Westforkwhite

1,2,3 and 4 have to  wrestle 5-8 to get to SS.   Regional points are given only for qualifying to SS.      So If A has a measured tougher 5-8 than Regional B,  then its more difficult to get to semi-state.   That's what they're measuring,  they're not measuring how tough 1234 are.      The top 4 kids demonstrate higher skill level by making the ticket round or by qualifying for state, and accordingly score their points then.   Is it that complicated?

 

The system is attempting to evaluate how difficult it is to advance in that given regional. Only 4 wrestlers advance to SS, so it's measuring how difficult it is to be one of those 4. The quality of 5-8 plays a factor for sure, but you would ostensibly have to beat someone from that top 4 to advance. A & B are in the same SS. So to then evaluate the performance of the 3/4 finishers in 1st round of SS is a fair way to compare quality of the 3/4s for A&B, and in turn evaluate the difficulty to advance.

Another way to look at is, if you swap A1-4 with B1-4, how would those outcomes look. The statistics above reflect that the we would see a similar number advance from either, suggesting the difficulty to advance is comparable in both A & B.

Or finally: I take the 5th from A and put him in B, despite having lesser 6-8 wrestlers in B, A5 has 2/3 greater chance of running into a state qualifier first round of regional B. So wouldn't be easier to advance out of A? The same would hold true for all 5-8 finishers in A.

I think at the youth level it would help tremendously. At the same time like you said if the kid says he won't wrestle because of the singlet, if you go to another uniform option he will likely come up with another excuse.

 

More than that though I think it will help wrestling's image.

I agree 100% with the image aspect.

The singlet has associations, that are not exactly conducive to recruitment of youth and middle school aged boys. Ever looked up singlets on Ebay?

You can't use semistate to accurately evaluate regional depth because the 5th-8th at regional don't compete there.

 

You are over analyzing one small piece of a bigger process.  The big picture goal of that process is to predict the top teams for the next year.  While not perfect, it is based on data instead of opinions of teams and regions.

If B has better 1/2 and equal 3/4 to A (which is fact not opinion) then the system is valuing 5-8 at a much greater level. Which I would argue is less indicative of the difficulty to advance than the quality of 1-4. Whether intended or not the system is placing a much higher value on the 5-8 than it is 1-4, as it relates to the regional values.

Ultimately you have to have a means to test the accuracy of the predictive model, SS 1st round gives us the best to gauge finishers 1-4. So if the SS 1st round #'s indicate B is superior at 1-4, then model is skewing heavily in favor of 5-8 quality. (which is the metric most difficult to verify)

Westfork,

You are still incorrectly using semistate data to evaluate the depth/difficulty to advance at the regional level.  You are also incorrectly using historical data when only the current season's genius ratings are used to determine the regional category.

I disagree, as how do you evaluate the accuracy of the predictive model? Your second point is off base as well, as the 2 yr or 1 yr results show the similar success rates. (actually more favorable to B )

I probably should have prefaced the whole thing by stating that I'm very appreciative to hard work Maligned and others have put into creating this. It's critical that we have an unbiased system to pick the best teams for team state, and I think this system is a very good one. Like all the best systems it is not without flaws, I'm simply pointing out what appears to me to be a flaw within the system.

Another comparison from 2 real sectionals this year:

 

State qualifiers:

Sectional A 12 (it must be a little harder to advance from this sectional, right?)

Sectional B 10

 

Sectional B's average record for the SEVENTH best kid: 16-16 (from mostly big schools with strong schedules)

 

Sectional A's average number of WRESTLERS per weight class (non-forfeits): 5

 

Oh, wait, I guess placing top 4 and getting to regional is probably much, much stickier in Sectional B than in A, even though A had more state qualifiers.

 

This is an extreme example, but you get the point we're trying to make: top-end talent alone (number of state qualifiers and placers) doesn't necessarily mean crowdedness the first week or two of the tournament. Winning the first round of regional only puts you in the final 64 in the state. The regional categories tell us how hard it is to prove you're one of the best 64 and nothing else. Quoting how many top 16 or top 8 guys one place had is sometimes an indicator of how hard it is to prove top 64 ability--but sometimes it's not at all when there's a steep drop-off from the first 2 teams who had almost all of those state qualifiers.

