Westforkwhite

1 hour ago, raven150 said:

The concept of monitoring the athletes hydration and weight is a great idea for health and safety purposes. 

However there needs to a better way of wrestlers to meet the SCRATCH weight requirement & number of weigh ins. 

It's crazy when there are numerous weigh ins that have been recorded with no real value to the athletes season.

Also lets change the current weight classes using the OLD college weight classes plus 220.

This would eliminate the FORFEIT issue for many teams as well to help colleges better recruit HS kids.

COLLEGE WEIGHTS BEFORE THE ADDED 7 LBS:  118.126.134.141.150.158.167.177.190.220.285

Bad idea. I have seen a lot of quality wrestling at 106 & 113 in every region of the state. Can't say that for Hwt and 225, in fact ive observed mostly ms quality wrestling from these groups. We'd rather have David Taylor and Logan Steiber sit so we can watch large unskilled wrestlers push each other towards the out of bounds line for 3 periods?

If anything eliminate 225 for another middleweight.

Three seems about right. 

Hook and a half is my favorite. Awesome previews and history.

My mom's favorite is Team Garcia. "He seems like such a nice guy" she said. (Far too many hastags for my taste though)

I would also throw out.

Maligned

Decbell

2 minutes ago, TeamGarcia said:

 

#WeAreLivingLegends 

#G.O.A.T. on Indianamat 

#Innovators 

Keep promoting #TheCounty 

Smells like limburger from here. Lol

44 minutes ago, JMILL said:

this thread started out to basically be a way for everyone to say thank you to MattyB, TeamGarcia & JMILL in a round a bout way and now it has turned in to a real "S"-show with Y2 putting restrictions on who can get into the HOF (no "#'s" or people on "time outs"). 

Like most things this thread has been killed by non-sense. 

I mean come on a place that wants to keep my guy TripleB out is a place I just don't wanna know exists !!!!

side note..........OTR219 your still my boy !!!     #TheCounty   #PainTrain

Can you recommend a good cheese to go with the county whine?

4 hours ago, aoberlin said:

This topic has probably been discussed but since the season is almost over I would like to get some opinions.  Personally I was all for the change in hopes that it would drive more participation or kids at least trying wrestling.  But recently we had a dual meet and the opposing team had one wrestler wear his new uniform and it was pretty baggy, both his shirt and shorts.  So much so that our wrestler's hand got caught on his shorts a couple times.  To me it looked like warm up gear and I asked the ref if it was legal and he said "unfortunately yes, and I don't like it either".

So what have you seen this year so far and what are you feelings?

Also is there not a rule on how tight fitting the shirt and shorts have to be?

 

It appears to be a sizing issue. I noticed one team that had great looking new 2 pieces and all but a few were horribly ill fit. I think the coach let the kids pick and they went a size bigger than they should have. Shorts seem to be the biggest problem, with lots of variance between fight shorts and compression style. 

For the most part the ones ive seen work with no real issues. There will always be problems that arise with innovation but i think the rule has been good. Im hopeful the impact continues to grow as more and more teams are able to purchase new uniforms.

6 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

It will affect kids that wrestle tougher schedules and are hovering around .500. It will affect kids that were out due to injuries, sickness, etc. It will affect kids that got down to weight later due to adhering to the weight loss plan.

It is already tough for schools with a history of having forfeits to find events, this will make it tougher. 

Shouldn't it be tough to schedule if you forfeit half of your weights or more? If a coach is interested in getting kids competition, i think you avoid the schools who year after year fail to send out even 8 wrestlers. 

I'm not talking about a one or two year anomaly, im referring to schools who year in and year out FF a high number of weights. I sure wouldn't want them on our schedule as a fan or parent.

