Silence Dogood

Y2 I saw your questionnaire on the home page. Can you add a follow up question to whether Indiana needs class wrestling that asks whether the person is for classing both team and individual or just team?

What is there to explain - they would be a team in the true sense of the word. Just like any other team that gets the job done without any all-stars.

Because the definition of status quo is the "existing state or condition". Our "existing state or condition" is a single class. The "existing state or condition" for other surrounding states is multiple classes. My point is that supporters of a class system in Indiana have the burden of proof with regard to whether we should change Indiana's status quo. The only proof that has been provided is apparent benefits that other states have realized after going to a classed system that may or may not have been caused by the change to a classed system. On the other hand there are states with class systems don't appear to have realized any significant benefits after the conversion. Have we ruled out other less controversial methods which have a proven track record to improve wrestling in Indiana? If not, why spend our time focusing on the controversial ones? Class wrestling isn't a magic formula for us to be like Ohio or Illinois. Class wrestling will help promote the sport at the small school level and help grow it where it is stagnant at best right now if not dying. If class wrestling does not hurt those other states is it necessarily bad for them then? The results might not be seen at events like Fargo, but they could possibly been seen at the meets in those states or the retention of coaches and wrestlers in that state that come back to coach or ref or be a big fan. What's the proof that wrestling is dying at small schools? Are participation numbers that much different compared to past years? Is it different from school to school (are some growing their program and some shrinking)? How do the numbers work out for big schools? Are some big school programs growing and others shrinking? What is the difference between the ones that are growing and the ones that are shrinking (both at big and small schools)? How does class wrestling address this? Will it help or hinder big schools? Can a classed team tournament solve address most of the problems without being as controversial (based on the responses here, it seems that a classed team tournament would be less controversial than an classed individual tournament)?

Because the definition of status quo is the "existing state or condition". Our "existing state or condition" is a single class. The "existing state or condition" for other surrounding states is multiple classes. My point is that supporters of a class system in Indiana have the burden of proof with regard to whether we should change Indiana's status quo. The only proof that has been provided is apparent benefits that other states have realized after going to a classed system that may or may not have been caused by the change to a classed system. On the other hand there are states with class systems don't appear to have realized any significant benefits after the conversion. Have we ruled out other less controversial methods which have a proven track record to improve wrestling in Indiana? If not, why spend our time focusing on the controversial ones?

We are talking about whether or not to class wrestling in Indiana. The status quo is not classed. Are there really no other ways to improve wrestling in Indiana that are less controversial than classing (especially when it's not entirely clear that classing will improve it)? I don't think it would be controversial to have classes....the rest of the country figured it was the right thing decades ago. The controversy is why we still have one class Your last sentence admits that there is a controversy. Some are on the side of one class, others are on the side of multiple classes (just look at this thread - there are already 24 pages of discussion). Surely there are solutions to improving wrestling in Indiana that everyone can support. For example, programs like CIA undoubtedly help improve it. So do USA wrestling clubs around the state. Granted, those things take a lot of time and hard work from a lot of individuals, but they are the types of things that the entire Indiana wrestling community will support. Do other states that have more success than Indiana have more of such programs and clubs? What else are they doing to maintain an edge over us? Is class wrestling the best or only answer? Does it even provide the answer? What's the best evidence that it does?

We are talking about whether or not to class wrestling in Indiana. The status quo is not classed. Are there really no other ways to improve wrestling in Indiana that are less controversial than classing (especially when it's not entirely clear that classing will improve it)? Status quo from who, fans, coaches, wrestlers, principals, administrators? I believe that the coaches association voted for classed wrestling in 2001 with an overwhelming majority. I highly doubt that the opinions have changed back to single class. The status quo for everyone in Indiana. The current set up we have is a single class system. Therefore a single class system is the status quo. Status quo - noun. the existing state or condition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/status%20quo

We are talking about whether or not to class wrestling in Indiana. The status quo is not classed. Are there really no other ways to improve wrestling in Indiana that are less controversial than classing (especially when it's not entirely clear that classing will improve it)?

I'm all ears The burden of proof is on those trying to change the status quo. The information above doesn't neccessarily support the position that classing the individual tournament will make Indiana a stronger wrestling state. I don't follow the national scene that closely. Is there anything that the 7 states that we are doing worse than expected against are doing besides having a classed system that could explain the difference? Why are we doing better than some states that are bigger or similar size as us even though they have classes?

Bold Classless states California- Worse Texas- Better than New York- Worse Florida- Even Illinois- Worse Pennsylvania- Worse Ohio- Worse Michigan- Worse Georgia- Better than North Carolina- Better than New Jersey- Worse Virginia- Even with States we are within 1 million people of and how we stack up Washington- Even Arizona- Better Massachusetts- Better Tennessee- Better Missouri- Worse Maryland- Better Wisconsin- Worse Minnesota- Worse Other states that are better than us that have less population Oregon Oklahoma Iowa Kansas If we assume that states with bigger populations are more likely to have more athletes that will be national caliber wrestlers, we are doing better than expected against 5 states with significantly larger populations (Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia), we are doing as good or better than expected against 5 states with similar populations (Washington, Arizona, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Maryland), and worse than expected against 7 similar sized or smaller states (Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Iowa, Kansas). Only one of the states is classed (Texas), so we are doing as good or better than expected versus 9 classed states and worse versus only 7 classed states. Something other than classes might explain the difference. If there are ways to accomplish the goal of making Indiana a stronger wrestling state that are less controversial than classing the individual tournament, why don't we try to identify them?

