Jump to content

Faulkens view on Class Wrestling


AJ
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, bulldog145 said:

But "big" schools don't want to wrestle each other early in the tournament series.

You keep saying this because you think it's true, but it really isn't.  "Big" schools already compete against each other in Sectionals.  There's a bigger problem with smaller schools not facing any big schools during the season and come in to Sectionals with inflated records from forfeits and causing problems with proper seeding.  I don't blame the small schools for this, though, because it's hard to schedule a match when one doesn't have a full line up or JV, and it's probably a long drive there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Y2CJ41 said:

The reasonable goal would be 20-30 kids on your roster filling 12-14 weights for a program. Obviously filing all the weights can be tricky at times, even some of the more established smaller programs will forfeit weights some years.

 

 

I would love to have those numbers and I am not a "small" school!!!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, base said:

Thanks for the replies - 40 kids in a school of 591 sounds fantastic, but I am guessing that is out of the norm.

 

I'm trying to get to where I can do some data comparison - do you agree that 2020 numbers are probably more "normal" than 2021, given the situation with COVID?

 

Y2 - didn't you have a spreadsheet that showed number of forfeits by school/weight for every sectional?

I’d say 2020 are probably more “normal”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GrecoCoach said:

You keep saying this because you think it's true, but it really isn't.  "Big" schools already compete against each other in Sectionals.  There's a bigger problem with smaller schools not facing any big schools during the season and come in to Sectionals with inflated records from forfeits and causing problems with proper seeding.  I don't blame the small schools for this, though, because it's hard to schedule a match when one doesn't have a full line up or JV, and it's probably a long drive there.

So the big schools would be ok with having less post season success due to being eliminated earlier in the tournament series because they face each other from 1st round?  I find that hard to believe.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bulldog145 said:

So the big schools would be ok with having less post season success due to being eliminated earlier in the tournament series because they face each other from 1st round?  I find that hard to believe.   

If we went to a two-class system and keeping things close to the same big schools would have pretty much the same amount of success. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2021 at 9:26 PM, Y2CJ41 said:

Mater Dei could move up if they wished as they do for team state.

 

More kids getting recognized for their work is never a bad thing. Is it horrible that we hand out 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A awards for kids and coaches? Am I breaking some unwritten sin to recognize more kids for their efforts in the sport? 

 

Looking at participation numbers we won't have much to work with in the very near future unless something is done. Losing 25% of our athletes in 10ish years and almost doubling our forfeits isn't exactly a good sign for the future. We have lost 2000 wrestlers which is 6 per team or 140 full squads. We have lost 25 full teams just in forfeits. I don't want to be Chicken Little here, however those aren't good signs.

 

As stated earlier, what will it take for you to consider class wrestling? Do we need to lose 25 programs? How about 50, 100? What if we average 7 forfeits per team? Just curious what the tipping point is.

And if MD chose to stay in their enrollment class?  What would happen to all the small schools if MD was winning 5-7 individual titles every year?  If it is all about getting kids more recognition, they logically MD should stay in their enrollment class and get more of their guys state titles and college offers, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Y2CJ41 said:

If we went to a two-class system and keeping things close to the same big schools would have pretty much the same amount of success. 

 

You're right because there is too much separation from top tier to the bottom even with 2 classes.  3 Classes would make more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ReformedPoster said:

And if MD chose to stay in their enrollment class?  What would happen to all the small schools if MD was winning 5-7 individual titles every year?  If it is all about getting kids more recognition, they logically MD should stay in their enrollment class and get more of their guys state titles and college offers, right?

They would get a max of 14 titles and win state. They can do what they want, it still wouldn't matter in the end as more kids would still be getting recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, nkraus said:

Of course that helps, but you’ve gotta start somewhere.  My first year we might’ve had 20 kids on the roster and we didn’t have a winning record.  I think we had 18 wrestlers or less at the end of the season and a handful were first year wrestlers.  

Agreed

 

Prairie Heights roster sizes the last 10 years.  Roughly 412 kids in the high school and nearly 31 kid average over 10 years.  We started low, spiked a little and have fluctuated some since about 2016.

 

2011-12, 21 kids, 12-16 record

2012-13, 29 kids, 16-16 record, team state 4th

2013-14, 39 kids, 17-12 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 2nd

2014-15, 31 kids, 30-3 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 1st, 1 qualifier

2015-16, 33 kids, 35-0 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 1st, 4 qualifies, 2 medalists

2016-17, 36 kids, 32-1 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 1st, 2 qualifiers

2017-18, 33 kids, 32-3 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 2nd

2018-19, 28 kids, 20-2 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 2nd, 2 qualifiers, 1 medalist

2019-20, 28 kids, 14-8 record, team state 4th, 1 medalist

2020-21, 30 kids, 15-5 record, sectional champs, team state 3rd, 1 qualifier

 

Could we do better individually in a classed tourney, yes I am sure we would have more qualifiers, medalists and quite possibly a few more state champs.  Still love the single class tournament.  But as Kraus said, having success a long the way definitely has helped our program.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ENoblewrestling said:

 

 

If it is not a good argument then why do the numbers in terms of qualifiers mirror the numbers of the general population pretty much every year? Is it just  coicidental?