132 - Alex Barr Yorktown 

138 - Colt Rutter Yorktown 

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Fabio Jr. said:

Hey if anyone had issues with the stream.let me know. Volumes not set right or whatever I wanna do more of this in the future so any feedback positive or negative (especially negative) is helpful

I and I'm certain others appreciate you recording the finals, and the broadcast was great. You are helping make wrestling better in Indiana and i know I'm not alone in that view. Wrestling doesn't have to exist in a vacuum, the the excitement can be contagious if we get it consistently in front of the potential audience. You and others in the state are helping to demonstrate that. Kudos

http://yappi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309111&page=3

3/4s of the way down the page is the video for the finals. Garbage locked hands call.

45 minutes ago, busstogate said:

That, and laziness.  I guess it beats sitting your kids against common opponents, though.

It's telling the kids their hard work should go unrecognized so that a coach can have a perceived advantage come sectional time. It doesn't make sense to me, maybe there is other rationale behind it, I'm just not seeing it.

45 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

Every other individual sport "essentially" tells kids that also. 

The schools that say "no thanks" to our V2 are not teams or events littered with forfeits. The purpose of sending a V2 team is to get MATCHES so we, along with the others, look for events with teams that have minimal forfeits. 

I would venture to guess that your V2 team has more kids than many of the V1 teams they face. So by inviting Carrol's V2 schools would be getting more matches for their kids, and in turn fewer FFs. 

I also understand the stigma associated with a V2 loss and wasnt trying to say it was completely without merit. More a matter of how much merit. At some level arent we placating a loser mentality? I dont say that to be cruel, it just doesn't seem like the kid was all that into wrestling if he quits because he got beat by Perry or Portages V2. The reason the V2 beats the V1 is because he's put more time and effort into it (athletic freaks aside). So taking away opportunities from V2 kids seems all stick and no carrot to me.

2 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

I do like your over dramatization, it really puts a great affect on the truth. The truth is it is not easy to send your V2 to an event as many schools will say "no thanks." So there is a lot of validity in my statements.

Secondly, there have been 800+ forfeits at sectional the past few years which equals about 2.75 per team. If we have 1000 more wrestlers I'm hoping that the number of forfeits should drop by at least 1 as 1000 more kids is 3 new kids per team and at least ONE should fill an open spot. We'll see in about a month though.

You can call it dramatization, but that's essentially what we are telling kids. The schools saying no thanks to V2 competition are also likely adding to FF total you have mentioned. With all the problems facing small school participation (near all of which we cant regulate away) i doubt losing to V2 opponents is in the top 5 

Im right with you hoping the number of FF drop, but overall participation numbers and decreasing forfeits arent completely corollary. I think the most important thing for wrestling in Indiana is to get more kids wrestling, and im less concerned with where those numbers come from, just that they are there. It just seems the participation discussions blur into parity and im not convinced that is one of the main things holding back numbers.

On Friday, December 08, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Y2CJ41 said:

I have had this discussion with others, the whole Varsity 2/B scenario is the rich getting richer. It is great for retention at bigger and more successful schools no doubt about it. However at that expense the teams and the kids they beat now have the stigma of losing to a JV kid. It really just depends on the point of view you are coming from.

This is likely helping retention at those top schools, but at the same time is it helping retention at schools that now face these V2 teams at events and get beat?

You raise a valid point as it relates to V2 teams disproportionately impacting large programs, but that doesn't make it a bad thing, just not a one size fits all fix. Clearly if you cant fill your 14 man V1 team a V2 team isnt for your program. 

If we want to boost overall numbers we get the most impact when our solutions affect the largest segments of HS students. Nearly 2/3 of our students go to big schools, so anything that helps with rentention for big schools is a good thing. Particularly when it doesn't take away opportunities for small schools.

"Sorry kid you're blocked by a SP, but you're too good to wrestle other team's varsity kids because you may hurt their feelings and they'll quit. You dont mind wrestling JV tournaments your jr and sr year do you?"

I'm not sure this is the path to higher numbers or better wrestling in Indiana.

The interviewer asked him about his decision to sit out his final 2 years of HS.

http://s200.trackwrestling.com/tw/PortalPlayer.jsp?TIM=1491050356064&twSessionId=nxfrdlzbxrgbmgk&videoId=369628076

A couple thoughts i have stem from what many of the coaches are already doing, and that's reaching out for support from other sports/depts within the school, and take it a few steps further.

1) Reach out the Band Director and sell him on the idea of his/her kids performing at your home meets. It may not be that hard of a sell, as it gives their kids another opportunity to perform, and very close to home. This would not only have a big impact on the atmosphere and environment but also attendance as you'd have the band kids parents there as well. Even a small jazz band group would help pump energy into your gym, and with the Band Director overseeing the performance it wouldn't add to the already long list of items that a coach has to intensely manage.

2) Reach out to the Art Teacher(s) in your school, and see if you can find talented art students to make meet/event posters. You can have them made like concert posters, with even possible art references to some or one of the pieces the band might be playing at your event. Or you could take them in the direction I'm sure Fabio would approve of, and gear them like WWE promotions, maybe even providing feature matchups or your star wrestlers you would like to highlight. The art dept might also be able to help with some cool wrestling related decorations for your room. (possible improving the wrestlers practice experience or the coaches)

3) Reach out to the Journalism dept, or school newspaper. See if you can get an underclassmen or two to develop as your team reporters. They would be able to help cover or photo your wrestlers and even write stories (to be approved by an appointed member of the coaching staff) This would help get the stories out that local papers have room for but the coaches often don't have the time with all the other hats they are wearing.

I'll add a few more later, but I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of everyone.

Whether our goals are to improve participation rates, quality of wrestlers, parity, media exposure, attendance or all of the above, evaluating how we can improve the "Wrestling Experience" for all consumers is crucial.

What are your thoughts on improving the Wrestling Experience for one or all of these respective groups?

1) Wrestlers

2) Fans

3) Parents

4) Coaches

5) Referees

6) Student Body (non-wrestlers)

Secondarily how do believe that would or wouldn't impact the other consumer groups

I don't know if it's so much about winning an argument as it is about being accurate. Because of that, I always take these discussions seriously and try genuinely to see where others are coming from, to always be learning, and to revisit past data or notes to communicate clearly how we've arrived where we are.

I really appreciate all your explanations and agree with most of the points you've made. Particularly as it relates to getting the best teams there, because I think it is doing a very good job.

I don't think WestForkwhite gets this point.  But this is the essential point.   His output argument that you can measure the toughness on the regional based on how only the top one or two guys do later in at SS and State is weak.   You're measuring the totality of the top 8 in Regional,   he wants to base his measurement on the success of the top one or maybe two guys.   I guess good to debate, but I think the jury is back and WestForkwhite just lost.     

I totally get that it is measuring the top 8 as it should, but when B is better than A in every measurable way 1-4  the system is placing a higher value on the 5-8 as it relates to the regional scoring value. I don't think an argument has been made against this point. Now placing a higher value on the 5-8 may be the correct point of emphasis (not intentionally speaking) to truly assess the overall strength of the regional, but I wasn't necessarily making an argument against that either. 5-8 finishers who don't advance can't be measured against their SS peers in the same way that 1-4 can, so I believe it was entirely logical to compare A & B from that perspective. What my comparisons didn't allow was real assessment of the 5-8 which for the system, as it has been pointed out, is measured using dual results submitted. (Which seems to be the only way to measure this group, but not quite the apples to apples comparison you get with the 1-4)

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding and I think it's a very good system that's picking overwhelmingly the correct teams. Maligned's point (made via the table) about a team from B being a write-in over a team that the model had picked is a very good one and speaks to the corrective balances they have in within the system.

Thanks to everyone for playing along, and I'll just have to go away with the changed belief that 5-8 finishers do have a disproportionate impact on the overall regional strength as it relates to the regional advancement values and it works within the system as a whole.

Would you then also make true wrestlebacks @ the SS level?

Absolutely, I was only limiting within the frame of his question. I think wrestle backs at every stage would be great, but if I had to choose just one it would be hard to pick between state and semi state.

What would be the result if only the top 3 from regional moved on to SS as in years past?

Should we go back to top 3?

Does taking top 4 make it exceptionally easier to go to SS?