I absolutely get your point. The comparison I provided only looked at top end and your evaluation is looking at top (1/2), middle (3/4), and even bottom (5/6), to evaluate the difficulty of navigating your way thru a given regional. So if the B is better at the top than A it would stand to reason that the 3/4 and 5/6 finishers for A would be significantly better if you are assessing a 2 point value advantage for A, correct?

One good metric to test this (as many suggested in the 3A topic) is to evaluate the SS ticket rounders. If the predictive model holds out A should have a sizeable advantage in the performance of it's 3/4 finishers in the 1st round of the same SS that B competes in. I have totaled the 1st round victories by 3/4 place finishers at each respective regional.

Regional A

Year 3rd 4th

2013 7 1

2014 4

2015 4

2016 6

2017 4

Totals

25 wins by 3rd 1 win by 4th

Regional B

Year 3rd 4th

2013 5 2

2014 4

2015 5 1

2016 6

2017 4

Totals

24 wins by 3rd 3 wins by 4th

So when you evaluate the on the best metric we have available they are near equal in regards to 3rd place finisher performance, and B hold a slight count edge (large % edge) on 4th place finisher performance.

Which leaves us with the 5/6 place finishers. Regional A has a 2 point higher "escapability" value than Regional B, despite B having a better top end and equal middle. Which gives the impression that the 5/6 placer performance (which you can't measure) has been severely over valued.

Some I've heard or "surmised": tradition, too much association with MMA when it's youth competition, don't want to cave to wimpy kids that don't want to wear a singlet

Thanks. I figured "tradition" and "no wimps" was part of it, but the MMA aspect for youth I wasn't familiar with. I guess I saw the MMA as a positive (it's on TV and wrestlers and wrestling skills are discussed frequently) but I certainly could see where it wouldn't be perceived that way by some parents.

Maligned, Do you think there is potential for wrestling to have too strong an association with MMA, by going to the compression gear, and thus negatively effecting our ability to recruit new athletes? Or would you dismiss it along with the other 2 examples of others rationale you provided.

First, Maligned has only had the quota system for two years.  Also,  the regional category score doesn't measure the state placers,   he's measuring the competitiveness of the overall wrestlers in the regional including the guys that got 5th and 6th.    The ticket round or 1st round in regional A was probably much more competitive because they have more depth, but regional B probably in general has more champions.   

 

I can profile the regionals.  Regional A probably has 10-11 large or competitive teams  but doesn't have a top 10 team.  Probably each year there's parity with the title up for contention.   Regional B has one or two of the top 10 teams in the state, but is surrounded by a lot weak teams (maybe in urban city), with the top 1 or 2 teams always win that regional.

That is pretty accurate. (except A is the urban regional with a 1/3 of the participating schools not having MS wrestling) I would venture to say that the top 6 teams in B are better from a dual standpoint than the top 6 from B. Regional A is better 8-12, maybe even 7-15, but not by a lot.

Also,  maligned didn't mention that the categories are redone each year are and are based on the dual results of each team as reflected by the Genius ratings.   If people understand RPI indexes its like that.     So if people think they're regional or sectional should have a higher score, then the teams need to do better in the dual meets.    Regional A and B may have been in different categories each year, so comparing a 4 year average is not relevant.

They have been in essentially the same categories for that timeframe. I understand that SPs and SQs aren't part of the predictive model they are using, but when you are scoring a regional higher you are saying in essence that the 3rd and 4th place finishers will be better on average than those of a lower scored regional. So if this was true, wouldn't we see more SQs at least once during a 5 year period in which A has always had a higher score? Especially when they are competing in the same SS. It seems statistically improbable that this wouldn't happen at least once.

If you read the 3A team state qualification thread, there are multiple detailed descriptions as to what the regional categories mean. They have nothing to do with top-end talent, which is what you are quoting here. The categories we use are strictly a measure of tournament site "crowdedness" in terms of how difficult it is to be at least in the top 4 and get to the next week. This is true for both the sectional and regional categories. By traditional measures such as number of state qualifiers or placers, the categories would need to be drastically redone. Instead, their only purpose is to aide us in making the predictive scoring system as effective as possible. In short, the categories are misunderstood if you're taking them as "ratings", as you call them.

