Jump to content

State tournament class statistics to not necessarily incite class wrestling discussion


Recommended Posts

if everyone has the same chance, then population should not be an issue, number of entries should be an issue. Suppose schools size is the only information available. If a 4A school enters 14 at sectional and 1A school enters 14 at sectional, should we expect that the 4A will advance the same number to semi state as the 1A? 

Edited by Galagore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Galagore said:

if everyone has the same chance, then population should not be an issue, number of entries should be an issue. Suppose schools size is the only information available. If a 4A school enters 14 at sectional and 1A school enters 14 at sectional, should we expect that the 4A will advance the same number to semi state as the 1A? 

 

I tried to address this 9 years ago...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Galagore said:

if everyone has the same chance, then population should not be an issue, number of entries should be an issue. Suppose schools size is the only information available. If a 4A school enters 14 at sectional and 1A school enters 14 at sectional, should we expect that the 4A will advance the same number to semi state as the 1A? 

 

12 minutes ago, Silence Dogood said:

 

I tried to address this 9 years ago...

 

 

 

 

 


 

This one gets at that same argument, too.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things change in 9 years. Not every reading the board now was doing so 9 years ago. Also, if each individual has the same chance, then one class is fine. If not, then more classes should be used. We disagree on what an equitable chance means. And that is ok. It is also ok for both of us to restate our position and logic from time to time as it may help others form come to a conclusion of their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SIACfan said:

 

No that is what you are inferring, which is severely flawed. To say that the 14 starters from a 1A school is equivalent to the 14 starters at a 4A school is grossly wrong. There are many wrestlers that are multi-year letterman at smaller schools that would have an extremely difficult time ever earning a varsity letter in wrestling at a larger school. If your logic is used, then a class system for a team tournament is not needed.

 

No, what I am saying is that the enrollment numbers should be fairly indicative of the number of SQ'ers that should be seen from the different size schools. To only look at the raw numbers without considering the disparity in enrollment numbers is massively flawed.

 

State Qualifier's       Enrollment

4A - 41.1%                32.09%

3A - 25.4%                29.81%

2A - 23.7%                24.81%

1A - 9.8%                  13.12%

 

So as has already been stated, the 4A schools are out doing the enrollment numbers, but it is not as drastic as many believe.

So you are saying that small schools should struggle and thus it is fine that they are struggling?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So you are saying that small schools should struggle and thus it is fine that they are struggling?  

We are talking about an individual tournament. The numbers don't seem to indicate that individuals from small schools are struggling. They are generally qualifying in same proportions we would expect based on the proportion of the enrollment that small schools have. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many things people that have never been involved with a small school program don't understand and never will. The numbers speak for themselves a 2 class system would be awsome. Why are big schools apposed of class wrestling? They get to pick off all the small school kids during the state tournament. That would change if we classed. The numbers will show this clear back to sectionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Galagore said:

if everyone has the same chance, then population should not be an issue, number of entries should be an issue. Suppose schools size is the only information available. If a 4A school enters 14 at sectional and 1A school enters 14 at sectional, should we expect that the 4A will advance the same number to semi state as the 1A? 

 

Did you not read what I said or did you not understand it?

 

I said pretty much the exact opposite. The 4A school should in fact be expected to advance more because they innately should have a better overall lineup. But as long as it closely follows the enrollment percentage difference then we are seeing what should be expected.

 

Remember, we are talking individuals not schools. It should be expected that the bigger schools will do better. But I have not been talking about school success, I have been talking about individual athlete success. This is why many of us often state that is makes sense to class a team tournament, but that it is not needed & is even detrimental if the goal is to crown the best individual at each weight. It's just unfortunate that our team champion is determined from the individual tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So you are saying that small schools should struggle and thus it is fine that they are struggling?  

 

I am saying that I am looking at this from an individual stand point not from a school stand point.

 

If the success of the school is what you are worried about then you should be arguing that we need a separate team tournament & that it should be classed. Because if a team tournament is not classed, then yes the smaller schools are at a disadvantage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

 

I am saying that I am looking at this from an individual stand point not from a school stand point.

 

If the success of the school is what you are worried about then you should be arguing that we need a separate team tournament & that it should be classed. Because if a team tournament is not classed, then yes the smaller schools are at a disadvantage.

