New Region Six

[texas23]

Would they score as many points in the early rounds of state?

825620100[/snapback]

 

 

Who knows? You know how that works. Returning medals from any previous year and different weights, region champs, etc. You can not predict that, plus they do have to actually get on the mat to detemine who wins.

[michael.geasley]

Tex, I'm not sure of your affiliation, but you keep bringing up Bradley in this discussion. IMHO, Bradley does not enter into this discussion. Why? Because Bradley is not your typical wrestling team. Bradley is not your typical good wrestling team. Bradley is not even your typical great wrestling team. Bradley is in a class all there own, right now and for the last many years. No matter which regions send three and which regions send four, Bradley will not be affected. Okay?

 

Additionally, this discussion does not affect the best wrestlers in the State. For example, Kelly Felix is going to State next year no matter in which region he is placed. No matter how you split the regions, the best kids in the State will still have a chance to win the tournament next year.

 

This discussion is about the types of wrestlers that typically place second, third, fourth or just outside the money in their regions. If you are in new region seven, take a long off-season break, and then pack your bags, you're going to State next year. However, if you are in new region six or ten, pump weights, run, wrestle every off-season chance you get, and then hope you don’t have a couple of returning State placers in your weight class.

 

My concern is that there are regions, such as new region seven, that will send many, if not most, of their wrestlers to State (who will be ranked as high as first in their region), that would not even qualify in regions six or ten. That is just wrong!

 

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I guarantee I could come up with a better system than this. I simply will not have respect for an organization if it either fails to recognize this inequity or chooses to ignore it. This is not rocket science. It is not that hard to fix.

[michael.geasley]

A little more number crunching of the new regions results in last years State tournament:

 

Regions by their top FOUR teams’ 2005 State results:

 

Region - Points

10 - 42

6 - 48

4 - 46+Notre Dame

9 - 76

2 - 77

1 - 82

3 - 89

8 - 140

7 - 181

5 - 185

 

Regions by their top THREE teams’ 2005 State results:

 

Region - Points

10 - 27

6 - 29

4 - 23+Notre Dame

1 - 42

9 - 44

3 - 44

2 - 47

8 - 80

5 - 106

7 - 127

 

And yes, I realize the region 3 people will not like the way I added Notre Dame, sorry.

[michael.geasley]

In case someone else wants to crunch some numbers, I've provided the following information. For some reason, TSSAA has removed this information from their website, even though they have not removed the State Dual Tournament results. I wonder why they removed this information?

 

1.Bradley Central (Brad) 207; 2. Franklin (Frk) 194.5; 3. Soddy-Daisy (SD) 111; 4. Clarksville (Clk) 98.5; 5. Cleveland (Cleve) 94; 6. Farragut (Farr) 80.5; 7. Science Hill (SH) 76; 8. Collierville (Coll) 75; 9. Ridgeway (Ridge) 70; 10. Houston (Hou) 69; 11. Brentwood (Bw) 58; 12. Rossview (Ross) 52; 13. Blackman (Black) 50; 14. Hendersonville (Hv) 49; 15. Cordova (Cord) 45.5; 16. Overton (Ov) 43.5; 17. Union County (UnionC) 41; 18. Kingsport Dobyns Bennett (DBen) 38; 19. Page (Page) 36.5; 20. Germantown (Germ) 35; 20. East Ridge (ER) 35; 22. Ravenwood (Rw) 34; 23. Ooltewah (Ool) 31; 24. South-Doyle (SDoyle) 30; 24. Beech (Beech) 30; 24. Franklin Road Academy (FRA) 30; 27. Sullivan East (SullE) 29; 28. Harpeth (Harp) 28.5; 29. Hillsboro (Hb) 27.5; 30. Seymour (Sey) 27; 31. Brighton (Bright) 26.5; 32. Kenwood (Kenw) 25.5; 32. Bolton (Bolt) 25.5; 34. East Literature (ELM) 24; 35. Dickson County (DC) 23; 36. Oakland (Oakl) 22; 36. Maryville (Mary) 22; 38. Hixson (Hix) 21.5; 38. Cumberland County (CumCo) 21.5; 40. McGavock (McGav) 19.5; 40. Greeneville (Gr) 19.5; 42. Kingston (Kston) 19; 42. LaVergne (Lav) 19; 44. Karns (Karns) 18; 45. Chattanooga Central (CCent) 16; 46. Clarksville Northeast (NE) 14; 47. William Blount (WB) 13; 47. Bartlett (Bart) 13; 47. Bearden (Beard) 13; 50. Knoxville Halls (KHalls) 12.5; 51. Sevier County (SevCo) 12; 51. Red Bank (RB) 12; 53. Glencliff (Glen) 11; 54. Stratford (Strat) 10; 54. Hunters Lane (HL) 10; 54. Centennial (Cen) 10; 57. Cookeville (Cville) 9; 57. Tullahoma (Tull) 9; 59. Marion County (MarCo) 7.5; 60. Morristown East (ME) 7; 60. Mt. Juliet (MtJ) 7; 60. Gibbs (Gibbs) 7; 60. MLK (MLK) 7; 64. Boyd-Buchanan (Boyd) 6; 65. Elizabethton (Eliz) 5.5; 66. Cheatham County (CheaCo) 5; 66. Kingsbury (Kbury) 5; 66. David Crockett (DCrock) 5; 69. Fairview (Fview) 4; 69. Hillwood (Hw) 4; 69. Lookout Valley (LV) 4; 69. Wilson Central (Wilson) 4; 73. Tennessee High (TN) 3; 74. Chattanooga Christian (ChatCh) 2; 74. Greenback (Gback) 2; 74. White House (WH) 2; 77. Daniel Boone (DBoone) 1; 77. Montgomery Central (MonCen) 1; 79. Antioch (Ant) 0; 79. Creek Wood (CW) 0; 79. David Lipscomb (DL) 0; 79. Friendship Christian (FC) 0; 79. Forrest (Forr) 0; 79. Knoxville Fulton (Fult) 0; 79. Grace Christian (GraceC) 0; 79. Heritage (Her) 0; 79. Howard (How) 0; 79. Jefferson County (JeffCo) 0; 79. Lebanon (Leb) 0; 79. Morristown West (MW) 0; 79. McMinn Central (McMCen) 0; 79. McMinn County (McMCo) 0; 79. Millington (Mill) 0; 79. Nashville Christian (NCS) 0; 79. Rhea County (Rhea) 0; 79. Riverdale (Riv) 0; 79. Shelbyville (Shelb) 0; 79. Springfield (Sp) 0; 79. Whites Creek (WC) 0; 79. West Greene (WG) 0; 79. Warren County (WarCo) 0.

