24 wrestlers per weight class would greatly improve opportunity.  It is a new(er) idea.  It’s also an idea the IHSAA hasn’t turned down previously because it hasn’t been proposed.

 

Primary benefits would be:

·         Increase revenues for the IHSAA by one-third. $$$$$$

·         More opportunity for the kids.

·         Team title more valid because more wrestlers from that team will earn points.

·         Being one of the few states without class wrestling, expansion provides new opportunities for small school wrestlers as a compromise solution.

·         Eliminates the annual Jankowski/Rosbottom SS ticket round of death match that the entire wrestling community sees as completely unfair and unreasonable.

 

Secondary benefits:

·         Would require a wrestle back to 5th/6th at SS.

·         Would make it more reasonable to suggest that team scoring start in the early rounds.

·         Would give us a chance to eventually increase to 32 wrestlers at state and be more in line with other peer Midwestern state wrestling championships. And even more $$$$$$ for the IHSAA.

·         The data shows 5th place at state underclassmen do better the next year at state then the 4th place underclassmen.  The SS data would most certainly show the same outcome and create a more level playing field.

 

Not sure why we are recycling old ideas when we could take a new to the IHSAA that would still achieve many of the same benefits and more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are these proposals based off of the survey results?

Yes we asked for items from our membership they felt they wanted to see.  Then we sent a survey our to every school and then proposed the items that got above 60% approval.  I didn't agree with all the items proposed but our job is to pitch what the membership wants.  After Danny and I met with the IHSAA I feel like one to two of these items will pass.  

 

Thanks

Tyson Skinner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure here are the results

 

1. Are you in favor of scoring 1st round of semi-state and state:  203 yes, 22 No (90%)

2. Are you in favor of extending the 300 mile competition rule: 155 yes 70 no (69%)

3. Would you be in favor of adding wrestlebacks at the regionals: 148 yes 77 no (68%)

4. Would you be in favor of adding wrestlebacks at semi-state: 178 yes 47 no (79%)

5. Would you be in favor of making state finals 32 man bracket with 8 mats at state, the go round of semi-state would move to the state finals: 124 yes 101 no (55%)

6. Would you be in favor of a proposed match limit (example 35 match, 45 match, 50 matchs ect.): 92 yes 133 no (41%)

7. Would you be in favor of allowing the teams selected for the IHSWCA Team State Duals to have one extra weigh in: 173 yes 52 no (77%)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For item 2 on your list, why is it that Regional and Semi-State wrestle backs are tied together as one entity.  I think that the more prudent move would be to separate them or scrap the idea of Regional wrestle backs altogether.  The IHSAA has made it clear that they only care about crowing champions, so meet them half way and just concentrate on Semi-State wrestle backs, where the stakes are higher anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  After Danny and I met with the IHSAA I feel like one to two of these items will pass.  

 

Thanks

Tyson Skinner

 

What 2 items did you think they will pass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for sharing!

 

I am so pleased to see the IHSWCA asked about #5!!!  Good lord, why aren’t we presenting #5 to the IHSAA?   A majority of the membership is in favor of #5.  And frankly, the people unsupportive of #5 will end up being supportive once they witness firsthand the benefits expanding state will reap.

 

To reiterate, if we were to get #5 and expand state, that would encompass the wrestling community essentially also getting some aspects of #4 (if we do it right and get a 5/6 wrestleback), #1 (because SS would have less rounds, the first would need to be scored), and make the team title more compelling because more wrestlers would score, and be a compromise on class wrestling because of the expanded opportunity for small schools to have a qualifier at state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for sharing!

 

I am so pleased to see the IHSWCA asked about #5!!!  Good lord, why aren’t we presenting #5 to the IHSAA?   A majority of the membership is in favor of #5.  And frankly, the people unsupportive of #5 will end up being supportive once they witness firsthand the benefits expanding state will reap.

 

To reiterate, if we were to get #5 and expand state, that would encompass the wrestling community essentially also getting some aspects of #4 (if we do it right and get a 5/6 wrestleback), #1 (because SS would have less rounds, the first would need to be scored), and make the team title more compelling because more wrestlers would score, and be a compromise on class wrestling because of the expanded opportunity for small schools to have a qualifier at state.

