Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
takedownartist

Analyzing classed state tournaments vs. single-class state tournaments

Recommended Posts

Everyone competes against everyone, it's one class. Obviously the small school coaches and kids just don't work hard enough.

 

 

 

Bob are you actually telling us number of schools does not matter?   

 

 

Lets suppose there are only 10 small schools and they account for 1/4 of all the medals, there are 10 medium schools accounting for 1/4 the medals and there are 60 large schools accounting for 1/2 the medals, you don't see how number of schools matters in determining who is doing better?   Does all your brain compute is the large schools won more medals so they are doing the best?   Tell me you are not this simple Bob.  

 

Zebra has bowed out, essentially unable to make his point.  

 

I am all for learning and understanding how Indiana does it.   Will you tell me more about the numbers, so we can look further into what it says about their wrestling? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohh yes hook line and sinker...of course you are continuing to see the elephant in the room that being NUMBERS.  

 

Tell me again which school an average coach will do better at(team and individual success), one with 500 students or one with 2000 students? Please explain your answer also.

 

I am curious to hear your answer.

 

 

 

 

Lets see if I follow Bob's logic. 

 

The California high school state championship must not be great because like the Olympic games in London, the US open, world team trials, they did not sell out.   

 

Proof of single class not working is Kentucky wrestling not recognized as a power, never mind California and New Jersey being widely accepted as top 4 wrestling states, and 43 states with classes regarded below them.

 

To your question of big school versus small school, it depends Bob, on which school pulls in the bigger attendance?  Right, Bob?

 

It's simple Bob,

 

The coach is not going to be limited by the kids walking the halls at either school.   The good coach is going to have feeder programs in place where he will get very good wrestlers coming into his room who have years of experience.   No one walking the hallways is going to compete with that.   

 

A good coach will install his program anywhere, and they will thrive.  

 

A lousy coach can be at the biggest schools in the state and produce nothing. 

 

I want to believe Bob, that there is an even better way to do things in wrestling, but i look around at the surrounding states of California, all divisions at state, and yet the pale in comparison with the Golden State.   You have a who's who of futility with Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, etc.   Sure, those places produce the occasional star,but as a whole, they are down right pulling the west down.   Will you help us to understand why this is, despite division sin their state tournament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob are you actually telling us number of schools does not matter?   

 

 

Lets suppose there are only 10 small schools and they account for 1/4 of all the medals, there are 10 medium schools accounting for 1/4 the medals and there are 60 large schools accounting for 1/2 the medals, you don't see how number of schools matters in determining who is doing better?   Does all your brain compute is the large schools won more medals so they are doing the best?   Tell me you are not this simple Bob.  

 

Zebra has bowed out, essentially unable to make his point.  

 

I am all for learning and understanding how Indiana does it.   Will you tell me more about the numbers, so we can look further into what it says about their wrestling? 

The Indiana stats are divided equally, so about 100 schools for 3 class breakdown and 150 for 2 class. If that is what you are fishing for....oops I got caught again!

 

 

Lets see if I follow Bob's logic. 

 

The California high school state championship must not be great because like the Olympic games in London, the US open, world team trials, they did not sell out.   

 

Proof of single class not working is Kentucky wrestling not recognized as a power, never mind California and New Jersey being widely accepted as top 4 wrestling states, and 43 states with classes regarded below them.

 

To your question of big school versus small school, it depends Bob, on which school pulls in the bigger attendance?  Right, Bob?

 

It's simple Bob,

 

The coach is not going to be limited by the kids walking the halls at either school.   The good coach is going to have feeder programs in place where he will get very good wrestlers coming into his room who have years of experience.   No one walking the hallways is going to compete with that.   

 

A good coach will install his program anywhere, and they will thrive.  

 

A lousy coach can be at the biggest schools in the state and produce nothing. 

 

I want to believe Bob, that there is an even better way to do things in wrestling, but i look around at the surrounding states of California, all divisions at state, and yet the pale in comparison with the Golden State.   You have a who's who of futility with Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, etc.   Sure, those places produce the occasional star,but as a whole, they are down right pulling the west down.   Will you help us to understand why this is, despite division sin their state tournament?

