Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Barrq

The IHSAA was right.

Recommended Posts

Google my Avatar Willie Burton...no excuses.

Dont have to google him, very familiar with him, great kid, great story and great for the sport.  I have seen him wrestle.  New Albany is right across the bridge from Louisville where Fairdale High School wrestles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois has almost double Indiana population.

Once we double our state's population I am okay with two class system.

 

Minnesotta, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma all have multiple classes in wrestling and a population smaller than Indiana's. It could be argued that each of these states is considered a better wrestling state than Indiana in wrestling. It would be easy to argue Iowa, Minnesota, and Oklahoma were better than Indiana. It would be a slightly more difficult but possible argument to Wisconsin over Indiana. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I coached at Fort Wayne Wayne and was blessed to be able to see the school get its first two state qualifiers in 15 years 2 years ago.  I am not anti or pro classed, as I see the benefits of both.  Last year was the first Indiana State Finals that I missed since I was probably 10 (19 years) and it will forever be one of the most exciting wrestling environments I have experienced.  On the other hand, as a former coach of what people would consider a bottom feeder 3A school,  I think a classed system would have been beneficial for our program.

 

there is no doubt that it would garner perceived success as you would not have those small class individuals( you know, the ones that don't have a chance in a single class system) beating up on them but would it make the team stronger by making it an easier route ? I just don't see it and until someone can guarantee that classing individual will do that then I'm against classing.  Indiana IS special and has too much lose imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet you that the percent of state qualifiers by class corresponds within 4% +/- of the total student population of each class. It us usually pretty close to how it works out, which is what you would expect. Want to take me up on that bet?

Not exactly the same, but here are stats for percent of state qualifiers per weight class (all teams 2013 to 2015 state tournament):

 

Per competitive weight class (including forfeited classes):

1A: 1.3% state qualifiers

2A: 4.2%

3A: 10.2%

 

Per filled weight class (forfeited weights at sectional excluded):

1A: 1.9% state qualifiers

2A: 5.2%

3A: 11.4%

 

And the rate of state qualifiers per enrolled student by class:

1A: 1 state qualifier per 2,100 students

2A: 1 state qualifier per 1,125 students

3A: 1 state qualifier per 1,175 students

 

It seems 2A and 3A are virtually identical in the last stat.  The real resource and competition shortage is in the smallest schools.  The "per student" advantage disappears after we get out of the bottom third of school size.  (Though I will admit I haven't studied closely to see if the "per student" rate improves with school size up to a certain point at which there are diminishing returns in the largest schools or if the rate is relatively steady after we get past a certain threshold in small-school size.  I'm guessing the former is probably more likely, but the averages are very interesting nonetheless.)

Edited by maligned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's always strange how they have "statistics" to back up their opinion but yet their "statistics" always add EMD to 3A and use a 3 class system when they are debating for a 2 class system...

 

Why don't we continue what we already have? A classed dual tourney and an unclassed individual tourney?

 

What is going to bring more kids into the room? When a school wins team state or when a single kid wins individual state?  I would venture to say a school would get much more publicity than an individual champion. Not to mention when the team wins all the kids get "rings" thus, giving more than just one individual, the experience of being a state champion. To me that will bring more new kids into wrestling rather than one of their friends winning state and getting a ring.

Edited by Super_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's always strange how they have "statistics" to back up their opinion but yet their "statistics" always add EMD to 3A and use a 3 class system when they are debating for a 2 class system...

 

Why don't we continue what we already have? A classed dual tourney and an unclassed individual tourney?

 

What is going to bring more kids into the room? When a school wins team state or when a single kid wins individual state?  I would venture to say a school would get much more publicity than an individual champion. Not to mention when the team wins all the kids get "rings" thus, giving more than just one individual, the experience of being a state champion. To me that will bring more new kids into wrestling rather than one of their friends winning state and getting a ring.

As stated earlier Mater Dei is an EXTREME example, they boost the 1A totals by 12% in a two class system and 23% in a 3 class system. In a 3 class system all other 1A schools have 125 state qualifiers, while Mater Dei has 37. I'll translate one school has 37, while the other 101 have 125 or just over an average of ONE! In a two class system the other 150 schools have an average of 1.58...while again Mater Dei has 37! That is almost 20 times the AVERAGE in two classes and 30 times the AVERAGE in three classes. 