 

Since we had a # of items that 68% or higher we focused on those since a 55% approval is just a tad bit better than split between the coaches we didn't include it.  I personally like the 32 man bracket but my job is to push what the overwhelming majority wants not what I personally want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a formal statement, just letting people know some of the how's and why's of how we came up with the proposal.

 

Often times people say "why doesn't the IHSWCA..........  : a) present something different, 2) why do they keep presenting the same thing  3) why didn't they present that idea, I liked it,  4) etc....

 

The IHSWCA Officers represent what the membership asks them to present.  I felt strongly on some items, and less strongly on others - and I even had some other things I wanted to present that I completely dropped because the membership wasn't for it.  The officers present what the membership wants.  We "represent the people."  The IHSAA wants to know what our membership wants - the don't want to know what people outside of the membership want, and they only take suggestions from the membership for the rule and bi-law changes. 

 

So to answer some questions - "why do we keep presenting the same thing that has been turned down before?"  when Tyson and I met with IHSAA officials and the Athletic Directors association individually before we presented we learned a lot.  One component of the presentation is history.  they want to see what the past practices are, the past rules are, and especially how long the membership has wanted something.  So - for our membership we had to ask about wrestle backs - we knew it wouldn't pass.  but for those that want it in the future, and for the future officers to have momentum in presenting we had to ask it again, this way there is a history of the coaches wanting it.  It was interesting to here some AD's view on why they don't want wrestle backs.  Some things I never thought about much - I had always grown up thinking wrestle backs are better - not saying they swayed me - but hearing some of their why's and how's was interesting to see their perspectives. 

 

Another example of a rule we knew wouldn't pass but our membership wanted was the 300 mile rule.  But this was not going to pass as it would have to change for all sports, so this is bigger than one sport asking - it would have to come from all sports.  So if a future president and association want this - it would have to be an undertaking of getting all associations together to ask for it.  They won't change it for just one.

 

Why did we pick the items we did?  We went with what the coaches sent us for survey questions.  A few of the questions sent to us were against the NFHS rules, so there was no way they would pass, as the IHSAA cant even pass them.  After that we looked at the % of coaches that want what was surveyed/  This is something the IHSAA really wants to know - which is why it is so important if you are heart felt about something to be a member.  Maybe our coaches want something, but the coaches that buy their membership feel different.  Until we have 100% of the coaches represented, we might always have a number that the survey misrepresents.  So in the instance of the of the match limits only 41% were in favor, so there was no reason to push it - our coaches didn't want it.  On #5 - even though the IHSAA might have liked it - our coaches were only 55% in favor which is basically 50/50 so they didn't entertain it much.  We also learned a lot about why they weren't going to be in favor anyway - not that I agree with everything - but their explanations were some things people never mention - we talk about how much revenue they would gain by opening up to a 32 man bracket.  But they are concerned about the re-imbursements of travel.  For those who don't know the IHSAA gives back money for traveling to semi-state and state.  With a  32 man bracket there is concern on their part that they will be putting out even more money in re-imbursements for travel.  While I am not saying I agree, I am saying that this was their answer.  Now - what does that tell us - if we would want to push something like this -we now have an answer - we now know their concerns and can come back in 2 years with information to ease concerns.  This is why they want a history of presentation, and some repeat presentations. 

 

for those that like or don't like the proposals - remember - as officers we present what the association wants.  When Tyson and the new VP go to present in 2 years make sure you get the your ideas for the survey.  for those that think a proposal is worthless - don't kill the messenger - the officers present what the association asks them too.

 

None of these answers were to start an argument - just something to help people see why we presented what we did, and how the process takes place.  It was an interesting deal for me, and I am glad Tyson went along.  I think it will really help he and the association present even better in the future. 

 

Hope some of this helps those that are interested.  I really enjoyed going through this process with the IHSWCA and the IHSAA, and if nothing else I think Tyson and I eased a lot of tension between the two organizations.  Which was much needed and will help us in the future.  I love that so many coaches are interested in this!

 

I have one more responsibility as prez.........spring clinic.  Hope to see you all there!  We have Jeff Jordan taking us through "how to drill" and "how he plans his program", as well as Matt Powless speaking on sports psychology.

