ENoblewrestling

I can promise you that I am not the only one who see's your 14 enter sectionals so each class should have 33.3% make it to state argument as being illogical. The overall student population matters when populating your team.

I never said that his medals were worthless, it isn't like a state medal still wouldn't be an accomplishment. I just see the data and think that it shows that our system is pretty fair to individuals. The percents are about where you would expect them at all levels, except for state placers which I have admitted is a concerning stat, but not something that is necessarily impossible to explain.

The two sides are looking at the same data and seeing different things, the argument that your side uses data, while the other is simply using emotion is an emotional argument itself.

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.

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.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. No one is saying that bigger schools shouldn't be expected to have more state qualifiers. What they are saying is that it doesn't have that big of an effect on any one individuals chance at state.Your bet your putting out there gives you a choice of 100 kids that statistically should make up 63 percent of the state qualifiers. The other side gets to choose 700 kids out of a group that statistically should make up 13% of the state qualifiers. I don't see how people can't see that. The 100 is the better choice because you should expect 63 percent of the state qualifiers to come from that group. Not because of some advantage that they have, but simply because they make up 63% of the population.

I still haven't seen you make an argument that shows me that the way that I read the data is incorrect. As you see below the only argument against the way that I read the data (which is that you would expect 63% of the state qualifiers to come from 63% of the population) is to say that 33.3% of the qualifiers should come from each class. The overall student population effects the likelihood that an individual wrestling for a larger school team will be a better wrestler. For a team there is an advantage, individually not so much, the stats show that 63% of the population produces 63% of the qualifiers, to me we are almost exactly where we should be in terms of what you would statistically expect. A good kid from either school has the same chance. The only difference between the two is that Carroll is more likely to have more good kids because they have a larger sample size to choose from. More kids means that your team is more likely to have more solid individuals. This has no effect on the good individuals at a smaller school. Again your data shows about what you would predict, 63% of the population producing 63% of the qualifiers, 25% producing 27%, and 13% producing 9% (which I will agree is a little lower than what you would like).

So your saying that if there was not a disadvantage then 33.3% of the qualifiers would come from small schools correct?

So where is the giant disadvantage for kids from small and medium sized schools then? small schools 12.9% of the population made up 9.4% of the state qualifiers. Medium schools 24.4% of the population made up 27.7% of the state qualifiers. BTW I have been through this battle before and have seen numerous posts where Y2 argues that if everything was equal there would be just as many 1A qualifiers as there would be 3A, both teams start with 14 guys.....

Student percentages 1A- 12.9% 1A teams had an individual at state this year that accounted for 9.4% of the state qualifiers 2A- 24.4% teams had an individual at state this year that accounted for 27.7% of the state qualifiers 3A- 62.6% 3A teams had an individual at state this year that accounted for 62.9% of the state qualifier The "data" that is used to show a huge disadvantage for small school individuals all depends on how you read the data. The numbers are pretty accurate to how they should be, in my opinion. 63 percent of the students go to big schools, and 63 percent of the students who qualify for state go to big schools. If any thing there would be a small advantage in attending a 2A school, and a small disadvantage in going to a 1A school if that is how you read the data. The way that class advocates use the data is to say that there is a huge disadvantage to going to a 1A school, they feel that if everything was equal then, 33.3% of the state qualifiers would be from big schools, 33.3% from medium schools, and 33.3% from small schools. Everyone is free to read the data how they choose, but it doesn't make any sense at all why anyone would expect 12.9% of the population to make up 33.3% of the state qualifiers. If the qualifier numbers worked out that way I would see it as a huge advantage to go to a small school, as a matter of fact if 63% of the population accounted for only 33.3% of the qualifiers then attending a large school would be a big disadvantage. I feel that the data shows very little correlation to school size having an effect on an individual making it to state. If you randomly took kids from these schools and had them wrestle, you would expect that 63% of your top kids would come from big schools, 25% from medium schools and 13% from small schools. The myth that there is this huge effect on individuals all depends on how you read the numbers.

I said in the next post that consider that making it to semi-state in my opinion means you have a realistic shot at state. I'm not shifting anything. I am saying that I don't think we need class wrestling for kids to have a chance to do well in the tournament. I feel that they have generally have a fair shot with out it being classed. As far as recruiting kids goes the fact that the kids believe they have a shot is just as important as adding a bunch of names to the wall because the tournament changed. Kids are not dumb they would know that the increase in champs came from the change and nothing else, so I really don't see it changing that much for us.

Fair enough, you still didn't tell me which of those six didn't have a realistic shot at semi-state?