My logic is simple, a coach will do better at a bigger school. Having 4 times more kids to choose from makes life easier, plain and simple.

 

And I love your logic that a coach should recruit and not be limited to just kids that are walking the hallways. I guess I forgot cheating as to what makes a coach good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Indiana stats are divided equally, so about 100 schools for 3 class breakdown and 150 for 2 class. If that is what you are fishing for....oops I got caught again!

 

 

My logic is simple, a coach will do better at a bigger school. Having 4 times more kids to choose from makes life easier, plain and simple.

 

And I love your logic that a coach should recruit and not be limited to just kids that are walking the hallways. I guess I forgot cheating as to what makes a coach good.

 

 

 

 

Bob, lets not be naive.   

 

Recruit?  Is that your latest argument for divisions?  Small schools need to set up youth programs where the coach will go out and recruit, in order to compete with the large schools?  Is this actually your new position?  zebra is a complete and utter dunce, but I believe you may be actually overtaking him in that regard.   

 

A kids program will feed into the high school in the area.    A coach who sets up feeder program in his district doesn't need to recruit, those kids will be assigned to his high school.   Why do you think he would still need to go out and recruit?  The program recruits itself.  It attracts top wrestlers who want to go there.   If anything, the coach can now focus on following the letter to the law, because people are seeking his program out.  Parents within the program sometimes do the recruiting.   Kids in the program sometimes recruit others.    You don't really believe this silly notion of youth programs = the coach compelled to recruits do you.   Why bring it up (a strawman)?  Isn't it you really have no other answer, or any other way to prop up your desire for divisions?  

 

I am open to your argument for divisions.   Tell me about it, I am listening with an open mind, but thus far every thing you throw at the wall in hopes it will stick, I easily dispel and show you a better way.

 

You've now introduced "it's easier for coaches to excel at a bigger school".   Easier Bob?  What gives a flying rat's a$$ about how difficult it is for the coach?  Wrestling, especially excelling at wrestling is hard work.   It is a lot of work, Bob.   Is this now about making it easier on the coach?  Is that the new argument you are presenting?   It is easier for the coach?  

 

Bob lets not make wrestling easier, lets ensure wining and building winners remains just as difficult as it's ever been.  That's where life lessens are taught and learned.  It's in the adversity.   it's in the heart wrenching defeats, and it's in the unfathomable triumphs.  Bob you really are one of these give them all a trophy weirdos, aren't you?  You want easy?  How about tennis or the golf team?   Have you considered wrestling might just not be for you?  You're looking for the easy way out Bob, that's not what our sport is about.

 

It's easier?  

 

Bob You have now over taken zebra.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the one that stated "The coach is not going to be limited by the kids walking the halls at either school. " Not sure what school isn't limited to the kids walking the halls unless they recruit. YOU are the one that said that.

 

Once again you are failing to grasp a simple concept of numbers. Until you can really accept that with more kids to choose from a coach will do better then we can't even begin this discussion. Let's try this for the 53rd time, what school is a random coach more likely to have more success at, one with 500 students or one with 2000 students? The answer is simple and you shouldn't need a calculator. I'm still awaiting this answer from you. Keep trying with all your other deflections of a simple question.  

 

One again the question is this

Which school is a coach more likely to have success.

A. One with 500 students

B. One with 2000 students

 

Bonus question, if you want to get some extra credit.

Why do 40+ states have class wrestling? On top of that explain why most went to it in the 1960's and 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator, if you honestly think high school wrestling is about the coach, I'm sincerely concerned about you.