My data just goes back the past 5 years, not 10 or 15 or 20. Would the past 5 years constitute every few years? It looks like there is a strong correlation between a state's population and the strength of its wrestling. This and whether or not the state has a tradition of wrestling seem to explain more than whether or not the state has class wrestling or not (since there are some states that have classes that do better than you would expect based on their population and some that don't). States 1 million people bigger than us and how we stack up. California- Worse Texas- Better than New York- Worse Florida- Even Illinois- Worse Pennsylvania- Worse Ohio- Worse Michigan- Worse Georgia- Better than North Carolina- Better than New Jersey- Worse Virginia- Even with States we are within 1 million people of and how we stack up Washington- Even Arizona- Better Massachusetts- Better Tennessee- Better Missouri- Worse Maryland- Better Wisconsin- Worse Minnesota- Worse Other states that are better than us that have less population Oregon Oklahoma Iowa Kansas Other states we are even with that are lesser population Colorado and Nebraska Which of the above states are classed? I really don't know. What else might explain the differences and what can we do to bridge the gap? Class wrestling might help (still not convinced), but there have to be other ways Indiana can improve.

My data just goes back the past 5 years, not 10 or 15 or 20. Would the past 5 years constitute every few years? It looks like there is a strong correlation between a state's population and the strength of its wrestling. This and whether or not the state has a tradition of wrestling seem to explain more than whether or not the state has class wrestling or not (since there are some states that have classes that do better than you would expect based on their population and some that don't). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Would classing the team tournament and not the individual tournament be able to accomplish at least 3 of these (more participants, programs, and interest in regular season meets)? It probably wouldn't lead to a doubling of the attendance at the state finals. But that could possibly be accomplished by adding more individual qualifiers to a single class individual tournament.

Each school no matter the size has to deal with issues, big schools aren't immune to problems such as swain as stated. Small schools aren't immune to them either. The biggest difference its easier to replace the kids at big school. Back to the purpose of high school athletics, is it to find one true champion or is it another purpose? If its to have one true champion, then I cannot disagree that a single class system is the way to go. However, I feel high school athletics' purpose is something different. Also, why do so many other states and successful states all have class wrestling? Why did they go to classed wrestling in the 60's, and 70's ? I think one of the main purposes of high school athletics is to build character, by teaching individuals to set goals, develop work ethic, deal with adversity, etc. I think wrestling and its single class individual tournament does a good job of this. It provides the opportunity for individuals to set goals in line with what they are capable of attaining (whether it be regional qualifier or state champ), it gives them the opportunity to work hard for that goal, and it can teach them that sometimes when they work hard they will attain their goal and sometimes they won't (part of me thinks that one of the most important part of high school athletics is learning the lessons of the latter). Can a multiple class system do the same thing? Maybe, but I don't think it can do it better. From your arguments it seems that you think the purpose of high school wrestling is to grow the sport and make Indiana better known as a wrestling state and thereby create more opportunities for Indiana wrestlers in college. I don't think this is a bad goal. I am just not convinced that class wrestling is necessarily the answer for accomplishing it.

Each school no matter the size has to deal with issues, big schools aren't immune to problems such as swain as stated. Small schools aren't immune to them either. The biggest difference its easier to replace the kids at big school. You are making the case for a classed team tournament here, not individual

And based on the probability, since big schools have 75% of the students and small schools have 25% of the students, a state caliber wrestler is 3x as likely to be on a big school's sectional roster. So you're saying that big schools have distinct advantages? If that is what you are saying then that is the case for class wrestling at both the individual and team levels. Isn't that why they want classes for football? I understand that this makes the case for a classed team tournament (I said that earlier). Big schools are statistically more likely to have a greater number of kids who have the natural ability to be a state qualifier. But it doesn't make the case for a classed individual tournament. If anything it makes the case that there is no advantage one way or the other. If there were an advantage in being an individual from a big school why wouldn't the percentage of qualifiers be significantly greater than 75%? I will ask these question again and don't mind the size of school.... Are more practice partners and more quality practice partners good for kids? Are more paid coaches better for kids? Are better facilities better for kids? Is less pressure to be a 2 or 3 sport athlete better for a wrestler? I say yes for all of those questions. Now answer me this.... where would you more likely find a yes to all those questions? I'll say yes to those questions too. But there are also disadvantages for big schools and advantages for small schools. The advantages/disadvantages all seem to equal out when 75% of the students are from big schools and therefore approximately 75% of the state caliber athletes are from big schools and big schools end up having 75% of the state qualifiers in wrestling. Your argument that there should be 50% of the state qualifiers from small schools because they have 50% of the sectional entries is like saying 50% of the Division 1 basketball players in Indiana should be from small schools because each team has 5 starters. If small schools have 25% of the students they are approximately 1/3 as likely as a big school to have a state caliber athlete in wrestling or of having a Division 1 caliber basketball player.

