Jump to content

State tournament class statistics to not necessarily incite class wrestling discussion


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

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

 

The numbers you provided indicate the percentage of state qualifiers from different size schools closely follows the percentage of enrollment of those schools.

 

I have explained that I am not talking about school success, but rather individual success.

 

Yes, a single classed system is going to favor teams from larger schools. But it does not give the individual athletes from larger schools an advantage over athletes from smaller schools. Again the percentages bear this out.

 

I think that many of you can't or are unwilling to separate individual success from school success because you are coaches &/or fans with a strong allegiance to a particular school. And the single class system means you are always going to be at a disadvantage to the teams from larger schools. And even though the IHSAA crowns the team champ from this individual tournament, the main objective of the tournament is to crown the best individual from each weight class. 

 

At one point in the past the IHSAA recognized that this wasn't the best way to crown the team champion, but the solution was still a single class system which heavily favored teams from larger schools. Yet, a school with less than the average & the median number of students dominated.

Edited by SIACfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In all fairness....I think Silas has solidified himself as a pretty special talent regardless of school size.  So with all do respect, I genuinely feel to draw a question about why aren’t more 1A or 2

This whole thread and group of replies has became ridiculous.  I feel that there's a lot of common sense left out of many statements made in this thread.   We just had a kid become a two tim

Let me just throw in here...   TEAM class wrestling = YES INDIVIDUAL class wrestling = NO   How in the wide world of sports did Silas Allred possibly manage to compete at the

Posted Images

9 hours ago, SIACfan said:

 

The numbers you provided indicate the percentage of state qualifiers from different size schools closely follows the percentage of enrollment of those schools.

 

I have explained that I am not talking about school success, but rather individual success.

 

Yes, a single classed system is going to favor teams from larger schools. But it does not give the individual athletes from larger schools an advantage over athletes from smaller schools. Again the percentages bear this out.

 

I think that many of you can't or are unwilling to separate individual success from school success because you are coaches &/or fans with a strong allegiance to a particular school. And the single class system means you are always going to be at a disadvantage to the teams from larger schools. And even though the IHSAA crowns the team champ from this individual tournament, the main objective of the tournament is to crown the best individual from each weight class. 

 

At one point in the past the IHSAA recognized that this wasn't the best way to crown the team champion, but the solution was still a single class system which heavily favored teams from larger schools. Yet, a school with less than the average & the median number of students dominated.

Do you think if schools were allowed multiple entrants  into sectional the number of small school qualifiers would go up, go down, or stay about the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SIACfan said:

 

The numbers you provided indicate the percentage of state qualifiers from different size schools closely follows the percentage of enrollment of those schools.

 

I have explained that I am not talking about school success, but rather individual success.

 

Yes, a single classed system is going to favor teams from larger schools. But it does not give the individual athletes from larger schools an advantage over athletes from smaller schools. Again the percentages bear this out.

 

I think that many of you can't or are unwilling to separate individual success from school success because you are coaches &/or fans with a strong allegiance to a particular school. And the single class system means you are always going to be at a disadvantage to the teams from larger schools. And even though the IHSAA crowns the team champ from this individual tournament, the main objective of the tournament is to crown the best individual from each weight class. 

 

At one point in the past the IHSAA recognized that this wasn't the best way to crown the team champion, but the solution was still a single class system which heavily favored teams from larger schools. Yet, a school with less than the average & the median number of students dominated.

So in your mind small schools should struggle and it is fine that some have NEVER had a state qualifier and many have not even had a state placer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So in your mind small schools should struggle and it is fine that some have NEVER had a state qualifier and many have not even had a state placer. 

Depends. Why haven't they had one? Do they have a club program? Lots of dedicated coaches, volunteers, and parents?

 

There are big schools that aren't having success in producing qualifiers, too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Silence Dogood said:

Depends. Why haven't they had one? Do they have a club program? Lots of dedicated coaches, volunteers, and parents?

 

There are big schools that aren't having success in producing qualifiers, too. 

So if one big school isn't producing state qualifiers, it is fine for 50 small schools to not produce state qualifiers? That is a great justification for small schools not having success. It's sad that people do not care about the sport at the small school level and they make justification in any shape or form to make themselves feel good. Obviously, if the small schools started dropping programs you wouldn't care one bit because they don't add anything to the sport anyway.

