Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cardsfsc

State Classification Numbers

Recommended Posts

Wouldn't expanding the bracket have watered down the tournament and given JV kids more medals?

 

Obviously, you still have only one winner, and the depth of the tournament would've been improved with any original expansion, leading to even worthier placewinners, and multiple placewinners per section per weight class.  

 

But, the upstate sections wanted their own winners, and now they have them.  (You can look at the voting breakdown yourself. BTW, there are almost no D-II schools on Long Island).

 

This may be my opinion, but, like AAA and AA in PA, anyone arguing that the overall depth of competition in D-I and D-II in NY is similar would be kidding themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, you still have only one winner, and the depth of the tournament would've been improved with any original expansion, leading to even worthier placewinners, and multiple placewinners per section per weight class.  

 

But, the upstate sections wanted their own winners, and now they have them.  (You can look at the voting breakdown yourself. BTW, there are almost no D-II schools on Long Island).

 

This may be my opinion, but, like AAA and AA in PA, anyone arguing that the overall depth of competition in D-I and D-II in NY is similar would be kidding themselves. 

I don't know the New York situation, so pardon my ignorance on it.

 

If you expand to 32 wrestlers, would you also expand to 12-16 places? If not, I'm going to venture to say you're just adding 16 qualifiers and that's it...maybe 1 or 2 are now placers, but in reality probably not.

 

I may be reading into this too much, but if the upstate sections are so bad why does it matter to you if they get medals now? Long Island obviously still rules the roost and getting them out of your tournament makes yours better..right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BOBDole, I have suggested Pennsylvania go back to 1 classification, from the present 2. The tournament just expanded from 16 man brackets to 20.

 

I propose going to a single 40-man bracket. seven sessions Saturday AM semi-finals. Saturday afternoon 11th, 9th, 7th, and semi-finals for 3-5. Saturday evening 3rd-5th on 3 mats, the finals on 1 mat. 9th-12th would be the guys who lost in the consi-round before the consi-quarters. the 8th-12th semi-finals would be at the same time as the regular cons-quarters.

 

Bob what we you recommend as team scoring for 12 places?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best solution was the Grand State championships held in Kansas in the mid 1970s. They held the state tournaments in each class, then the next weekend the four placers advanced to Grand State. A team score was kept, attendance at Ft. Hays State was sbout 7,000. Kapaun-Mt.Carmel a 700-student coed Catholic HS and Oberlin a farming town in NW Kansas took 7th. It was cancelled after two years, reports were the big schools didn't like getting beat by a couple of small schools. I was a volunteer for KMC then, won 3a the first year, and took 2nd in 3a the second year.

 

It was a fair way for the schools to win a state championship competing against schools of similar size. Winning Grand State was prestigious for the school, but more so for the individual wrestlers.

 

Seeing the CA championships while they are still one class is on my "bucket list".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BOBDole, I have suggested Pennsylvania go back to 1 classification, from the present 2. The tournament just expanded from 16 man brackets to 20.

 

I propose going to a single 40-man bracket. seven sessions Saturday AM semi-finals. Saturday afternoon 11th, 9th, 7th, and semi-finals for 3-5. Saturday evening 3rd-5th on 3 mats, the finals on 1 mat. 9th-12th would be the guys who lost in the consi-round before the consi-quarters. the 8th-12th semi-finals would be at the same time as the regular cons-quarters.

 

Bob what we you recommend as team scoring for 12 places?

I like two classes, I wouldn't change it. Giving more kids recognition from less prestigious schools helps the sport. It keeps the sport alive in areas that would greatly struggle in a one class system. Even if you'd go to 40 qualifiers in PA, you would likely get about a 70/30 split in qualifiers from the big class to small class. 

 

Sometimes as wrestling fans we are too concerned with what WE want instead of what is better for the health of the sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they changed they added wildcards, expanded the field, and it has lead to more exposure for wrestlers from NY.

 

Yes, there have been instances where top ranked D1 and top ranked D2 kids have not met but it has done a lot of good for the state of wrestling.

I am sorry, but it is terrible and not needed for MANY reasons.

 

1] It was created by coaches that wanted their kids to become a state champ, wrestlers who most likely would not have been one in the past, limited system.

 

2] The argument that it allows more kids access is complete non-sense.  There are MANY ways to give more access and the folks that changed the system knew this.... Again, I know from personal experience the primary goal was to get their kids a D 2 "State Title".

 

I proposed this system, as well as many other people, that would:

a) Keep a 1 Champ system.

b) Keep the NY Section system in tact (a cultural icon in NY)

c) Allow a 32 person bracket with widespread representation based on merit from around the state.

d) NOT use a wildcard system that you need a Harvard Ph. D to figure out and does not always let kids in based on logical thought or merit.

 

The insecure folks in charge of changing the system could find NOTHING wrong with this proposal, but.... of course,... decided against it anyway... because it did not lead to their goal of having their school having a PSEUDO State Champ. None of the people who made these decisions were ever a state champ, nor were they actually that successful in the sport.

 

I know of no person who ever won or placed in NY, when it was one division, who likes the current D1 / D2 system.  It does nothing but water down the best of possible matches and leaves everyone with the "What if...." question.

In other sports I can see maybe some of the argument for the multitude system... but for wrestling it really takes away from actually being a "State Champ".

 

Here is what was proposed and turned down for no good reason.  As you can see, it gives great access to the sport, is very simple, and has one real State Champ.

 

Also, note, NOW with D1 and D2 NY only has a 32 person bracket--so the current system does not give "more opportunity" and "exposure" for wrestlers than this system.

 

NY STATE ONE DIVISION HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING TOURNAMENT SYSTEM—32 Wrestlers

 

First Year: Examine which sectional team has performed the best over the last 44 years (For example—I believe it is Section XI) and what four sections have performed the worst (Section 7, Section 10, CSHAA, PSAL)

 

In the first year of the 32 person, one division tournament, Section XI would have FOUR wrestlers represent them in the tournament.

 

In the first year Section 7, Section 10, CSHAA, PSAL would have ONE wrestler in the tournament.

All other sections would have the top THREE.

This equals a 32 team bracket.

 

During the state tournament, only the Sectional Champions would score points. The 2nd, 3rd, and (in the case of Section XI) 4th, place finishers in each section do NOT score points at the state tournament.

 

IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS

The system is based on the previous year’s results. For example, if Section XI finished in 12th place in the state tournament in the previous year they would only be allowed ONE wrestler to represent the section.

 

If PSAL finished first in the previous year, they would have FOUR wrestlers represent the section. If Section 10 finished 2nd, they would have THREE wrestlers represent the section.

 

AGAIN, only the sectional champion can score points in order in ensure an equal system.

This is a very simple system, where NY would have ONE champion, we would have 32 wrestlers from around the state represented, and we would not have the “Who is the better 112 pound state champion, the D1 or D2 champ?”

 

For Example:

Section 11—4 Wrestlers

Section 9 —3 Wrestlers

Section 8 —3 Wrestlers

Section 6 —3 Wrestlers

Section 5 —3 Wrestlers

Section 4 —3 Wrestlers

Section 3 —3 Wrestlers

Section 2 —3 Wrestlers

Section 1 —3 Wrestlers

Section 7 —1 Wrestler

Section 10—1 Wrestler

CSHAA —1 Wrestler

PSAL —1 Wrestler

Equal 32 Wrestlers

 

A very easy to manage, simple, entertaining NY State Final.

 

Again... During the state tournament, only the Sectional Champions would score points.

Edited by leshismore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still amazes me all the machinations people go through to justify the single state championship. The claims are always the same but what it comes down to is some people want it because it is a personal affront to them there isn't a "real" state champion. They come up with all sorts of goofy plans to "include" other divisions but ultimately still end up being exclusionary.

 

Here is another argument against the single state champ position.

 

Not all kids will wrestle DI. Many will wrestle in DII, DIII, NAIA, etc. and become our future coaches, parents, fund raisers, officials, club organizers, and fans. Taking away high school opportunities for kids risks our future and in my opinion extremely short sighted.

 

What does it hurt to have multiple state champs? How is it a bad thing? Did your life suddenly become meaningless because NY now has two champs? Would CA suddenly explode into total chaos with riots in the streets it there were two or even three champs?

 

 

Give me a new and convincing argument. Don't keep going back to the same old dry well of kids with loosing records shouldn't be there, or there are too many kids (as if more participation is a bad thing), or of course the old tried an true "real champ" argument.

 

 

PA has two, OH has three and those states seem to be getting along just fine. I don't think I really need to point out the success they've had on the national stage.

 

Wrestling has enough problems as it is, there is no reason to add more because a few people on message boards want a "real state champion." 

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One class will not help wrestling, two or three classes is probably best for all states with 125-200 schools per class average.

 

If you want to see wrestling die at small schools look at Indiana

Broken down by 3 even classes with 101 schools each

Qualifiers, Placers, Champs

1A(small)- 21, 5, 0

2A(med)- 62, 23, 1

3A(large)- 141, 84, 13

 

Last year there was 1, yes ONE, UNO state placer from the smallest 100 schools.

Edited by BobDole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lesh

 

Those are the same old tired arguments that just make no sense.

 

 

Here is a partial quote of something for which I cannot take credit but is correct.

 

"So many people are SOOO wrapped up in the one true champion they fail to see they are KILLING the sport. If you have a positive experience in the sport you are more likely to contribute later."

 

 

 

Lesh you still have not answered the basic questions. What does it hurt to have two or more champs? What is the downside? How is more participation bad?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lesh, is that right? I couldn't find the 7th/8th place matches in the brackets.

You are correct.  They were not in the brackets.  They just said, after the consi. semi-finals they were wrestling for 7 and 8th.  I never saw that before in NY.  But they wrestled them.  I left right after heavy, so I am not even sure they had them standing with the top six or gave them medals.  It was quite odd and disorganized.  Most likely the same people who took it from one division to 2 :-)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lesh

 

Those are the same old tired arguments that just make no sense.

 

 

Here is a partial quote of something for which I cannot take credit but is correct.

 

"So many people are SOOO wrapped up in the one true champion they fail to see they are KILLING the sport. If you have a positive experience in the sport you are more likely to contribute later."

 

 

 

Lesh you still have not answered the basic questions. What does it hurt to have two or more champs? What is the downside? How is more participation bad?  

 

Questions and statements:

What does it hurt to have two or more champs? What is the downside?

1] It takes away from being a "state champ".  You are not a "state champ", you are a partial "state champ".

2] It robs the fans the chance to see the best wrestlers actually wrestle each other. -- killing the sport????

3] It does not allow for kids to wrestle against the best and prove where they are in the standings.

4] How is one division KILLING the sport?  Is it KILLING the sport in NJ and CA?  Really?  Can you please explain details?

 

How is more participation bad?  

It does not decrease participation at all as can be seen in the proposal above.  Currently in NY D1 and D2 have 16 participants each=32 Wrestlers.

The above proposal also has 32 (which could easily be expanded to 64 which many tournaments have). They could easily gain MORE participation and have ONE champ--not less.  It is not that difficult to understand.  

Look at the Ironman, Beast, and Eastern States classic.  Over 64 man brackets, two days, ONE champ.  Are these events KILLING the sport too? NO, they give the fans the best show in the US and kids know where they stand. Should we split these into two also?

 

The "We want to increase participation" concept is a very weak argument that the insecure people who changed from one division to 2 went on about.  Problem is, it does not have any logical, rational thought involved with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you used exactly the same tired nonsensical arguments that have been used for years even though they have been refuted numerous times by may different people with examples from some of the biggest wrestling states.

 

 

 

 

In reality this is about you and your desires nothing else. Just admit it and then the discussion can change to what it really should be, your personal issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lesh, is that right? I couldn't find the 7th/8th place matches in the brackets.

I believe the correct answer is Yes and No.

 

No, the New York State Federation tournament does not place 7th and 8th. However, the NYSPHSAA (which does not include the private league members--like St. Anthony's) places top six so any weight that has an athlete that is not a member of the NYSPHAA place in it must also wrestle the 7th/8th match to determine placement.

 

This is kind of similar to the Big Ten not placing extra matches but wrestling them to determine placement for qualification.

 

In New York they run two tournaments in one. It is a strange setup where if you're a NYSPHSAA athlete you can't have a non-NYSPHAA athlete in placement but they can eliminate you from the tournament.

 

These final results show the difference in the two tournaments run as one. http://uploads.matburn.com/12/12399/168112661854f36da19b670.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the correct answer is Yes and No.

 

No, the New York State Federation tournament does not place 7th and 8th. However, the NYSPHSAA (which does not include the private league members--like St. Anthony's) places top six so any weight that has an athlete that is not a member of the NYSPHAA place in it must also wrestle the 7th/8th match to determine placement.

 

This is kind of similar to the Big Ten not placing extra matches but wrestling them to determine placement for qualification.

 

In New York they run two tournaments in one. It is a strange setup where if you're a NYSPHSAA athlete you can't have a non-NYSPHAA athlete in placement but they can eliminate you from the tournament.

 

These final results show the difference in the two tournaments run as one. http://uploads.matburn.com/12/12399/168112661854f36da19b670.pdf

That is....definitely "interesting" to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you used exactly the same tired nonsensical arguments that have been used for years even though they have been refuted numerous times by may different people with examples from some of the biggest wrestling states.

 

 

 

 

In reality this is about you and your desires nothing else. Just admit it and then the discussion can change to what it really should be, your personal issues.

Stripes.... poor stripes.... I am very sorry logical thought is so challenging. If 40 states are doing it... well, it must be right!!!!  Four legs goodtwo legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it is not a logical well thought out response, it is an emotional response. Unfortunately you either can't tell or won't admit it.

 

You can debate logic but not emotion, and you're being as emotional as a member of the fairer sex with PMS.

 

If it is so bad how come PA and OH have 5 state champs between them, have great success nationally, have great success in college (all levels), nobody from those states are coming on message boards complaining about it, and some how everybody manages to accept the greatness of the event instead of complain.

 

I don't see them coming on message boards saying that the kids a re 1/2 state champs, do you?  

 

 

It's only people like you having an emotional meltdown on message boards.

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When New York was debating the change ten years ago, I can't recall my stance on the issue. I think I was in support of the single champion and the expanded field. However, if that was not possible, I thought the change that was implemented was a good one.

 

Since then, I think it has been a good change. Running two brackets is easier than one larger bracket and helps retain more spectators late into the event helping to make it successful financially. I really think the two divisions has helped to spark some growth in the focus some schools and athletes give to wrestling that has been good for New York.

 

I can understand how Section 11 and Section 8 feel slighted since they have very few member schools in Division-II but I don't think it has diminished their championships.

 

The question, for me, was about California and after seeing New York and some other states multiple division success I am a big supporter of California going to two or three divisions. I really think California would see a big benefit as more athletes from the north and the south met late in the year. It would lead to more regional alliances and more athletes wanting to make the commitment to training.

 

If California wants to help Cal Poly, CSU-Bakersfield, Fresno State, and the other schools in the state be viable and have success, they should really consider going to a multiple division championship.

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...