Silence Dogood

For those that don't think it's wrong to injury default when you aren't injured if it will possibly give you a better chance to advance in the tournament because it's not against the rules, what do you think about taking an injury default after an illegal move if you aren't injured?

So how does the cell phone enter into the decision not the finish the match if it was a legitimate injury? Was the coach talking to a doctor or trainer?

For those that don't think this is an issue, what do we do when both wrestlers have information about an unfavorable draw and both want to injury default the match - is it just going to be a race to see who can do it first?

But if we're talking about individual success, why does it matter if Group B as a group is as successful as Group A?

If you took 1000 people and put 800 into Group A and 200 into Group B and had each group put their 50 best individuals into a 100 meter dash, would you be surprised if the top ten consisted of 8 from group A and 2 from Group B? Would you argue that being in Group A caused each individual in Group A to be 4x as likely to be faster than each individual in Group B?

My argument is that there is no unfairness on the individual level - or if there is the statistics you are using don't support it. Based on the statistics you have compiled, going to a big school doesn't cause one to be more likely to be a state qualifier.

My point is that the size of the school doesn't make the individual wrestler. Do you think Jason Tsirtsis going to Crown Point instead of Garrett has caused him to be 3x as likely to be a state qualifier?

That's fine. My point is that it's just more likely that a talented individual will attend a big school (based on probability), but the big school isn't causing the individual to be more talented. Do you agree that probability would predict that approximately 75% of the state quality talent would be in big schools? If so, why would you expect less than 75% of the state qualifiers to be from big schools? While the big schools and the small schools have the same number of roster slots, if you accept the foregoing, we've already established that big schools start with more talent. And the statistics match up with what the probability predicts.

I never said, and I do not believe, that a single class system means every individual is equal. I would be willing to wager that Cody Phillips (school enrollment of 511) has a far better chance to be a state qualifier than the 103 pounder from the largest school. But based on your argument, the 103 pounder from the largest school is more likely to be a state qualifier than Cody Phillips simply because he comes from a much bigger school. The problems is that you are trying to argue that because a group is 3x as likely to have individuals that meet a certain criteria compared to another group, that each individual within that group will be 3x as likely to meet the criteria compared to each individual in the other group. That's obviously not the case.

Based on the probable talent distribution, a school with 3x as many students would likely have 3x as many individuals with the natural talent to be a state qualifier. Assuming everything else was equal, we would predict that the school would have 3x as many state quality individuals as a school with 1/3 as many students. Thus, with each team starting with a different distribution of talent, it doesn?t make sense to assume that they would have the same number of qualifiers just because they have the same number of roster slots to fill. That would be like assuming that the starting 5 on every basketball team in the state should be equal because each school has the same number of slots to fill. While, I concede that this supports the argument of classing the team tournament, I don?t see what it has to do with the individual tournament. This is because saying that a school that is 3x bigger is likely to have 3x as many state qualifiers is not the same thing as saying that an individual from a large school is 3x as likely to be a state qualifier compared to an individual from a small school as you have argued. More state qualifiers come from bigger schools because they start with a larger pool in the first place. If there was an advantage to being from a big school one would expect more than 3x as many state qualifiers to come from big schools if they start with 3x as many students (and likely start with 3x as many individuals with natural talent). Your statement that an individual from LN is 3x more likely to make it to state than an individual from Garrett, makes it sound like the size of the school is the sole determining factor. Do you really think that?s the case? What about the factors I mentioned? Do you agree that those factors play a significant role? If so, how much of an impact do you think the factors I mentioned play vs. the impact the size of the school the individual happens to attend has? I am in favor of growing the quality and interest in the sport. I am in favor of considering any and all options to do so (as well as the reasons for a particular option). You have argued that a single class individual tournament is not good for the sport because it puts an individual from a small school at an inherent disadvantage vs. an individual from a large school. I have argued that the numbers do not support this argument. I have argued that other factors, such as the ones I posted previously, have a greater impact on an individual's success. Are there ways to make such factors more prevalent throughout the state? How have other states done so? Is classing the only answer? Is it the best answer? I think its important and beneficial to generate quality discussion on both sides of the debate.

