Jump to content

State tournament class statistics to not necessarily incite class wrestling discussion


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Galagore said:

Also difficult when the club coach is the varsity head coach and one of two middle school coaches. Resources are the issue, and they become more likely to be the issue the smaller the school is. Doesn't mean that big schools are never short on resources, doesn't mean small schools are never flush with resources. Just means that as the school gets smaller, the likelihood that resources also gets smaller grows.

 

Very well said. Now that I have answered your question, how about you answering mine.

 

Why is it that you recognize that since large schools have more numbers they in most cases have better teams, but you are unable to recognize that this also means they are going to have more elite wrestlers thus more state qualifiers?

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

Just now, CFleshman said:

I believe you are very naive about the number 2 kids at MD Cathedral  Brownsburg Carmel  Crown Point Penn and alot of others . They have kids that would beat most small school starters. 

 

Most starters, but do they have JV kids that can beat the small school State Qualifiers?

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

 

I completely agree they are outliers, but that doesn't mean you throw them out or worse throw them into the other category. If we are trying to get an unbiased look at the qualifier% vs enrollment% then they must be listed in the proper enrollment category.

 

This is another example of you skewing the facts to better support your narrative.

 

There are large school outliers also, are you misappropriating their numbers?

At the risk of opening a whole different can of worms, the two schools you guys are griping about him "skewing the data with" are both private schools that don't really have the same issues as public schools. I think everyone knows that there's more to the data than this, you're simply trying to use the data to fit your narrative, much like Joe is.

 

Tradition means something, but tradition without land borders means unlimited potential. People from all over the state flock to those two programs because they can accept them without it being an IHSAA violation. Please note, I'm not saying they "recruit", I have no knowledge that they do, nor would I air that laundry on this forum, but if my son was zoned to go to a dying or floundering program and I had the opportunity and means to send them anywhere, well Cathedral and Mater Dei would be top choices, as they would be for probably anyone in the state. But these two schools, though smaller in numbers, are not like most other public schools.

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

 

Very well said. Now that I have answered your question, how about you answering mine.

 

Why is it that you recognize that since large schools have more numbers they in most cases have better teams, but you are unable to recognize that this also means they are going to have more elite wrestlers thus more state qualifiers?

I do recognize that. I think, however that is justification for classing the individual tournament. Not justification against classing it. Because they are so much more likely to have the resources to produce elite wrestlers, they are playing a different game than the smallest half of the schools, which are far less likely to have such resources.

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

 

Most starters, but do they have JV kids that can beat the small school State Qualifiers?

 

I have been to varsity meets with Penn's JV team. Yes, many years they have guys who could beat small school state qualifiers. Maybe not their whole lineup, even one guy per school of the top 20 biggest teams puts a pretty big dent in the small school number.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Coach Brobst said:

At the risk of opening a whole different can of worms, the two schools you guys are griping about him "skewing the data with" are both private schools that don't really have the same issues as public schools. I think everyone knows that there's more to the data than this, you're simply trying to use the data to fit your narrative, much like Joe is.

 

Tradition means something, but tradition without land borders means unlimited potential. People from all over the state flock to those two programs because they can accept them without it being an IHSAA violation. Please note, I'm not saying they "recruit", I have no knowledge that they do, nor would I air that laundry on this forum, but if my son was zoned to go to a dying or floundering program and I had the opportunity and means to send them anywhere, well Cathedral and Mater Dei would be top choices, as they would be for probably anyone in the state. But these two schools, though smaller in numbers, are not like most other public schools.

 

Point taken, but this is a debate about school size not school type. And all I have done is argue that larger schools with larger enrollments should be expected to have more State Qualifiers than smaller schools with smaller enrollments, and as long as the percentages are in close proximity of each other than it is what should be expected. And you can't start throwing out the outliers or worse throwing them into the other category.

 

I'm not going to comment on Cathedral because I have no knowledge of the situation in Indy, but I was born, raised, wrestled & have lived in Evansville all my life. I did not attend MD, I actually went to Evv Memorial so it would have been easy for me to select MD instead. While you are correct that anyone in the Evansville area with the resources to do so can send their kid to MD if they so choose. But MD is a small tight knit community, and most of their wrestlers have had fathers, brothers, uncles & cousins that wrestled there in the past. Not saying it has never happened, but you'll be hard pressed to find examples of anyone moving to Evansville & their kid becoming a varsity wrestler at MD.

Edited by SIACfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Galagore said:

 

I have been to varsity meets with Penn's JV team. Yes, many years they have guys who could beat small school state qualifiers. Maybe not their whole lineup, even one guy per school of the top 20 biggest teams puts a pretty big dent in the small school number.

 

Again, I believe you are underestimating these small school State Qualifiers. If these guys aren't being beat by the large school varsity wrestlers, why do you think that adding large school JV wrestlers will take them out?

 

Can you give me an example of a meet where a backup wrestler beat a State Qualifier from a small school?

 

We are not talking the average small school wrestler here, we are talking about guys who made it through sectionals, regionals & the ticket round at SS.