 

Maybe they should just work harder, I love that argument, it's my favorite. I'm glad that it took 5 pages before we introduced the "just work harder" argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said. Most small school kids don't even think about state titles. Fort Wayne Semi State is probably the exception because it mostly 1A and 2A schools. There was a post after state about moving the Frankfort Sectional to Ft Wayne. That would be a genius thing to do. That Sectional alone has a greater student population than half of the semi state already. But school  size doesn't matter since it's a individual sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, CFleshman said:

Well said. Most small school kids don't even think about state titles. Fort Wayne Semi State is probably the exception because it mostly 1A and 2A schools. There was a post after state about moving the Frankfort Sectional to Ft Wayne. That would be a genius thing to do. That Sectional alone has a greater student population than half of the semi state already. But school  size doesn't matter since it's a individual sport.

Fort Wayne semistate itself is an argument for classing. Interesting how the weakest semistate is the one with the most small school wrestling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2020 at 8:58 AM, TeamGarcia said:

the dark knight joker GIF by hero0fwar 
prediction -

125 comments 

624 likes & laughs & confusion emojis 

35 gifs 

and 1 beating of a dead horse comments . 
 

we need a pick’ems for bananas. That way I can double my 46,000 + stash . 😂😂 

 

 

carry on fellas ...... 

 
✔️- Getting Close to that (125) prediction . Come on ..... Come on Baby ! miss cleo infomercial GIF 
 

You guys need to get stepping on Likes, Laughter, confuse emojis though. Slackers ! 
 

So California just crowned its 4th 4x State Champion in its history . New Jersey has had 4 also . We got 9 4x .

 

California just crown its 22nd 3x State Champion . I think 21 for New Jersey. We had 29 3x . 
 

I think we are in good company as a State Championship History hanging with a State that is 4x bigger than Indiana with Single Championship In California. New Jersey 
 

Agree or Disagree ? 

 


 


 

 

Edited by TeamGarcia
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Silence Dogood said:

Depends. Why haven't they had one? Do they have a club program? Lots of dedicated coaches, volunteers, and parents?

 

There are big schools that aren't having success in producing qualifiers, too. 

Do you think if schools were allowed multiple entrants  into sectional the number of small school qualifiers would go up, go down, or stay about the same?

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/29/2020 at 3:14 PM, 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.


Isn’t it also ten times as difficult to put on a varsity singlet at sectionals for schools that have ten times as many students? So shouldn’t a school with ten times as many students have ten times as many individual accomplishments as schools 1/10th their size? 
 

To me, this is equitable for individual sports and why people liked the movie Hoosiers because it isn’t equitable for team sports. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So in your mind small schools should struggle and it is fine that some have NEVER had a state qualifier and many have not even had a state placer. 


Your definition of struggle is different from many in this thread. 
 

I think your expectations of state qualifiers would need to be tempered by how many students are at a school. 
 

To illustrate the point, if a school of one student existed, it would be unrealistic to expect that school to have individual athletic success because it would need 100% of its population to achieve a goal, yet everyone would be happy to see their success and it should mean more than a school of 1000 students have an individual have success because that school needs 0.1% of their students to achieve something. 
 

I taught at Fishers, West Lafayette, Chesterton, and Hobart, and hearing about the individual successes of students at Fishers didn’t make me think that Fishers was a better educational system/community than the others because there were so many more students there. West Lafayette has a smaller population and tons of individual academic successes, so I thought that community was a better place to create individual Academic successes. This wasn’t about schools as much as communities, but I think it illustrates the point.

 

Small schools have less achievements because there are less people to work towards those achievements. If you look at differences between expected achievements  at a school and actual achievements at a school, you can see which community does the best job at over achieving, but that’s different than needing a class system for individual achievements... of course some argue against this based on different philosophies. 
 

Team achievements make sense to put into classes in my opinion because you need the group of students to compete against groups of students, so numbers become a factor of success for the individuals on the team. 
 