Leaving aside the team tournament argument for now, I continue to question what evidence there is that an individual from a small school is at an inherent disadvantage against an individual from a big school based solely on the size of the school. The numbers I have seen previously posted and discussed on this board don?t really bear out any advantage/disadvantage either way when it comes to the individual tournament. Also, there are obviously a number of other factors that go into an individual?s success ? natural ability, length of time wrestling, involvement in a USA wrestling program, coaching, parent?s willingness and ability to send to tournaments/camps, distractions outside of school/athletics. Should we class based on those factors? One argument has been that small school athletes aren?t able to concentrate on one sport like counterparts at a big school may be able to. If this makes competition between them unfair, should we make classes based on how many sports an individual participates in (since not all small school athletes play multiple sports, and not all big school athletes concentrate on only one)? Another argument has been that other, more successful states have classes for their individual tournament. Is that the only reason they are successful though? Can?t we try to find out what other factors might be influencing their success and try to emulate those factors before reforming our entire individual tournament on the basis of the speculation that it will improve quality and interest? Is the issue over fairness or improving the quality and interest in the sport? If it?s fairness, where?s the evidence that a single class is unfair when it comes to the individual tournament. If it?s quality and interest in the sport, I think we should do more thinking and exploring about what is driving other states? success before overhauling the system.

I don't really see there being much controversy with classing team tournament. Based on the numbers, big schools start out with significantly more naturally talented individuals which gives them a distinct advantage in the team tournament. Therefore, it would be easy to get most reasonable people behind the idea. On the other hand, I think that classing the individual tournament would be controversial because the unfairness isn't apparent. So while it may be beneficial (I am not sure that it necessarily would be), it would likely be hard to get everyone (or even a majority) to support it. Therefore, my opinion is that classing the team tournament and leaving the individual tournament unclassed would be a simple, uncontoversial way to improve the health of small school programs. I'll throw it back to you - what would classing both do that can't be accomplished by classing just the team tournament?

I don't know enough about small school programs other than the ones in my area that are doing well (Garrett, Adams Central, Yorktown, Bluffton, South Adams). That being said, I think there is plenty that can be done to improve wrestling throughout the state (e.g., the things some of the small schools listed above are doing - RTCs in the off season, taking groups to off season tournaments, traveling to other clubs, etc.). I think classing the team tournament would be a viable option for improving the health of small school programs. It could generate interest at schools that otherwise don't get much, which would likely lead to more individuals at those schools deciding to go out for wrestling.

The bigger the school, the more likely it is that the school will have a state qualifier (based on the probable distribution of talent). But attending a big school does not cause an individual to be 3x as likely to be a state qualifier. I will repost a scenario I posted earlier: Let's say, hypothetically, we were having a tournament with no school affiliations. We divide the wrestlers up into two groups - one group has 75% of the wrestlers and the other has 25%. We then say each group has to enter the same number participants into the tournament. Would you expect the group with only 25% to start with to have the same success as the group that starts with 75%? Do you think it matters for a particular individual in this scenario which group the individual happens wind up in? The size of the group won't cause the individuals in the bigger group to be more successful, the bigger group just has 3x as much talent to start with. But the talented individuals in the smaller group aren't worse off just because they are in the smaller group - they are still just as talented as they were before the tournament started. So if we agree that Class AA schools will likely start with 3x as many state caliber athletes, if everything else is equal, they should have 3x as many state qualifiers. If there is an advantage to being an individual from a Class AA school, they should have more than 3x as many state qualifiers. I agree with your point that big schools are more likely to have more quality wrestlers and therefore more quality practice partners. But small schools have some advantages too. Many small schools are taking advantage of these opportunities to the point where the advantages/disadvantages are netting out and there are just as many state qualifiers from big schools and small schools as would be predicted by the probable talent distribution.

What are the inconsistencies with Indiana? The 3 to 1 ratio with big schools to small schools. If there can be data to prove that OH, PA, IL are closer to even on their big school to small school ratios. Then MAYBE a class system would be the way to go for Indiana. But like I said, compiling the data would be rather difficult since they're classed. But I'm under the belief that they have the same issues in those states as we do in our state. The difference is their systems hide that discrepancy, our system reveals it. Why is the 3 to 1 ratio of state qualifiers inconsistent? There are 3x as many students at big schools and therefore it is likely that 3x as many state caliber athletes attend big schools. Wouldn't you then expect them to have 3x as many state qualifiers?

I will amend the question, now will you answer it? A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has three quality practice partners that were regional level wrestlers, but because they wrestled this talented wrestler became semi-state level wrestlers. A wrestler with immense talent, dedication, all that good stuff. He has one quality practice partner that was a sectional level wrestler, but because je wrestled this talented wrestler is a regional level wrestler. The numbers indicate that wherever this is happening at big schools it is happening in the same proportions at small schools - nothing that is being done (training, facilities, coaching, spending, etc) is, in the aggregate, changing the numbers from what would be predicted from the probable talent distribution. Some small schools do better than expected, some big schools do worse in than expected. The conclusion to be drawn from the numbers is that the size of the school isn't causing a net difference.

