Jump to content

State tournament class statistics to not necessarily incite class wrestling discussion


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Silence Dogood said:

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. 

 

 

So what is the reasoning for the state placer percentage to be even more skewed towards big schools? Or the state top 4 or state champion percentages? There was only one state champion from the bottom 200 schools in terms of enrollment this year.

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

58 minutes ago, Jcjcjc said:


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. 

Adding qualifiers would add some small school qualifiers, but at what percentage?  I haven't run the exact numbers but it is usually 75/25 when you split the schools in half. If you add 16 more qualifiers that means there are 12 more big school qualifiers and only 4 more small school qualifiers per weight. That sounds like a splendid idea to increase big school participation at state.


In all honesty it would be more beneficial to have two classes with 8 qualifiers from small schools and 16 from big schools.  That way big schools get 4 more qualifiers and small schools basically get double the number of qualifiers they are getting already. Then they also get to crown fake state champions on top of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have coached at Southern Wells for 16 years. We have an enrollment of around 250 students. Obviously I am for classing the team side of the tournament because I feel like that is a no brainer. However when it comes to the Individual tournament I love the one class. We have had success sending multiple guys down to the State Tournament but Semi-State Qualifiers are a big deal for our school and our wrestling team as well. We have had a wrestler at the Semi-State tournament for each of the past 16 years and that is a streak we are extremely proud of. Are the expectations different being a wrestler from Southern Wells or a wrestler from Indianapolis Cathedral, well yeah I guess. But when you have a special group like we did at Southern Wells this year and take 3 guys down to the State Finals and wrestle against Crown Point, Penn, and Cathedral on Friday night, what else is better than that! These 3 guys deserved to wrestle on the biggest stage against the biggest schools and best wrestlers in the State. 

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

Adding qualifiers would add some small school qualifiers, but at what percentage?  I haven't run the exact numbers but it is usually 75/25 when you split the schools in half. If you add 16 more qualifiers that means there are 12 more big school qualifiers and only 4 more small school qualifiers per weight. That sounds like a splendid idea to increase big school participation at state.


In all honesty it would be more beneficial to have two classes with 8 qualifiers from small schools and 16 from big schools.  That way big schools get 4 more qualifiers and small schools basically get double the number of qualifiers they are getting already. Then they also get to crown fake state champions on top of it.


It seems like you are employing the strategy you assumed I was using when you say that it’s bad to increase big school participation at state. There is nothing inherently bad about increasing state participation, but you are acting like it is a bad thing unless the outcome you want is achieved; therefore, nothing I say will get through to you. 
 

I thank you for your stats, they help make the conversation better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, what are the numbers by semi-state of state qualifiers based on school size. I'm just wondering if there's a big difference between semi-states. for example are most of the small school qualifiers coming from one semi-state or is it even out or is there a semi-state that has a higher number of smaller schools. I just think that maybe this affects peoples views of the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jcjcjc said:


It seems like you are employing the strategy you assumed I was using when you say that it’s bad to increase big school participation at state. There is nothing inherently bad about increasing state participation, but you are acting like it is a bad thing unless the outcome you want is achieved; therefore, nothing I say will get through to you. 
 

I thank you for your stats, they help make the conversation better. 

Do you think if we allowed 28 entries into sectional small school qualification numbers would go up, go down, or stay about the same? Sorry, somehow missed your reply to this in a previous post.

Edited by Galagore
Realized this question was answered
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Y2 is unwilling &/or unable to distinguish the school/team aspect of this argument from the individual aspect of it. That's fine & yes if you are looking at it from a team standpoint then the current single class tournament is unfair to the small schools. They will most definitely continue to struggle to compete for a team title. So given that this is your point of view then I completely agree that a classed system is needed for your small school & others like it to have a better chance at competing for a team title.

 

But, what I like about the current tournament format is that it's main objective is to crown one true state champ at each weight class. It has been explained numerous times that from an enrollment percentage, small schools are getting close to the correct number of qualifiers. You can choose to ignore that or maybe you just don't want to acknowledge it because it doesn't support your idea that somehow individuals that go to big schools have an advantage over individuals at small schools. If you don't understand by now that the percentages of qualifiers verses enrollment contradicts that thought then you never will.

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


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. 