[texas23]

Tex, I'm not sure of your affiliation, but you keep bringing up Bradley in this discussion.  IMHO, Bradley does not enter into this discussion.  Why? Because Bradley is not your typical wrestling team.  Bradley is not your typical good wrestling team.  Bradley is not even your typical great wrestling team.  Bradley is in a class all there own, right now and for the last many years.  No matter which regions send three and which regions send four, Bradley will not be affected. Okay?

 

Additionally, this discussion does not affect the best wrestlers in the State.  For example, Kelly Felix is going to State next year no matter in which region he is placed.  No matter how you split the regions, the best kids in the State will still have a chance to win the tournament next year.

 

This discussion is about the types of wrestlers that typically place second, third, fourth or just outside the money in their regions.  If you are in new region seven, take a long off-season break, and then pack your bags, you're going to State next year.  However, if you are in new region six or ten, pump weights, run, wrestle every off-season chance you get, and then hope you don’t have a couple of returning State placers in your weight class.

 

My concern is that there are regions, such as new region seven, that will send many, if not most, of their wrestlers to State (who will be ranked as high as first in their region), that would not even qualify in regions six or ten.  That is just wrong!

 

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I guarantee I could come up with a better system than this.  I simply will not have respect for an organization if it either fails to recognize this inequity or chooses to ignore it.  This is not rocket science.  It is not that hard to fix.

825621231[/snapback]

Look Mike G., if you will pay attention to the thread you will see I did not bring Bradley up, Coach Delgado did. Based on his comments, I have responded in a more than respectful manners. (by the way I did bring up Cleveland, Soddy, McCallie, East Ridge, Hixon, Baylor and Chatt. Central).

 

All the rest of the post I agree with, even your comments about tools. (just kidding here, no disrespect intended).

 

I wonder what you mean by you have no respect for any organization that does not recognize you same thoughts on inequity? Seem kinda closed minded, in my opinion.

[texas23]

Hixon?  Tex, I know you've been within 30 minutes of this great wrestling community for  at least 30 years or so,  let's spell it right. 

825621458[/snapback]

 

 

I really don't care how they spell Hickson, my premise still does not change.

[Sommers]

Six is by far the hardest region in Nashville.  5, 7, and 8 are not even close.  They need to take some of the teams and spread them out.  Overton, Brenteood, Franklin, and FRA would probably win 5, 7, or 8.  Now they only get to send 3 wrestlers in each weigh class.  Some kids placing 4th in region 4, next year will have beaten some of the champions from the other regions.

825581217[/snapback]

 

Now this post above cannot be ignored by administration. In most cases, several wrestlers from these schools + Ravenwood and Page will clean house in regions 5, 7, and 8.

The top four can be so close in what was region 7 and the same is true in certain weight classes from "the left."

 

I believe Smyrna would have taken up to 8 guys (12-13 with everyone healthy) against the teams in our new region (2005-2006) rather than ZERO in region 7 last season. New regions 6 & 10 really need special consideration or there will be a few top wreslers left at home who could medal at state next season.

 

Can we ignor what region 8/10 did last year, and we can't forget the greatest pool of wrestlers scoring some 470 points from region 7 and the majority of those points coming out of what will be region 6. Now that's a powerful "hot bed" for wrestling.

 

soms

Edited March 17, 2005 by Sommers

[michael.geasley]

Look Mike G., if you will pay attention to the thread you will see I did not bring Bradley up, Coach Delgado did.  Based on his comments, I have responded in a more than respectful manners.  (by the way I did bring up Cleveland, Soddy, McCallie, East Ridge, Hixon, Baylor and Chatt. Central).

 

All the rest of the post I agree with, even your comments about tools. (just kidding here, no disrespect intended). 

 

I wonder what you mean by you have no respect for any organization that does not recognize you same thoughts on inequity?  Seem kinda closed minded, in my opinion.

825621390[/snapback]

Tex, One problem with posting on a board like this is that a comment that is not intended to be snide can come across that way. Such was my comment directed to you above. Additionally, I'm sure I did not pay enough attention to the posts above and incorrectly linked you with Bradley (however, I'm sure we all agree that Bradley is not a bad place to be linked).

 

Addressing your statement above about being close minded...I don't think I'm being close minded. For example, until I read some comments on here about region 10, I assumed region 6 was the only misaligned region. Once my eyes were opened to how tough region 10 will be, I have attempted to state their case, as well as that of region 6.

 

I'm not just blindly complaining about the misalignment of region 6. In this thread, I've stated analysis that I've done, based on the teams' past performances, which demonstrate how unfair the new alignment is. I invite discussion on my analysis and encourage others to do their own analysis. If I'm looking at this situation incorrectly, then show me where my assertions are incorrect.

 

The organization I was referring to in my previous post was TSSAA. If the final result of this issue is that TSSAA's leadership ignores this inequity, then I will not respect them for shirking their responsibility to the student athletes. HOWEVER, we have not yet reached the conclusion of this issue. I believe Mr. Carter is intelligent and resourceful, and he will make sure this situation is handled correctly.

[texas23]

Tex, One problem with posting on a board like this is that a comment that is not intended to be snide can come across that way.  Such was my comment directed to you above.  Additionally, I'm sure I did not pay enough attention to the posts above and incorrectly linked you with Bradley (however, I'm sure we all agree that Bradley is not a bad place to be linked).

 

Addressing your statement above about being close minded...I don't think I'm being close minded.  For example, until I read some comments on here about region 10, I assumed region 6 was the only misaligned region.  Once my eyes were opened to how tough region 10 will be, I have attempted to state their case, as well as that of region 6.

 

I'm not just blindly complaining about the misalignment of region 6.  In this thread, I've stated analysis that I've done, based on the teams' past performances, which demonstrate how unfair the new alignment is.  I invite discussion on my analysis and encourage others to do their own analysis.  If I'm looking at this situation incorrectly, then show me where my assertions are incorrect.

 

The organization I was referring to in my previous post was TSSAA.  If the final result of this issue is that TSSAA's leadership ignores this inequity, then I will not respect them for shirking their responsibility to the student athletes.  HOWEVER, we have not yet reached the conclusion of this issue.  I believe Mr. Carter is intelligent and resourceful, and he will make sure this situation is handled correctly.

825622420[/snapback]

 

Your numbers seem to indicate only the past year of performance. In most issues being considered, a sample so small would not typically be enough data to determine the direction of a decision. Teams perfomances will change from year to year and from high school careers of several students (over their 4 years of school). So, while I may agree with your numbers, I may also agree that it is only as good as the number of years you used as your sample.

 

Three years from now, take the same region line up that you used for your premise above this post and I would bet the outcome would be different than the one you have posted. (except of course, the champs would still be Bradley).

 

If the TSSAA does not agree with your numbers, then what I think I understand from your post, they have ignored the inequity and thus lose your respect. They may come to that conclusion without ever seeing your particular inequity, because they are looking into the future and not the recent past.

 

I guess we will just have to watch and see how wise they really are and agree wise is a position that may not be the same.

[CoachDelgado]

TSSAA regions are drawn up geographically. There is no consideration for the quality of competition within an area because that could change over time. That has always been the way they have been drawn up and is realy the only fair was of doing it. The regions have been decided for the next four years.

