Poll - DI Large/Small Split

[russianbear]

Population growth by state since 2000 (Based on a 15 state sampling of either border states to Tennessee or popular wrestling states)

 

Georgia 20%

North Carolina 16%

Colorado 16%

South Carolina 13%

Iowa 12%

Virginia 11%

California 8%

Tennessee 6%

Indiana 5%

Alabama 4%

Illinois 4%

New York 3%

Ohio 1%

Pennsylvania (2%)

Kentucky (7%)

 

 

PERCENTAGE of participation increase for high school wrestling

 

Alabama 44% (3 divisions in 2000 and 3 divisions in 2010)

From 1,480 participants in 2000 to 2,138 in 2010

 

North Carolina 44% (3 divisions in 2000, split to 4 in 2008)

7,103 participants in 2000 to 10,238 in 2010

 

South Carolina 40% (3 divisions in 2000 and 3 divisions in 2010)

3,395 participants in 2000, 4,290 participants in 2010

 

Georgia 35% (5 divisions in 2000 and 5 divisions in 2010)

6,274 participants in 2000 and 8,490 in 2010

 

Illinois 35% (2 divisions in 2000, 3 divisions beginning 2003)

13,118 participants in 2000 17,814 in 2010

 

Virginia 26% (3 divisions in 2000, 3 divisions in 2010)

5,896 participants in 2000, 7,459 in 2010

 

Pennsylvania 17% (2 divisions in 2000, 2 divisions in 2010)

8,424 participants in 2000, 9,928 participants in 2010)

 

Kentucky 16% (1 division in 2000, 1 division in 2010)

1,407 participants in 2000, 1,633 participants in 2010

 

California 15% (1 division in 2000, 1 division in 2010)

23,858 participants in 2000, 27,469 participants in 2010

 

New York 15% (1 divisions in 2000, 2 divisions in 2010)

12,095 participants in 2000, 13,923 in 2010

 

Tennessee 14% (2 divisions in 2000, 2 divisions in 2010)

3,752 participants in 2000, 4,290 in 2010

 

Iowa (-4%) (3 divisions in 2000, 3 divisions in 2010)

6.927 participants in 2000, 6,665 participants in 2010

 

Indiana (-11%) (2 divisions in 2000, 2 divisions in 2010)

8,749 participants in 2000, 7,854 in 2010

 

Colorado (-11%) (4 divisions in 2000, 4 divisions in 2010)

5,683 participants in 2000, 5,067 in 2010

 

 

 

Important facts. First off one of the posters used Colorado as a model example. BAD EXAMPLE, as it is one of the few states where participation has DECLINED (dramatically) while the state population has increased (dramatically).

 

Second, it’s important to note that since 2000, only 3 of these states have actually had a split (North Carolina, New York and Illinois). And North Carolina has just recently split (08) which by no means has helped to increase participation from 2000 –2008.

 

Third I didn’t research the population growth as according to high school aged children, but instead just general population growth. For example though Georgia has had population growth of a whopping 20% over the last 10 years, I believe it would be safe to assume this percentage is even higher among high school aged children, as there was a tremendous influx with the Hope Scholarships.

 

Fourth, the amount of factors that could attribute to increased participation in high school wrestling are limitless. Everything from more coaches, to money, to weather, to popularity of other sports, to kids clubs, to middle school programs to how “nice†the state tourney, etc. all play a part.

 

But here is the bottom line:

 

There is no direct correlation among multiple state champions and participation rates. To infer that splitting divisions will increase participation is ABSOLUTELY ABSURB!

 

The only given that comes with splitting divisions is more medals and watered down competition.

[cchulk]

Looking at russian bear's numbers for increase in wrestling participants and number of divisions, it appears that all the growth of over 20% came from only the states that have more than 2 division. All of those with 1 or 2 divisions had less than 20% growth. Looks to me like, over time, that multiple divisions led to greater participation. Does any one else interpret it that way?

[russianbear]

Looking at russian bear's numbers for increase in wrestling participants and number of divisions, it appears that all the growth of over 20% came from only the states that have more than 2 division. All of those with 1 or 2 divisions had less than 20% growth. Looks to me like, over time, that multiple divisions led to greater participation. Does any one else interpret it that way?

Cchulk, there's a couple major flaws with your interpretation. First off we are only looking at 15 states. Secondly, how would you explain Colorado? 4 divisions and a 16% INCREASE in population. Yet an 11% DECREASE in participation. What would make you think Tennessee wouldn't move in the wrong direction if we split?

 

California has just 1 division. A 15% INCREASE in participation while the population only increased 8%.

 

The only thing we can derive from these numbers is that there is NO direct correlation for participation growth and splitting divisions.

Edited February 24, 2011 by russianbear

[ghouse]

Cchulk, there's a couple major flaws with your interpretation. First off we are only looking at 15 states. Secondly, how would you explain Colorado? 4 divisions and a 16% INCREASE in population. Yet an 11% DECREASE in participation. What would make you think Tennessee wouldn't move in the wrong direction if we split?

 

California has just 1 division. A 15% INCREASE in participation while the population only increased 8%.

 

The only thing we can derive from these numbers is that there is NO direct correlation for participation growth and splitting divisions.

 

Just the statistics guy coming out in me but what you have shown could indicate a direct correlation. Having one or two pieces of data that don't fit the trend doesn't indicate a lack or correlation, they just may indicate anomalies in data. There could actually stll be a strong correlation and you can have examples like California and Colorado.

[russianbear]

Just the statistics guy coming out in me but what you have shown could indicate a direct correlation. Having one or two pieces of data that don't fit the trend doesn't indicate a lack or correlation, they just may indicate anomalies in data. There could actually stll be a strong correlation and you can have examples like California and Colorado.

Work it Ghouse. The season is over perhaps you could develop a program to "correlate directly". I'm anxious to see the results.

 

But in all seriousness you've gotta believe the key to participation is kids clubs. When they know how to wrestler entering high school, they usually wrestle in high school. And here's a news flash - they usually do pretty well.

Edited February 25, 2011 by russianbear

[ghouse]

Work it Ghouse. The season is over perhaps you could develop a program to "correlate directly". I'm anxious to see the results.

 

But in all seriousness you've gotta believe the key to participation is kids clubs. When they know how to wrestler entering high school, they usually wrestle in high school. And here's a news flash - they usually do pretty well.

Couldn't agree more that the true key to growth from a number's level will be made at the youth level in TN. Not to mention that this is where the quality will improve the most. TN's biggest challenge from a youth wrestling perspective will be getting over our splintered nature where there are about 5-6 major groups running different and incompatible youth schedules around the state. The state will never hit critical mass until this problem is solved. I hope to one day see everyone competing in at least one organization with rules loose enough to allow competition in other organizations (conferences, out of state, etc.). However, that is only slightly relevant to the current topic.

 

All of that being said, I do belong to the camp that believes that a split would likely help drive up the participation numbers in the smaller schools. The purist in me doesn't think that is necessarily the best system but I do believe that there is a correlation between opportunities to succeed and participation (whether that is a good thing or not could be debated by anyone). I do not believe that wrestling in TN truly needs three divisions at the current point but because we (note not the wrestling we) have already forced the split between public and private 3 divisions is where we are likely to end up because the odds of recombining anything with the private schools are virtually non-existent. We need to work on strengthening each indviidual group / tournament as much as possible. I believe the AAA group will likely be fine... the challenges are in increasing participation at the A/AA and DII levels.

 

From a DII perspective the tournament could be improved many ways but I hope to see more of the smaller schools picking up wrestling (maybe got all privates back into DII) and eventually move ot a semi-state that qualifies the tournament down to about 8 with the current numbers. One of the more interesting ideas to help the competition I have heard served up, and I think I would support, is allowing multiple entries per team into the tournament. This is done in several states that I am aware of, particularly in the Northwest, and with the depth of some of the DII teams you would greatly increase the strength of the tournament overall.

[texas23]

Couldn't agree more that the true key to growth from a number's level will be made at the youth level in TN. Not to mention that this is where the quality will improve the most. TN's biggest challenge from a youth wrestling perspective will be getting over our splintered nature where there are about 5-6 major groups running different and incompatible youth schedules around the state. The state will never hit critical mass until this problem is solved. I hope to one day see everyone competing in at least one organization with rules loose enough to allow competition in other organizations (conferences, out of state, etc.). However, that is only slightly relevant to the current topic.

 

All of that being said, I do belong to the camp that believes that a split would likely help drive up the participation numbers in the smaller schools. The purist in me doesn't think that is necessarily the best system but I do believe that there is a correlation between opportunities to succeed and participation (whether that is a good thing or not could be debated by anyone). I do not believe that wrestling in TN truly needs three divisions at the current point but because we (note not the wrestling we) have already forced the split between public and private 3 divisions is where we are likely to end up because the odds of recombining anything with the private schools are virtually non-existent. We need to work on strengthening each indviidual group / tournament as much as possible. I believe the AAA group will likely be fine... the challenges are in increasing participation at the A/AA and DII levels.

 

From a DII perspective the tournament could be improved many ways but I hope to see more of the smaller schools picking up wrestling (maybe got all privates back into DII) and eventually move ot a semi-state that qualifies the tournament down to about 8 with the current numbers. One of the more interesting ideas to help the competition I have heard served up, and I think I would support, is allowing multiple entries per team into the tournament. This is done in several states that I am aware of, particularly in the Northwest, and with the depth of some of the DII teams you would greatly increase the strength of the tournament overall.

 

Just a comment on your last paragraph.

 

I wonder if you do allow several wrestlers from the same team into the brackets, if that does not directly affect the desired "opportunities" that a small school might have by starting a team. Now, even the small school that fill the role of filler for the D2 brackets may not even place if the two or three teams also are allowed to bring in their JV guys who are probably starters on most of their competitors teams.

[ghouse]

Just a comment on your last paragraph.

 

I wonder if you do allow several wrestlers from the same team into the brackets, if that does not directly affect the desired "opportunities" that a small school might have by starting a team. Now, even the small school that fill the role of filler for the D2 brackets may not even place if the two or three teams also are allowed to bring in their JV guys who are probably starters on most of their competitors teams.

 

Tex,

 

That is the exact counterpoint I have made previously when the argument has been brought up. I am not sure I know which way I would ultimately decide to vote on it were I given an opportunity (and I won't be lol). It is a very similar discussion to what is occurring with the DI A/AA and AAA split. You are weighing the opportunity cost of growing wrestling at the smaller levels against what some view to be a more difficult / prestigious tournament. Funny how in the long term both divisions could be facing the same types of challenges, just on different scales.

 

I agree that doing so would likely lessen the opportunities for some of the weaker, smaller, etc (pick the adjective you want that is politically correct enough) teams. The benefit is that it could strength the DII tournament which so many people (mainly DI folks, calling it like I see it) like to knock for not being tough enough. All of the discussions I have seen were around this idea combined with a potential qualifying tournament that would reduce our field to possibly 8 wrestlers with the current population (I think with the additional entries somewhere around 10-12 might be right but haven't thought it through enough yet). That would get rid of the old "everyone qualifies for state in DII" complaint. Honestly, I have always found that complaint odd as nobody in DII talks about being a state qualifier. If you go to the qualifying tournament for DII, even without adding the multiple entries per team, you are likely to be greatly reducing chances for the non-power teams because the majority of their kids won't make it through a qualifying tournament. Anyway, I am starting to drift so ending there.

[texas23]

Tex,

 

That is the exact counterpoint I have made previously when the argument has been brought up. I am not sure I know which way I would ultimately decide to vote on it were I given an opportunity (and I won't be lol). It is a very similar discussion to what is occurring with the DI A/AA and AAA split. You are weighing the opportunity cost of growing wrestling at the smaller levels against what some view to be a more difficult / prestigious tournament. Funny how in the long term both divisions could be facing the same types of challenges, just on different scales.

 

I agree that doing so would likely lessen the opportunities for some of the weaker, smaller, etc (pick the adjective you want that is politically correct enough) teams. The benefit is that it could strength the DII tournament which so many people (mainly DI folks, calling it like I see it) like to knock for not being tough enough. All of the discussions I have seen were around this idea combined with a potential qualifying tournament that would reduce our field to possibly 8 wrestlers with the current population (I think with the additional entries somewhere around 10-12 might be right but haven't thought it through enough yet). That would get rid of the old "everyone qualifies for state in DII" complaint. Honestly, I have always found that complaint odd as nobody in DII talks about being a state qualifier. If you go to the qualifying tournament for DII, even without adding the multiple entries per team, you are likely to be greatly reducing chances for the non-power teams because the majority of their kids won't make it through a qualifying tournament. Anyway, I am starting to drift so ending there.

 

I would doubt that anyone would talk about being a state qualifier in D2 as well,,,,it does not apply. I am also not sure I would call the lack of strength a complaint but more of an observation.