WadeDuPont Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I have seen in many posted comments that say the IHSAA does it this way or that way, which makes me assume the committee is trying to get something the IHSAA would adopt. For Example the enrollment numbers for re-classification every two years. If that is the case, why wouldn't the tournament success factor be in play as well? Can some one please explain to the wrestling community what the end goal is and why we use the IHSAA as a model for some things and not others. What exactly is the end goal? Mattyb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Here are some topics discussing the same thing from years past http://indianamat.com/index.php?/topic/42588-ihswca-team-tournament-questions/&tab=comments#comment-45435 The IHSWCA tends to talk out both sides of their mouths when discussing things like this. They want to keep with IHSAA standards in number of classes and the 2 or less sectional competitors rule, but with this IHSAA standard they tend to just ignore it without saying much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeDuPont Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 Thanks Y2 Sure doesn't appear the question was answered back in 2013. I also still would like to know if the end goal is to have the IHSAA take this over someday. If it is the committee HAS to start looking at what the IHSAA would accept, one I would bet my annual salary on that will not be accepted is a formula based system that uses previous years results as a baseline. However, they will use the re-classification of every two years, a tournament success factor, the number of competitors. If the IHSWCA goal is to continue as the owner of this event, there is no need to worry about what the IHSAA does or doesn't do or worry about complying with their procedure in regards to re-classification, tournament success factor or number of competitors. I asked on another thread why is re-classification done every two year's. Answer was "Because that's the way the IHSAA does it." I guess now I have two questions, that hopefully I can understand this. 1. Why isn't a tournament success factor considered in classification? It is the way IHSAA does it, so to be consistent with the IHSAA re-classification procedures shouldn't this be adopted as well? 2. What is the end goal of this tournament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeDuPont Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 As I dive deeper into this, I want to make sure I read the scoring rules correctly. If you have a wrestler who say qualified for Semi State in 2016 but was injured and could not participate due to said injury, he can be calculated in as competitor and score points even though he didn't weigh in at sectional for a tournament that is two years after he competed when in no way is their a guarantee he would advance at all in 2017. But if you have a wrestler who in fact did weigh in at sectional but failed to make weight for whatever reason, he doesn't count as a competitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 2 hours ago, WadeDuPont said: As I dive deeper into this, I want to make sure I read the scoring rules correctly. If you have a wrestler who say qualified for Semi State in 2016 but was injured and could not participate due to said injury, he can be calculated in as competitor and score points even though he didn't weigh in at sectional for a tournament that is two years after he competed when in no way is their a guarantee he would advance at all in 2017. But if you have a wrestler who in fact did weigh in at sectional but failed to make weight for whatever reason, he doesn't count as a competitor. That's correct. The idea is to promote the qualifying being a competition just like the regular season as much as possible--with the one exception being that a guy who couldn't be involved at all because of circumstances outside his control can have some points brought in. But your guy who misses weight screwed up (if that happened to you, for example) and was a detriment to your attempt to compete and win. And also your assessment of the guy who got to semi-state being given those same points this year is off significantly if you look at all the info. On average, juniors and seniors improve a nice bit on their previous season's result but we limit them to their younger year result. And we only grant the points for guys that wrestled a significant part of the season (so they're clearly "in" the program for the long haul OR they have to go through the effort of getting a signed doctor's note saying they had a legit reason to miss the whole season and are definitely on track to come back). There's no evidence that a hurt guy is any less likely to come back than anyone on your sectional roster. I think you know that. You guys rightfully got to team state one year because of this provision--you should be praising it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeDuPont Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 Maligned, I am not against the system at all. However, as I have asked, what is the end goal? If it is for the IHSAA to take this over, they are not going to use a Power Poll Index to invite teams. So until we understand what the end goal is I am fine with the current system, except it seems we pick and choose what IHSAA procedures to use. Can you explain why when reclassifying, we use the two year school enrollment numbers to reclassify...but did not adopt the success factor? Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 13 minutes ago, WadeDuPont said: Maligned, I am not against the system at all. However, as I have asked, what is the end goal? If it is for the IHSAA to take this over, they are not going to use a Power Poll Index to invite teams. So until we understand what the end goal is I am fine with the current system, except it seems we pick and choose what IHSAA procedures to use. Can you explain why when reclassifying, we use the two year school enrollment numbers to reclassify...but did not adopt the success factor? Thanks, I've said this in other years: proposals have been presented to the selection committee on all of these issues you bring up. If a particular issue isn't in place right now, it's because it got voted down or because another option was chosen instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 In my opinion, by the way, an easy solution to the "all-in" versus "genuine team minimum" for classification purposes is this: Count all teams with at least 3 members as we do now, but set a strict quota of 95 teams in 3A and 2A, with all the rest in 1A. The result would be roughly the same number of teams in each of the 3 classes having 7+ members--plus we would be including all teams with at least 3 members, which has been a sticking point for the majority of coaches in voting. But again, this didn't pass when it's been voted on a couple times alongside the strict 7+ option and the strict 3+ option. I'm not sure, exactly, why a success factor doesn't pass--maybe it feels less like a long-held tradition than other things? Maybe we're early on in our classed event lives so it's nice to build up some traditionally strong programs? Not sure exactly what's driven it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, maligned said: In my opinion, by the way, an easy solution to the "all-in" versus "genuine team minimum" for classification purposes is this: Count all teams with at least 3 members as we do now, but set a strict quota of 95 teams in 3A and 2A, with all the rest in 1A. The result would be roughly the same number of teams in each of the 3 classes having 7+ members--plus we would be including all teams with at least 3 members, which has been a sticking point for the majority of coaches in voting. But again, this didn't pass when it's been voted on a couple times alongside the strict 7+ option and the strict 3+ option. I don't know if I haven't paid enough attention or if it's not been posted here, but this seems like a pretty good compromise. It's silly regardless to include teams that can't win a dual. It's unfortunate that the committee doesn't make their reasoning public on these topics, and instead rely on you to be the middle man. Edited February 7, 2018 by bog190 WadeDuPont and Y2CJ41 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeDuPont Posted February 8, 2018 Author Share Posted February 8, 2018 13 hours ago, maligned said: In my opinion, by the way, an easy solution to the "all-in" versus "genuine team minimum" for classification purposes is this: Count all teams with at least 3 members as we do now, but set a strict quota of 95 teams in 3A and 2A, with all the rest in 1A. The result would be roughly the same number of teams in each of the 3 classes having 7+ members--plus we would be including all teams with at least 3 members, which has been a sticking point for the majority of coaches in voting. But again, this didn't pass when it's been voted on a couple times alongside the strict 7+ option and the strict 3+ option. I'm not sure, exactly, why a success factor doesn't pass--maybe it feels less like a long-held tradition than other things? Maybe we're early on in our classed event lives so it's nice to build up some traditionally strong programs? Not sure exactly what's driven it. I like the proposal if the end goal is for the IHSWCA to keep the tournament. However, as I have said in previous post its highly doubtful the IHSAA will adopt a formula based system to determine state finalist. Who do we ask these questions too? I would like to know the answer to what the end goal is and why the success factor is not used if we are trying to align with the IHSAA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, WadeDuPont