 

Individually if the singlet you put on is a school that is in the bottom 1/3 of enrollment you are less likely to qualify for state. If you put on a singlet from the top 35 schools in terms of enrollment the likelihood of you qualifying for state is 10x. 

 

If you are saying that small schools should struggle to qualify kids for state then you are advocating for a classed system. In a single class system there should be no difference based on school size. The single class system is a system in which there are no advantages to athletes at a small school or big school. In a single class system there should not be any discrepancy between athletes at big schools or small schools.

 

When you go to a classed system you are admitting that there are advantages based on school enrollments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

 

Did you not read what I said or did you not understand it?

 

I said pretty much the exact opposite. The 4A school should in fact be expected to advance more because they innately should have a better overall lineup. But as long as it closely follows the enrollment percentage difference then we are seeing what should be expected.

 

Remember, we are talking individuals not schools. It should be expected that the bigger schools will do better. But I have not been talking about school success, I have been talking about individual athlete success. This is why many of us often state that is makes sense to class a team tournament, but that it is not needed & is even detrimental if the goal is to crown the best individual at each weight. It's just unfortunate that our team champion is determined from the individual tournament.

If proportional enrollment accounts for one school being more successful, then why bother classing the team duals? Small schools should only expect about 1 out of 8 of those spots. Why isn’t that a fair system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

 

Remember, we are talking individuals not schools. It should be expected that the bigger schools will do better. But I have not been talking about school success, I have been talking about individual athlete success. This is why many of us often state that is makes sense to class a team tournament, but that it is not needed & is even detrimental if the goal is to crown the best individual at each weight. It's just unfortunate that our team champion is determined from the individual tournament.

That is not the point of a single class system. In a single class system everyone is equal and there is no advantage based on school size. 

 

The reason we classify other sports is because there is perceived to be an advantage based on school size. If that is true then in a single class system there should be absolutely no advantage to an athlete at a small, medium, or large school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

Individually if the singlet you put on is a school that is in the bottom 1/3 of enrollment you are less likely to qualify for state. If you put on a singlet from the top 35 schools in terms of enrollment the likelihood of you qualifying for state is 10x. 

 

If you are saying that small schools should struggle to qualify kids for state then you are advocating for a classed system. In a single class system there should be no difference based on school size. The single class system is a system in which there are no advantages to athletes at a small school or big school. In a single class system there should not be any discrepancy between athletes at big schools or small schools.

 

When you go to a classed system you are admitting that there are advantages based on school enrollments.

 

27 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

That is not the point of a single class system. In a single class system everyone is equal and there is no advantage based on school size. 

 

The reason we classify other sports is because there is perceived to be an advantage based on school size. If that is true then in a single class system there should be absolutely no advantage to an athlete at a small, medium, or large school.

 

I think you are confusing the probability of a state qualifier coming from a big school with the impact that going to a big school has on an individual being able to qualify for state. They aren't the same thing. 

 

You are trying to use statistics that say that 41.1% of state qualifiers come from 4A schools and 9.8% of state qualifiers come from 1A schools, to say that going to 4A school will cause an individual to be 4x as likely to qualify for state.

 

As an example, take 1000 people and randomly put 10% of them in Group 1, 25% in Group 2, 25% in Group 3, and 40% in Group 4. Then tell each group they can select their 100 fastest people and time them in a 100 meter dash. I would guess that of the top 100 finishers, 10 would come from Group 1, 25 would come from Group 2, 25 would come from Group 3, and 40 would come from Group 4. I wouldn't expect each group to have 25 simply because they had the same number of entrants. And being in a particular group didn't cause any individual to be more or less likely to be in the top 100. 

 

 

Edited by Silence Dogood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So just winning dual meets is your judgement of success?

 

Lawrenceburg is the 158th biggest school in the state with wrestling. They would be on the bubble each year to be a big school or small school in terms of enrollment with their 678 students. If individual state were to be classified into two classes this year they would likely be 2A(aka big school).

I don’t know what is right here, but I would find it hard to believe that a class system that puts schools of 700 together with schools of 4000 seems right.

 

I guess if I were to buy into class system, that seems like too much of a disparity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Silence Dogood said:

 

 

I think you are confusing the probability of a state qualifier coming from a big school with the impact that going to a big school has on an individual being able to qualify for state. They aren't the same thing. 

 

You are trying to use statistics that say that 41.1% of state qualifiers come from 4A schools and 9.8% of state qualifiers come from 1A schools, to say that going to 4A school will cause an individual to be 4x as likely to qualify for state.

 

As an example, take 1000 people and randomly put 10% of them in Group 1, 25% in Group 2, 25% in Group 3, and 40% in Group 4. Then tell each group they can select their 100 fastest people and time them in a 100 meter dash. I would guess that of the top 100 finishers, 10 would come from Group 1, 25 would come from Group 2, 25 would come from Group 3, and 40 would come from Group 4. I wouldn't expect each group to have 25 simply because they had the same number of entrants. And being in a particular group didn't cause any individual to be more or less likely to be in the top 100. 

 

 

True or False
1. In a single class system all schools and individuals are deemed equal.
2. In a multi-class system there are perceived advantages to athletes and teams based on school size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ehscoach said:

I don’t know what is right here, but I would find it hard to believe that a class system that puts schools of 700 together with schools of 4000 seems right.

 

I guess if I were to buy into class system, that seems like too much of a disparity.

Here are the statistics and enrollments
Average    962.6282051
Standard Deviation    807.9040723
Median    688
2020 Enrollment.xlsx

So while there is an average of 962 students at each school the median is 688! There are a lot of MEGA schools in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

True or False
1. In a single class system all schools and individuals are deemed equal.
2. In a multi-class system there are perceived advantages to athletes and teams based on school size.

 

I may not be following the questions. But I'll take a crack at it.

 

1. In a single class system, all individuals are equal. They are competing against other individuals. 

2. A multi-class system is trying to alleviate advantages that a big school would have over a small school (for example, a larger pool of athletes to create the team). 

 

For those reasons, I am in favor of a classing the team aspect and not in favor of classing the individual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Silence Dogood said:

 

I may not be following the questions. But I'll take a crack at it.

 

1. In a single class system, all individuals are equal. They are competing against other individuals. 

2. A multi-class system is trying to alleviate advantages that a big school would have over a small school (for example, a larger pool of athletes to create the team). 

 

For those reasons, I am in favor of a classing the team aspect and not in favor of classing the individual. 

So a classed system we agree on, that's a start.

In a single classed system everyone is deemed equal, everyone has the same opportunity for success. My definition for success in this discussion is qualifying for state. The single classed system tells us there are no advantages for bigger or small school athletes. If there were perceived advantages then that should be a reason to class the sport.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Galagore said:

If big schools were allowed to enter as many entrants as they wished into sectional would you expect the number of small school qualifiers to be:

a) less than we have now

b) about the same as we have now

c) more than we have now

No one wants to tackle this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Galagore said:

No one wants to tackle this one?

I coach at a top 10 attendance wise school but went to a school with less than 400 kids in it. I have coached at Indy Howe, 1A, and Mooresville, 3A, and feel I’ve had about all the different experiences in the INDIANA Wrestling world from size and socioeconomic status, type of school, etc; and I can say WITHOUT A DOUBT that if big schools were allowed to enter multiple athletes per weight, there would be more kids from big schools make it through.

 

In many weights at our Sectional, I know both the Carmel and HSE JV kids could have finished 3rd and 4th, bumping out smaller school Varsity athletes from even making Regionals, and that’s without having our athletes know multiple wrestlers could be entered.

 

This years Senior class alone, we lost 5 kids that I am certain would have been Varsity at many schools statewide, but got beat out at wrestle-offs and would have been JV and probably 4 of them could have been Semi-State qualifiers had they been in the line-up.

 

I’m unsure what this means with regards to class wrestling, but thats My experience. More students yields more talent, it has also yielded more quitting because kids don’t want to be JV anymore, but that’s a different story entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rookie78 said:

Out of curiosity, has classing the individual state finals been proposed to the ihsaa?  If so, how well, if at all, was it received?

This was brought up in surveys to IHSWCA members in the past and didn’t receive great support amongst any size school surprisingly. The IHSAA looks for high numbers of support amongst members for proposals (80% and above really).

 

The numbers were not close to being proposal worthy. 

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.