What are the inconsistencies with Indiana?

It does. But the data you have provided indicates that whatever advantages/disadvantages big schools give an individual are in the aggregate netted out against the advantages/disadvantages small schools give an individual. Maybe its because a good number of small schools are exploiting the advantages available to small schools and a good number of big schools aren't exploiting the advantages available to big schools. Your numbers indicate that in the aggregate it's all netting out so that there is no advantage to being an individual from a big school. My point is that the numbers you have compiled don't indicate any unfairness and they don't indicate that attending a big school causes an individual to be 3x as likely to be a state qualifier.

He doesn't say it, the statistics say it. But the statistics don't show that going to a big school is causing an individual to be more likley to be a state qualifier. They simply demonstrate that 3x as many qualifiers are coming from big schools, which is what one would expect given that big schools have 3x as many students, and therefore are likely to have 3x the natural talent to start with. If the size of the school was actually causing a difference, the number of state qualifiers wouldn't be the same as the probable talent distribution.

If everyone is equal as you stated you shouldn't even be looking at the enrollment numbers. If I have two varsity wrestlers, one from a small school and one from a big school, which wrestler is more likely to be a state qualifier and why? Without knowing anything else about the individuals, I would pick the person from the big school because it is 3x as likely that the big school individual has the natural talent based on the probable distribution of talent (big schools have 3x as many students). But going to the big school doesn't cause any individual from a big school to be more naturally talented - they either are or they aren't. The numbers indicate that, in the aggregate, big schools and small schools aren't doing anything to change what is predicted by the natural distribution of talent. What are your thoughts on the hypothetical tournament I proposed in my previous post? As for the personal insults, it looks like manvswild1 is doing enough for all of us.

Welcome back Dogood, but please in the future throw out some insults when addressing me, it is now standard procedure in this debate. Thank you. Now to answer your question. According to you(I believe) enrollment does not matter(if I am wrong please correct me). If enrollment did not matter then the two class breakdown should be around 50/50(I wouldn't even be disappointed in a 60/40). In the three class breakdown it should therefore be close to 33/33/33 then. If enrollment of a school affects the amount of state qualifiers then I believe that is a reason for class wrestling. My position is that, based on the numbers in the spreadsheet you put together, a school's enrollment does not have a net affect on whether an individual will be a state qualifier. I disagree with your position that a two-class breakdown should be 50/50 and a three-class breakdown should be 33/33/33. The reason I disagree is that I believe that the probable distribution of natural talent, based on the numbers in your spreadsheet, would be such that in the two-class breakdown Class AA schools would have 75% of the individuals that have the natural talent to be state qualifiers because they have 75% of the students. If being an individual from a Class AA school provided a net advantage to such an individual, more than 75% of the state qualifiers should come from Class AA schools (because the net advantage would cause the individuals at the Class AA schools who had less natural talent than their counterparts at the Class A schools to overcome the natural talent gap). But the numbers in your spreadsheet indicate that this isn't happening. Let's say, hypothetically, we were having a tournament with no school affiliations. We divide the wrestlers up into two groups - one group has 75% of the wrestlers and the other has 25%. We then say each group has to enter the same number participants into the tournament. Would you expect the group with only 25% to start with to have the same success as the group that starts with 75%? Do you think it matters for a particular individual in this scenario which group the individual happens wind up in? My guess is that the group with 3x as many wrestlers would be approximately 3x as successful as the group with 1/3 as many wrestlers. But an individual's performance in such a tournament would not be affected by which group he happens to be placed in. It's the same when we talk about Class AA individuals and Class A individuals. If there was an advantage to being an individual from a Class AA school, the data should indicate that Class AA schools have more state qualifiers than would be predicted by the probable talent distribution. But the actual numbers are exactly in line with what would be predicted. Therefore, there is no net advantage in being an individual from a Class AA school when it comes to being a state qualifier.

The 3 class breakdown and 2 class breakdown set forth on the second tab seem to support the position that an individual from a big school does not have any net advantage over an individual from a small school when it comes to developing into a state qualifier. The percentages of students in each class compared to the number of state qualifiers from each class is almost identical.

Bellmont won 2 big matches that it didn't win in January (130 and 160), but Perry prevailed by winning all the close matches, including 3 that Perry lost in January (112, 125, and 152).

Third period starts at around 4:20. The stalling is called after 3 potentially dangerous situations that are all very similar. In which one(s) did Eppert put the legs in after they were on their feet?

Gotcha. I thought you were arguing the other way. I agree 100%.