Thanks, and I did see a bit of the description in the 3A post and prior discussions of comparisons of A & B specifically. The points raised were that A had more depth and B was more top heavy, but you start comparing 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 and so on and you get to team 6 or 7 before the regional A team is better. A is better at 8-12 but its a wash after that. I think your context of it not being a "rating is important and I didn't state my premise correctly, but I'd think a regional that was truly harder to get thru would produce more SQs and SPs at least once in a 5 year span. Particularly when comparing it to a regional that is "scored" as 2 points easier to get thru.

Is regional B Logansport?

No. LOL

I was a little confused about the ratings for a couple respective regionals, so I looked back over the last 5 years to see what the reason may have been. Looking at the 2 regionals in comparison, which would you believe is better?

Regional A

Yr SQs SPs

2013 13 5

2014 14 5

2015 16 5

2016 11 6

2017 15 1

13.8 SQs/Yr

4.4 SPs/Yr

Regional B

Yr SQs SPs

2013 18 11

2014 14 7

2015 20 9

2016 19 7

2017 17 10

17.6 SQs/Yr

8.8 SPs/Yr

Both in the same semi-state. Regional A has not once in 5 years had more SQs or SPs than Regional B. Regional B has averaged double the state placers for the last 5 years

Just curious, what's some of the rationale behind not wanting to go to compression gear?

I think there is some implication that kids on the Gold/Blue teams aren't having a good experience. My son's experience on the blue team last year was a good one, now he couldn't compare that to the Gorillas team (not having been on one) but he still had a good time. Would we have liked the cost to be down, sure, but it wasn't the bank breaker that Fargo or Cadet/Jr. Duals are.

As much I would love to see a stronger embrace of the international styles here in the US, I also see great value in FK. American folkstyle is uniquely ours, and it originated from traditional English styles of wrestling that has long since disappeared in the UK. I certainly don't think we want to lose folkstyle as it is a part of our unique cultural heritage.

Twenty years ago when I would travel to various small and mid sized cities across the country, they used to look different. Each one had their own independent restaurants and shops, and character that made it unique. Now when I travel the towns all have the same fast food, same chain restaurants, same big box stores and they are essentially the same (insert Jackson Brown lyric). We have lost our local and regional identities to embody a national consumer class. If FK would ever go away we'd be giving up national heritage for a global uniformity. I know FK is in no real danger to disappear anytime soon, but I do think its important to keep in mind the cultural importance.

Baseball & Basketball started as solely American sports, and were ultimately exported around the world. Who's to say that we couldn't get folks in other countries, particularly those without strong wrestling traditions, to embrace American folkstyle.

There are just as many rule changes and rule nuances in folkstyle as there are in freestyle. I'm sure if you brought a Russian over here for NCAA's he'd be just as confused.

 

The "constant rule changes" reason for hating freestyle is a crutch many use because they have no better reason to hate freestyle. The only change in how you score points has been the push-out, other than that scoring takedowns and exposing the back has been a time honored way of scoring points in freestyle.

So you are saying FS and GR has a perception problem as opposed to an actual problem?

"Folkstyle" is really just a general term for a country's own local style/rules.  American Folkstyle is what we know but nobody else in the world does.  Lots of African and South American countries still have their own folkstyle wrestling that looks very different than anybody else's.  A loose example would be sumo wrestling in Japan as their "folkstyle" wrestling, even though they primarily do freestyle in school now.  Many countries have gotten rid of their own folkstyles and solely focus on freestyle and greco.

 

Everyone hates things that are different than what they know and grew up doing.  A Russian wrestler who has only done freestyle and greco his whole life would be very confused about American folkstyle.

You are absolutely correct, but he'd be more inclined to understand the rules if they weren't a moving target. I understand the recent rule changes have been implemented to try to keep the sport viable and make it more exciting, as they were facing losing FS and GR as olympic sports. Whether the most recent changes have help or hurt, I don't have the expertise to say (you however do) but either way it makes it more difficult for the newcomers or casual fans.

If you want more participation in Olympic styles you first need to boost interest. If kids aren't exposed to it (because dad doesn't understand it) then they are less likely to participate. If more Americans cared about FS and GR we wouldn't have NBC essentially blacking out coverage of FS competition in the Olympics. Although I feel like a have a pretty good grasp of the FS & GR rules at this point, I know from talking with folks that this is a barrier to entry for many parents and ultimately their kids. The number of off season folkstyle tournaments during the traditional FS & GR season is testament to that. Those FK tournaments weren't forced on parents they were created and have flourished because of a demand.