 

if you need anything, or have any questions - dstruck@gcs.k12.in.us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying I agree or disagree - just stating some things - of course their are rebutles for and against - I am just stating

 

basketball and football don't have it, why do we need it (I know your arguments there - just stating)

that is one that always comes up

 

some others:

"as an AD I would hate it if I heard my kid won two matches at semi-state, and still didn't go to state"

"you guys want to have the wrestle backs to get your kid through, what about all the kids you got through because there wasn't wrestle backs"

"with wrestle backs a kid can actually beat a state qualifier at semi-state and he still not go to state"

" I like that the underdog has a chance at a big match to get through, but those kids won't normally have 2 big matches in them"

"we are here to find the state champion, 86% of the state champs win their semi-state, getting the kid through on a wrestle back will rarely be the state champ"

 

 

these are not my answers - just ones I heard that were interesting statements. 

 

and lastly (which is one that I found interesting) - 42% of your coaches voted against it - I had not idea that so many people were against it, but that is what our poll of 230+ coaches showed.

Edited by dstruck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the IHSAA against elite Indiana teams traveling out of state to the best tournaments (Beast of the East, Powerade, Cheesehead, Iron Man, ect.)?  Maybe Y2 or Danny can provide further information, but it seems like they are just holding the state back. I know for a fact that the Perry Meridian team of 2013 was invited to one or more out of the state tournaments (outside of the travel restrictions) and the directors were contact with Coach Tonte, but he had to turn down the offers due to the sanctions of the IHSAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasonings I have heard over the years from the IHSAA

 

1. There are plenty of teams to play/wrestle within the allotted zone

2. They want to keep the focus on STUDENT-athlete and thus miss the least amount of school as possible.

 

And while I have never heard this, I'm sure the fact that this affects maybe 1% of the schools in each sport and maybe 5% of the schools overall. The best bet we would have would be to change the rule so that it just restricts travel and not who can travel to us. That would probably be best done by multiple sport associations or a high ranking principal proposing that also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the arguments against wrestlebacks from the IHSAA make any sense to me.

 

Football and basketball don't have them.

 

Neither do golf or track or gymnastics or swimming or cross-country--but all of those individual sports are allowed to advance their BEST individuals every weekend through the state series while we are not.

 

"as an AD I would hate it if I heard my kid won two matches at semi-state, and still didn't go to state"

 

Huh?  You had kids win 2 matches and get 5th place at podunk 8-team tournaments all year.  What's magic about 2 matches?

 

"you guys want to have the wrestle backs to get your kid through, what about all the kids you got through because there wasn't wrestle backs"

 

This isn't even an argument.  We want the fairest system, of course someone will always be the loser...we want those "losers" to be the right people though.

 

"with wrestle backs a kid can actually beat a state qualifier at semi-state and he still not go to state"

 

There were more kids sitting at home or in the stands at state that had wins over state qualifiers during the year than there were actual state qualifiers.  What does that have to do with anything?  Winning one match has never meant you're the best in a wrestling tournament.  You have to prove your place with a string of good wins.

 

" I like that the underdog has a chance at a big match to get through, but those kids won't normally have 2 big matches in them"

 

Which just confirms our point...this is an individual event and you freely admit that undeserving kids won't go as much if we have wrestle-backs.

 

"we are here to find the state champion, 86% of the state champs win their semi-state, getting the kid through on a wrestle back will rarely be the state champ"

 

Refer to my point about track/golf/etc....the state champs in all of those sports also won semi-state, but that doesn't prevent us from wanting the truly next-best kids to be the ones at state rather than some of them being pseudo randomly selected.  We don't put golfers into random groupings at semi-state on the same day on the same course and take an 82 to state over a 78 just because he happened to be in the right grouping.  Why in the world would we do that same thing in wrestling?

 

and lastly (which is one that I found interesting) - 42% of your coaches voted against it - I had not idea that so many people were against it, but that is what our poll of 230+ coaches showed.

 

This is way off.  Tskin just posted data above that 68% of coaches want them at regional and 79% want them at semi-state (which is the one that people always truly gripe about).  Where did they get that number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.