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

I do recognize that. I think, however that is justification for classing the individual tournament. Not justification against classing it. Because they are so much more likely to have the resources to produce elite wrestlers, they are playing a different game than the smallest half of the schools, which are far less likely to have such resources.

 

OK, but I have already admitted that if you are wanting to make things more fair for small schools from a team standpoint than yes the tournament should be classed.

 

But the whole reason why I like the single class tournament is because we crown 1 champ per weight class. The only way to do that is with a single class tournament. I have only debated the fact that from an enrollment% vs state qualifier% that the numbers are about right where they should be. I understand that it leaves small schools at a disadvantage from a team standpoint, but it isn't a disadvantage to the individual wrestlers from small schools (at least not to the extent that many of you small school guys want to believe).

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

 

I completely agree they are outliers, but that doesn't mean you throw them out or worse throw them into the other category. If we are trying to get an unbiased look at the qualifier% vs enrollment% then they must be listed in the proper enrollment category.

 

This is another example of you skewing the facts to better support your narrative.

 

There are large school outliers also, are you misappropriating their numbers?

When compiling statistical data and you have outliers you usually throw them out. 

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

 

So then are your numbers not completely accurate?

 

Just because MD chooses to participate in the large school class in wrestling doesn't mean you should put their wrestlers in the large school class when what we are trying to establish how the percentages of qualifiers vs enrollment fall out. This is another example of skewing the numbers to fit your narrative.

Yes,   before my stellar basketball, career, I was the man at wrestling.  Had the best atomic knee drop ever.   I decided to attend one of aforementioned parochial schools my freshman year.   The had it going on and were doing things on the mat that hadn't been done on this planet.  It was fun to be a top the pinnacle of the mountain of high school wrestling.  Total domination,  nobody could touch us.   We could have been ranked nationally. 

 

Unfortunately,  I got booteed out of the school.   It wasn't my fault.   One of the nuns got affected by a Kavorka curse.  Kavorka the Latvian Orthodox word meaning "Lure of the Animal".    She uncontrollably couldn't resist me,  and before she broke her vow, the diocese evicted and expelled me from the school.   I could never step on site again. Banned forever. Im not sure how long the Kavorka lasts.     So in rejection,  I started playing basketball.  I owe that school everything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to know every state that is classed is doing it wrong and we're one of the few states that does things the right way... just like we're the only state that don't have wrestle backs... oops

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

No that's how you compile statistical data, if there are extreme outliers you throw them out. 

 

Feel free to perform a Google search on how to treat outliers in data.

But you didn't throw them out.

 

You threw them into the other category.

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

I'm glad to know every state that is classed is doing it wrong and we're one of the few states that does things the right way... just like we're the only state that don't have wrestle backs... oops

 

Well if you want to crown one champ per weight class, how else do you do it?

 

To be clear, I haven't actually been debating whether or not Indiana should be classed or not. I have only given my opinion as to why I like it as a single class. And then argued that the qualifiers from large vs small schools is exactly as enrollment would indicate.

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

But you didn't throw them out.

 

You threw them into the other category.

Feel free to use the spreadsheet I attached to update the data with them. 

 

Without Mater Dei and Cathedral in 3A the last 10 years

E-Enrollment

Q-Qualifiers
P-Placers
C-Champs

  E Q P C
1A 13.14% 10.44% 7.32% 4.48%
2A 25.02% 27.55% 26.14% 21.64%
3A 31.29% 29.44% 31.33% 32.09%
4A 30.55% 32.57% 35.22% 41.79%
         
  E Q P C
1A 21.91% 20.88% 16.96% 12.69%
2A 78.09% 79.12% 83.04% 87.31%

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 schools this year produced 56 qualifiers, 25% of all the wrestlers at state:

Brownsburg, Crown Point, EMD, Cathedral, Chesterton, Carmel, Warren Central and Mishawaka...

 

Would this show that a problem we have is how a few schools are dominating the sport.  It is not like the big schools as a whole are dominating but a few that really throw the data out of whack.

 

 

 

Edited by AJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SIACfan said:

 

OK, but I have already admitted that if you are wanting to make things more fair for small schools from a team standpoint than yes the tournament should be classed.

 

But the whole reason why I like the single class tournament is because we crown 1 champ per weight class. The only way to do that is with a single class tournament. I have only debated the fact that from an enrollment% vs state qualifier% that the numbers are about right where they should be. I understand that it leaves small schools at a disadvantage from a team standpoint, but it isn't a disadvantage to the individual wrestlers from small schools (at least not to the extent that many of you small school guys want to believe).

You make a good point. You want single class because you like it, and that is not a reason that I think we should consider. I "like" watching and experiencing the single class tournament. I do not think a single class tournament is the best kind of tournament for state wrestling finals.

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

You make a good point. You want single class because you like it, and that is not a reason that I think we should consider. I "like" watching and experiencing the single class tournament. I do not think a single class tournament is the best kind of tournament for state wrestling finals.

 

Galagore - you made a point that some JV wrestlers may be able to be a state qualifier (beating a small-school state qualifier specifically, although they could also beat out a large-school qualifier)

 

So is the small-school state really equitable? Does it reward the best wrestlers? Or is it designed to award a group of wrestlers based on a subjective line you have drawn (based on lower half of enrollment) and said "this isn't fair".  Is it equitable for a state-level wrestler to not even be able to compete at the sectional level because he is behind two studs from a large school?  He's likely toiled day in and day out - and doesn't even get his shot.

 

If we truly want to make things more equitable, then expand state to 16 or 32 competitors, which will theoretically bring in more of the best wrestlers from all school sizes and allow them to earn the right to gain exposure and awards. Then, focus efforts on additional training opportunities for those smaller schools to bring their talent level up to the level needed to have the privilege of earning their way to compete at state.

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

8 schools this year produces 56 qualifiers, 25% of all the wrestlers at state:

Brownsburg, Crown Point, EMD, Cathedral, Chesterton, Carmel, Warren Central and Mishawaka...

 

Would this show that a problem we have is how a few schools are dominating the sport.  It is not like the big schools as a whole are dominating but a few that really throw the data out of whack.

 

 

 

I was going to look this up, I am glad you did.  I think the whole "one sport athlete" idea isn't really as prevalent at most schools as people believe, and really you just see those few really elite teams that have situations in which you have large groups of kids focus only on wrestling.  

Having coached at a small school for a number of years, and for the past few at the biggest school in the area I can tell you from my experience coaching at both is really similar.  Most of the kids play multiple sports. The big school has more athletes available, but not all of them choose to wrestle.  The kids who choose to find time to wrestle in the off-season,  tend to do better, the others choose not to, and tend to stay at that semi-state level.  They have the opportunity to go to pretty good clubs in this area if they choose to, most around here don't for whatever reason.  

A lot of it is about the culture at the school too. I actually found it easier to get kids to try the sport out and fill a spot for the team at the smaller school than it has been at the bigger one.  It takes time to build all of that up though.

 

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

No that's how you compile statistical data, if there are extreme outliers you throw them out. 

 

Feel free to perform a Google search on how to treat outliers in data.

 

OK, I did google it. And low & behold, throwing out outliers is only 1 method used. It is called the trimming method and according to the info I found this is an inadequate approach for the treatment of outliers. Using a method to adjust the outliers is a better approach. Especially if the outlier is known data rather than possibly erroneous data.

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

 

OK, I did google it. And low & behold, throwing out outliers is only 1 method used. It is called the trimming method and according to the info I found this is an inadequate approach for the treatment of outliers. Using a method to adjust the outliers is a better approach. Especially if the outlier is known data rather than possibly erroneous data.

Kind of like how he adjusted those schools to the larger class?

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

 

OK, I did google it. And low & behold, throwing out outliers is only 1 method used. It is called the trimming method and according to the info I found this is an inadequate approach for the treatment of outliers. Using a method to adjust the outliers is a better approach. Especially if the outlier is known data rather than possibly erroneous data.

They are an extreme outlier and while I do not specialize in statistics the data from Mater Dei affects the whole greatly. Divided into 4 classes they account for 23% of the qualifiers, 32% of the placers and 50% of the champions over the past 10 years.

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

 

Galagore - you made a point that some JV wrestlers may be able to be a state qualifier (beating a small-school state qualifier specifically, although they could also beat out a large-school qualifier)

 

So is the small-school state really equitable? Does it reward the best wrestlers? Or is it designed to award a group of wrestlers based on a subjective line you have drawn (based on lower half of enrollment) and said "this isn't fair".  Is it equitable for a state-level wrestler to not even be able to compete at the sectional level because he is behind two studs from a large school?  He's likely toiled day in and day out - and doesn't even get his shot.

 

If we truly want to make things more equitable, then expand state to 16 or 32 competitors, which will theoretically bring in more of the best wrestlers from all school sizes and allow them to earn the right to gain exposure and awards. Then, focus efforts on additional training opportunities for those smaller schools to bring their talent level up to the level needed to have the privilege of earning their way to compete at state.

Yes, I do point that out as a response to people arguing that the percentage of students enrolled roughly matches the percentage of qualifiers and medal winners.

 

I think if schools have 2 quality entries they should be allowed to enter both, even though I don't like it. It seems like it's more fair, even though it's not something that would make me happy. That would put my wrestlers in a more difficult situation than they are in now, which I would not like, however I think it would be more appropriate for the wrestling community as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thor said:

Kind of like how he adjusted those schools to the larger class?

 

No, throwing them into the other data set is worse than throwing them out completely. He would need to make an adjustment to their numbers. I'm no stats expert, but it doesn't take one to know that putting small school data in the large school data set is a gross error.

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

 

No, throwing them into the other data set is worse than throwing them out completely. He would need to make an adjustment to their numbers. I'm no stats expert, but it doesn't take one to know that putting small school data in the large school data set is a gross error.

The spreadsheet with all of the information is out there, feel free to adjust it how you want it. That is why I shared the data.

 

 

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.