KarlHungus

 

That one is fact.  Watch Fox Sports!!!  They did some nice interviews after the matches.....

Its a fact that some said this.

It is an argument from emotion to use this as justification for keeping the tournament the same.

I didn't think we were debating whether or not the statement was made.

This is just your opinion tho. I didn't graduate too long ago and I can say I liked the fact I had to beat every other kid in the state to be the best. If it would have classes while I was in school it would have taken something away from that acheivment. I obviously still would have been happy but it just wouldn't have been the same... That's also just my opinion...

This is an argument from emotion.

No, but I sure hear the ones that win in Indiana talk about how this is the best tournament that they wrestle. 

Argument from emotion

So how will class wrestling help them concentrate on one sport? It won't help our state get BETTER at wrestling... Just more average wrestlers Because they still won't be specialized...

This has been discussed ad nauseam as well.  More success and more recognition would logically lead to more interest.  More interest logically leads to more time spent.  Maybe a camp in the summer, maybe more attendance at optional open mats, maybe more ISWA/HYWAY meets.  Kids don't have to be "all in" and specialize to improve. 

 

 

 

Last time I checked statistics are still a maybe and not definite.  It is apples to oranges you are running.  The priorities and focuses are different from large schools to small schools.  Just the focus from large school to large school is different. 

 

Statistics and data generally are more persuasive that arguments from emotion.

Great article about injury and sports......multi-sports vs. individualizing in 1 sport

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/three-benefits-being-young-multi-173014244.html;_ylt=A0LEV016u_lUL2cATopXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcXNudGdhBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDVklQNTY0XzEEc2VjA3Ny

Yet in Indiana our state association sponsors a tournament that demands year round commitment as early as possible to compete at the state level.  Illogical.

I don't know why they decided to class wrestling? Maybe you should ask them and not the guy opposing classing wrestling...

 

 

Im asking for your opinion.  You have consistently avoided the question often with a sarcastic tone.  I am wondering why?

1. FALSE just because a kid from a 1a school qualifies for sectionals doesn't mean he is at the same level as a kid from a 3a school. As i have stated before this is due to the bigger schools having a larger sample size to determine their sectional entries.

2. TRUE because of the probability of 3A schools having more "elite" wrestlers out of their 2000 sample size.

 

The only way you will make this equal, as you prefer, in a one class system is to have all school sizes the exact same so their probability of having "elite" wrestlers is the same... Even if you class the event the sample sizes for small schools wont change... They may get more average wrestlers but the "elite" kids are already wrestling...

you still haven't given an honest answer on why you think other states class wrestling.

Yeah because the 12 kids on the 1A team that made varsity by simply being the only kid in the school at that weight class is clearly equal to the kid that beat out 4 other kids in order to get that varsity spot...

 

Because the fact of the matter is those 1A schools have such a small sample size the kids who have never wrestled even maybe some who don't care for wrestling end up making the varsity team by default...Big schools don't face this issue because they have 3x larger sample size to find 14 kids who like and are good at wrestling

How do you know those 12 kids on a 1A team are there by default?  They might all have been working their tail off since 1st grade.

Of  course thats easy to say about Borta,  because he won it.   He's almost the prototypical hoosier, the guy from the middle size school who rose to beat the big guys.    It would be perfect if he was from Milan high school.    So everybody loves that guy, that overcame the odds.   He can say if I can do it, anybody can do it.   How about the "Borta" equivalent from Oklahoma,  Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, Michigan,  (other 40 states with class wrestling).   When they walk off the state champ stand, do they say  " Im not as happy because this is a classed individual title".    Do they smile a little less and do a shorter victory dance.   Does their metal have an asterisk on it?  Does their picture say good job bust "classed".   Ill bet you a 1000 dollars they dont do this.

Borta finished 6th and 7th I think.

Read my earlier post.... I said that the data shows that placers are champs are not equal to the population size. The data shows that it is harder to place or be a champ from a 1A school. What % of Regional qualifiers are 1A? Semi State for 1A? If the answer is close to 13% then the only thing wrong with the numbers is state placers and champs. Again do we want to make a change to the entire state tournament for 3% of the wrestlers (and notice Im saying wrestlers and not student population... that would be .05%). You can say yes to this question but don't say yes because its harder for a 1A kid to get to state.

I will be interested in your findings.  

So are you saying that kids don't already know that the more you train at something the better the chances are that you will become better at that?

 

NO

 

So are you saying that as a coach of a small school, you lock your doors once your season ends?

 

NO

 

If not, then you are also promoting kids training outside of the wrestling season so apparently you seem to be doing the same thing?

 

NO.  Offering open mats, rides to RTCs, etc.  is FAR FAR different than telling a kid he must devote 365 days a year to be a state qualifier.  