 

If everyone has an equal shot, and the percentage of qualifiers should roughly reflect student population percentage, shouldn't the number of qualifiers from big and small schools be independent of the number of sectional entries? A big school should be able to enter as many as they want and the small schools should still have somewhere in the 9%-13% range of state qualifiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

Obviously Y2 is unwilling &/or unable to distinguish the school/team aspect of this argument from the individual aspect of it. That's fine & yes if you are looking at it from a team standpoint then the current single class tournament is unfair to the small schools. They will most definitely continue to struggle to compete for a team title. So given that this is your point of view then I completely agree that a classed system is needed for your small school & others like it to have a better chance at competing for a team title.

 

But, what I like about the current tournament format is that it's main objective is to crown one true state champ at each weight class. It has been explained numerous times that from an enrollment percentage, small schools are getting close to the correct number of qualifiers. You can choose to ignore that or maybe you just don't want to because it doesn't support your idea that somehow individuals that go to big schools have an advantage over individuals at small schools. If you don't understand by now that the percentages of qualifiers verses enrollment contradicts that thought then you never will.

 

Do you think that if schools got 28 entries into the state tournament the number of small school qualifiers would go up, go down, or stay about the same?

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

 

Do you think that if schools got 28 entries into the state tournament the number of small school qualifiers would go up, go down, or stay about the same?

 

Stay about the same.

 

Yes, there would be the occasional kid who can't break into the varsity lineup at a big school who might actually be good enough to qualify for state. But that would be the extreme exception not the rule. And who says that this kid would knock a small school kid from qualifying? Maybe he would simply knock a kid from a different large school out.

 

I think you are confusing small school kids who are multiyear letterman at their small school but wouldn't be able to break into a large school varsity lineup with the small school state qualifiers. Those kids would be state qualifiers no matter what school they attended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Galagore said:

 

Do you think that if schools got 28 entries into the state tournament the number of small school qualifiers would go up, go down, or stay about the same?

 

Or another way to look at it. There is a kid at a large school that can't break into the varsity lineup. If he went to a small school he would likely be a multi-year letterman. But that same kid would not be able to take the spot of a small school state qualifier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, yes there would be many small school varsity wrestlers who would lose to a large school JV wrestler. But there would not be many if any small school state qualifiers who would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really pretty interesting that you guys can understand that because the larger schools have more students that they are going to have better teams, but then you can't understand that because they have more students means they are going to have more elite individuals thus more state qualifiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bbulldog152 said:

I'm curious, what are the numbers by semi-state of state qualifiers based on school size. I'm just wondering if there's a big difference between semi-states. for example are most of the small school qualifiers coming from one semi-state or is it even out or is there a semi-state that has a higher number of smaller schools. I just think that maybe this affects peoples views of the subject.

Here is the info, lots to digest and I'm sure there will be 1 million different conclusions drawn. No matter the side you are on it is interesting stuff. Hopefully I included enough data to overload your head.

 

Num by Semi-State.xlsx

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, base said:

Not much discussion of a plan to improve the skill level of these wrestlers from small schools, only adding more awards to the IHSAA so that things can be seen as equitable

The plan would be up to the individual, coach, and parent. It is way more than adding awards and "giving everyone a trophy."

 

What happens when there are more celebrations of state qualifiers or even kids coming close to qualifying? That answer is two-fold, first it gives more exposure to others about the sport. The kids are praised and lauded as accomplished athletes and thus younger kids get interested in the sport because they see others getting attention. The second way the sport would improve is more kids would get to state or make a ticket-round. The ones that came up just short will see that they need to put more work in during the off-season and thus attend off-season events, camps, RTC's, etc. to improve. On top of that earlier attention from college coaches could also help encourage kids to do more off-season wrestling.

 

Class wrestling is not a magic bullet, but it is something that would help the struggling small schools grow the spot.

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

The plan would be up to the individual, coach, and parent. It is way more than adding awards and "giving everyone a trophy."

 

What happens when there are more celebrations of state qualifiers or even kids coming close to qualifying? That answer is two-fold, first it gives more exposure to others about the sport. The kids are praised and lauded as accomplished athletes and thus younger kids get interested in the sport because they see others getting attention. The second way the sport would improve is more kids would get to state or make a ticket-round. The ones that came up just short will see that they need to put more work in during the off-season and thus attend off-season events, camps, RTC's, etc. to improve. On top of that earlier attention from college coaches could also help encourage kids to do more off-season wrestling.

