decbell1 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Well I guess to continue the argument, why would you want to differentiate the teams from each other at this point with a somewhat arbitrary tie-breaker? I guess my strongest opinion is that the tie-breaker shouldn't trump the vote-in committee. If teams are tied, I would rather see the vote-in committee select the teams rather than using a tie-breaker that was developed in very broad terms and may not be the best way to assess these specific teams. In the end, I just think it looks back if the entire process eliminates one team who had the same score as another team who automatically qualified. That one seems hard to justify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) I understand what you're saying, and I think we're descending into philosophical minutiae here, but it just depends on how you look at it. We could just as easily say, "we have to include Lebanon because they only scored 0.6% less points than NorthWood...why the arbitrary cutoff?" But we don't say that, because we put criteria in place to select exactly 10 automatically and then to have deeper discussion after we've selected exactly 10. And most returning starters is obviously not an arbitrary second criteria after most qualifying points scored. (There's a good argument to be made for "most points scored by underclassmen" from the tied teams, but it's not necessarily a more predictive indicator unless the number of returning starters is the same or the same team owns both criteria. Winchester has both in this case.) Edited February 25, 2016 by maligned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I am not sure how you can say that the returning starters isn't an arbitrary criteria when the committee selected Busco last year with 6(?) projected returning starters over a team like Eastern Hancock who had 11(?) projected returning starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 I am not sure how you can say that the returning starters isn't an arbitrary criteria when the committee selected Busco last year with 6(?) projected returning starters over a team like Eastern Hancock who had 11(?) projected returning starters. Returning starters isn't an arbitrary hard statistic. I think what I hear you saying is that you feel like the Busco selection feels like an arbitrary one considering they had less returning starters. I don't know whether I agree or disagree with the choice (I wasn't in on the voting or preceding discussion), but I do know this info: E. Hancock had 11 returning, but only 4 past sectional and no evidence of any JV guys (typical 1A teams have only 2 to 4 JV guys, so they had to assume that since no info was submitted). Busco had 8 returning (not he 6 you guessed), with 3 past sectional going through a more difficult path. They also had 2 head-to-head victories over other teams being considered while E. Hancock had none. And they had 16 JV guys--a huge number for 1A that suggested they would be able to re-load some. (I know you've seen all this because you asked about it last year. I post it for the benefit of others.) All this to say--in this case, returning starters was not the only thing to be considered once we got past picking our strict first 10. But it's generally an enormous stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I guess the question is if Elwood could realistically not be voted in, considering they have the exact same amount of points scored as two teams that are already in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I guess the question is if Elwood could realistically not be voted in, considering they have the exact same amount of points scored as two teams that are already in? That's my fear. There is no way Elwood should be excluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishingbasket Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 We need to expand to 16 teams for several different reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwoodjc89 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Put me in the camp that feels like these tied teams should all go to the committee. The scores are the same, let them make a case to be included. They have done everything in their power to perform well to get in. They should go through the vote in process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Nieman Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 What is the likelihood that a team eligible for one of the vote-in spots that has fewer points leapfrogs one of the higher scoring vote-in teams? Does it happen often or are the two highest scoring vote-in teams usually selected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleB Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 A cut off is a cut off, it is what it is. There's never going to be a perfect number. We expand to 16 and suddenly there will be a cry for 24 and so on and so on. The perfect system would be for the IHSAA to bring back team tourney and open it up to everybody. But man the universe might get swallowed into a hole w/ Decbell and Maligned going at it.... #SmartGuyTalk RASSLER4LIFE and decbell1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescraft Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Tri has 11 returning guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Tri has 11 returning guys. The totals on the sheet are for the guys that actually wrestled at sectional. We had you, Faith, and Harding as seniors, forfeits at 132 and 182, and 9 underclassmen. Does that seem right to you? Edited February 27, 2016 by maligned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) What is the likelihood that a team eligible for one of the vote-in spots that has fewer points leapfrogs one of the higher scoring vote-in teams? Does it happen often or are the two highest scoring vote-in teams usually selected? The qualifying scores definitely play a part, but there have been teams with lower scores than their counterparts selected every year. The qualifying scores are very predictive of who will be good next year, but in the end, they represent the results of a competition that has limitations in its ability to predict exactly who will be best. Teams separated by 7 points in qualifying for example, are equivalent to being expected to be separated by only 3 points in a dual meet. That's virtually nothing. The committee has the job, then, to look at everything: exactly who's coming back, which 8th graders and JV guys are incoming, what circumstances may have contributed to qualifying scores being lower than a team's full-strength ability, etc. The total impact of all of those facts can be much, much greater than the 3 or 5 or 7 points of difference in qualifying scores, so the committee is not restricted in any way to voting in teams based on scores alone. Edited February 27, 2016 by maligned Coach Nieman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescraft Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 The totals on the sheet are for the guys that actually wrestled at sectional. We had you, Faith, and Harding as seniors, forfeits at 132 and 182, and 9 underclassmen. Does that seem right to you? Yeah! My bad. We have a lot of returning guys! Tough couple of little 8th graders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panthers1 Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 As the coach of Elwood, I have been watching this closely. We would have not forfeited 170 for sectional if two things would have happened deferently, which I think would have gave us enough points to get in.(1) My varsity wrestler would have been checked out 1 day earlier (missed being cleared by 1 day) couldn't get his practices in to return. (2) My jv wrestler @ 170 didn't have enough weigh-ins, because he was academicly not eligible until after the first of the year. I wouldn't let him weigh-in prior, because he hadn't made the grades. He made all of the practices from day 1 of Nov. until the last of the season. He also passed his math class. I would love our school to be eligible to represent our community in the team state, but things happen. Hope that we can get the votes to get in. Thanks Fred Short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agirod Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) Nothing they do will be fair to everyone. We are sitting in the 12 spot in 1A and have beaten Triton which is already in. At the time we beat them we had three forfeits in our line up. I don't believe they won a match. Not taking anything away from Triton. They are a great team. Later on in the season we lost our 145 and 220 to injuries for several weeks and lost a few close dual meets. I believe with the talent we have coming back and the kids we have coming in we can compete with any 1A team in the state. Our 220 beat two semi-state qualifiers but didn't compete in the state tournament because of a broken hand. Our JV 220 also had a broken hand and couldn't fill in. I am not complaining. We have been sitting in this position in years past and haven't been voted in. I am just saying not everyone will be happy regardless of who gets in or how many teams qualify. I am humbled that we are being considered and our kids are excited. Thank you to the IHSWCA for putting this together and giving more schools a chance to compete at a "state" event. Edited March 2, 2016 by agirod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 As the coach of Elwood, I have been watching this closely. We would have not forfeited 170 for sectional if two things would have happened deferently, which I think would have gave us enough points to get in.(1) My varsity wrestler would have been checked out 1 day earlier (missed being cleared by 1 day) couldn't get his practices in to return. (2) My jv wrestler @ 170 didn't have enough weigh-ins, because he was academicly not eligible until after the first of the year. I wouldn't let him weigh-in prior, because he hadn't made the grades. He made all of the practices from day 1 of Nov. until the last of the season. He also passed his math class. I would love our school to be eligible to represent our community in the team state, but things happen. Hope that we can get the votes to get in. Thanks Fred Short Nothing they do will be fair to everyone. We are sitting in the 12 spot in 1A and have beaten Triton which is already in. At the time we beat them we had three forfeits in our line up. I don't believe they won a match. Not taking anything away from Triton. They are a great team. Later on in the season we lost our 145 and 220 to injuries for several weeks and lost a few close dual meets. I believe with the talent we have coming back and the kids we have coming in we can compete with any 1A team in the state. Our 220 beat two semi-state qualifiers but didn't compete in the state tournament because of a broken hand. Our JV 220 also had a broken hand and couldn't fill in. I am not complaining. We have been sitting in this position in years past and haven't been voted in. I am just saying not everyone will be happy regardless of who gets in or how many teams qualify. I am humbled that we are being considered and our kids are excited. Thank you to the IHSWCA for putting this together and giving more schools a chance to compete at a "state" event. Invitations to the automatically qualified teams will be sent shortly. After they've been given a couple weeks to respond and accept invitations, teams in voting consideration will have the chance to submit information explaining any detail like the above, plus details of incoming freshmen and JVs--all of which will help the committee better understand how strong you'll most likely be next year. It sounds like both of you have very compelling cases. Please look for the information sheets when they're sent out and be prepared to include as much info as you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 The scoring is specifically designed to project duals ability next year. It won't necessarily reflect current-season strength or tournament-style ability. Warren, for example, loses 8 starters and is projected to come back to the pack some. All the details are in links in this thread: http://indianamat.com/index.php/topic/49479-team-state-qualifying-procedures-2016/ Final IHSWCA Team State Qualifying scores are now posted in the first comment on this thread! A summary is below. 