 

Id like to think we can have a fair conversation.  The % of qualifiers in each group almost always mirrors the % of the total population each group makes up.  I feel that is what you would expect.

Some people believe that fairness would be shown if 12% (Small school population) of the population made up 33% of the qualifiers.  I personally do not think that makes any sense, but to each their own i guess.

 

But it doesn't...to quote Pug:

 

"After looking back at my numbers, 39 (of 64 schools) 5A and 6A schools account for 112 qualifiers. That's 50% of the field. Another 50 kids qualified from 4A schools. So, if my math is correct, 162 of the 224 qualifiers came from 4A schools or bigger....that leaves 62 qualifiers from 3A schools and smaller..."

 

I don't think small schools should get 33% of the qualifiers.  All I'm saying is the numbers do not support your statement that there is an equal chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rookie78 said:

Agreed

 

Prairie Heights roster sizes the last 10 years.  Roughly 412 kids in the high school and nearly 31 kid average over 10 years.  We started low, spiked a little and have fluctuated some since about 2016.

 

2011-12, 21 kids, 12-16 record

2012-13, 29 kids, 16-16 record, team state 4th

2013-14, 39 kids, 17-12 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 2nd

2014-15, 31 kids, 30-3 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 1st, 1 qualifier

2015-16, 33 kids, 35-0 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 1st, 4 qualifies, 2 medalists

2016-17, 36 kids, 32-1 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 1st, 2 qualifiers

2017-18, 33 kids, 32-3 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 2nd

2018-19, 28 kids, 20-2 record, conference and sectional champs, team state 2nd, 2 qualifiers, 1 medalist

2019-20, 28 kids, 14-8 record, team state 4th, 1 medalist

2020-21, 30 kids, 15-5 record, sectional champs, team state 3rd, 1 qualifier

 

Could we do better individually in a classed tourney, yes I am sure we would have more qualifiers, medalists and quite possibly a few more state champs.  Still love the single class tournament.  But as Kraus said, having success a long the way definitely has helped our program.

 

*17-18 PH was conference duals champ 😬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just talked to one of my college teammates last night about this.  He coaches in Utah.  They have 120 schools with 6 classes.  There were multiple weights where every single kid at the divisional became a state qualifier.  Everyone doesn't deserve a trophy.  

 

They do allow 2 kids per weight per team which I really like.  One school ended up having 27/28 wrestlers qualify for state.

 

I also like how they base their tournament.  The divisional is separated by prior year state results.  Team 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th goto one divison and 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th goto the other division.  It has helped spread the talent out and no longer have the death draws that we see in our system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mikemorgan said:

Just talked to one of my college teammates last night about this.  He coaches in Utah.  They have 120 schools with 6 classes.  There were multiple weights where every single kid at the divisional became a state qualifier.  Everyone doesn't deserve a trophy.  

 

They do allow 2 kids per weight per team which I really like.  One school ended up having 27/28 wrestlers qualify for state.

 

I also like how they base their tournament.  The divisional is separated by prior year state results.  Team 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th goto one divison and 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th goto the other division.  It has helped spread the talent out and no longer have the death draws that we see in our system.

Six is way too many, each state should have 2 or 3 classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

They would get a max of 14 titles and win state. They can do what they want, it still wouldn't matter in the end as more kids would still be getting recognition.

In my scenario you would only be increasing recognition for really one school, EMD.  You would still have kids from smaller schools saying they have no shot because EMD is in their way.  Just like you have it now where they are supposedly saying that they have no shot because Brownsburg or Crown Point or Perry is in their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ReformedPoster said:

In my scenario you would only be increasing recognition for really one school, EMD.  You would still have kids from smaller schools saying they have no shot because EMD is in their way.  Just like you have it now where they are supposedly saying that they have no shot because Brownsburg or Crown Point or Perry is in their way.

 

Here at Culver, wrestlers don't have to win a state title to get people excited about the program. Qualifying to state is a pretty big deal around here. EMD isn't going to take all of the qualifying positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Galagore said:

 

Here at Culver, wrestlers don't have to win a state title to get people excited about the program. Qualifying to state is a pretty big deal around here. EMD isn't going to take all of the qualifying positions.