 

Class wrestling is not a magic bullet, but it is something that would help the struggling small schools grow the spot.

Joe - this is a good explanation.  As you have experience with a small school, here is one of my objections.

 

It is clear that you also believe that one of the ingredients to increased skills is an emphasis on off-season wrestling. And here is where the small school has an inherent disadvantage (although I would call it an advantage). Many students are in multiple sports. So by encouraging them to concentrate on in-season wrestling, then off-season wrestling too, you will be in conflict with other sports at your small school.

 

I believe that the students/parents should enjoy the environment where their student can participate and have success in multiple sports (where many times they cannot at a larger school).  Leave the off-season work and one-sport specialization to those students/parents who desire to pursue a college athletic career or high-placing in the IHSAA state tourney.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 11:15 AM, SIACfan said:

 

Now this is an example of participation trophy distribution.

 

Kansas has a population of 2.9 Mil which is less than half of Indiana (6.7 Mil). Thus it is the equivalent of Indiana going to 8 classes.

Kansas has 8 classes? That's more watered down then the waves on venice  beach on a rainy day.   Coach Wooden used to say "play the best to be the best and if you aint 1st, then youre last". Thats we played the best competition on the planet.   There was no classes in college basketball.  We played  the best, then we ate the best.  Because we went to the greatest taco restraunt in the history of Mexican civilization after games.  We didn't go to watered down Taco Bell. 

 

Class wrestling reminds me of Marv Alberts, wig.  It looks the best piece of hair any man has ever had in the history planet from a distance,  but when you get close you see its not real, like a fake participation trophy.

 

 

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

Joe - this is a good explanation.  As you have experience with a small school, here is one of my objections.

 

It is clear that you also believe that one of the ingredients to increased skills is an emphasis on off-season wrestling. And here is where the small school has an inherent disadvantage (although I would call it an advantage). Many students are in multiple sports. So by encouraging them to concentrate on in-season wrestling, then off-season wrestling too, you will be in conflict with other sports at your small school.

 

I believe that the students/parents should enjoy the environment where their student can participate and have success in multiple sports (where many times they cannot at a larger school).  Leave the off-season work and one-sport specialization to those students/parents who desire to pursue a college athletic career or high-placing in the IHSAA state tourney.

When you class the sport you also add the notion that these athletes at the smaller schools will have less time collectively due to being multi-sport athletes. You are basically putting all these athletes into a class together so that they are competitive.

 

Kids are smart and the ones at the smaller schools make a conscience choice on what to do whether it's another sport or off-season wrestling. They look at the competition and say, see that pretty much everyone 160lbs and below that placed top 4 are single sport athlete. That leaves them with a few choices, quit wrestling, keep doing multiple sports, or drop a sport or two. 

 

The sport isn't exactly thriving at the small schools and we need to keep these kids around as much as possible and keep them around with a positive experience in the sport. The more that do that, the better the sport is as they become coaches, referees, crazy wrestling parents, or simply just fans of the sport for the long-run. If more kids are having a positive experience with the sport then I see no issues with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Wrestling Bill Walton said:

Kansas has 8 classes?

 

 

 

No Kansas has 4 classes but less than half the population of Indiana. Thus it is the equivalent of Indiana going to 8 classes.

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

 

No Kansas has 4 classes but less than half the population of Indiana. Thus it is the equivalent of Indiana going to 8 classes.

That is way too many, most states would be fine with two or three classes. 

 

One thing the IHSAA does well is that they hold the state championships in great facilities. I could not imagine having a state finals at Carroll or Southport or New Castle. And yes, we could still hold state at Bankers Life if we went to multiple classes.

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

Here is the info, lots to digest and I'm sure there will be 1 million different conclusions drawn. No matter the side you are on it is interesting stuff. Hopefully I included enough data to overload your head.

 

Num by Semi-State.xlsx 11.26 kB · 2 downloads

 

 

Y2, just so I and others understand. The attached file shows the number of SS qualifiers for each SS broken down by school size, correct?

 

The poster who asked the question was asking for a breakdown of State qualifiers by school size schools from the different SS's, not the breakdown of SS qualifiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

 

Y2, just so I and others understand. The attached file shows the number of SS qualifiers for each SS broken down by school size, correct?

 

The poster who asked the question was asking for a breakdown of State qualifiers by school size schools from the different SS's, not the breakdown of SS qualifiers.

This is correct and but I found the info given informative. 

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.