 

That said, you have provided evidence that the individual athlete (the topic we should be discussing) is more likely to have success at a larger school than a smaller school. I'd be interested to know what the breakdowns would look like in Indiana if you broke them down so that 50% of the enrollment (and then 33.3%, then 25%) of the high schools with wrestling in that state, rather than the number of schools, before I come to a conclusion, but preliminary figures are certainly in your favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These numbers from Indiana prove otherwise

Divided in half
Qualifiers
Small 43 or 19.2%
Big 181 or 80.8%
 
Placers
Small 13 or 11.6%
Big 99 or 88.4%
 
Student population %
Small 23%
Big 77%
 
Divided into 3rds
Student percentages
Small- 12.9%
Medium- 24.4%
Big- 62.6%
 
Placer Percentage
Small- 4.5%
Medium- 20.5%
Big- 75%
 
Qualifier percentage
Small- 9.4%
Medium- 27.6%
Big- 62.9%
 
What is the reason for the lack of success for small schools?

 

These are the numbers I find interesting...I would think the Qualifier and Placer percentages would more closely match the enrollment percentage than they do. One more question: What years is this data from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator, if you honestly think high school wrestling is about the coach, I'm sincerely concerned about you.

 

That said, you have provided evidence that the individual athlete (the topic we should be discussing) is more likely to have success at a larger school than a smaller school. I'd be interested to know what the breakdowns would look like in Indiana if you broke them down so that 50% of the enrollment (and then 33.3%, then 25%) of the high schools with wrestling in that state, rather than the number of schools, before I come to a conclusion, but preliminary figures are certainly in your favor.

So are you saying you want it broken down by enrollment? Such as there are about 30,000 high school students and you want it broken down by 10,000 increments? If so you are way off your rocker, there would be 39/73/191 in terms of number of schools from the biggest to smallest class...even though each school would have 14 chances at a state qualifier. That wouldn't tell you anything because if the bigger schools had more chances at state qualifiers they probably would get some more. Having 5X more opportunities to get a state qualifier makes the data fruitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator, it very well might tell us something if the numbers still had the larger schools having more qualifiers despite their smaller numbers.

 

As far as the years, how about including 2005-2010 as well, now that you've made it look like you cherry-picked years. (why 2004 in addition to 2011-15?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator, it very well might tell us something if the numbers still had the larger schools having more qualifiers despite their smaller numbers.

 

As far as the years, how about including 2005-2010 as well, now that you've made it look like you cherry-picked years. (why 2004 in addition to 2011-15?)

If you split the classes evenly by enrollment you get very equal state qualifiers across the classes. 

In a 3 class system it takes 2100 more state series entries for small schools to equal big schools and about 500 more entries for mid sized schools.

Divided into two classes it takes 2300 more entries for small schools to equal big schools.

Each team can only enter 14 wrestlers at sectional, it isn't exactly equal when you compare the data from 40 schools vs. 73 or 190 or compare the data from 70 schools to the ones of 233. If anything it shows how being a big school varsity wrestler increases your chance of going to state.

 

The 2004 data actually has better small school numbers than the other 5 years in my data set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the BVAL while is called a "League" is more like a division. The 24 teams in the BVAL are divided into 3 leagues (Mt. Hamilton, Santa Teresa, and West Valley) with 8 teams each. During the season, the teams in each league compete against each other and the 3 leagues come together for the BVAL tournament, which then sends qualifiers to the Central Coast Masters tournament (roughly 80 schools total) which precedes the California State tournament. 

 

 

 

Thanks, I've never heard of such a thing.     Wow, that is a lot of teams for a single league.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are points that often get overlooked but really need to be emphasized. 

 

Ohio has roughly 500 schools with wrestling within roughly a 2 hour drive to Columbus. California has probably a third as many within the same distance to Bakersfield. 

 

 

 

I don't believe your prediction about Ohio.   It is a hotbed of wrestling with generations of tradition.   It is also much smaller in sheer size than California, thus it is much easier to get around the entire state than it is for a kid in say San Diego, looking to compete against a kid in Chico.   It's just a different animal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state tournament was moved away from the Spanos center to Bakersfield to accommodate more people. The complaint at the Spanos center was that not everyone who wanted to be there could get in. Now, the complaint is that there are some empty seats in Bakersfield. I think the tournament is definitely better off in Bakersfield than it was in Stockton.

 

I've attended the California state tournament for almost a decade and while it can definitely be improved they do a fantastic job and the quality of wrestling is excellent. It's so much better than the way they do things in Arizona where I attended high school. 

 

I remember in the early 90's a couple of us from PA were invited to the California tournament to see how they were running it.  Back then it was jam packed and historically sold out. We heard all the way over here that people were actually scalping tickets to get in and be one of the ones that gets to toss those bouncy balls to the center mat.  But, it was also held at the Spanos, Arena in Stockton.  This would not even be a discussion if the powers that be would hold the tournament like you said....in Orange County, Fresno County, LA County, San Diego County etc...Over here in PA we've always respected the CA state tournament for their single class, and undisputed champion.  That's what wrestling is all about!!!!   Somebody talk to the people in charge and get that venue changed!!!!!!!  ASAP!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen in here where Cletus states that CA wrestling is doing great because they have 27,000 high school wrestlers.  Now that may be but since the population of CA is so large, you are going to have more participants.  For example, Wyoming has approximtely 26,000 kids attending high school in the entire state.  If every kid in the state, boys and girls, all wrestled they couldn't equal CA's number.   

 

If you calculate the ratio of wrestling participants to high school students, CA falls WAY down the list at 1.34% which puts them at #41 just slightly behind Tennessee.  The only states with a lower wrestling participation percentage, in descending order, are:

 

Maine

New Hampshire

Alabama

Florida

Kentucky

Louisiana

Texas

Arkansas

Vermont

Mississippi

 

In that context, is CA really doing that good?  Would CA have a better participation rate if more wrestlers were able to experience success? 

 

Since I didn't want to spend a ton of time, I used the first sources I found.  Participation numbers from NFHS participation survey for 2014-15 and high school populations from National Center for Education Stastics 2012 census.  Also note that the high school populations are for public school only.  States with a large number of private high school students would have a lower percentage.  Here's the full chart sorted by participation percentage.

 

State Wrestlers HS Population Wrestler % Nebraska 4,564 88,073 5.18% Iowa 6,424 144,784 4.44% Wyoming 1,119 26,243 4.26% Alaska 1,375 38,420 3.58% Kansas 4,892 139,348 3.51% South Dakota 1,299 37,267 3.49% Montana 1,360 42,089 3.23% Minnesota 8,224 262,041 3.14% Delaware 1,166 38,022 3.07% Idaho 2,219 82,631 2.69% Wisconsin 7,074 265,682 2.66% Oregon 4,626 178,239 2.60% North Dakota 772 29,758 2.59% Missouri 6,838 270,370 2.53% Illinois 15,036 624,679 2.41% New Jersey 9,725 416,133 2.34% Indiana 7,385 316,329 2.33% Washington 7,482 327,134 2.29% South Carolina 4,604 208,648 2.21% Oklahoma 3,874 177,339 2.18% Hawaii 1,107 51,170 2.16% Ohio 11,114 518,617 2.14% Colorado 4,978 246,051 2.02% North Carolina 8,554 438,375 1.95% Utah 3,284 169,077 1.94% Michigan 9,387 493,440 1.90% Nevada 2,419 131,977 1.83% West Virginia 1,470 80,673 1.82% New Mexico 1,758 97,242 1.81% Rhode Island 792 44,672 1.77% Pennsylvania 9,860 558,945 1.76% Georgia 8,392 481,043 1.74% Maryland 4,428 256,836 1.72% Virginia 6,440 375,975 1.71% Arizona 5,449 321,650 1.69% New York 13,668 847,144 1.61% Massachusetts 4,399 287,506 1.53% Connecticut 2,534 170,245 1.49% Tennessee 4,072 281,971 1.44% California 26,374 1,967,644 1.34% Maine 731 57,815 1.26% New Hampshire 675 60,805 1.11% Alabama 2,307 217,203 1.06% Florida 8,097 799,602 1.01% Kentucky 1,746 194,102 0.90% Louisiana 1,657 186,111 0.89% Texas 11,139 1,387,513 0.80% Arkansas 870 138,526 0.63% Vermont 161 27,557 0.58% Mississippi 25 137,286 0.02%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have seen in here where Cletus states that CA wrestling is doing great because they have 27,000 high school wrestlers.  Now that may be but since the population of CA is so large, you are going to have more participants.  For example, Wyoming has approximtely 26,000 kids attending high school in the entire state.  If every kid in the state, boys and girls, all wrestled they couldn't equal CA's number.   

 

If you calculate the ratio of wrestling participants to high school students, CA falls WAY down the list at 1.34% which puts them at #41 just slightly behind Tennessee.  The only states with a lower wrestling participation percentage, in descending order, are:

 

Maine

New Hampshire

Alabama

Florida

Kentucky

Louisiana

Texas

Arkansas

Vermont

Mississippi

 

In that context, is CA really doing that good?  Would CA have a better participation rate if more wrestlers were able to experience success? 

 

Since I didn't want to spend a ton of time, I used the first sources I found.  Participation numbers from NFHS participation survey for 2014-15 and high school populations from National Center for Education Stastics 2012 census.  Also note that the high school populations are for public school only.  States with a large number of private high school students would have a lower percentage.  Here's the full chart sorted by participation percentage.

 

State Wrestlers HS Population Wrestler % Nebraska 4,564 88,073 5.18% Iowa 6,424 144,784 4.44% Wyoming 1,119 26,243 4.26% Alaska 1,375 38,420 3.58% Kansas 4,892 139,348 3.51% South Dakota 1,299 37,267 3.49% Montana 1,360 42,089 3.23% Minnesota 8,224 262,041 3.14% Delaware 1,166 38,022 3.07% Idaho 2,219 82,631 2.69% Wisconsin 7,074 265,682 2.66% Oregon 4,626 178,239 2.60% North Dakota 772 29,758 2.59% Missouri 6,838 270,370 2.53% Illinois 15,036 624,679 2.41% New Jersey 9,725 416,133 2.34% Indiana 7,385 316,329 2.33% Washington 7,482 327,134 2.29% South Carolina 4,604 208,648 2.21% Oklahoma 3,874 177,339 2.18% Hawaii 1,107 51,170 2.16% Ohio 11,114 518,617 2.14% Colorado 4,978 246,051 2.02% North Carolina 8,554 438,375 1.95% Utah 3,284 169,077 1.94% Michigan 9,387 493,440 1.90% Nevada 2,419 131,977 1.83% West Virginia 1,470 80,673 1.82% New Mexico 1,758 97,242 1.81% Rhode Island 792 44,672 1.77% Pennsylvania 9,860 558,945 1.76% Georgia 8,392 481,043 1.74% Maryland 4,428 256,836 1.72% Virginia 6,440 375,975 1.71% Arizona 5,449 321,650 1.69% New York 13,668 847,144 1.61% Massachusetts 4,399 287,506 1.53% Connecticut 2,534 170,245 1.49% Tennessee 4,072 281,971 1.44% California 26,374 1,967,644 1.34% Maine 731 57,815 1.26% New Hampshire 675 60,805 1.11% Alabama 2,307 217,203 1.06% Florida 8,097 799,602 1.01% Kentucky 1,746 194,102 0.90% Louisiana 1,657 186,111 0.89% Texas 11,139 1,387,513 0.80% Arkansas 870 138,526 0.63% Vermont 161 27,557 0.58% Mississippi 25 137,286 0.02%

 

 

 

 

Wow, that's a really surprising stat.   

 

With how much California has to do, with their beautiful weather, with arguably the best looking females in America, with it's close proximity to so many different things like the mountains, beaches, lakes, and also with the popularity and competitiveness of football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, cross fit, etc., I am shocked it's that high.  

 

Are you sure California is getting that high of a rate on participation?  Those are really good numbers when you consider the competition wrestling faces in California from other sports, where no other place does.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...