 

My premise was only that in regions that are not as deep wrestlers may get state tournament experience sooner than they would have in other regions and at higher region placings than they would in other regions. This accustoms them to the state tournament experience earlier, with better possibility for positive results by wrestling a lower placing wrestler, that fosters confidence and better results in future years. I am not talking about the eventual champs. They have to beat all comers anyway. I am talking about the utility point scorers for a team that can boost a team's score with a couple of early round wins. Clarksville capitalized on this in 2000 when the majority of their team was third or fourth year starters that had come out of a weak region 7. They were also all third or fourth year state qualifiers. They all had extensive state tournament experience that helped them in their quest for a state championship.

[michael.geasley]

Coach Delgado, I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the value of young wrestlers getting State Tournament experience early.

 

I don't agree that the regions are necessarily set. For example, it is my understanding that this year the TSSAA changed the criteria for competing at the State track meet with in a month of the beginning of this track season. I'm not criticizing TSSAA for this; I'm just using it as examples of the fact that the TSSAA has the ability to correct situations that they feel are wrong. I encourage the TSSAA to do this.

 

I understand that the regions are set up geographically. However, people decide the geographic boundaries. Gerrymandering is not necessarily a bad thing if it is done to ensure the student athlete is treated fairly.

 

Help me out here, I was under the impression that the reason the Chattanooga area regions were so small was because of the high level of competition there. Is that a complete myth? I really don't know. Obviously, if it is true, then I would ask for the same consideration for the region six and region ten areas, now that they have proven to be very strong wrestling areas.

 

Tex, I agree with you about the data I used being very limited. However, it is current data and therefore more valid than data from five years ago. Also, the date showed a significant variance between the top and bottom regions (if there had been only a small difference then I would not think it was a valid measure of the regions’ strengths). I would be willing to look at more historical data if the TSSAA would make it available to me. I also don't think the team point results at the State Tournament should be the only method of determining teams' strength. Medal count could be another method. Others might have additional suggestions. Additionally, as you suggested, if in five years the strength of the teams shift, then the regions could be realigned again.

 

One last comment...I realize that it could be that my complaints are valid, yet there are other factors, of which I am not aware, that prevent these complaints from being addressed. If there are, I just want to know what those factors are. Mr. Carter has a very demanding job, of which wrestling is a relatively small part. It is possible that TSSAA simply does not have a large enough staff to ensure complaints like this are addressed. I simply don't know, but would like to know.

[texas23]

Coach Delgado, I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the value of young wrestlers getting State Tournament experience early. 

 

I don't agree that the regions are necessarily set.  For example, it is my understanding that this year the TSSAA changed the criteria for competing at the State track meet with in a month of the beginning of this track season.  I'm not criticizing TSSAA for this; I'm just using it as examples of the fact that the TSSAA has the ability to correct situations that they feel are wrong.  I encourage the TSSAA to do this.

 

I understand that the regions are set up geographically.  However, people decide the geographic boundaries.  Gerrymandering is not necessarily a bad thing if it is done to ensure the student athlete is treated fairly.

 

Help me out here, I was under the impression that the reason the Chattanooga area regions were so small was because of the high level of competition there.  Is that a complete myth?  I really don't know.  Obviously, if it is true, then I would ask for the same consideration for the region six and region ten areas, now that they have proven to be very strong wrestling areas.

 

Tex, I agree with you about the data I used being very limited.  However, it is current data and therefore more valid than data from five years ago.  Also, the date showed a significant variance between the top and bottom regions (if there had been only a small difference then I would not think it was a valid measure of the regions’ strengths).  I would be willing to look at more historical data if the TSSAA would make it available to me.  I also don't think the team point results at the State Tournament should be the only method of determining teams' strength.  Medal count could be another method.  Others might have additional suggestions.  Additionally, as you suggested, if in five years the strength of the teams shift, then the regions could be realigned again.

 

One last comment...I realize that it could be that my complaints are valid, yet there are other factors, of which I am not aware, that prevent these complaints from being addressed.  If there are, I just want to know what those factors are.  Mr. Carter has a very demanding job, of which wrestling is a relatively small part.  It is possible that TSSAA simply does not have a large enough staff to ensure complaints like this are addressed.  I simply don't know, but would like to know.

825622746[/snapback]

 

 

Are you saying that regions should be redrawn based on the strength or preceived strength of the teams in a region? I question how fair it continues to be for all the temas to try and handicap the better teams each time it is determined that a progam has swayed the balance of strength in a region.

 

I would say how fair is it to any of the "less than strong competitve teams" that there are only three places going to the state tournament. Probably will not effect Cleveland and Bradley that much, but what about the other teams in that region.

 

You bring up good points and there is no easy answer to your complaints. What seems fair to one region, will seem like an assualt on another.