106 was 2-2 against the third place kid. 1-2 with the forth place. I guess he had no chance at all to ever beat either of those guys. 126 made it to semi-state the year before. 160 my bad he beat the regional runner-up at sectional. 285 did get fourth, but I think could have realistically taken second. Hell he lost in overtime to a returning semi-state ticket rounder the week before. The silliness to me would be telling these kids who obviously had a shot, that they didn't that's a weak mentality. How does this sound. Which of this six didn't have a realistic shot at getting to at least semi-state?

let's say getting to semi-state at least gives you a shot to be a stater that's generally how we look at it, get to.semi-state who knows what will happen. 106 beat several semi-staters during the year. Lost two close matches to guys he beat earlier at sectionals. He had a shot. 126 was a semi-state qualifier the year before. He had a shot 132 semi-state ticket rounder. He had a shot 152 bad ankle sprain two weeks before sectionals beat somesemi-state qualifiers during the year. He had a shot 160 beat the regional champion in the first round of sectionals, lost two close ones the next two rounds. He had a shot. 285- regional qualifier, one match from semi-state he had a shot. Our 182 also was unable to finish the season, he pinned the semi-state runner-up at 195 earlier in the season. He would have had a shot. Point being just because they do not nesacarilly get to where they want to all of those kids still fought hard and in my opinion did have a fair and realistic shot at state. All of them believed that they could have gotten there and we worked to push them to get there. Even if it was unlikely for all of them to make itn they all believed they had a chance which is really all that matters. Instead of complaining about the tournament set-up, pushing the kids to believe in themselves has always seemed like a better coaching technique to me.

Actually you can recruit kids to help with conference championships, or to help the team be above .500, or to get better at football, there are ways to get kids out for the team besides completely changing the state tournament.As far as the second part of your statement it's too bad people have that mentality. We don't, every kid on our team believes that someday they could have a chance to be a state qualifier, and you know what I would say that about 75-80% of the kids who wrestle all four years do have a realistic shot. They may not accomplish it, but they could have a fighters chance to make it. Really how many kids are not coming out because they really think they won't be state qualifiers?

There is a big difference between the two. Making it to state will still be difficult classed or not. So it isn't like small schools would be able to walk the hallways and say "hey Johnny the tournament is easier now, come out and you'll be a stater this year". Pushing individual goals takes long term focus either way. My kids who say they want to be state qualifiers have generally seen what our finals are about, and they push to get there. I don't think completely changing the make up if the event would help that. Recruiting a kid to come our for the team to help the team is much easier and offers much more in the way if instant gratification. "Johnny come out, make weight, and we are better than we were without you." From there you hope he can grow to really like the sport and what it offers. I genuinely don't think that leasing the tournament for the individuals would.make.that much of a difference. The kids who wrestle obviously hope for success in the individual tournament, but usually have to realize that it is long term goal either way. If I'm recruiting that they can be a state qualifier it is going to take them at least three years if its classed or not.

I question the increase in popularity for our sport aspect of classing. The way our finals are currently set-up gives Indiana a very unique situation were winning the state title really stands out. The kids that won in their interviews pretty much all said that there is no other tournament like ours, some even brought up that winning our tournament was a better experience than big national events. That for me is something that makes our sport better, and also makes it popular here in Indiana.I coach at a small school. I recruit kids like crazy. I have heard a million excuses come out of kids mouths, they work, it's weird to them, they don't like the singlets on and on. I have never had a kid tell me that they cannot win, or that they couldn't be a state qualifier given for a reason not to come out. Beyond that if the only way to grow our sport is to create more state qualifiers then I think we are pushing in the wrong direction anyhow. You can have success and gain a lot from the sport without being a state champion. I have gotten way more kids out for the team by telling them they could be part of a team championship than telling them they could be a state champion. Why not push the kids in that way. We had two kids make semi-state, finished 2nd a couple of tournaments, 5th at team state and finished a match above .500 as a team. It wasn't a perfect season, acctually we were pretty average in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't say that nothing good came of it because we didn't have a state qualifier. Our guys know that they need to work harder if they want to improve and get there next year. If having a state qualifier is the only way to promote our sport you are going to end up with a lot disappointed kids classed or not.

I agreed earlier that numbers make a difference, I just think that a lot of things make a difference. There are a lot of advantages and disadvantages that come from schools of all different sizes. I pointed out that location makes a difference as well and it was deemed to be an anecdotal fallacy.

I think I am learning something from all of this, these are both examples of anecdotal fallacy, correct Karl?

Im not saying that numbers do not matter. Are you trying to say that location to a large city is not an ADVANTAGE.

For the millionth time teams and individuals are different. Teams need 14 guys to be good, you need one individual. My team is at such a disadvantage that it would have been very difficult to place or make it to a one class team state. Individuals do not need a special tournament to prove their accomplishments, because they all ready are proving their accomplishments in a fair one on one match. There is no need for a special tournament because individually no one person is at a disadvantage. This second part is not arrogance, or throwing anyone under the bus, its simply the truth. You really mean to tell me that you think that perceived ability has nothing to do with where kids go to college? Seriously? There are plenty of great athletes that participate in below D1 athletics but perceived ability has a lot to do with where kids go to school. On football signing day a few weeks back I don't exactly recall the 4 and 5 star recruits lining up to go to DII and III schools, they go D1 for a reason. Also you state they class based on money, and that may be the case, but why would you spend the money have D1 programs if your not bringing in the top kids. When IPFW went D1 you mean to tell me that they didn't expect to bring in a higher quality of athlete? Your only arguing for the sake of arguing if you can't admit that kids that go D1 are at least perceived to be better athletes. If there is no difference in the perceived ability of the athletes then why are D1 sports billion dollar industries, and anything below that is lucky to have its championships air on espn360? So in reality while the classifications for college sports may be based on money, in reality they are based on ability to, your only fooling yourself if you cannot admit that.

So why is size of school the only advantage that we take into account when we talk about classing the individual tournament. Why not class by distance from large metropolitan areas, or by the what type of city the school comes from. A kid from a small school in Indy has more opportunity to go to specialized clubs then a kid from Churubusco that would be an ADVANTAGE for the kid from Indy. A kid from a bigger school like Jay County is further away from a large city like Fort Wayne than a kid from Churubusco that would be an ADVANTAGE for the Churubusco kid. There are a million advantages and disadvantages that we could go through, at what point do we decide which ADVANTAGES matter and which ones don't? You guys type out advantages that the big school kids face like it automatically means we should class, people have different advantages and disadvantages all the time.

I said that small school individuals do not deserve any more recognition for their accomplishments than big school individuals. The fact that your situation and Culver's are relays does make the situation different because it would be more difficult to field a competitive relay team at a small school than at a big school. As far as why do we deserve recognition as a team it is because small schools are at a disadvantage when it comes to fielding a full team. With less people to choose from our team is at a disadvantage, thus the need for team sports to be classed. As far as why do we deserve more recognition than other class 1A teams, I guess I would answer because we were better. What is even the point of having a small school team state title but to determine the best small school team? By your logic what is the point in keeping score at all, I don't understand what you are saying with that one. Three years ago our team placed second at the 1A duals. Our team was a good small school team, but could not compete with the bigger schools, thus the need for team sports to be classified. That season our 220 lbs wrestler made it to state. This wrestler not only overcame the affliction of attending a small school, but also only weighed 195 lbs. He did not need a less difficult tournament to achieve what he did because individually he was good enough to make it on his own. He lost twice his senior year to Fletcher Miller of Kokomo, and Conner Tolley of Avon. He did not loose because he went to a smaller school, he lost because they were better than him when they wrestled. Thus he doesn't need or deserve some special tournament to prove his accomplishments, he accomplished a great deal, and proved himself in the tournament we have. This is were we differ, I don't believe that he accomplished anything different than the other kids that wrestled and lost that Friday Night, the fact that he was from a small school did not mean that he deserved more recognition than the kids who lost from bigger schools. As far as the second paragraph, their Class A finals consisted of 33 teams? Finally the argument about college classes doesn't hold water in any way. They are not even remotely the same as classing high schools. In classing an individual sport at the high school level you are saying- due to the fact that an individual attends a small school they are not as good as the individual that attends a big school, thus they need their own tournament in order to be competitive. In college it is the opposite, the individual says that they are not at the same level as the division 1 athlete and thus are choose on their own to compete at a lower level. It isn't even remotely the same, as a matter of fact it is essentially the opposite of classing at the high school level. I always laugh when I see this brought up as a reason we should class, yes colleges have classes, but the individuals choose the level they will compete at. In other words instead of classing by school size you would make classifications by how "good" a kid is. So if the kids from the individual schools would say that they want to compete in the "A" division, or "B" division. etc. Its not even remotely the same. Also before the pro-class group goes crazy about this post, let me say the following. The swim and track relay teams from Rochester and Culver accomplished a great thing in making it to state and that should be celebrated. If our tournament was classed and our 220 made it to state and placed in a classed system it would be a great accomplishment and should be celebrated. All DII, DIII, JUCO, and NAIA athletes are talented and deserve to and should celebrate their accomplishments, DI athletes are not the only ones who should accomplish great things. Finally I also realize that not all DII, DIII, JUCO, and NAIA athletes attend those schools because they are less talented than their DI counterparts, but generally speaking that would be the case. While there are a ton of different reasons beyond athletics that could cause a kid to choose one school over the other, the DI kids are generally the better athletes, and this is why they attend DI schools instead of DIII.

What does the fact that you have coached two state Champs in the past five years say about the logic of your argument? Obviously it's not impossible for small school individuals, you guys are the perfect example of that.

His argument was that Penn's JV would win the 1A title so why should we be acknowledged for winning the class 1A title when they are better. It didn't make any sense to me because Penn's JV wouldn't qualify for class 1A. I assumed we both agreed that the class portion of wrestling should be classed, so I assumed we both agreed that we should have a small school class, and that Penn's JV participating in it would not be in the direction we should be heading. If he was trying to compare this argument to mine against the class individual tournament then I guess it didn't make sense to me because I see the two as completely different things. If you are simply referring to a post I made in another thread than I guess I've figured out what your getting at with this post. If not I would love it if you'd let me in on what went over my head. Works for me.