Individuals in individual sports don’t need to be classed unless you think schools deserve achievements. If you think schools deserve individual achievements, classed individual sports is your thing. It isn’t mine, but we can all disagree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and today's kids are wrestling year around with all kinds of high end coaching and practice partners. Back in the old days kids were working on the family farms everyday. Most likely before school and after. It shouldn't be harder to put on a singlet at any size of school. Only 14 get the opportunity. Doesn't matter if you have 14 kids or 75 kids on your team people seem to think it's equal opportunity for everyone to have success. There's so much more that people don't see or comprehend it's actually kind of funny. The big schools do have jv kids that would be beat state qualifiers from small schools. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jcjcjc said:


Isn’t it also ten times as difficult to put on a varsity singlet at sectionals for schools that have ten times as many students? So shouldn’t a school with ten times as many students have ten times as many individual accomplishments as schools 1/10th their size? 
 

To me, this is equitable for individual sports and why people liked the movie Hoosiers because it isn’t equitable for team sports. 

Do you think if schools were allowed multiple entrants  into sectional the number of small school qualifiers would go up, go down, or stay about the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jcjcjc said:


Your definition of struggle is different from many in this thread. 
 

I think your expectations of state qualifiers would need to be tempered by how many students are at a school. 
 

To illustrate the point, if a school of one student existed, it would be unrealistic to expect that school to have individual athletic success because it would need 100% of its population to achieve a goal, yet everyone would be happy to see their success and it should mean more than a school of 1000 students have an individual have success because that school needs 0.1% of their students to achieve something. 
 

I taught at Fishers, West Lafayette, Chesterton, and Hobart, and hearing about the individual successes of students at Fishers didn’t make me think that Fishers was a better educational system/community than the others because there were so many more students there. West Lafayette has a smaller population and tons of individual academic successes, so I thought that community was a better place to create individual Academic successes. This wasn’t about schools as much as communities, but I think it illustrates the point.

 

Small schools have less achievements because there are less people to work towards those achievements. If you look at differences between expected achievements  at a school and actual achievements at a school, you can see which community does the best job at over achieving, but that’s different than needing a class system for individual achievements... of course some argue against this based on different philosophies. 
 

Team achievements make sense to put into classes in my opinion because you need the group of students to compete against groups of students, so numbers become a factor of success for the individuals on the team. 
 

Individuals in individual sports don’t need to be classed unless you think schools deserve achievements. If you think schools deserve individual achievements, classed individual sports is your thing. It isn’t mine, but we can all disagree. 

So in your mind small schools should struggle and it's fine that they struggle. Is that correct? Just want clarification that your feelings towards small schools is that too bad, too sad, quit whining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Silence Dogood said:

 

  giphy.gif

 

Nobody is saying this. 

So then what are you saying? I'm confused by your constant statements that small schools shouldn't be qualifying kids for state because they are small. That means you aren't concerned with them struggling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So in your mind small schools should struggle and it's fine that they struggle. Is that correct? Just want clarification that your feelings towards small schools is that too bad, too sad, quit whining.


No, you are putting words in my mouth.

Before you were discussing honestly and I was learning about your view point, but it seems like you are getting mad or something and now trying to characterize my thoughts as malicious. I’m sorry you feel that way. 
 

It’s okay to define success as different achievements for a group of individuals. You can be successful with or without state qualifiers. 

 

From your perspective, you want all schools to have more access to state qualifiers, and I respect that. Based on the numbers, I feel individual state qualifiers are equitable. 

 

I feel like this is a philosophical difference kind of like liking or disliking the electoral college. I am for the popular vote for what I see as the same reasoning I think our state tournament is equitable...people get represented with a direct vote and people earn individual achievements. This paragraph may be off topic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jcjcjc said:


No, you are putting words in my mouth.

Before you were discussing honestly and I was learning about your view point, but it seems like you are getting mad or something and now trying to characterize my thoughts as malicious. I’m sorry you feel that way. 
 

It’s okay to define success as different achievements for a group of individuals. You can be successful with or without state qualifiers. 

 

From your perspective, you want all schools to have more access to state qualifiers, and I respect that. Based on the numbers, I feel individual state qualifiers are equitable. 

 

I feel like this is a philosophical difference kind of like liking or disliking the electoral college. I am for the popular vote for what I see as the same reasoning I think our state tournament is equitable...people get represented with a direct vote and people earn individual achievements. This paragraph may be off topic.  

So you feel that small schools should struggle because they have less students? 