3A: East Chicago rep: Crown Point 224 Fort Wayne rep: Carroll 177 New Castle rep: Warren Central 225 Evansville rep: Evansville Mater Dei 225 Automatic wildcards: Portage 223.5 Avon 214 Brownsburg 210 Penn 209 Perry Meridian 205.5 Castle 197 Currently in position for consideration for both vote-in wildcards: Chesterton 192.5, Indianapolis Cathedral 189, Columbus East 178 Currently in position for consideration for final vote-in wildcard only: Lawrence North 176.5, Carmel 176 Additional 3A notes: -You must be within 15 points of the first available candidate (currently Chesterton) for consideration for both vote-in wildcards and within 15 of the second available candidate (currently Cathedral) for consideration for the final wildcard -Recall that Crown Point have declined bids 3 times. If they decline again, Portage would be the new East Chicago rep and Chesterton would move into the final automatic wildcard position. LN and Carmel would then be eligible for both of the vote-in positions along with Cathedral and CE. Jennings County would also then be eligible for the final spot. 2A: East Chicago rep: Culver Academies 130 Fort Wayne rep: Bellmont 210 New Castle rep: North Montgomery 217.5 Evansville rep: Edgewood 187 Automatic wildcards: Yorktown 209.5 Jimtown 199.5 Garrett 184 Franklin County 176 Southmont 165 NorthWood 163 Currently in position for consideration for both vote-in wildcards: Lebanon 162, South Dearborn 162, Delta 151, Evansville Memorial 149, Indian Creek 149, Southridge 148 Additional 2A notes: -You must be within 15 points of the first available candidate (Lebanon/S. Dearborn) for consideration for both wildcards and within 15 of the second available candidate (also Leb/S. Dearborn) for consideration for the final wildcard. Thus, Delta, EM, IC, Southridge are all eligible for both along with Lebanon and SD. -Lebanon would move into automatic wildcard position and Mt. Vernon (Posey) and Columbia City would be eligible for the final vote if someone declines a bid. 1A: East Chicago rep: Triton 147 Fort Wayne rep: Prairie Heights 220 New Castle rep: Shenandoah 199 Evansville rep: North Posey 171 Automatic wildcards: Oak Hill 209 Adams Central 199 Knightstown 169 Fountain Central 167 Monrovia 154 Winchester 147 Currently in position for consideration for both vote-in wildcards: Elwood 147, Woodlan 140, Central Noble 132, Eastern (Greentown) 133 Currently in position for consideration for final vote-in wildcard only: Churubusco 131, Delphi 127, Eastern Hancock 126, Bremen 126 Additional 1A notes: -Winchester takes the final automatic position over Elwood by the first tiebreaker--most underclassmen sectional starters (Winchester 11, Elwood 10) -If someone declines a bid, Elwood becomes the new automatic wildcard, Busco/Delphi/E. Hancock/Bremen would be eligible for both vote-in spots, and Tri, Cass, and W. Central would move into contention for the final voted position. The 10 automatic positions in each class have now been accepted. The only change to the above lists is the substitution in 2A of Lebanon for Southmont, who declined their bid. These teams will be considered for the 2 vote-in wildcards in each class when the selection committee meets on April 21: 3A: Both spots: Chesterton, Cathedral, Columbus East Final spot only, along with 2 remaining teams above: Carmel, Lawrence North 2A: Both spots: South Dearborn, Delta, Indian Creek, Evansville Memorial, Southridge Final spot only, along with 4 remaining teams above: Mt. Vernon-Posey, Columbia City 1A: Both spots: Elwood, Woodlan, Central Noble, Eastern-Greentown Final spot only, along with 3 remaining teams above: Churubusco, Delphi, Eastern Hancock, Bremen All of these teams will shortly be sent paperwork to fill out, in which they can share details of all expected incoming 8th grade or returning JV talent, as well as any circumstances that may have affected their state series performance, such as injuries that weren't included in Team State qualifying scores. All of this will be used, along with the details of individuals' state series performance and all current-season team results, to determine which teams the committee feels have the best chance to have the best duals ability next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 The final 2 teams in each class were voted on this evening. Here are the results: 3A: Chesterton and Carmel 2A: Delta and Evansville Memorial 1A: Elwood and Central Noble These teams have been invited and will complete the field if they accept. Caleb Spires and barrydjr 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualwrestlingfan Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I hate how individual results factor into a team dual tournament. Open or change the schedule limitations on dual meets and etc. Have teams wrestle off in dual meets to qualify for TEAM state duals. Everyone knows how much more strategy is put in to shuffling lineups to secure dual meet victories than the individual tournament. Sorry rant over from this least popular poster on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Looks like Carmel is out and Columbus East is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManHammer07 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Edgewood is very excited to be a part of Team State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Has anyone looked at the new Westfiled Grand Park Event Center or the Johnathan Byrd Fieldhouse (if basketballs not already there) as a possible location for a future Team Stare events? Seems like either of those building would have enough mat space plus spectator area (not sure on bleachers) to have everything all in the same building. Edited July 28, 2016 by MattM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backtothemat Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Looks like Carmel is out and Columbus East is in. Why the change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 I believe one of the key pieces of the reason they were included decided to transfer. Coach P did not feel it was right to attend after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts