DI State Duals draw

[JustWrestle]

How about the State Duals being held at the Dunn Center at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville? Centrally located and all that. Have the Clarksville people run it.

[dragonwrestler]

What does everyone think about Collierville? Do they have a chance at gettin 4th or maybe even 3rd?

[delaWarr]

The use of member schools poses no facility expenses for the TSSAA. There are always personnel expenses, but the less complicated the facility is to man, the fewer personnel requirements. Any non-TSSAA facility poses those additional expenses. Also, if concessions are considered a benefit for the host, when a tournament is held in a non-TSSAA facility, those concessions don't benefit any TSSAA member school.

 

Many fans may remember the days when we were bursting at the seams, holding the State Individual in high school gyms: Notre Dame, Donelson, Baylor, Hillwood, Brainard, Glencliff, Overton...crowded, loud, instances of inconvenience, but a great atmosphere. The increased fan interest coincided with the move to a non-TSSAA member facility. Fan interest has continued to justify holding the tournament at a non-TSSAA member facility.

 

In trying to justify removing the Duals to a non-TSSAA site by looking at the success of the Individual State, one factor of fan interest may be overlooked. The Individual State may attract multiple fans from any given program/school with a single qualifer. This kind partisan fanbase is increased proportionally with the number of schools/programs that have wrestlers who qualify for the tournament. The Dual State does not have this ability to attract fans in this manner. This fan base at the Duals is limited to the 12 schools/programs involved. That leaves the spectators at the Duals beyond the partisan fans that follow their favorite teams to be made up of wrestling fans in general. The Duals at this point have not attracted this broader fan base in significant numbers. My guess is that until the seams begin to burst in the member facility, the entertainment of a non-member facility for the Duals is an exercise in futility.

[sly]

delaWarr, You have made some very good points and I agree with what you've said. The only suggestion I have is if we are going to use a memeber school site wouldn't it make more sense to have it in Nashville or Chattanooga where there is a larger wrestling community? Then coaches,wrestlers, former wrestlers and fans of schools that aren't participating in the state duals would likely come to the championships. I know in business to be successful you must have a good LOCATION. I think that the TSSAA needs to look for a location that will offer the best opportunity for the site to as you put it "burst at the seams". Your example for the Individual State tournament when it was held at member schools you mentioned schools that were located in Nashville or Chattanooga. I agree it forced us to a non-member facility. Why couldn't the same logic be true for the duals?

[Edited by sly on 1-28-03 9:18A]

[SilentJohn]

Absoultely agree with Sly, my team is in the duals every year but I am just not driving to Clarkesville to see them. I have, however, seen at least a little bit of the "traditional" state tournament every year since they brought it to Big Mac when I was in High School back in the 80's. And that includes a 10 year stint living in Middle Tenn.

 

I think in Chattanooga and Nashville you have more of a wrestling community at-large, made up of former wrestlers, coaches, officials, general fans, etc. This is bound to generate higher attendance it seems to me.

[delaWarr]

Sly, We could work through this discussion much more efficiently eye ball to eye ball rather then through this forum. Each angle on an issue has its counters...buts...what ifs...on the other hands...etc. In offering an answer and knowing what the logical counters are, which in turn encourages cutting them off at the pass, it creates a longer, more laborious response both in posting and in reading. But, here goes...

 

01. Agreed. Chattanooga or Nashville tournament location is likely the best for insuring the largest crowd.

 

02. Is Cleveland considered a part of the Chattanooga cluster? If so, then would Clarksville not be considered a part of the Nashville cluster? Would Cleveland be an acceptable site, but not Clarksville? (I realize here that the pro-active fan base in Bradley County is likely greater than Montgomery County, but on the other hand the potential fan base in Montgomery County is likely greater...six programs vs. two programs.)

 

03. I assume we are still entertaining the use of member school facilities, working toward "bursting at the seams." Therefore, we have to take into account how flexible the seams are.

 

04. It would be my contention that a site most likely (not an absolute) needs to be at one of the participating schools for some obvious reasons and would best be one that can host in consecutive years to establish a sense of constancy and stability (One of the good things about the Individual Tourney at McClellan/Roundhouse, is the familiarity, the consistent level of administration, the we-know-what-to-expect attitude that programs and fans, alike, have learned to enter into the whole State experience with.)

And it should be remembered that the sites are selected no later than the preceeding June meeting of the TSSAA Board.

 

05. Someone on some post or another suggested a site that can accomodate three mats single-file down the center of a gym floor, which in most cases maximizes the seating capacity and at the same time offers the best viewing opportunities for the spectators.

 

06. If any or all of the above issues are to be considered, where/who are these sites that can measure up? The most consistent programs year in and year out that are under the Chattanooga/Nashville umbrella seem to be Baylor,Ryan, MBA, McCallie, Bradley, Soddy Daisy, Overton, and Clarksville, with Brentwood High being down a notch.

 

07. Which of those programs mentioned have a gym floor that allows the ideal mat configuration and the greatest possible seating capacity which at the same time gives spectators the optimum view of their favorite team in action?

 

08. Brentwood High may te the closest to an ideal site: three mats down the center of the floor, full use of both bleachers, equal viewing opportunities for spectators, fairly central location. But Brentwood is not included every year.

 

09. Bradley was a good site and the tournament was well done, the bleachers were full, but I heard similar complaints about that site that I have heard about Clarksville.

 

10. Overton was "bursting at the seams", but again, the seams were constricted by the mat configuration, and a minor annoyance for some were the vertical support beams that partially block the mat from many seats.

 

11. Ryan was a good site, and hosted a good tournament with good crowds, but again, some of the same issues cropped up.

 

11. So here we are, which program can realistically, not idealistically, take the tournament and make it happen in the best interests of all concerned?

[sly]

All great points. I can't argue with you at all. Of course then here comes the B-U-T......................Why should Clarksville have exclusive rights on this event?

[Silverbullet]

Great points but I think you are overlooking the need to enlarge the DI field to 16 teams. Sixteen teams would preclude the use of any HS facility and still keep the tournament at 2 days.

 

16 teams = better wrestling = larger crowds = increased revenue

[delaWarr]

Sly, Re: "exclusive rights". Didn't Bradley have the Dual tournament for two or three consecutive years? I don't know whether there was an internal interruption (decision by Bradley) of that site or whether it was an external interruption (decision by TSSAA), but the TSSAA tends to continue with sites that are working well for as long as the principals of a site continue to want it and it continues to work well. When the Individual site left Chattanooga for consecutive years running back in the '70s, it was held at Glencliff High. If I remember correctly it continued there for as long as the personnel there were willing to host it. The next outside-of-Chattanooga run was while Ronnie Carter was at Overton. Seems that it remained there until Ronnie went on board with the TSSAA (this may be flawed memory). The tournament then had a short run at David Lipscomb, until Lipscomb could no longer host it. Since the Individual has returned to Chattanooga, how many years consecutively has it been held on the UTC campus? The TSSAA has always expressed a preference for the tournaments to be held at a more central location if an appropriate site can be found. If Bradley was interested in continuing to host the Duals the next year after they last hosted and TSSAA moved the tournament to Clarksville anyway, my guess is that it was to move it to a more central location. And my further prediction is that as long as Clarksville wants to host, and as long as they do a good job with it, and as long as the seams don't burst, and as long as the format (same # of teams) doesn't change, and as long as there is not an overwhelming groundswell to move it, it will continue there for a while. (Just to throw out a "What if...": Kenwood should beat Clarksville out of the Region 7 slot for a year or two. Would Clarksville want to continue to host? If not, then that gives the TSSAA the problem of finding another site and opens the door for some other program to step up.)

 

Silverbullet, When Ronnie Carter first introduced the Dual concept into the TSSAA tournament series, there were only four regions, with one team per region advancing on to the final round. In '91 there was a concern by some that a number two team from a given region might be good enough to challenge the top teams from other regions in the final four, so the next year the format was expanded to include the number two teams from the four regions...and thus was born the importance for being able to place second in the state. However, this concept did not diminish the importance of finishing first. Then when the TSSAA came up with the current 8 region system, the format reverted back to the original with only the region champion advancing. If it is desirable for the number two team in a region to be able to vie for the number two finish in the state, then the precedent has been set. It was changed and did accomplish that in '92. And, of course, there is always the possibility that a second time will be charm for a number two and, if it gets a chance, may knock off its own region champ for the State Championship.

[trackman]

What is the real reason that you want to double the size of the duals? Is it to get Cleveland to the duals this year? Next year? I think your answer will be that sometimes the two best teams in the state are in the same district, region, etc. So, because that may possibly occur, you want to double the size.

 

When was the last team a team from west Tennesse even made it to the final match? When was the last year a team from east Tennessee made it the the final? In fact, when was the last time a west Tennessee school won a first round match? If your logic is that some regions have the two best teams, why not eliminate the east and west.

 

Nothing against Cleveland because they˜re not the only school to suffer. Kenwood would have probably placed higher than half of the teams for the past two or three years too, but unfortunately they˜re in the same region as Clarksville.

 

Why not do it like we seed for duals? Keep the teams at eight. #1 in 2002 gets #1 seed; #2 in 2002 gets #2 seed, etc. Bring in four others from the regions that won their first round matches. And then eliminate the bottom four from the year before. That makes about about as much sense and would be a lot cheaper.

 

Why not redraw the district and regions too? Look at the size of the districts in Region #3 and Region #4 in Chattaooga and compare that to the size of Region #5 and #6. There are more schools in one district in middle Tennessee than the Chattanooga regions.

 

In #3 or #4 how many matches do you have to win to qualify for state as an individual? Compare that to #5 and #6.

[sly]

delaWarr, Bradley hosted it for two years I believe but why bring that up. I am not lobbying for Bradley to host the state duals year after year like Clarksville has. It makes my point even more. I don't think ANY member school should host a state championship when it's possible to hold the event at a non-member site, but if a member school should or must host the state duals then it shouldn't be on a continuous basis. If the state duals had been held at Soddy Daisy the last 3 or 4 years then I would be saying the same thing. What do you think people would be saying if Bradley had been the host site the past 5 or 6 years. They'd be screaming about how unfair it is and that's why they keep winning the championships. Just think about it.

[delaWarr]

Sly, I mentioned Bradley only because it appeared at the time that they may have been in line to become the host year after year. And they would have been a good choice because they take pride in being good hosts. I'm not disagreeing with you in the validity of your viewpoint. It is a legitimate concern. I am merely pointing out that the TSSAA has a concern that the tournament runs smoothly and that the needs are adequately met. Once they have found such a site, they tend to stick with it. Remember when Hunters Lane carried the ball in the beginning?