And based on the probability, since big schools have 75% of the students and small schools have 25% of the students, a state caliber wrestler is 3x as likely to be on a big school's sectional roster. So you're saying that big schools have distinct advantages? If that is what you are saying then that is the case for class wrestling at both the individual and team levels. Isn't that why they want classes for football? I understand that this makes the case for a classed team tournament (I said that earlier). Big schools are statistically more likely to have a greater number of kids who have the natural ability to be a state qualifier. But it doesn't make the case for a classed individual tournament. If anything it makes the case that there is no advantage one way or the other. If there were an advantage in being an individual from a big school why wouldn't the percentage of qualifiers be significantly greater than 75%?

And based on the probability, since big schools have 75% of the students and small schools have 25% of the students, a state caliber wrestler is 3x as likely to be on a big school's sectional roster.

No. For the individual tournament we are talking about individuals. Big schools have 75% of the individual students and 75% of the individual state qualifiers. Small schools have 25% of the individual students and 25% of the individual state qualifiers. One big reason for this is that because big schools have 75% of the students statistically they would be about three times as likely to have an individual that is state caliber. This isn't a "big school" advantage, it's probability. Based on your argument, you should be able to take any individual from a small school, put them in a big school and they would automatically have a three times greater chance of qualifying for state.

My guess is that it's because approximately 75% of the male students go to "big schools". I think the data you have put together and presented here previously has shown this to be the case. But exactly half of the chances to go to state are with the bigger schools and half are with the smaller schools. Bigger schools do not get to send 20 kids to sectional, they send 14 just like a small school. If qualifying for state was determined by flipping a coin, then small schools should have the same number of qualifiers. But qualifying for state is determined, in large part, by a person's ability as a wrestler. Based on statistics alone, big schools are more likely to have more wrestlers that have the necessary ability as a wrestler to qualify for state simply because big schools have more people. For instance a typical big school may have 3-4 state caliber wrestlers while a typical small school may have 0-1. This would make sense because big schools have a more students and therefore are more likely to have more state-caliber athletes. This may be a good argument for why the team tournament should be classed, but it doesn't affect the individual tournament. In the end, for the individual tournament why does it matter what school a person comes from? Also, under the logic that it's unfair that more state qualifiers come from big schools, it's also unfair that more state placers have come from the Merrillville semi-state in recent years. The Fort Wayne semi-state has the same number of chances for state placers as Merrillville. Should we have a classed system based on geography? School size is only one advantage, what about better facilities, more paid coaches, less multi-sport athletes, more money for travel to better competition, etc. These might very well be advantages that some individuals at some big schools have that individuals at small schools don't. There might also be advantages that some individuals at some small schools have that individuals at big schools don't (close-knit communities, family involvement, wrestling families staying in the community, etc.). Based on the numbers you have posted previously that indicate that the big schools have the same percentage of the total students in the state as they do state qualifiers (it may have been 75% I can't remember, I don't have the numbers in front of me), it seems like the advantages for each balance out. If there was a distinct advantage in being an individual from a big school, you would expect that big schools would have significantly more than 75% of the state qualifiers. To argue that classing the individual tournament would better the sport is one thing (which I am not convinced would be the case). But trying to twist the numbers to say that individuals from small schools are disadvantaged because small schools don't have 50% of the state qualifiers even though they only have 25% of the total number of students doesn't work.

My guess is that it's because approximately 75% of the male students go to "big schools". I think the data you have put together and presented here previously has shown this to be the case. But exactly half of the chances to go to state are with the bigger schools and half are with the smaller schools. Bigger schools do not get to send 20 kids to sectional, they send 14 just like a small school. If qualifying for state was determined by flipping a coin, then small schools should have the same number of qualifiers. But qualifying for state is determined, in large part, by a person's ability as a wrestler. Based on statistics alone, big schools are more likely to have more wrestlers that have the necessary ability as a wrestler to qualify for state simply because big schools have more people. For instance a typical big school may have 3-4 state caliber wrestlers while a typical small school may have 0-1. This would make sense because big schools have a more students and therefore are more likely to have more state-caliber athletes. This may be a good argument for why the team tournament should be classed, but it doesn't affect the individual tournament. In the end, for the individual tournament why does it matter what school a person comes from? Also, under the logic that it's unfair that more state qualifiers come from big schools, it's also unfair that more state placers have come from the Merrillville semi-state in recent years. The Fort Wayne semi-state has the same number of chances for state placers as Merrillville. Should we have a classed system based on geography?

My guess is that it's because approximately 75% of the male students go to "big schools". I think the data you have put together and presented here previously has shown this to be the case.