said: its highly doubtful the IHSAA will adopt a formula based system There's a zero percent chance of this. I don't think anyone would ever argue with that. The IHSAA would always find a way to do an all-in event if they ever considered team state again. We obviously only do it because we're crippled in terms of schedule flexibility. Honestly, if the end game is genuinely to see a classed team state adopted, I think we're probably navel gazing a bit too much. I think it would take finding other individual sports that want classes for their team tournaments also and coming with multi-sport proposals that would force the IHSAA to consider things from different angles. There has to be a foundational change in perspective at the IHSAA on the issue of classing individual sports ( (at least the team tournaments) or none of the rest of it really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, maligned said: I think it would take finding other individual sports that want classes for their team tournaments also and coming with multi-sport proposals that would force the IHSAA to consider things from different angles. Cross-County based on how competitions work would could run an individual competition and then invite all the top teams per class to a separate team event. Although the nature of their competition could almost have individual and team together too, but they would mean a more crowded field. I’m sure golf and gymnastics would be similar to CC. And tennis, which is the most similar to wrestling’s set up, already has a team event so they would just need to arrange it as a class competition. Swimming and Track would be harder to arrange as a separate individual and team competition. Edited February 8, 2018 by MattM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 I cannot speak for any voting member except for myself on this. Again I am only one vote on the committee. When it comes to the issue of “all in” vs 7 or more. I vote for the “all-in” idea. Conceptually I have a problem with having an all-in tournament and then not counting all teams. Each team had an opportunity to have 14 wrestlers so in my mind if you have a team you should count. If a team is 1-20 and had 8 wrestlers, they would count, I don't get why that team should be in, and a team that is 1-20 with 5 wrestlers shouldn't be. What if we said only teams with winning records should count? The tournament would be more difficult in that case, but it wouldn't accomplish what we are trying to accomplish with the tournemant. To add to this, if we don’t count teams and start artificially creating the classes then we might get better teams to the team state, but is that the point? We are trying to find the best team in three classes. I feel that counting all the teams helps to give more of an identity to the class structure. I totally understand a team like Oak Hill for example feeling that they would do really well in the 1A bracket, which without question they would. Someone unfortunately will be on the wrong side of the line when you have classes. Just because we feel like a team is “small” or “1A” doesn’t make it so, someone will always be on the wrong side. It might be a good team, it might be a bad team, but there is going to be a line put in there at some point. If a team drops down, they are potentially taking the spot of another team at the bottom of the qualification. Is our tournament more difficult if a school drops down and is added in? Yes. Is it better in terms of finding the best team in a class? I would say no because you have a team that would otherwise be 2A wrestling in the 1A class. If we think it is better to have teams we “feel” should be in a certain class we would be better-off scrapping the way we decide classes and just saying 550 and less is 1A, 551-1500 is 2A, everyone else is 3A, or something along those lines. In terms of goals for the tournament I think it currently is to find the best team in three classes. At one time I think the idea was that the IHSAA will see this tournament as a success, and may consider bringing back an all-in team state dual, that are classed. There was never a thought that they would accept some sort of points system if they were to adopt this concept. We don’t really have any other option but to use a point system, if scheduling allowed I am sure that the IHSWCA would adopt an all-in system with sectionals, regionals, then state to determine the champ, but it’s not realistic at this time. littlevito 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 In Ohio teams must have 7 wrestlers to be considered for their dual state championship series. Counting teams that have no chance of being in the event is flat out dumb. Having 6 returning state champions and no other wrestlers will get a team 150 points and be out of range for 3A and 2A voting considerations and they MIGHT be in voting consideration in 1A. That should tell you enough if you should include them. With 30+ teams not fielding at least 7 wrestlers it would make the classes more competitive, which should be a goal of the event. bog190, WadeDuPont and AJ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said: In Ohio teams must have 7 wrestlers to be considered for their dual state championship series. Counting teams that have no chance of being in the event is flat out dumb. Having 6 returning state champions and no other wrestlers will get a team 150 points and be out of range for 3A and 2A voting considerations and they MIGHT be in voting consideration in 1A. That should tell you enough if you should include them. With 30+ teams not fielding at least 7 wrestlers it would make the classes more competitive, which should be a goal of the event. Ideally, we should just find a way to shift the class cut off upward, to account for those team but not let their addition to the list dictate the split between each class. The problem with excluding teams with 5 or 6 wrestlers from being counted towards next years event is that they may actually have 7 or more wrestlers the next year, due to returning from injury, new freshman, or someone else joining the team. If we want to say we are as inclusive as possible we have to at least think about including the teams who could possibly field enough participants to win a dual their team state year. I get in most case those additions wont skyrocket them to a team state title, but if we are to be inclusive we should at least account for the possibility of that team adding a few more wrestlers. But were should that cut off reasonably be. In my view I'd say 5 of 6 would be a reasonable line to draw rather than the current number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 33 minutes ago, buscowrestling said: If a team is 1-20 and had 8 wrestlers, they would count, I don't get why that team should be in, and a team that is 1-20 with 5 wrestlers shouldn't be. There is a pretty clear difference in these two teams, in that one can mathematically qualify for the event and the other cannot, and one can mathematically win a dual against a full team while the other cannot. You are using IHSAA logic with the "best team" garbage. Narrowing the classes makes the event better, I think it's pretty hard to debate that. As much as I disagree with you every year on these topics, I, and I'm sure others, appreciate that you are one of the few that actually posts the logic behind your votes on this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrecoCoach Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 48 minutes ago, buscowrestling said: If we think it is better to have teams we “feel” should be in a certain class we would be better-off scrapping the way we decide classes and just saying 550 and less is 1A, 551-1500 is 2A, everyone else is 3A, or something along those lines. ^ This right here. Go to something like this and all this debate is over. Figure out the enrollment cutoff that roughly balances the 3 classes and just set it at that for 4 years (2 enrollment cycles) then realign the cutoffs at that point. Schools will still move up or down, but it is more straightforward and no worries about what to do if a school closes, combines, or adds wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, MattM said: Ideally, we should just find a way to shift the class cut off upward, to account for those team but not let their addition to the list dictate the split between each class. The problem with excluding teams with 5 or 6 wrestlers from being counted towards next years event is that they may actually have 7 or more wrestlers the next year, due to returning from injury, new freshman, or someone else joining the team. If we want to say we are as inclusive as possible we have to at least think about including the teams who could possibly field enough participants to win a dual their team state year. I get in most case those additions wont skyrocket them to a team state title, but if we are to be inclusive we should at least account for the possibility of that team adding a few more wrestlers. But were should that cut off reasonably be. In my view I'd say 5 of 6 would be a reasonable line to draw rather than the current number. Adding wrestlers next year won't get them into the event even if they have all returning state champions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 There are 35 additional teams with 7+ forfeits this year. These are the teams that are still in the scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 So if you were to take out the teams with 7+ forfeits, the 3 classes would look something like this I assume. 3A SCHOOLS (88) State Enroll Rank School Enrollment 1 Carmel High School 5000 2 Ben Davis High 4362 3 North Central (Indpls.) 3772 4 Warren Central High 3736 5 Penn High School 3345 6 Pike High School 3306 7 Fishers High School 3250 8 Lake Central High 3219 9 Hamilton Southeastern HS 3118 10 Avon High School 2891 11 Noblesville High School 2882 12 Crown Point High 2763 13 Franklin Central High 2659 14 Brownsburg High School 2629 15 Portage High School 2520 16 Center Grove High 2500 17 Lawrence North High 2469 18 Perry Meridian High 2351 19 Homestead Senior High 2348 20 Lawrence Central High 2340 21 Carroll (F.W.) High 2280 22 Merrillville High Sch 2214 23 Southport High School 2185 24 Warsaw Community HS 2176 25 Westfield High School 2146 26 F.W. Northrop High 2097 27 Valparaiso High School 2082 28 Chesterton Senior High 2076 29 Jeffersonville High School 2066 30 Lafayette Jefferson High 2031 31 Columbus North High 2017 32 LaPorte High School 1946 34 Castle High School 1934 35 Anderson High School 1933 36 Zionsville Community High 1928 37 Harrison (W.Laf.) High 1905 38 Goshen High School 1866 39 Terre Haute North 1854 40 F.W. Snider High 1850 41 Whiteland Community High 1845 42 New Albany Senior 1843 43 S.B. Adams High 1794 44 Terre Haute South 1778 45 McCutcheon High School 1769 46 Kokomo High School 1769 47 Decatur Central High 1767 48 Michigan City High 1753 49 Floyd Central High 1746 50 Bloomington High School 1742 51 Concord Community High 1716 52 Bloomington High School 1709 53 Elkhart Central High 1673 54 F.W. North Side 1672 55 Elkhart Memorial High 1648 56 Plainfield High School 1636 57 Evans. North High 1614 58 Huntington North High 1575 59 Muncie Central High 1551 60 Bedford-North Lawrence High 1542 61 Columbus East High 1534 62 Franklin Community High 1533 63 Munster High School 1510 64 Greenfield-Central High Sch 1510 65 Martinsville High School 1509 66 Seymour Senior High 1498 67 Mishawaka High School 1470 68 Pendleton Heights High 1421 69 F.W. South Side 1409 70 Mooresville High School 1402 71 Northridge High School 1392 72 Evans. Reitz High 1355 73 Hammond Morton Senior 1348 74 F.W. Wayne High 1340 75 Jennings County High 1332 76 Richmond High School 1331 77 East Central High 1302 78 Hobart High School 1265 79 East Noble High 1262 80 S.B. Riley High 1249 81 Evans. Harrison High 1243 82 East Chicago Central 1236 83 Logansport Comm High 1235 84 Mt. Vernon (Fortville) 1227 85 Greenwood Community High 1200 86 Lowell Senior High 1197 87 Evans. Central High 1185 88 Roncalli High School 1184 89 Indpls. Cathedral HS 1184 202 Evans. Mater Dei 529 2A SCHOOLS (88) State Enroll Rank School Enrollment 90 DeKalb High School 1170 91 Shelbyville Sr High 1156 92 Plymouth High School 1147 93 S.B. Clay High 1143 94 New Palestine High 1119 95 Highland High School 1117 96 Connersville Sr High 1111 97 Jasper High School 1093 98 Kankakee Valley High 1083 99 F.W. Bishop Dwenger 1075 100 Jay County High 1060 101 Columbia City High 1056 102 Marion High School 1053 105 New Castle Chrysler 1023 106 New Haven High 996 107 New Prairie High 993 108 Lebanon Senior High 976 109 Madison Consolidated High 966 110 Beech Grove Sr 949 111 Wawasee High School 945 113 S.B. Washington High 906 114 Hammond Gavit Mdl/High 904 115 Boonville High School 903 116 S.B. Saint Joseph's 896 117 NorthWood High School 883 118 Angola High School 876 119 Leo Junior/Senior High 872 120 Delta High School 871 121 South Dearborn High 868 122 Frankfort Senior High 861 123 Western High School 855 124 Mississinewa High School 845 125 Franklin County High 836 127 Owen Valley Community 813 128 Culver Academies 812 129 Edgewood High School 811 130 Hammond High School 810 131 Evans. Bosse High 802 132 Yorktown High School 801 133 Griffith Senior High 800 134 Scottsburg Senior High 794 136 Danville Community High 791 137 F.W. Concordia Lutheran 781 138 Twin Lakes Senior 773 139 Norwell High School 769 140 Hammond Clark Md/HS 760 141 Guerin Catholic HS 758 142 Greensburg Community High 750 144 Rushville Consolidated High 742 146 West Lafayette Jr/Sr 734 147 Batesville High School 733 148 Hamilton Heights High 728 149 West Noble High 723 151 Vincennes Lincoln High 716 152 Charlestown Senior High 707 153 Crawfordsville Sr High 702 154 Indpls. Bishop Chatard 700 157 Bellmont Senior High 691 158 Evans. Reitz Memorial 690 159 North Harrison 689 160 Hanover Central High 680 161 Maconaquah High School 666 162 Calumet High School 664 163 Peru High School 659 164 Mt. Vernon High 658 165 Brown County High 657 166 Gibson Southern High 654 168 Indian Creek Sr 631 169 Tri-West Senior High 624 170 North Montgomery High 620 171 Lawrenceburg High School 619 172 Heritage Hills High 619 174 F.W. Bishop Luers 617 176 Jimtown High School 605 177 Heritage Jr/Sr High 596 178 Tippecanoe Valley High 595 179 Sullivan High School 591 180 Garrett High School 590 181 Pike Central High 588 182 Benton Central Jr-Sr 585 183 Knox Community High 584 184 Glenn High School 580 185 West Vigo High 577 187 Lakeland High School 577 189 Fairfield Jr-Sr High 565 191 Northwestern Sr High 562 194 Greencastle Senior High 556 195 Wheeler High School 553 196 Southmont Sr High 550 1A SCHOOLS (87) State Enroll Rank School Enrollment 197 South Vermillion High 546 198 Woodlan Jr/Sr High 534 199 Rensselaer Central High 531 200 Southridge High School 531 204 Monrovia High School 527 206 Rochester Community High 524 207 Tipton High School 524 208 Speedway Senior High 523 209 Oak Hill High 511 210 Manchester Jr-Sr High 511 211 Alexandria-Monroe High School 506 212 Boone Grove High 499 213 North Posey Sr 498 215 Andrean High School 492 216 Eastern (Greentown) Jr 491 219 Frankton Jr-Sr High 480 220 Eastern (Pekin) High 473 221 Lapel Sr High 470 222 Paoli Jr & 468 223 Triton Central High 468 224 Cass Jr-Sr High 466 226 Centerville Sr High 463 229 Crawford County Jr-Sr 457 230 Cascade Senior High 457 231 North Putnam Sr 456 232 Indpls. Scecina Memorial 449 233 Elwood Community High 447 235 Winchester Community High 446 236 Union County High 444 237 Bluffton High School 443 238 Shenandoah High School 442 239 North Newton Jr-Sr 440 240 River Forest Jr-Sr 439 242 Whiting High School 434 243 Delphi Community High 430 244 Wabash High School 427 245 Eastern Hancock High 425 246 Tell City Jr-Sr 421 247 Northeastern High School 419 248 Westview Jr-Sr High 416 249 Prairie Heights Sr 415 251 Milan High School 411 252 South Spencer High 407 255 Switzerland County 404 257 Madison-Grant 401 257 North Knox High 398 261 Central Noble High 393 - Parke Heritage 383 262 Cloverdale High School 382 263 Lake Station Edison 381 264 Knightstown High School 381 266 Winamac Community High 377 268 Seeger Memorial Jr-Sr 375 269 Adams Central High 375 270 Eastside Junior-Senior High 372 272 Monroe Central Jr-Sr 370 273 Hebron High School 370 274 South Adams High 369 277 Churubusco Jr-Sr High 367 280 LaVille Jr-Sr High 363 281 South Putnam High 363 287 Carroll (Flora) Jr-Sr 353 288 Fountain Central High 350 291 Hagerstown Jr-Sr High 341 293 Cambridge City Lincoln 331 294 Clinton Prairie Jr-Sr 330 296 Sheridan High School 329 297 North Miami Middle/High 320 298 Rossville Senior High 313 304 Northfield Jr-Sr High 304 305 Fremont High School 303 308 Southwood Jr-Sr High 295 309 Lafayette Central Catholic 291 312 Tri Junior-Senior High 285 314 West Central Senior 280 315 Union City Community 280 316 Daleville Jr/Sr High 279 323 Clinton Central Junior-Senior 274 326 Tri Central Middle-High 271 334 Southern Wells Jr-Sr 266 335 North White Jr/Sr 265 338 Triton Jr-Sr High 261 341 West Washington 257 363 Attica High School 223 364 South Newton Senior 220 367 Oldenburg Academy 210 369 Faith Christian School 203 370 Frontier Jr-Sr High 202 bwoodjc89 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwoodjc89 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 If we raise the number of wrestlers to be included would teams with good wrestlers but borderline numbers push a little harder to get a few more guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, bwoodjc89 said: If we raise the number of wrestlers to be included would teams with good wrestlers but borderline numbers push a little harder to get a few more guys? Possibly, but not if that team does feel a Team State bid is within reach and/or don't believe Team State is a useful event. I'm sure all coaches are pushing to increase numbers, but I'm not sure an off chance of getting invited to Team State will increase their effort more. If it was a much larger field maybe, but I think most coaches see Team State as nice but still a far off thing right now especially if they have some number issues. I do think going to Team State and the school making a big deal of it is helping increase numbers further at some schools. But those are already schools who have the numbers to make Team State to begin with. Edited February 8, 2018 by MattM randalllynch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 We just need the IHSAA to adopt another state's tournament, like Ohio's. bwoodjc89 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Teams that have 6 or less wrestlers don't care about being included. I would guess they don't even look at the scores because they can't qualify. When we have our first team with only 6 wrestlers and they all win state maybe we can include them in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Y2CJ41 said: Teams that have 6 or less wrestlers don't care about being included. I would guess they don't even look at the scores because they can't qualify. I bet most of them do care about the scores because it help them compare their results with other team in their area, of their size, and in their sectional. Now they may not worry to much about making it to Team State, but I best most team like to see where their scores puts them against their competition. randalllynch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts