KarlHungus Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Ok -- so you believe that class wrestling actually hurts large schools. Which leads me to my second (and more important) question. Why is it OK to hurt one group of athletes (large school wrestlers) in order to help a second group of athletes (small school wrestlers)? And does hurting one group in order to help another really mean that class wrestling "works?" The big schools would go through a learning curve much like they have with basketball. When we classed basketball, many many mid to large schools lost there hegemony over their sectionals and were forced to compete with schools their own size. If we classed wrestling, I would prefer to think that the large schools are now playing on a level field instead of hurting them. The benefit is that all schools will be on a level field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 Jimtown does have a Hall-of-Fame wrestling coach and he hasn't left his tiny school. That's great, again he's not of the norm...in more ways that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Jimtown does have a Hall-of-Fame wrestling coach and he hasn't left his tiny school. True but I would bet a nickel if that Hall of Fame football coach had not been around all those years, Mr. Kernn might have looked elsewhere. Galagore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLCards Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Aren't we hurting our small schools with our current system? Why is it fine to hinder our small schools so that our big schools can have success? Because I'm not proposing a massive change to the system only to spread the pain out differently. It's rather disheartening to me that your answer is (paraphrasing) "We've hurt small schools long enough, lets change things and hurt the large school for a change. Who's with me!!!!!" Instead, I think looking into different solutions, like many others in this thread have proposed, that are good for everyone is a much better solution. Not just doing whatever is best for one group. BeastMode#31 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 Because I'm not proposing a massive change to the system only to spread the pain out differently. It's rather disheartening to me that your answer is (paraphrasing) "We've hurt small schools long enough, lets change things and hurt the large school for a change. Who's with me!!!!!" Instead, I think looking into different solutions, like many others in this thread have proposed, that are good for everyone is a much better solution. Not just doing whatever is best for one group. It's rather disheartening that you want to continue to kill the sport at the small school level. What do you have against small schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLCards Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 It's rather disheartening that you want to continue to kill the sport at the small school level. What do you have against small schools? Hahahaha -- you have zero answer other than some non-sense accusation that no reasonable person would gather from the statements I've made. I personally have nothing against small schools -- I coached at one for many years. But, as I said in the post you quoted, "Instead, I think looking into different solutions, like many others in this thread have proposed, that are good for everyone is a much better solution." BeastMode#31 and RASSLER4LIFE 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 Hahahaha -- you have zero answer other than some non-sense accusation that no reasonable person would gather from the statements I've made. I personally have nothing against small schools -- I coached at one for many years. But, as I said in the post you quoted, "Instead, I think looking into different solutions, like many others in this thread have proposed, that are good for everyone is a much better solution." You want to accuse me of "hating" big schools so why can't I accuse you of "hating" small schools? The small school numbers show that it is almost a full forfeit difference in classed states, while the big school difference(other than D1 in Michigan) is significantly smaller. Schools no matter the size will struggle no matter what we do, whether it's add lazer light shows or fog machines, or add more duals, or change the uniform, or any other idea that pops up. Do we want a fair system that helps keep our sport alive at small schools or do we want a system where the big dogs feast on the small puppies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki27 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 How could the avg. number of ff be going up? I thought having a "classed team state" was supposed to help bring in the kids. Y2CJ41 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaveitonthemat Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Not going to be a popular opinion, but I would like to see 106 out or merge 106/113 and another middle weight added. This would allow more upper classmen the chance to crack the varsity lineup and not have a weight class dominated by freshman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 Not going to be a popular opinion, but I would like to see 106 out or merge 106/113 and another middle weight added. This would allow more upper classmen the chance to crack the varsity lineup and not have a weight class dominated by freshman. I don't like that idea. You'll always have more forfeits at the beginning and end due to a bell curve. The only way to limit those is have the first weight be like 125. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
base Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I think what several are arguing is that class wrestling will not increase nor decrease the total number of available student athletes at a small school - that number is fixed regardless of the class decision. So the goal is to have a larger percentage of those students go out for athletics, specifically wrestling. Y2's solution to the issue is to increase success of the small school wrestlers by giving them their own class to wrestle within. As the school observes familiar faces winning "small school" sectionals/regionals/semistate/state, it would encourage other kids not participating in sports to want to be a part of that winning tradition. Others are implying that to get more of that fixed pool of students out for wrestling, other ideas might be more feasible such as a change in uniforms, more exciting dual meets, less time burden on weekends, and encouragement of multiple sport participation. bog190, Super_Fan and UncleJimmy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Ursula Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Triton has a very competitive team and was at team state this year. Their wrestling program seems to be headed in a good direction.[/quote ] great Alumnus too like Clint Gard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westforkwhite Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 How could the avg. number of ff be going up? I thought having a "classed team state" was supposed to help bring in the kids. It has helped, and 2000+ fans at the event proves that. You don't get the great Prarie Heights story without a class event. There's no way they get invited to the top 12 in a single class event. You don't think a couple kids in elementary or middle school at PH will give wrestling a shot when the HS is state champs and they can see the excitement it has generated at school? Great event and I'm thankful to the folks that worked hard to put it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaveitonthemat Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I don't like that idea. You'll always have more forfeits at the beginning and end due to a bell curve. The only way to limit those is have the first weight be like 125. So every team that has a FF at 106 also has one at 113? If not, then it would certainly be less forfeits. I know on our team, this is the first year we have had a 106 in several years, yet we are stacked deep around the 180 range every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoberlin Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Not going to be a popular opinion, but I would like to see 106 out or merge 106/113 and another middle weight added. This would allow more upper classmen the chance to crack the varsity lineup and not have a weight class dominated by freshman. Joe can I ban him please!!! I am very protective of the small guys. I am still really upset they moved it to 106. Leave the little ones alone. This sport is the one sport a 100 pound freshman can compete at. It used be a 95 pound freshman but they changed that. RAJR 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLCards Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You want to accuse me of "hating" big schools so why can't I accuse you of "hating" small schools? The small school numbers show that it is almost a full forfeit difference in classed states, while the big school difference(other than D1 in Michigan) is significantly smaller. Schools no matter the size will struggle no matter what we do, whether it's add lazer light shows or fog machines, or add more duals, or change the uniform, or any other idea that pops up. Do we want a fair system that helps keep our sport alive at small schools or do we want a system where the big dogs feast on the small puppies? You have a bit of a sample size issue when you are comparing 50 schools to 201 and 20 schools to 89, so I'm not sure the "full forfeit difference" is quite as telling as one might think at first look. And looking at the numbers a bit closer you will see the following: IN-OH FF difference small schools -- IN has 1.23 more FF/school large schools -- OH has .77 more FF/school IN-KS FF difference small schools -- IN has .91 more FF/school large schools -- KS has .77 more FF/school IN-MI FF difference small schools -- IN has .93 more FF/school large schools -- MI has 1.39 more FF/school So, the largest discrepancy is actually between IN and MI large schools. And -- if we take the average of the comparison's between IN and the 3 other states we see that IN has on average 1.02 more FF in the small schools than the other three states, and the other 3 states have on average .98 more FF in the larger schools. Really not as much discrepancy as one might think. Seems like more evidence of just shifting the problem from small schools to large one's. That doesn't seem like much of a solution to me. Super_Fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaveitonthemat Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Joe can I ban him please!!! I am very protective of the small guys. I am still really upset they moved it to 106. Leave the little ones alone. This sport is the one sport a 100 pound freshman can compete at. It used be a 95 pound freshman but they changed that. Haha, touche! I can't imagine the difficulty of trying to find a 95 lb kid to wrestle, that would be a nightmare. aoberlin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RASSLER4LIFE Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) What skewed data? Hard to compare apples to oranges! Edited January 29, 2016 by RASSLER4LIFE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Hahahaha -- you have zero answer other than some non-sense accusation that no reasonable person would gather from the statements I've made. I personally have nothing against small schools -- I coached at one for many years. But, as I said in the post you quoted, "Instead, I think looking into different solutions, like many others in this thread have proposed, that are good for everyone is a much better solution." Is there any data that shows they would be better solutions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoberlin Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Haha, touche! I can't imagine the difficulty of trying to find a 95 lb kid to wrestle, that would be a nightmare. We have a 95 pounder right now that is actually pretty good but he is just too light to wrestle a kid that is cutting to make 106. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLCards Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Is there any data that shows they would be better solutions? I haven't seen any, I think looking for some would be a fair next step --- but I also haven't seen any data that suggest to me that classed wrestling is the solution. RASSLER4LIFE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backtothemat Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 We have a 95 pounder right now that is actually pretty good but he is just too light to wrestle a kid that is cutting to make 106. Castle's 220 barely makes the 184.1lb weight allowance yet is the 2 seed in the sectional. It's not all about size. A good technical 95lber could HANDLE a big 106lber who is not a great technician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoberlin Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Castle's 220 barely makes the 184.1lb weight allowance yet is the 2 seed in the sectional. It's not all about size. A good technical 95lber could HANDLE a big 106lber who is not a great technician. Thanks for the lesson. But we can agree to disagree, it is totally different when you are that small. I actually weighed 95 pounds my freshman year and there is absolutely no way I could have done anything against a kid that naturally weighs at least 110. RAJR and bog190 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 You have a bit of a sample size issue when you are comparing 50 schools to 201 and 20 schools to 89, so I'm not sure the "full forfeit difference" is quite as telling as one might think at first look. And looking at the numbers a bit closer you will see the following: It is probably pretty difficult to find a state with the same exact structure as Indiana in terms of schools and school sizes. The best way to compare is to compare schools of the same size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsawwrestling Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I still believe in my heart that the answer lies in building youth programs and continue pushing colleges to offer wrestling. Instead of us trying to be other states, why don't we start looking at programs like Prairie Heights, Triton and some over these other programs that are having success. I'll give you a hint they both have good kid programs & middle school programs that teach the same things and work together with their High School program. RASSLER4LIFE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts