Jump to content

Any change of hearts?


Recommended Posts

Why is this any different than training kids from different schools at your summer RoadRunner club, then having them go match up at ISWA Folkstyle or Freestyle state?

 

Iron sharpens iron.  If a coach/team chooses not to send their kids anywhere else then perhaps they will be the ones that are left behind as other schools work together for the betterment of all.  Seems like the RWA kids practice together 60% of the year, why not make it 100% -- wouldn't it improve their overall wrestling level?

The difference is it's during the state run when as a coach we have a different focus than during the off-season. I can't imagine going somewhere and my 132 wrestling with a 138...and then the 138 realizes if my kid is hurt his teammate gets pulled back in or gets a better draw. I know it's an extreme case, but don't think it would cross a kid or coaches mind. That would be one of my biggest fears as a coach.

 

Practicing with your direct competition the week before your biggest matches(sectional, regional, semi-state) just doesn't sound good to me. On top of that it would have very little affect on wrestlers. You put this together to help small school wrestlers, but practicing with a couple neighboring schools isn't exactly going to do too much for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I guess the first thing that comes to mind as I sift through these posts is "perspective."  Just who are you in relation to the issue?  Are you a coach, a grandfather of a wrestler, an ex-wrestler, a

Y2, I want to first admit that you are a really good debator, maybe even a masterdebator?  I don't know that's up for debation.  After I compliment your skills of arguing I'm going to try and learn fr

It's crazy that those numbers almost mirror the total population of each class. Which is BTW what you would staistically expect, which shows that things in terms of qualifiers is realitivily fair. T

Posted Images

If college coaches are recruiting only kids that make it to state and not on talent then shame on them.

 

I would think college coaches would rather see our one class and 24 per class than see 2 or 3 classes where it might be watered down

Edited by frigginhurts
Link to post
Share on other sites

If college coaches are recruiting only kids that make it to state and not on talent then shame on them.

 

I would think college coaches would rather see our one class and 24 per class than see 2 or 3 classes where it might be watered down

The idea is that since the trips are expensive and time consuming that college coaches or their assistances place a bigger value on getting to see more wrestlers and matches per trip when attending a multi-class event. The hope maybe being that the chances of finding a diamond in the rough may increase under those conditions. Edited by MattM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the past 6 years 65% of the state qualifiers have been from 3A, 26% from 2A, and 9% from 1A. 

 

With what you are saying, I am gathering that about 10x more 3A wrestlers do offseason work than 1A wrestlers. We need to look at if that is true, and if so WHY? Is it because 1A wrestlers are lazy? Is it because 1A wrestlers are also in track and baseball? Is it because there is a lack of offseason opportunity? 

Are you considering EMD a 3A school or 1A school?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you considering EMD a 3A school or 1A school?

By current numbers, EMD would be 2A if it were classified by enrollment.  But he's counting EMD as 3A since that's where they compete and since they are an extreme mathematical outlier based on their state qualifiers for their school size.  According to basic statistical analysis used across scientific fields, a simple regression model suggests there's less than a 1 in 1000 chance that a school of EMD's size should have as many state qualifiers as they do.  This means their data must be ignored or properly classified (with 3A) to be considered at all for analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No change of heart here.

I try my best to listen to the sales pitch of the size class supporters but sorry no sale.

Please do not water down the Indiana State Championships, just as Indiana  is finally getting more respect every year.

I hate to be a downer but college coaches look at National tournaments more than any state tournament.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By current numbers, EMD would be 2A if it were classified by enrollment.  But he's counting EMD as 3A since that's where they compete and since they are an extreme mathematical outlier based on their state qualifiers for their school size.  According to basic statistical analysis used across scientific fields, a simple regression model suggests there's less than a 1 in 1000 chance that a school of EMD's size should have as many state qualifiers as they do.  This means their data must be ignored or properly classified (with 3A) to be considered at all for analysis.

 Would you have to remove Warren then? Since they were an outlier as well and not indicative of all 3A schools?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No change of heart here.

I try my best to listen to the sales pitch of the size class supporters but sorry no sale.

Please do not water down the Indiana State Championships, just as Indiana  is finally getting more respect every year.

I hate to be a downer but college coaches look at National tournaments more than any state tournament.

 

What is your basis for the statement "Indiana is finally getting more respect every year"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Would you have to remove Warren then? Since they were an outlier as well and not indicative of all 3A schools?

I'm not sure you grasp the definition of outlier very well. Warren Central has 28 state qualifiers over the past 7 years. That is the 9th most of all schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you grasp the definition of outlier very well. Warren Central has 28 state qualifiers over the past 7 years. That is the 9th most of all schools.

Isn't Warren either the largest or second largest high school in the state based on population? I thought that I have heard that Carmel is number 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the Statistics - The results change based on personal agendas, starting points, who goes where, etc. (sorry Joe).  Over 10 pages of posts and multiple topics each year show that people are going to disagree about which statistics are the most valid and should be used.

 

Ignore the Emotions - History and tradition are great, but times change.  If we never make progress and try new things, then we'd still be walking to school uphill both ways.  The "good old days" are just that - good but old.

 

What Is Important - College coaches across the country want us to go to classes.  It's not to water down our tournament.  It's so they can better compare Indiana's best to wrestlers from other states.  A kid who maybe qualifies for state once or twice could become a 2 or 3 time placewinner or state champ.  That wrestler is going to end up on multiple college coaches' radars.  College coaches from schools of all sizes are going to know to watch that wrestler at national events and contact him.  When I was in high school, I qualified for state three times and placed twice.  I got to wrestle in the IN-IL duals.  The guy I wrestled was a 3-time small school state champ in the same weights that I was at.  I majored him, even though he had gotten DI offers from schools I was also interested in but never heard from them.  The college exposure that classing our state tournament would provide would help our wrestlers immediately and improve our talent level in the future when some of those college wrestlers come back to Indiana to coach.  I know we are way behind the best states when it comes to high school and junior high coaches with college wrestling experience.

 

Who Makes the Decision - We can argue all we want here, but the IHSAA ultimately has the final decision.  One way to convince them is to have almost all coaches to agree.  That obviously isn't going to happen with this, and without 100% membership in the coaches association, the IHSWCA doesn't have as much influence as they do in other sports.  There is another way to convince the IHSAA that a change is needed, but I don't know what that is.  Basketball changed to classes with similar split opinions.  Something changed the minds of the IHSAA.  If we can find out what that was, then that's the best avenue to take to make it happen again.  It will probably take a group effort with the other "individual" sports to change the stubborn old school beliefs of the IHSAA.  We might have to wait until the next regime change, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm still confused on the "college coaches want this..."   so are you telling me if we had two classes and a kid from a small school wins state 3 times he will get a college scholarship but if we have one class and he only places once he won't get a scholarship EVEN THOUGH HE IS THE EXACT SAME WRESTLER?

what kind of colleges are we talking about...not the Division I, correct?

 

I'm obviously not getting something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm still confused on the "college coaches want this..."   so are you telling me if we had two classes and a kid from a small school wins state 3 times he will get a college scholarship but if we have one class and he only places once he won't get a scholarship EVEN THOUGH HE IS THE EXACT SAME WRESTLER?

what kind of colleges are we talking about...not the Division I, correct?

 

I'm obviously not getting something.

 

YES, being a 3-time champ will get a kid a whole lot more attention than a one time placer in a single class state.

 

The kid that places as a sophomore or junior is going to get looks from colleges. If a kid only places once as a senior it's too late for much college recruiting. I talked to the North Carolina State coach that was there last week and he said he's looking at the class of 2017 and 2018. Division 1 recruiting is mostly done before December, rarely do they have money or even roster spots available in March. Note that MANY DI schools have roster limits so they cannot just take every wrestler. At this point in the game the smaller schools are looking to fill in need areas and trying to snag a diamond in the rough. Even then they may have already passed on the the one time placer for a kid that was at state the year before.

 

Two big factors in recruiting that would help us would be:

1. More kids for college coaches to watch

If you are a college coach will you spend limited recruiting budget to come watch 224 kids or 672(Ohio, Illinois)? That's a pretty easy choice to me. 

 

2. More kids(mostly small school) having more success earlier

Having success earlier will give kids more exposure earlier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

YES, being a 3-time champ will get a kid a whole lot more attention than a one time placer in a single class state.

 

The kid that places as a sophomore or junior is going to get looks from colleges. If a kid only places once as a senior it's too late for much college recruiting. I talked to the North Carolina State coach that was there last week and he said he's looking at the class of 2017 and 2018. Division 1 recruiting is mostly done before December, rarely do they have money or even roster spots available in March. Note that MANY DI schools have roster limits so they cannot just take every wrestler. At this point in the game the smaller schools are looking to fill in need areas and trying to snag a diamond in the rough. Even then they may have already passed on the the one time placer for a kid that was at state the year before.

 

Two big factors in recruiting that would help us would be:

1. More kids for college coaches to watch

If you are a college coach will you spend limited recruiting budget to come watch 224 kids or 672(Ohio, Illinois)? That's a pretty easy choice to me. 

 

2. More kids(mostly small school) having more success earlier

Having success earlier will give kids more exposure earlier. 

 

 

Sounds logical.  Not sure what the argument against this logic is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds logical.  Not sure what the argument against this logic is.

 

My argument is that I can't understand why some feel that it's necessary for an inferior wrestler to get "exposure" over a superior wrestler, and only because the inferior wrestler was a "disadvantage" because their school is small and they don't have the same resources / practice partners / etc

 

We could apply an arbitrary label to a kid saying he's a 4-time small school champion, but if he still gets his butt kicked 8 out of 10 times by the large school kid that can't get out of the semistate ticket round, then why do you feel he's more deserving to get that exposure and college attention?  Why not make 6 classes, so we have 6 kids that can apply the "state champion" label every year and get exposure?

 

Joe, you mention that a college coach will want to come and watch 672 kids instead of 224.  That sounds like a 2-day event to me.  So why not keep the same 672 wrestlers, but expand the state finals by 2 rounds, or add 1 round and add wrestle-backs (32 kids per weight class = 448 wrestlers).  Now, the "best" wrestlers are there for the college coaches to watch.  Cody Crary from Munster didn't make it to state this year -- lost in the ticket round to Jack Tolin.  So with your premise, it would make more sense for a college coach to see a small school guy (not the small school state champ, who would likely make it to state under any format, but those #8-16 small school wrestlers) to have college exposure more than Crary.

 

Again, I say we focus on raising the technical abilities of all wrestlers, keep the classed team state, and expand the individual state to see Indiana wrestling really take off

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

YES, being a 3-time champ will get a kid a whole lot more attention than a one time placer in a single class state.

 

But in your humble opinion is this a true indicator of how good said "3-time champ" is on the next level? Because that's what this whole argument is geared towards, the next level, not high school competition.

 

Is the University getting their "money's worth" on a 3-time 1A champion vs. a 2-time place winner on the 3A level? Which wrestler is better? For that matter, which "class" is better? Who is the better investment? How do you compare without like opponents?

Edited by allyourbase
Link to post
Share on other sites

But in your humble opinion is this a true indicator of how good said "3-time champ" is on the next level? Because that's what this whole argument is geared towards, the next level, not high school competition.

 

Is the University getting their "money's worth" on a 3-time 1A champion vs. a 2-time place winner on the 3A level? Which wrestler is better? For that matter, which "class" is better? Who is the better investment? How do you compare without like opponents?

 

The quote you used said 3 time champ vs 1 time placer.  Then you changed it to 3 time champ vs. a 2 time placer.  Hard to follow when you aren't on the same page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter if you guys think the tournament would be watered down? You aren't wrestling, the kids are! If it increases their chance of wrestling in college, let's do it. You're trying to limit a kids chance of wrestling in college because of your stubborn old fashion preference. You'd rather watch a one class system than let kids get the chance to better themselves and their life in college. That's extremely selfish of you. The three class system is a need, data points to it regardless of your opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter if you guys think the tournament would be watered down? You aren't wrestling, the kids are! If it increases their chance of wrestling in college, let's do it. You're trying to limit a kids chance of wrestling in college because of your stubborn old fashion preference. You'd rather watch a one class system than let kids get the chance to better themselves and their life in college. That's extremely selfish of you. The three class system is a need, data points to it regardless of your opinion

But it doesn't...

 

 

The quote you used said 3 time champ vs 1 time placer.  Then you changed it to 3 time champ vs. a 2 time placer.  Hard to follow when you aren't on the same page.

Is it really THAT important? lol I get your point but you're searching for things here... I would say its the same thing as you guys putting out data for 3 classes yet arguing for a 2 class system...

 

But in your humble opinion is this a true indicator of how good said "3-time champ" is on the next level? Because that's what this whole argument is geared towards, the next level, not high school competition.

 

Is the University getting their "money's worth" on a 3-time 1A champion vs. a 2-time place winner on the 3A level? Which wrestler is better? For that matter, which "class" is better? Who is the better investment? How do you compare without like opponents?