I believe in pushing both FS & GR (although in IN we do lip service to GR at best) and believe that kids will benefit and the sport will benefit as a whole. I love watching the world's best compete, and I know anyone who enjoys FK would love it too if they got to understand it. So how do we drive interest? You have to be excited about something before you are going to sit down and read a rule book, and without many hours of watching you will need to read the rule book to really understand what's going on, as there simply isn't enough time in a broadcast for this to happen.

No....If anything we should switch the us to freestyle...Typical American stance

Also you are mostly going to get roasted

Although I agree if there were to be a switch we should move more towards FS or GR as opposed to the world being expected to embrace FK. However the issue he is bringing up regarding the rules is valid and shared by many folkstyle fans. The ambiguity of many calls in FS (not to mention flat out match fixing) hurts the sport, and does it no favors in drawing new eyeballs to the sport. The rule changes every other year isn't helping either. Ultimately the guy who already likes folkstyle wrestling should be easier for the FS and GR to acquire as fans, as opposed to someone who is entirely unfamiliar with wrestling as a whole. Dmsmelby's comments hit home with many folkstyle fans, and if FS & GR really want to grow the sport they need to start converting some of these people into spectators.

Congrats Josh!

As long as the hormone therapy is in line with the gender norm, I don't really see a problem. Or in other words if the boy (in transition) doesn't receive more testosterone than the typical HS male, then no advantage is gained, and why should that student be prevented from competing against boys? I get the concerns more regarding girls (in transition) that still have more testosterone than their competitors and would create unfair advantages (in much the same way as the wrestler in the article had an advantage due to his hormone therapy)

1) How do you define what fair looks like for HS wrestling in IN?

2) Do you believe or current system is unfair?

3) Do you believe class wrestling would improve fairness?

OK, so you are talking the percentage not actual number of medals won by the bigger schools...because clearly that number would only be able to increase...

Correct.

I have on other post, so not to bore people I just kept it simple!

 

Last year as most know my son lost his only match at ticket round and was a SS Qualifier. It sucked and he beat himself up over it for a long time (think till he made it past that point this year).

 

But 1 of the highlights of this was going to off season tournaments in Michigan, Iowa, Virginia, Florida and others where he wrestled SQ, SP, and even State champs. After beating most of these kids they start asking things like who is this kid, where did he come from, and etc....

 

The hype factor of an unknown is powerful at these tournaments.

 

As far as multi-class, my issue lies in the details. I believe the problem is not with classing but classing school size only. By not including schools that are less popular in wrestling in all classes (example: teams with 1-15 season record if lucky) you are not improving the sport just shifting the focus.

I do believe that the off season tournaments are the best way to get your kid exposure. That said, my son (like yours) wants to wrestle in college. He was a 9-SSQ, 10-SQ, and 11-SQ, and he like your son has competed with and beaten SQ/SP from many states (including champs from MI & CO). Do you think those kids from MI or CO are getting more looks than my son based on the credentials? Off season tournaments aside, don't you believe that your son would have gotten more attention from college coaches had he placed higher/more often in a multi class format? (as obviously he would have been capable of)

Calculations in reference to the total medals the state hands out. If we go to 3 classes, 3A only gets 33% of the medals, yet they represent 63% of the students (and likely near that % of the total wrestlers in the state). Which means a perspective boy in a 1A school would be approximately 6 times as likely to qualify/place just by virtue of going to a smaller school.

Not saying the first question isn't true, but don't see enough evidence for me to think it's impact justifies the change.

 

Statement about small schools is true, but most tournaments during football season are on Sunday. But some you don't get to go to like super 32's. We are 3a and most my kids are multi-sport athletes, I get it! BUT if their passion is to wrestle in college this is one of the best things they can do to be seen, in my opinion!

I think your point about off season tournaments is a good one, however you've not really spoken to why you believe multi class wouldn't help. For us to expect out-of-state coaches to understand what a SSQ means or that an SQ doesn't have the advantage of wrestlebacks, I think is unwise. SQ or SP means more than SSQ, and it's very possible this gets kids more looks. I'm I missing something or leaving out an important part of the equation?