Jump to content

Which regional is better?


Recommended Posts

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by Wrestling Scholar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

×
×
  • 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.