I understand that simply qualifying is a big deal at a lot of schools.  However, IMO without those small schools breaking through and turning those qualifiers into champs in this hypothetical scenario, I think it would get stale and lose some steam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ReformedPoster said:

I understand that simply qualifying is a big deal at a lot of schools.  However, IMO without those small schools breaking through and turning those qualifiers into champs in this hypothetical scenario, I think it would get stale and lose some steam.

 

It is unlikely that EMD would win all 14 weight classes in any year let alone in many years. It is almost equally unlikely that EMD would stay in the lower division. They already bump divisions in team state. We have had wrestlers qualify and some of them have even beaten wrestlers from Mater Dei.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clint Gard said:

But it doesn't...to quote Pug:

 

"After looking back at my numbers, 39 (of 64 schools) 5A and 6A schools account for 112 qualifiers. That's 50% of the field. Another 50 kids qualified from 4A schools. So, if my math is correct, 162 of the 224 qualifiers came from 4A schools or bigger....that leaves 62 qualifiers from 3A schools and smaller..."

 

I don't think small schools should get 33% of the qualifiers.  All I'm saying is the numbers do not support your statement that there is an equal chance.

Generally speaking the % of qualifiers will mirror the percent of the general population.  That is all I am saying.  So if... (I don't recal the acctual numbers)

 

65% of all students go to 3A schools 65 % of Qualifiers will be from 3A

25% of all students go to 2A schools 25% of qualifiers will be from 2A

10% of all students go to 1A schools 10 % of qualifers will be from 1A

 

The argument the class wrestling crowd would use is that if things were fair then-

65% of all students go to 3A schools 33% of Qualifiers will be from 3A

25% of all studetns fo to 2A schools 33% of qualifers will be from 2A

10 % of all students go to 1A schools 33% of qualfiers will be from 1A

 

 

Almost every year the % of qualifiers will look pretty much exactally the same as the general population.  If there was a giant disadvantage to an indivdual who goes to a small school it wouln't mirror the population.  This is the only point I am making, and its the how it has played out almost every year... This year may be different I haven't seen the stats.  

 

I am not in anyway saying that a team at a small school is equally as likely to get a qualifier as a larger school.  I am saying that a good individual from Busco has the same chance as a good indivdual from East Noble. East Noble will likely have more good indivduals, but that is because they have a bigger population to choose from.

 

 

Edited by ENoblewrestling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ReformedPoster said:

I understand that simply qualifying is a big deal at a lot of schools.  However, IMO without those small schools breaking through and turning those qualifiers into champs in this hypothetical scenario, I think it would get stale and lose some steam.

What difference would it be than st Paris Graham being in division 2 in ohio... the runner up to the MD wrestlers are wrestlers that are probably finishing higher then they would in single classed wrestling. There may be some weights where the runner up may not make state in single class due to draw and regional alignment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are just a really progressive state. That’s why we don’t have wrestle backs or divisions.  😑💁

 

I’m a sucker.  I’ve always loved being the underdog and I love the thought of being a one class state champion, but a couple classes would definitely help our state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want numbers to increase let teams enter more than 1 kid at each weight in the state tournament series.  However, you big schools would only be more dominating—getting 2 qualifiers out of sectionals and regionals.   You would probably have an easier time getting a team of 40-50 kids up to 60-70 than a team of 10 to 14. 
 

Number of kids of wrestling in the state would go up but small schools with same problems. What do you really want...number of kids wrestling to increase or small schools to be able to say they have champions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nkraus said:

We are just a really progressive state. That’s why we don’t have wrestle backs or divisions.  😑💁

 

I’m a sucker.  I’ve always loved being the underdog and I love the thought of being a one class state champion, but a couple classes would definitely help our state.  

Herd mentality I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clint Gard said:

But it doesn't...to quote Pug:

 

"After looking back at my numbers, 39 (of 64 schools) 5A and 6A schools account for 112 qualifiers. That's 50% of the field. Another 50 kids qualified from 4A schools. So, if my math is correct, 162 of the 224 qualifiers came from 4A schools or bigger....that leaves 62 qualifiers from 3A schools and smaller..."

 

I don't think small schools should get 33% of the qualifiers.  All I'm saying is the numbers do not support your statement that there is an equal chance.

 

But they do support his statement.

 

The 4A-6A schools account for 71% of the High School enrollment in Indiana.

 

162 of 224 Qualifiers is 72%. That matches pretty darn close.

 

Edited by SIACfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ReformedPoster said:

In my scenario you would only be increasing recognition for really one school, EMD.  You would still have kids from smaller schools saying they have no shot because EMD is in their way.  Just like you have it now where they are supposedly saying that they have no shot because Brownsburg or Crown Point or Perry is in their way.

Who would it only affect Mater Dei? So the other schools that would have a drastic increase in qualifiers and placers wouldn't be affected? 

 

Trying to use the reasoning that one school would get more success to not have classed wrestling is flat out silly.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.