 

Here is a little definition of mathematical outlier

http://www.mathwords.com/o/outlier.htm

 

Team success will help, but there are only a couple of those each year...that help would only affect at most 10 schools. On the individual side we have usually between 90-100 schools at state each year. Add in another class we could conceiveably see 150-180 schools(or more) at the state finals. Instead of reaching 10 schools we are now reaching over half the schools in the state. That also doesn't include the schools that would have a few kids come close to state which would also be affected.

 

I'd much rather affect 180 schools than 10 schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated earlier Mater Dei is an EXTREME example, they boost the 1A totals by 12% in a two class system and 23% in a 3 class system. In a 3 class system all other 1A schools have 125 state qualifiers, while Mater Dei has 37. I'll translate one school has 37, while the other 101 have 125 or just over an average of ONE! In a two class system the other 150 schools have an average of 1.58...while again Mater Dei has 37! That is almost 20 times the AVERAGE in two classes and 30 times the AVERAGE in three classes. 

 

Here is a little definition of mathematical outlier

http://www.mathwords.com/o/outlier.htm

 

Team success will help, but there are only a couple of those each year...that help would only affect at most 10 schools. On the individual side we have usually between 90-100 schools at state each year. Add in another class we could conceiveably see 150-180 schools(or more) at the state finals. Instead of reaching 10 schools we are now reaching over half the schools in the state. That also doesn't include the schools that would have a few kids come close to state which would also be affected.

 

I'd much rather affect 180 schools than 10 schools.

Ok but did you not admit the Carmel was an outlier from the 3A class? Then why don't we include their stats in the 1A class since they are an outlier on the opposite end of the spectrum?

 

I see where your coming from... But would you rather see slight progress towards your end game or none at all? Maybe by taking one small baby step and getting the IHSAA to take over the classed team state it will open their eyes to what classing the individual tourney would do... Because at this point in time, the same as it has been the last 10+ years, the IHSAA isn't going to make any big changes...

 

I'm just trying to meet in the middle here find a way that all parties can be happy...

Edited by Super_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok but did you not admit the Carmel was an outlier from the 3A class? Then why don't we include their stats in the 1A class since they are an outlier on the opposite end of the spectrum?

 

I see where your coming from... But would you rather see slight progress towards your end game or none at all? Maybe by taking one small baby step and getting the IHSAA to take over the classed team state it will open their eyes to what classing the individual tourney would do... Because at this point in time, the same as it has been the last 10+ years, the IHSAA isn't going to make any big changes...

 

I'm just trying to meet in the middle here find a way that all parties can be happy...

How is Carmel an outlier? They have 10 state qualifiers in the six years of data I am using. The average per team over that span is 7 for two class and 8.5 for three class. That is NOT an outlier. They are almost spot on for the averages.

 

Slight progress or major progress, what is better? We could conceivably affect 200-250 teams within a 3-5 year span by going to two classes. That makes a MAJOR impact on the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Carmel an outlier? They have 10 state qualifiers in the six years of data I am using. The average per team over that span is 7 for two class and 8.5 for three class. That is NOT an outlier. They are almost spot on for the averages.

 

Slight progress or major progress, what is better? We could conceivably affect 200-250 teams within a 3-5 year span by going to two classes. That makes a MAJOR impact on the sport.

Ok well good luck with the change. I would take slight progress over the zero progress class wrestling has made over the last 10+ years...

Edited by Super_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well good luck with the change. I would take slight progress over the zero progress class wrestling has made over the last 10+ years...

"Class wrestling" has only been around for four years...and that is in a non IHSAA sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Class wrestling" has only been around for four years...and that is in a non IHSAA sense.

I mean "class wrestling" in the sense of people pushing to make it happen... They have been talking about this for years and nothing has ever came from it... Yet rather than try to compromise with a classed team dual and individual state tourney, they would rather stick with the my way or the highway type of thinking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean "class wrestling" in the sense of people pushing to make it happen... They have been talking about this for years and nothing has ever came from it... Yet rather than try to compromise with a classed team dual and individual state tourney, they would rather stick with the my way or the highway type of thinking...

It's been around longer than 10 years. There was actually a proposal to the IHSAA in the late 1990's or early 2000's and possibly even earlier.

 

There is no "compromise" as you speak of. A compromise is meeting halfway, not what you are proposing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.