 

Are you also saying that big school coaches are bad coaches because they let their kids train most if not all year around and that they are forcing kids not to play other sports?

 

NO.  I am saying all coaches should promote multiple sport participation.

 

So are you on record saying big school coaches are hurting kids by letting them make a choice on wrestling year around?

 

I don't think they are doing whats best for the kid if they are not encouraging multiple sport participation.

 

Would you like to see it become a state law/rule that every kid must participate in multiple sports if we plan on keeping our current system?

 

Argument to absurdity...logical fallacy.

 

Again I'm just asking these questions so I can fully understand how you feel about a coach letting a kid make a decision to train to reach his ultimate goal. And this is not geared only at small school kids since you stated that any kid training that much isn't good.

 

I don't think it is in the best interest of the kid.  If I were a coach of a kid who insisted that Wrestling was his sole passion in life, I would use 22 years of experience to tell the athlete that he will enjoy his HS days much more if he gets involved in multiple activities.  If he chooses to "live the dream", I would support him.

 

And yes... high school kids training 365 for one sport is generally not good, physically or mentally.  Ive not seen too many Aaron Pico's out there.

So Joe quote me where I said I force kids to choose one sport? I'm sure you can find may quotes where I have said my kids choose what they want to do.

 

You have said that you tell your kids that want to reach state, they should train 365 wrestling.  I think any high school sport that demands that much is bad for kids in general but especially bad for kids and programs at smaller schools

Not saying they are wrong or right. I'm saying I personally don't think we should make a change to accommodate your argument of kids not having a fair shot because they are unable to put in the time to reach that level. And I'm explaining to you how it is possible for small school kids or kids in general no matter what school they go to can get to that level in our system if they want. I guess we can agree to disagree.

I think you are saying they are wrong.  Unless Indiana is a special case?  No one said it isn't possible.  I coach at a school less than half the size of NM and have been on staff that has coached 2 state champs in the last 5 years, I certainly know it's possible.  Just because it's possible does't make it right.

Do you agree that the type of school make up is an important factor? Do you disagree?  Is this data relevant when discussing a schools ability to have more students to choose from for athletics? 

What data?  You have mentioned one school with a good wrestling program (subjective) that has 50% or higher free and reduced?  Is 50% a high percentage, a low percentage.  How am I to evaluate this piece of datum??  It should really be in a different thread, this thread is about enrollment, not free and reduced lunches.

those are all TEAM sports...

Does not the IHSAA award a TEAM trophy?  They seem to think it is a TEAM sport too.  

 

My entire argument has been that small school kids can get to the state tournament/placer/champ level if they want to put their time into it.. Has absolutely nothing to do with numbers and percentages that you guys post. All the percentages show is that small school kids aren't CHOOSING to train at that level. Which is FINE. You think we need a tournament to accommodate the kids that can't/wont for whatever reason put in the time to be at that level, I personally do not think we need to create a new individual tournament for that reason. I know 40+ states think the same as you, that's awesome for them. Me personally, I do not think so.

 

Just curious as to why you think Iowa, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio have it wrong and you have it right?

Karlhungus

Actually Borta told the Head Football coach that he wanted to win a state title in wrestling and had no interest in playing football. He started out as a little guy and no other sport had interest in him until he blew up physically and blossomed into the physical kid that he became to be. Just like the rest of our kids, I told Borta to chase your dream and do whatever you want. Yes he probably could have helped another sport but that is not what he wanted to do, which is fine with me and should be fine with everyone.

 

I would argue that he would have had a great experience with his classmates playing football and his wrestling would not have suffered.  

Yeah your correct you are picking the individual AFTER the school and coaches have sorted through all 2000 kids and determined their varsity team...

 

but an individual at a larger school is more likely to be better than an individual at a small school becuase they have a larger sample size to draw from...

the school size matters because a large school could have 5 106 pounders to find the best one from while the small school may only have 1 kid in the whole school who is 106 pounds... so as individuals they are not equal...

 

The school size doesn't mean that if that single 106 pounder from the small school had all the characteristics to be the best 106 pounder in the state he couldn't do it...

 

I'm done arguing this topic... Obviously the IHSAA understands this and that's why they haven't classed individual sports... For heavens sake...

16 pages and we agree that school size matters.

And again, you guys aren't reading my post.. I gave you an example of a kid that does NOT want to play another sport. I just used Zac McCray's name because that's the name you gave. How about we change that name to Nick Borta, a kid that had no interest in any other sport and only wanted to wrestle. You do realize that that athlete also exist at small schools right? Andrew Howe, micic, just to name a few. So again, kids can play multiple sports and spend time training each sport equally which is fine.. But you guys seem to think that a kid that has no interest in another sport MUST play at a small school just to help the other sports.. If he has interest and wants to play that's perfectly fine with me.

 

So do we agree that small school athletes have the same choice as big school kids to play other sports and train equally in each sport, play multiple sports but train wrestling more than the other sport, or only wrestle and train wrestling with the majority of their time?

As a football coach did you ever ask Nick why he didn't play football?  I remember him as physical tough kid, he surely could have helped your team.  Did his not playing football or soccer or x-country enhance his wrestling in anyway?

You are still not answering my question though. Should Zac McCray at a small school be forced to play another sport if he does not want to?

 

I definitely understand the dynamics.. But I also understand that kids have a CHOICE to do WHATEVER they want no matter what school they are at? Sounds like you think kids should be FORCED to do things they may not want to do for the good of the school. That's where we disagree. I've always said that if a kid wants to play multiple sports I am ok with it. If a kid only wants to wrestle, I am ok with that? How can you not figure that out from my post?

Do you really think Zac was forced to play football?  Do you really think a kid that is forced to play a sport is worth a damn to whatever team?  I would say kids should be HIGHLY ENCOURAGED to do multiple sports at small schools for both their and the school's benefit.  Most 14 year old kids lack the maturity to make wise decisions.  The best kid I ever coached did not want to do a spring sport to focus on wrestling.  I highly encouraged him to run track.  He was able to have a great experience running track and still reach all of his high school wrestling goals.

 

 

 

Im saying if size of schools matter then we would still only want 1A schools to make up 13% of the "elite" wrestlers in the state? If its more than that then obviously its too many and watered down... Currently we have 5% or whatever you said but with a classed system 50% of the "elite" wrestlers (State champions) would be from 1A schools...

I don't get it?  On one hand you don't want to "water down" the tournament but in another post you advocate for having more qualifiers??  Very confusing

 And how would any of these things change just by cutting off 1A schools from competing with 3A schools? Now if a kid wants to be an elite wrestler and wrestle in college he is now forced to move to a 3A school so he can get that scholarship.

 

We lose the possibility for those 1A kids that want to be elite athletes having the opportunity to do so... Now they are stuck only winning state in the "Kiddies tourny". Do you think they are going to get that full ride scholarship to penn state? or is it going to go to the 3A state champion?

And thats all they get... Good job in high school now your DI college wrestling dreams go up in smoke because you went to the 1A school.

and if we change to a classed system we should still only want 13% but end up with 50% which is further off the goal???

Plenty of elite wrestlers wrestle in their state's smallest division....the doomsday prophecy holds no water.

They are a few percentage short how is this the worst thing in the world? If we class wrestling we now have an even distribution across the board. 50% and 50% when there is a much smaller group of people to compete against and still win a state championship isn't this an even BIGGER advantage for small schools than the few percentage problem we have now??? I would go on to bet that if we increased the numbers slightly to include more wrestlers at state we would see the numbers come a little closer to what they should be...

 

 

But the fact is it is a combination of all those things. (Genetics, skill, mental toughness, coachability and so on...)

....and practice partners and coaching and access to off-season training

It should be, but eventually that skill set becomes so refined that it simply may not exist in every small school.  Lets Say 1 in every 1200 have the skill set needed to be a state placer.  That would mean that in a school with 1200 kids there would be 1 kid with the skill to be a qualifier.  Lets say you have a group of small schools- 200, 200, 500, 500 kids.  That means that out of those schools combined 1 kid would have the needed skill set. 

Skills are learned ability.  Should have nothing to do with enrollment numbers

It is but just on a smaller basis. When you have 2000 kids in each school you will have a higher probability of kids having those skills compared to a school with only 500 kids.

 

The disadvantage is that those schools only have 500 kids in their student population. If every school had the same population it would be as "fair" as you guys want.

If it is a skill that can be learned, the 14 for for Busco should be able to be as skilled as Carroll.  

Qualifiers are generally with-in 2-3% of what you would expect, I wouldn't see that as being this devastating statistic that others consider it, and if we looked close I am sure there are a myriad of reasons for that missing 2-3%.  

Placers is the only stat that I do see as being truly statistically off of where it should be from simply looking at the population statistics. That was a tough one to explain, but I think you could probably look at it as being that having a state placer is such a rare occurrence that the characteristics simply do not exist with-in that population from year to year.

What I mean by this is we are tracking a skill- wrestling ability.  At each round of the tournament that skill gets refined more and more.  Each time we go to another level of the tournament there are fewer people who have this skill.  I would say that the drop in qualifiers and placers at the small schools is simply that with-in their populations no one has the skill which we are looking at, not to the fault of anything other than their population not having someone with that skill.

If being a qualifier or skill based and not genetics or numbers dependent, there have to be other factors that cause the huge disparity in the number of qualifiers/placers.