This is a solid point but the fact of the matter is that is up to the college recruiter to decide. (Thinking about the kids here...) Does it really matter? As long as it is another one of INDIANA's kids going to wrestle and not IL or PA. What if you have a DIII college there who can't offer athletic scholarships so most "GOOD" kids wouldn't want to attend there but they find a 1A kid who doesn't have any other offers and this is the one opportunity he has to go to college? This is how I could see more kids going to college to wrestle from a classed system. Yes I would agree most DI programs aren't going to be heavily recruiting 1A high school kids but maybe smaller schools will...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote you used said 3 time champ vs 1 time placer.  Then you changed it to 3 time champ vs. a 2 time placer.  Hard to follow when you aren't on the same page.

No, you're wrong.

 

I moved 1A after the 3-time champ and corrected "money's."

 

I'm putting my own comparison out there, not Y2's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument is that I can't understand why some feel that it's necessary for an inferior wrestler to get "exposure" over a superior wrestler, and only because the inferior wrestler was a "disadvantage" because their school is small and they don't have the same resources / practice partners / etc

 

The point is not to compare our own big school vs small school.  (not all small school champs and placewinners are going to be "inferior" to the big school ones)

 

The point is to compare our small school wrestlers with the achievements of small school wrestlers from other states.  Indiana's are just as good, if not better, than most from other states.  But those small school wrestlers from other states with classed wrestling are getting the attention and offers that ours are not.  This will result in more college opportunities for our wrestlers now.  When they graduate and (some) come back to Indiana, that will increase our overall level in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is not to compare our own big school vs small school.  (not all small school champs and placewinners are going to be "inferior" to the big school ones)

 

The point is to compare our small school wrestlers with the achievements of small school wrestlers from other states.  Indiana's are just as good, if not better, than most from other states.  But those small school wrestlers from other states with classed wrestling are getting the attention and offers that ours are not.  This will result in more college opportunities for our wrestlers now.  When they graduate and (some) come back to Indiana, that will increase our overall level in the future.

 

I think the key phrase here is more "college opportunities."  It appears some people don't understand that for some of these kids wresting in college is what will get them to even consider going to college. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument is that I can't understand why some feel that it's necessary for an inferior wrestler to get "exposure" over a superior wrestler, and only because the inferior wrestler was a "disadvantage" because their school is small and they don't have the same resources / practice partners / etc

The easiest answer is this, wrestling isn't exactly thriving at small schools. Do we want it to continue to slide down or should we help them? Even though there are inferior teams in other class sports we still give them recognition and allow them their own state tournament.

 

We could apply an arbitrary label to a kid saying he's a 4-time small school champion, but if he still gets his butt kicked 8 out of 10 times by the large school kid that can't get out of the semistate ticket round, then why do you feel he's more deserving to get that exposure and college attention?  Why not make 6 classes, so we have 6 kids that can apply the "state champion" label every year and get exposure?

College coaches look at results, a two time state champion is going to get more interest than a two time semi-state qualifier. Whether you consider it watered down or not, it's way better to put state champion on your resume than semi-state qualifier.

 

Joe, you mention that a college coach will want to come and watch 672 kids instead of 224.  That sounds like a 2-day event to me.  So why not keep the same 672 wrestlers, but expand the state finals by 2 rounds, or add 1 round and add wrestle-backs (32 kids per weight class = 448 wrestlers).  Now, the "best" wrestlers are there for the college coaches to watch.  Cody Crary from Munster didn't make it to state this year -- lost in the ticket round to Jack Tolin.  So with your premise, it would make more sense for a college coach to see a small school guy (not the small school state champ, who would likely make it to state under any format, but those #8-16 small school wrestlers) to have college exposure more than Crary.

 

Again, I say we focus on raising the technical abilities of all wrestlers, keep the classed team state, and expand the individual state to see Indiana wrestling really take off

I find it interesting that you seem to have no issue watering down the state tournament by adding more qualifiers, yet don't want to do it to help small schools. It's much like when we expanded the semi-state qualifiers by 56 and no one batted an eye. Won't we be artificially creating state qualifiers to kids that "haven't earned it?" It would help small schools, but going from 3.5 to 7 isn't as good as going from 3.5 to 8 or 16. On top of that it won't increase the number of state placers for small schools and I'd even argue that it would probably hurt that percentage.

 

I'm not totally against an expansion of state qualifiers, but coming from the people that constantly tell me not to water down state by adding classes I get confused. I would think the people who preach about watering down the state tournament would be more for making it 12 state qualifiers before 32.

Link to post
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.