WadeDuPont

Heard Yorktown & Daleville have hired new coaches....anyone have the names?

Why is there a vote in? If the formula is so good to determine the Top 10, why isn't it good enough for the Top 12?

Daleville?

I mis-typed...should have said our semi-state.

All we the Jay County Regional participants are saying is that our regional should not be rated as the weakest regional in the state, as you said this regional has had really good representation over the years at team state as shown in this thread two of the teams have participated every year and that is not including Bellmont's success over the years. Once that is corrected we will quit complaining.

The weak Jay County sectional pops up again.

Yea for sure, you are correct. Just am not sure what the Jay line up was that day. I think the Jay Yorktown score would be 42-34 in that area somewhere, based on head to head matches and assumptions based on higher placings at regional.

I am not sure of the line-up that day for Jay, but I do know they gave up a defensive pin at 160. Also, I believe Jay beat Adams Central by 18 and Yorktown beat them by 17. My point was in comparing the two sectional champions that feed into the same regional I thought the genius disparity was quite large.

Weird that Yorktown the Delta Sectional Champion is almost 25 points higher than the Jay Sectional Champion - Jay County. When head to head its probably close to a 43-36 score with Yorktown winning. That's looking at head to head results and awarding a pin to a weight class the other team did not have a regional qualifier, and in most cases that weight class went on to semi state as well.

How is the Genius Rating calculated?

I think you are probably correct. I think the formula is flawed...makes no sense a senior can score 8 points at Semi-State and an Under Class-man 9. If you are going to use Seniors the margin needs to be greater than one.

Thanks....I think the Jay should be as well. I don't keep the stats but it would be interesting to see state qualifies by regional over the last 5 to 10 years.

I would think most regionals are top heavy. I believe the Jay Regional is compared to Carroll by some and the disparity of I think the Carroll Regional a 5 in the formula and Jay a 3 is unfair. I think they are more even then people think.

So three of the 30 teams are from the Jay County Regional but it is considered weak???? Isn't a 3 in the formula used?

I thought there was a post earlier this week that had a link to the brackets with rankings, can someone direct me to those, I cannot seem to locate them. Thanks

The IHSWCA should create a survey through survey monkey, then send the link to all head coaches. The results should be published for review by all coaches, then decisions can be made based on the said results. What are some of the questions that should be asked in regards to team state? I'll start. 1. Why do we include teams with less than 7 wrestlers that have no chance of winning a dual? Next...

I like the proposal if the end goal is for the IHSWCA to keep the tournament. However, as I have said in previous post its highly doubtful the IHSAA will adopt a formula based system to determine state finalist. Who do we ask these questions too? I would like to know the answer to what the end goal is and why the success factor is not used if we are trying to align with the IHSAA?

Maligned, I am not against the system at all. However, as I have asked, what is the end goal? If it is for the IHSAA to take this over, they are not going to use a Power Poll Index to invite teams. So until we understand what the end goal is I am fine with the current system, except it seems we pick and choose what IHSAA procedures to use. Can you explain why when reclassifying, we use the two year school enrollment numbers to reclassify...but did not adopt the success factor? Thanks,

As I dive deeper into this, I want to make sure I read the scoring rules correctly. If you have a wrestler who say qualified for Semi State in 2016 but was injured and could not participate due to said injury, he can be calculated in as competitor and score points even though he didn't weigh in at sectional for a tournament that is two years after he competed when in no way is their a guarantee he would advance at all in 2017. But if you have a wrestler who in fact did weigh in at sectional but failed to make weight for whatever reason, he doesn't count as a competitor.

Thanks Y2 Sure doesn't appear the question was answered back in 2013. I also still would like to know if the end goal is to have the IHSAA take this over someday. If it is the committee HAS to start looking at what the IHSAA would accept, one I would bet my annual salary on that will not be accepted is a formula based system that uses previous years results as a baseline. However, they will use the re-classification of every two years, a tournament success factor, the number of competitors. If the IHSWCA goal is to continue as the owner of this event, there is no need to worry about what the IHSAA does or doesn't do or worry about complying with their procedure in regards to re-classification, tournament success factor or number of competitors. I asked on another thread why is re-classification done every two year's. Answer was "Because that's the way the IHSAA does it." I guess now I have two questions, that hopefully I can understand this. 1. Why isn't a tournament success factor considered in classification? It is the way IHSAA does it, so to be consistent with the IHSAA re-classification procedures shouldn't this be adopted as well? 2. What is the end goal of this tournament?

I have seen in many posted comments that say the IHSAA does it this way or that way, which makes me assume the committee is trying to get something the IHSAA would adopt. For Example the enrollment numbers for re-classification every two years. If that is the case, why wouldn't the tournament success factor be in play as well? Can some one please explain to the wrestling community what the end goal is and why we use the IHSAA as a model for some things and not others. What exactly is the end goal?

Decbell....I am saying the information is available. I cannot imagine each school not knowing their enrollment annually. Y2....I agree, what is that number. In my mind, I am not sure why the cut off would not be seven wrestlers, which is what is needed to at least tie the match. I think we have to quit comparing this tournament to the IHSAA, as I said earlier if we think they will take over a formula driven invite tournament we are mistaken. Until a tournament is developed that may be accepted by the IHSAA this format needs to be reviewed annually on how we can make this better. Standing pat leads to complacency which leads errors which leads to failure. Ways to improve should be discussed annually and changes that can be made to improve the tournament should be made annually. Do people outside the IHWCA even know how the formula works? If I show up Sunday in New Castle, end up sitting by a father from let's say Cambridge City Lincoln, we have a wrestling discussion and he is feeling good about the direction of their program and I say to him do you think within the next few years when your son is in high school that your team has a chance to score enough points to qualify for team state at least once? My bet is he gives me a blank look and has no idea what I am talking about. Shouldn't the new fan, the new or novice parent have an understanding of just how his team can qualify?

Thanks Maligned I believe in last week's post someone mentioned that the goal was for the IHSAA to eventually take this over someday. However, with the current system we are using which I think is decent, it makes no sense to have the cut off at three, four or five to capture the "inclusive" mandate that is thought to as needed to appease the IHSAA as I do not believe the IHSAA will take over a scoring system to determine state dual finalist. If the wrestling community is serious in that end goal a better system will need to be developed that will need to include all schools with wrestling programs. Now if the end goal is to keep the state dual tournament under the IHSWCA then I would think the cut off would need to be the number of wrestlers needed to at the very least tie a dual meet, which I believe would be 7. With this scoring system that make more sense than anything. Lastly, I still don't know why we have to follow the two year reset school enrollments when we have the data and technology to do this annually, again if this to align with the IHSAA the wrestling community is short sighted to pick and chose how we want to align with the IHSAA. We surely can't think we can say look we align ourselves by re classing every two years....but we have this really complex scoring system. Their answer would be a quick no. Again, I don't think the current system under the IHSWCA is bad at all however, complacency in the thinking all is ok and not making annual adjustments to enhance the system is not a good thing. My suggestions would be: 4 Classes - The disparity between top and bottom of 3A is just too large. 4A - Top 32 teams (8 qualifiers) Nest three classes divided evenly, 12 qualifiers each. Re-class annually, as I mentioned above the data and technology is there and there is no good reason not to do it. This should happen whether there are three or four classes.

Is this final? Is the assumption being made Tech will not add wrestlers? Why didn't three of the five wrestlers not wrestle at Sectional?

got it...thanks