New Region Six

[texas23]

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.

825622695[/snapback]

 

 

Coach I hear you about the 2000 season, but could it also be that their wrestler were that good over their four year careers? I disagree with your premise, but I understand what you mean.

[michael.geasley]

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? 

825622746[/snapback]

 

Coach D, Tex or anyone else that knows, I'm reprinting my earlier question so I can get an answer. Does anyone know definitively? Thanks

[michael.geasley]

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

825622758[/snapback]

Yes, I think the regions should be redrawn to attempt to level the strength of the teams in each region. No, I don't think this should be done each year, but every four or five years would be nice, because some teams are going to improve and some teams are going to decline. Analysis, such as I have done previously in this thread, could be used to determine teams' strength. NO SOLUTION WILL BE PERFECT. But not attempting to address the problem at all is the worse solution, IMHO. When you said "handicap", is that the same as evaluate, rate, rank, etc. or were you using it in another fashion?

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

825622758[/snapback]

After Bradley and Cleveland, the next two teams in region 3 are Cumberland County and Chattanooga Central, the 38th and 45th teams, respectively, in this year's State Tournament. Compare that to region 10 where the 3rd and 4th best teams in the region were Houston and Cordova, the 10th and 15th best teams at the State Tournament. Region 6's third and fourth best teams were Overton and Page, the 16th and 19th best teams in the State Tournament.

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

825622758[/snapback]

To be as fair as possible the TSSAA should use measurable criteria to determine the regions and reevaluate the regions periodically.

 

Thanks for your feedback, can you hand me a tissue?

Edited March 19, 2005 by michael.geasley

[texas23]

Coach D, Tex or anyone else that knows, I'm reprinting my earlier question so I can get an answer.  Does anyone know definitively?  Thanks

825623835[/snapback]

 

 

I have no idea the thought process used for the Chattanooga regions.

[texas23]

Yes, I think the regions should be redrawn to attempt to level the strength of the teams in each region.  No, I don't think this should be done each year, but every four or five years would be nice, because some teams are going to improve and some teams are going to decline.  Analysis, such as I have done previously in this thread, could be used to determine teams' strength.  NO SOLUTION WILL BE PERFECT.  But not attempting to address the problem at all is the worse solution, IMHO.  When you said "handicap", is that the same as evaluate, rate, rank, etc. or were you using it in another fashion?

 

After Bradley and Cleveland, the next two teams in region 3 are Cumberland County and Chattanooga Central, the 38th and 45th teams, respectively, in this year's State Tournament.  Compare that to region 10 where the 3rd and 4th best teams in the region were Houston and Cordova, the 10th and 15th best teams at the State Tournament.  Region 6's third and fourth best teams were Overton and Page, the 16th and 19th best teams in the State Tournament. 

 

To be as fair as possible the TSSAA should use measurable criteria to determine the regions and reevaluate the regions periodically.

 

Thanks for your feedback, can you hand me a tissue?

825623867[/snapback]

 

 

In the first question regarding redrawing, I disagree. I think the premise for redrawing should be done to even the teams in a close number between geographic regions, not the success of any future team and then changing on a 4 or five year basis. I do not believe that changing a team based on the previous four of five years, when the students (wrestlers) we will gone from the team and the teams composition changes every year. Handicap is the correct word, your method attempts to take any precieved strength advantage away and in your view even the regions. In horse racing, a precieved faster horse carries weights to "hadndicap" the precieved advantage of a race. This is a similar concept.

 

On your thoughts about using the previous year as a measuring stick, on issue with that method is that when you get out of the top ten or so, and certainly out of the top twenty, the ranking of place finishing is not an accurate way to look at teams. the difference between say 36 and 45 maybe a few points at best. The only significant point speards that might show the strenght of a program occur in at the top of the ranking, outside of the top 10 or 15 it becomes a very blurry analysis, IMO>.

 

I do appreciate your request for a tissue, at least you have your humor with whine.

[michael.geasley]

In the first question regarding redrawing, I disagree.  I think the premise for redrawing should be done to even the teams in a close number between geographic regions, not the success of any future team and then changing on a 4 or five year basis.  I do not believe that changing a team based on the previous four of five years, when the students (wrestlers) we will gone from the team and the teams composition changes every year.  Handicap is the correct word, your method attempts to take any precieved strength advantage away and in your view even the regions.  In horse racing, a precieved faster horse carries weights to "hadndicap" the precieved advantage of a race.  This is a similar concept.

 

On your thoughts about using the previous year as a measuring stick, on issue with that method is that when you get out of the top ten or so, and certainly out of the top twenty, the ranking of place finishing is not an accurate way to look at teams.  the difference between say 36 and 45 maybe a few points at best.  The only significant point speards that might show the strenght of a program occur in at the top of the ranking, outside of the top 10 or 15 it becomes a very blurry analysis, IMO>.

 

I do appreciate your request for a tissue, at least you have your humor with whine.

825624009[/snapback]

Tex, "Handicap", I didn't intend to imply you were using the wrong word, I just wanted to know what you meant when you used it. I'm still missing your point that leveling the regions handicaps the stronger teams. It's just like seeding a tournament. My way most of the better wrestlers meet at the State tournament instead of many of them being eliminated prematurely in the region tournaments.

 

I agree with your point about the strength of teams blurring after the top echelon of teams. But, using the last four years data (weighting the most current year), would give a more accurate measure of the strength of each program. Kids change from year to year, but the strength of the programs change slowly.

[Sommers]

Well Michael, it appears your point was not replied to and indicates you made a good one. Because of the comparison to seeding, it appears you have driven home your premise which may be hard to refute.

 

Just a thought:

Having an open bid/invitation per weight class, by region, may be a very valid consideration by the TSSAA. I really don't know how, but by doing this via a coaches poll/independent ranking?/returning medalist/previous qualifier/record may work, in my opinion.

 

soms

[texas23]

Well Michael, it appears your point was not replied to and indicates you made a good one.  Because of the comparison to seeding, it appears you have driven home your premise which may be hard to refute.

 

Just a thought:

Having an open bid/invitation per weight class, by region, may be a very valid consideration by the TSSAA.  I really don't know how, but by doing this via a coaches poll/independent ranking?/returning medalist/previous qualifier/record may work, in my opinion.

 

soms

825626241[/snapback]

 

 

Sommers,

 

Sometimes arguments are best left alone. Mike G. made his point, there was no reason to continue to debate, he has a valid view which is different than the one I was trying to move forward with him.

 

Of course you agree, your from Smyrna.

[Sommers]

Sommers,

 

Sometimes arguments are best left alone.  Mike G. made his point, there was no reason to continue to debate, he has a valid view which is different than the one I was trying to move forward with him. 

 

Of course you agree, your from Smyrna.

825626381[/snapback]

 

Of course you would not agree, you're from Bradley. Different perspectives I suppose, but I really don't see the outcome of next year's tounament changing much for a BC team qualifying through any of the 10 regions; at least for the "Champion Bears."

Edited March 21, 2005 by Sommers

[Sommers]

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.

825621356[/snapback]

 

Why is much of the Individual state info now removed? I e-mailed the folks involved with the TSSAA site a few weeks ago and I haven't gotten a response yet.