maligned Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I don't think WestForkwhite gets this point. But this is the essential point. His output argument that you can measure the toughness on the regional based on how only the top one or two guys do later in at SS and State is weak. You're measuring the totality of the top 8 in Regional, he wants to base his measurement on the success of the top one or maybe two guys. I guess good to debate, but I think the jury is back and WestForkwhite just lost.I don't know if it's so much about winning an argument as it is about being accurate. Because of that, I always take these discussions seriously and try genuinely to see where others are coming from, to always be learning, and to revisit past data or notes to communicate clearly how we've arrived where we are. Wrestling Scholar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Has there been any discussion about moving 1A or 2A teams up a division based on winning like football does? Yorktown has had a nice run at the 2A division, it might be something to look in to. Even a possible match with top 4 portage this season could have been a good dual 106-Y 113-P 120-p 126-Y 132-Y 138-P 145-P 152-Y 160-Y 170-P 182-P 195-P 220-Toss up 285-Y These are tourney based results and not my opinion but that's 6 for Yorktown with 220 being a toss up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) Has there been any discussion about moving 1A or 2A teams up a division based on winning like football does? Yorktown has had a nice run at the 2A division, it might be something to look in to. Even a possible match with top 4 portage this season could have been a good dual 106-Y 113-P 120-p 126-Y 132-Y 138-P 145-P 152-Y 160-Y 170-P 182-P 195-P 220-Toss up 285-Y These are tourney based results and not my opinion but that's 6 for Yorktown with 220 being a toss up Why couldn't Yorktown elect to move up a class just like Mater Dei. Yorktown has proven they can be close to a top 10 all class team year after year. I see this as a similar situation. Again, this would be contingent if Coach McCormick would want to do this. I see no need to Mandate a move, but if they elect to and their viable why not. Edited March 16, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar ontherise219 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsawwrestling Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I have a lot of respect for Yorktown and their program, but don't feel they have the depth that MD has. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 3A 1. Brownsburg-invited 2. Perry-invited 3. Avon-invited 4. Portage-invited 5. EMD-invited 6. Penn-invited 7. Cathedral-lost at vote-in, but the system had them 11th 8. Castle-invited 9. Carroll-invited 10. Carmel-invited (if selection committee had "guessed" correctly, all 10 of the season-ending top 10 would have been at the event. They took Chesterton and Columbus East instead of Cathedral--hard to blame them although we see it was a slight miss.) Adrian, That's amazing how accurate your forecasting model is. So you're saying your predictive system was more accurate in forecasting than the judgement of the esteemed selection committee of power resulting in a slight miss. I wonder if they will weigh the accuracy when making their selection this year. I hope they don't make the same mistake and not select the 11th team this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Adrian, That's amazing how accurate your forecasting model is. So you're saying your predictive system was more accurate in forecasting than the judgement of the esteemed selection committee of power resulting in a slight miss. I wonder if they will weigh the accuracy when making their selection this year. I hope they don't make the same mistake and not select the 11th team this year. You're funny. Actually in 3A, they took the highest score available (Chesterton) and the lowest score available (Carmel...who later declined their bid because they got into the voting based on points from an ineligible transfer who transferred again after the voting was finished). The lower score (Carmel) snuck into the top 10 at the end of the year and the higher was there much of the year. Cathedral was just below Chesterton in qualification points. Wrestling Scholar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westforkwhite Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 I don't know if it's so much about winning an argument as it is about being accurate. Because of that, I always take these discussions seriously and try genuinely to see where others are coming from, to always be learning, and to revisit past data or notes to communicate clearly how we've arrived where we are. I really appreciate all your explanations and agree with most of the points you've made. Particularly as it relates to getting the best teams there, because I think it is doing a very good job. I don't think WestForkwhite gets this point. But this is the essential point. His output argument that you can measure the toughness on the regional based on how only the top one or two guys do later in at SS and State is weak. You're measuring the totality of the top 8 in Regional, he wants to base his measurement on the success of the top one or maybe two guys. I guess good to debate, but I think the jury is back and WestForkwhite just lost. I totally get that it is measuring the top 8 as it should, but when B is better than A in every measurable way 1-4 the system is placing a higher value on the 5-8 as it relates to the regional scoring value. I don't think an argument has been made against this point. Now placing a higher value on the 5-8 may be the correct point of emphasis (not intentionally speaking) to truly assess the overall strength of the regional, but I wasn't necessarily making an argument against that either. 5-8 finishers who don't advance can't be measured against their SS peers in the same way that 1-4 can, so I believe it was entirely logical to compare A & B from that perspective. What my comparisons didn't allow was real assessment of the 5-8 which for the system, as it has been pointed out, is measured using dual results submitted. (Which seems to be the only way to measure this group, but not quite the apples to apples comparison you get with the 1-4) Ultimately the proof is in the pudding and I think it's a very good system that's picking overwhelmingly the correct teams. Maligned's point (made via the table) about a team from B being a write-in over a team that the model had picked is a very good one and speaks to the corrective balances they have in within the system. Thanks to everyone for playing along, and I'll just have to go away with the changed belief that 5-8 finishers do have a disproportionate impact on the overall regional strength as it relates to the regional advancement values and it works within the system as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts