Is using state medals to allocate qualifiers equitable? NO, and here are the numbers.

[tfragoza]

It would appear that in the last 4 years, the bottom 2 qualifiers from the NCS and CCS outperform most bottom 2 state qualifiers from other sections.

This adds to the evidence that using medal count to allocate qualifiers is not equitable. These numbers show that the CCS and NCS 2's, 3's and 4's consistently outperform the CS and SS 8's, 9's and 10's. Furthermore, the number of medals earned by the bottom 2 state qualifiers is extremely telling, NCS 10, CCS 6, SS 1, CS 0.

What's the answer? Easy, separate Ca. into Divisions. But until that happens a more equitable way should be found to allocate State Qualifiers. "That's the way we've always done it," is just not cutting it.

[Cowboy]

Let me guess, you coached a good team and want more qualifiers. Next guess, since you had all this time to break down the numbers, you must be a PE teacher. Here's the solution Jack, get your section a team like Buchanan and let them earn all the medals, and then you get more qualifiers. But until that happens, "That's the way we've always done it," is how its going to be. And that's the bottom line. Because Stone Cold Said so!

[Rodriguez]

It would appear that in the last 4 years, the bottom 2 qualifiers from the NCS and CCS outperform most bottom 2 state qualifiers from other sections.

This adds to the evidence that using medal count to allocate qualifiers is not equitable. These numbers show that the CCS and NCS 2's, 3's and 4's consistently outperform the CS and SS 8's, 9's and 10's. Furthermore, the number of medals earned by the bottom 2 state qualifiers is extremely telling, NCS 10, CCS 6, SS 1, CS 0.

What's the answer? Easy, separate Ca. into Divisions. But until that happens a more equitable way should be found to allocate State Qualifiers. "That's the way we've always done it," is just not cutting it.

You want equity, lets do that! Im an SS AD and I was an SS coach. Have you ever considered the fact that the southern section is 40% of the state (I made that number up) it might be higher. Since we are going by equity lets just do it by # of schools. The SS should get 40% of the qualifiers, or more.

[Cougar Coach]

Your stats are skewed. If you took the bottom 2 of 4 qualifiers, that is different than the 9/10 (bottom 2) of SS or CS section...
How would the 9/10 of NC or CCS do at State??? Not very well I would assume.

[scott lawson]

I don't claim to know much, but I do know a little bit about a lotta bit. I actually do not know how many qualifiers NC section gets, but I did notice that the 2023 data included NC 1 and 2, where as previous data showed NC 2 and 3. Did you lose a qualifier ?

If we are going to compare bottom qualifiers, can you also do a comparison of the top qualifiers ? The reality of the smaller sections is that the top 2-3 qualifiers and the bottom 2-3 wrestlers are the same, so using your same logic how did they do against top qualifiers?

I get your argument, at some point why not make it a true 48 man bracket, put all the last qualifiers from each division in the pigtail round and wrestle them head to head.

As for the SS athletic director and former coach, why are you bashing on the PE teachers? When my brother calls me everyday while watching kids lift weights I know how hard he worked to prepare that lesson plan. He also spends a lot of time grading as well. You just sound like another History guy ( like him), that is jealous that you decided to teach history

[CalmerThanYouAre]

This other Lawson brother looked me dead in the eyes and told me there are 18 letters in the alphabet. Its nice of you to claim him in public.

[Rodriguez]

I don't claim to know much, but I do know a little bit about a lotta bit. I actually do not know how many qualifiers NC section gets, but I did notice that the 2023 data included NC 1 and 2, where as previous data showed NC 2 and 3. Did you lose a qualifier ?

If we are going to compare bottom qualifiers, can you also do a comparison of the top qualifiers ? The reality of the smaller sections is that the top 2-3 qualifiers and the bottom 2-3 wrestlers are the same, so using your same logic how did they do against top qualifiers?

I get your argument, at some point why not make it a true 48 man bracket, put all the last qualifiers from each division in the pigtail round and wrestle them head to head.

As for the SS athletic director and former coach, why are you bashing on the PE teachers? When my brother calls me everyday while watching kids lift weights I know how hard he worked to prepare that lesson plan. He also spends a lot of time grading as well. You just sound like another History guy ( like him), that is jealous that you decided to teach history

To quote a not so fat PE teacher "you have bumped your head"

[HallmeyerDaniel]

I don't see how we can increase State to 48 or 64 without completely watering down the qualifying meets. SS has 400 schools, and the 10 that make it through are killers. How many of #11-20 could legitimately win 2 matches at state? Same question for Central.I don't think the problem gets solved by adding more qualifiers. The quality level drops off pretty quickly.

Central doesn't have the depth to go 48 at Masters. The Clovis and Bakersfield schools are taking 5 spots (minimum), so that leaves 5 spots for the rest of the section to squabble over, if they don't hit a nasty draw. Would that mean more of my kids got to Masters? Maybe. But I'm not yet sold on the value of qualifying to Masters when you have no realistic chance to make the quarters. Is the 0-2 BBQ making kids better for next year?

The problem is the consolidation of the power programs. The playing field is not level. We've reached a point where parents and kids would rather be third on the depth chart at a top 10 program, than be the king of whatever school they moved away from. There's certainly value to being in a room with that level of teaching and intensity, but if you're never going to make the roster, what's the point? You could be a state qualifier at a dozen other places.

It's time to break it up. The only way to break the stranglehold on talent that Clovis, Bakersfield, Gilroy, Poway, and the others have is to create opportunities for kids to get some spotlight away from them. We need divisions. More opportunities for success. More opportunities to get quality kids recognized. Create incentives to stay home and wrestle for the natural programs.

I do like the state meet as it is. I share the pride in saying that California, the biggest state in the US, has 1 state champ. But it's time to move on. We have national rankings now, and they will still be there with divisions. Five Counties and MidCals and DocB will still be there, for the kids to test themselves against the best. Doc B is already tougher than our State meet. Has our reputations suffered because of it? Not at all.

Besides, the primary beneficiaries of adding qualifiers are the power schools. How many times did ANY school (not named Poway) take 14 to state before we went to 40 in the bracket? Before we had 40 in the bracket, 120 team points was a stone cold lock for a title. Now it won't even get you in the top 5.

I think having 3 or 4 divisions would be a better solution than trying to tinker around the margins for "equity." D1 is open, any team can enter. D2 is for largest schools, maybe 2200 and up. D3 is for 1500-2199. D4 is for under 1500. That's just back of the envelope math. I'm sure it can be improved, but that's the basic idea. Multiply enrollment by 4 for private schools, to compensate for the ability to recruit, among other advantages. Schools would not move divisions, except to move in or out of the Open division. I see nothing wrong with a program with 1200 kids winning state for 17 years in a row, against schools similarly situated.

[CalmerThanYouAre]

wait a second.... you are saying we can't go from 48 to 64 without watering down the qualifiers? So the cut off line between "good" and "watered down" is the top 48? I suspect that the 49th - 64th best guys in the state at each weight are 99.99% as good as the 32-48 guys. Silly argument.

[HallmeyerDaniel]

I'm saying I don't think adding 41-48 or 41-64 would increase the quality of the event. We don't often see a kid from outside the top 20 make the podium.
And I'm saying that the extra qualifiers would gravitate towards the major sections, and those sections may be strong at the top, but they don't have the depth to provide more wrestlers who have a shot at the podium.
Because the goal is the podium. There's no sense in adding a bunch of kids to postseason events, when they are just cannon fodder. That's participation trophy thinking.

Am I doing the same when I suggest we need divisions? Maybe, but for a different reason. I want those kids to actually achieve something that is mostly outside their reach at the moment.
Per Adam Tirapelle:
"The Top 10 teams in the state this year scored 1,648 team points and had 62 placers with 11 champs. The rest of the state (~900 schools) managed 2,056 team points and 50 placers with 3 champs. 1% of the teams accounted for ~50% of the overall success statewide.
Buchanan (CS)
Poway (SD)
Clovis Hs (CS)
Palm Desert (SS)
St. John Bosco (SS)
Temecula Valley (SS)
Clovis North (CS)
Calvary Chapel [SA] (SS)
Gilroy (CC)
Vacaville (SJ)
We're suffocating a majority of the state with the current format. It's a trend worth analyzing."

Something needs to be done. I think divisions is the solution. I think giving those kids an opportunity to get out of the shadow cast by the monster programs will be good.

[OCWrestlingFan]

Equity...so tired of this word. Here we go again...divisions. Why divisions? So a D5 state champ who would never even qualify for state would share the stage with a D1 state champ? That's not equity, that's charity. If divisions are created then the D5ers wrestle for their "state championship" at a local high school so they don't saturate the Mechanics Bank Arena with the real talent and state champs.

[HallmeyerDaniel]

I think having the events at multiple sites would be fine. I don't think anyone would assume that the D3 champ would be equal to the D1 champ, unless they met during the season. I don't think they should be "sharing the stage."

I suggested 4 divisions above, but I'd be ok with 3. 5 seems like a lot. The details don't matter so much at the moment to me. It's the concept that matters, and then we work out the details later.

When 10 programs are earning more than half the medals and 75% of the champions, we have a problem. They are suffocating the rest of the state.

[scott lawson]

I have to agree i like the one division for state model, it allows you to feel special

I am all about the competitive equity model, at the league, county, and even CIF level. However, once you get to the state meet it should all be together.
How many mid season tournaments have you seen out of state placers or champs, get seeded high on criteria only to "no place".

[CalmerThanYouAre]

Uneven qualification processes are a symptom of a lazy group of people leading the state. In MOST states, regional assignments change yearly, and somehow they make it work. Is it cool for a San Francisco or Oakland kid to win 2 matches against weak competition and then they make it to state while other schools are going through insane qualifies? No. Thats stupid. There should be 8 "masters" tournaments in the state, with each sending 5 to state. These regions should change every year and should be done by putting a ruler on the state and moving it up the state until you get 1/8th of the rolling 5 year total of state medals. 560 medals handed out in a 5 year span. Every 70 medals, you close that region and start the next. The regions can be divided into sub-regional events of 2 or 4 tournaments, resulting in a 40 man bracket at the region for every 100 schools.

[Cowboy]

No Calmer. No.
You and tfragoza are not off to a good start here.

[Rodriguez]

Equity...so tired of this word. Here we go again...divisions. Why divisions? So a D5 state champ who would never even qualify for state would share the stage with a D1 state champ? That's not equity, that's charity. If divisions are created then the D5ers wrestle for their "state championship" at a local high school so they don't saturate the Mechanics Bank Arena with the real talent and state champs.

Stephen Neal placed 4th at the California state tournament, by your logic he shouldn't have wrestled in college because he wasn't a state champion. I will give you some time to google Stephen Neal. There are a lot of kids that don't win state that have great college careers, Liam Cronin comes to mind, but with a state medal they get a look and they have the confidence to say "I placed in state, I can wrestle in college" there are a lot of kids out there that could have should have wrestled in college but because they didn't win a medal at state they never got a chance or gave themselves a chance. I believe by expanding to divisions more schools will look at California kids, but I guess I'm just looking at the big picture and to me that's much more important than having a single state champion.

[HallmeyerDaniel]

Stephen Neal placed 4th at the California state tournament, by your logic he shouldn't have wrestled in college because he wasn't a state champion. I will give you some time to google Stephen Neal. There are a lot of kids that don't win state that have great college careers, Liam Cronin comes to mind, but with a state medal they get a look and they have the confidence to say "I placed in state, I can wrestle in college" there are a lot of kids out there that could have should have wrestled in college but because they didn't win a medal at state they never got a chance or gave themselves a chance. I believe by expanding to divisions more schools will look at California kids, but I guess I'm just looking at the big picture and to me that's much more important than having a single state champion.

Excellent point. Not every kid that wins California has the style, work ethic, and desire to succeed at the next level. It can be and often is a different skill set. For that reason, a lot of programs don't bother with us. More medalists would put more kids on their radar, including late bloomers who are just starting to grow into their bodies.

[CalmerThanYouAre]

No Calmer. No.
You and tfragoza are not off to a good start here.

Calmer than you are.

[Cowboy]

calm.jpg
I'm perfectly calm, Dude.