 

It seems more like you don't like the way I am putting what you are saying. By you said, "it's equitable" sounds nicer than...well you are a small school you shouldn't be getting qualifiers anyway so don't cry about it.

 

So say the IHSAA stated schools can now enter 28 kids at sectional(2 per weight), would the percentage of small school qualifiers increase, decrease, or stay the same? Please explain your answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So you feel that small schools should struggle because they have less students? 

 

It seems more like you don't like the way I am putting what you are saying. By you said, "it's equitable" sounds nicer than...well you are a small school you shouldn't be getting qualifiers anyway so don't cry about it.

 

So say the IHSAA stated schools can now enter 28 kids at sectional(2 per weight), would the percentage of small school qualifiers increase, decrease, or stay the same? Please explain your answer.


I don’t like how you’re characterizing what I’m saying because you are changing the meaning of my words.

 

Equitable does sound nicer because it means something very different than what you are saying. 
 

Here is a link I give to my students when they exercise this tactic:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jcjcjc said:


I don’t like how you’re characterizing what I’m saying because you are changing the meaning of my words.

 

Equitable does sound nicer because it means something very different than what you are saying. 
 

Here is a link I give to my students when they exercise this tactic:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Equitable is a nice way of saying small schools shouldn't be getting state qualifiers and should struggle because of their size.

 

You still didn't answer my question, I'll see if you will once again.
 

So say the IHSAA stated schools can now enter 28 kids at sectional(2 per weight), would the percentage of small school qualifiers increase, decrease, or stay the same? Please explain your answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

Equitable is a nice way of saying small schools shouldn't be getting state qualifiers and should struggle because of their size.

 

You still didn't answer my question, I'll see if you will once again.
 

So say the IHSAA stated schools can now enter 28 kids at sectional(2 per weight), would the percentage of small school qualifiers increase, decrease, or stay the same? Please explain your answer.

That's easy Joe.  The big schools would monopolize more and small schools would be squeezed out

 I bet small school placing would be cut in half.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

So then what are you saying? I'm confused by your constant statements that small schools shouldn't be qualifying kids for state because they are small. That means you aren't concerned with them struggling.

I am saying that small schools as a group should not expect to have 25% of the qualifiers when they have 13% of the enrollment and presumably 13% of the people who have the talent to be a state qualifier. And I was trying to counter your earlier point that going to a big school causes an individual to be 4x as likely to become a state qualifier. 

 

As I said before, 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. 

 

I used this example earlier to try to explain better what I am saying:

 

"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."

 

Because the numbers we are seeing for state qualifiers don't seem to be drastically out of line from what we would expect based on probability, it doesn't seem inequitable to me when speaking only about the individual competing in the one class individual tournament. 

 

So that's the point I am trying to make. 

 

On the other hand, you seem to be trying to make a case that classing the individual tournament would have benefits to small schools and we need to do that in order to save them. 

 

Since we are talking about two different things we are talking past each other. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

Equitable is a nice way of saying small schools shouldn't be getting state qualifiers and should struggle because of their size.

 

You still didn't answer my question, I'll see if you will once again.
 

So say the IHSAA stated schools can now enter 28 kids at sectional(2 per weight), would the percentage of small school qualifiers increase, decrease, or stay the same? Please explain your answer.


Small schools would get less qualifiers if big schools had more entries. For your belief in schools being the major focus, this is a big deal to you, so it’s a great point for your line of thinking.  


Allowing only one entry per school helps small schools get state qualifiers, a large amount of Indiana students at large schools get only so many Sectional entries, so kids like Ball at Crown Point can’t make it to State, and a kid from a different school can.  

 

Track and swimming allow more than one entry; wrestling does not. Our sport is most likely more equitable in school representation at the state meet because of wrestling only allowing a school to enter one kid per weight class.  
 

This scenario you bring up would give more kids a chance to wrestle in the tournament series, but would most likely cut smaller schools down on state qualifiers, since there are so many more kids at big schools, there is a greater chance of having depth. 
 

Just a thought: I think having more state qualifiers, let’s say 32, with the current one entry per weight would result in the same representative percentages, but would allow a greater number of small schools to have qualifiers. I might be wrong on these numbers, but it’s just a thought to bring about our shared goals while trying to work with our different mindsets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • 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.