 

Also

Has moving from 103 to 106 lowered the number of forfeits?

We are seeing very low success rates for the 4th place finishers, so it suggests we'd have most all the kids with realistic SS advancement potential in the field.

Should we go back to Top 3? Yes, but only if there were full wrestlebacks at Reg.

Yes, as it appears there is a substantially dropoff (on average) from the 3 to 4 spot (at least in terms of SS performance)

103 to 106 - Very good question, unfortunately I don't know the answer, but I think it would also be interesting to see how removing a middle weight has impacted forfeits.

That would be an understatement....keep trying tho! Almost there...

Sometimes you can lead a horse to water....

I obviously haven't done a good job making my point. I understand that I'm talking about a small piece of the whole puzzle, and viewing things in isolation (without context of goal) can sometimes result in a distorted view. The process as a whole is designed to pick the best dual teams for the IHSWCA state duals, and I think it's doing a very good job. That said I still feel there is value in investigating the accuracy of the results the system is giving us, and there are only so many ways in which to accomplish this. Looking at the 1-4 finishers doesn't give us a look at the whole regional field but it best evaluates the ones who advance. If B is better by every objective metric in places 1-4, then it stands to reason that the aspect of the system (all various elements combined) designating regional values is placing more emphasis on the 5-8 finishers. Could this be an anomaly, absolutely.

Ok. I have tried to avoid statistical, mathematical and analytical conversations on these boards because it feels like work. But, the category system does not allow for comparing regional toughness. It is a system to predict where the 64 "best" wrestlers likely participated in a regional. It does not say it is tougher to make it to semi state; it says the 4/5/6 best kid here is likely a top 64 kid or not. Trying to use it in a vacuum to compare one region to another doesn't work, using it to compare the strength of teams one year away works well.

I get what you are saying, but how then do you evaluate the accuracy of the system (as it relates to regional values) after the fact? Or do we just assume it's placing the appropriate values for advancement on a given regional and not worry about ever attempting to gauge accuracy after the fact?

Actually,  he's saying the Jay county regional is a lot better than Carroll Regional even though Jay County scored a 3   and Carroll county got a 4 score.  In other words, he's   saying   the Carroll Regional is like the Logansport Regional of the Fort Wayne semi-state with one state placer like Logansport.

LOL. You are correct those were the two I was comparing but I think another regional in the FW SS has the "Logansport" title on lockdown.

The second example I provided deals strictly with the probability of running into what we can all agree (based on objective metrics) are better 1-2 seeds. Going further if the 3-4s are of comparable quality (again based on objective metrics) it is clear that in this specific instance the totality of the input data is valuing the quality of 5-8 place finishers at a higher level.

If you don't believe looking at the 1st round of SS results is a fair and objective way to evaluate the output, what do you suggest would be? There has to be an objective means to analyze the accuracy of the output, and I would argue that performance data outside of the input criteria, provides the best vehicle to do just that.

Semistate results happen weeks after the regional categories have been finalized. They can't be used as you keep arguing.

You also can't objectively evaluate them on hypothetical matches that don't happen with 5th place finishers and swapping regionals. Again, you are judging based on perceived notions of a regional's strength or weakness.

I doubt I'll change your mind. Until the IHSAA takes it back over with an all-in format, this is what we have. And it does very well at predicting the top teams for the following year.

You are not following my point. I'm not saying the SS data I have provided is a part of the input criteria, but rather a means in which to judge the output. I think most would agree that the 1st round SS results is a fair and objective way to evaluate the 1-4 finishers from respective regionals in the same SS. Obviously you cant evaluate wrestlers 5-8 at SS, but you can easily see they are the finishing group the output is skewed towards. (I'm not implying the input has been intentionally weighted towards 5-8, this has just been a result in this specific instance)

The examples deal with simple probability, not perceived notions.

I understand this is a small part of the total process, and this could be a statistical anomaly. I think the process as a whole is very good, but even good processes needed unbiased metrics in which to evaluate the output (output being the values assigned to regionals for advancement scoring purposes)