Division breakdown 2016-17

[CLC FAN]

Putting Rapids into the Wausau/Hudson sectional is bullsh*t
They made the toughest sectional in the state even tougher.

Toughest fluctuates as you know - I don't see that sectional by far being the toughest.  I see four (of eight) very even and tough sectionals.

I'd say Farve is closer to correctly stating the quality of Sectional A.  That is the only sectional that has been better than average every year for the past 10 years.  For the past 4 years, it's been the best in D1.  This past year, Sectionals A and E were so good that 5 of the others were worse than average. 


When looking at the following graph, remember that a low APS is better, because APS measures what place the average finisher from a given sectional would take

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J-PvV0-_wjUr2EF3KuTGKH-UekD3gyQKl9753v0cyLE/pubchart?oid=600423223&format=interactive

[ElectricGuy]

Putting Rapids into the Wausau/Hudson sectional is bullsh*t
They made the toughest sectional in the state even tougher.

Toughest fluctuates as you know - I don't see that sectional by far being the toughest.  I see four (of eight) very even and tough sectionals.

I'd say Farve is closer to correctly stating the quality of Sectional A.  That is the only sectional that has been better than average every year for the past 10 years.  For the past 4 years, it's been the best in D1.  This past year, Sectionals A and E were so good that 5 of the others were worse than average. 


When looking at the following graph, remember that a low APS is better, because APS measures what place the average finisher from a given sectional would take

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J-PvV0-_wjUr2EF3KuTGKH-UekD3gyQKl9753v0cyLE/pubchart?oid=600423223&format=interactive

Coach - I would have to see the math behind this chart - not really sure that chart is screaming any facts, just a busy graph. 

The best sections each year change, ebbs and flows - IMO

Seems like the playing field has leveled and now you have 1 or 2 sections of (3-4 sections) of the eight that are more dominat and that bounces back and forth each year.  Again IMO

Looking at last year and even adding Rapids to (A) you had: 

A - placing 17
E - placing 15

A - Top 3 - 8 (Returning 2)
E - Top 3 - 11 (Returning 6)

ebbs and flows.........  Even fictitiously adding in Rapids to 2016's totals above (A) was not significantly better and certainly not lined up to be better that (E) in 2017.

[CLC FAN]

How about this for a more concise synopsis:  WI Rapids was one of the top Teams in Sectional B.  They were removed from Sectional B (the lowest performing sectional in the state last year) and put into the highest performing sectional in the state last year - Sectional A.

[ElectricGuy]

Yep I get that they were moved.

Maybe in the past that would of moved the needle quite a bit, but adding WR to A didn't move the needle much for 2016's comparison. 

Also, without Rapids figured into 2016's A (below),  I don't see how "A" was the top sectional in 2016.  How do you figure that?
A - placing 15
E - placing 15

A - Top 3 - 7
E - Top 3 - 11

[foose4]

How about this for a more concise synopsis:  WI Rapids was one of the top Teams in Sectional B.  They were removed from Sectional B (the lowest performing sectional in the state last year) and put into the highest performing sectional in the state last year - Sectional A.

But the Rapids of next year is nothing like the Rapids of 2015-16.  Losing Spray, Benitz, Fuller, Jisko, Hall, Timm, Vruwink and others and not having that much to replace them.

We need to remember that Rapids isn't going to be the same type of team they were in the past.

[ElectricGuy]

How about this for a more concise synopsis:  WI Rapids was one of the top Teams in Sectional B.  They were removed from Sectional B (the lowest performing sectional in the state last year) and put into the highest performing sectional in the state last year - Sectional A.

But the Rapids of next year is nothing like the Rapids of 2015-16.  Losing Spray, Benitz, Fuller, Jisko, Hall, Timm, Vruwink and others and not having that much to replace them.

We need to remember that Rapids isn't going to be the same type of team they were in the past.

+1 

[thequad]

 It makes much more sense to me to count points scored by all the wrestlers from a sectional not just the place winners. Counting only the place winners gives no credit to the other qualifiers. This could make a big difference. Also counting pin points shows the how much better a wrestler is than his the other wrestler. Just like you do in every other tournament. Also we do not know how many points he is giving for each place winner. How much more is 1st worth than 2nd and so on. And who decides? This makes much more sense to me.

[ElectricGuy]

It makes much more sense to me to count points scored by all the wrestlers from a sectional not just the place winners. Counting only the place winners gives no credit to the other qualifiers. This could make a big difference. Also counting pin points shows the how much better a wrestler is than his the other wrestler. Just like you do in every other tournament. Also we do not know how many points he is giving for each place winner. How much more is 1st worth than 2nd and so on. And who decides? This makes much more sense to me.

Section A - Score (from TW) - 257   (Adding WR to it) 287
Section E - Score (from TW) - 285

[CLC FAN]

Yep I get that they were moved.

Maybe in the past that would of moved the needle quite a bit, but adding WR to A didn't move the needle much for 2016's comparison. 

Also, without Rapids figured into 2016's A (below),  I don't see how "A" was the top sectional in 2016.  How do you figure that?
A - placing 15
E - placing 15

A - Top 3 - 7
E - Top 3 - 11

Here's my data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bQfJV0N9Pa9RZxn-YVOqOZzPI7752696jaSbeFIcJjg/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true

One of us must be counting someone in the wrong category.  I have Sectional A with 18 place winners to Sectional E's 15. 

The way APS gets achieved is that I add the place for all 28 state qualifiers.  If a kid didn't place, he gets the average between 7th and 16th place - 11.5.  Because the best any sectional can do in one weight is to take 1st and 2nd, the best any sectional could possibly do is  14*(1+2) = 42 as a sum.  42/28 = 1.5.  This would be a "perfect" APS.  The worst any sectional could do is have nobody place... 14*(11.5+11.5) = 322 as a sum.  322/14= 11.5.  This would be the worst APS.  I can go into why I prefer this to straight up points earned at sectionals, but I'm guessing we may just have to agree to disagree.

[ChargerDad]

It's by FAR the toughest D2 Sectional, I think by average placement at state, 9 of the last 10 years if my memory serves me right..

Here are the D2 APS numbers going back to 2007.  D2 Sectional B was not the highest performing sectional this year at state - Sectional C was.  For the 8 years prior, Sectional B was either toughest or tied for it. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J-PvV0-_wjUr2EF3KuTGKH-UekD3gyQKl9753v0cyLE/pubchart?oid=966026602&format=interactive

Yea, I hadn't seen this years numbers yet.   So now 2 years in the last 10 where it wasn't at least tied for toughest..   Still a fairly impressive level of performance.

[thequad]

 CLC I can make no sense out of this at all. I can't see why you want to make it so complicated, When you could score it like every other tournament. How do you come up with these numbers?

[ChargerDad]

CLC I can make no sense out of this at all. I can't see why you want to make it so complicated, When you could score it like every other tournament. How do you come up with these numbers?

It's the average placement of wrestlers from a sectional.  Not perfect, but a pretty good reflection of how a sectional does at state.. Both tournament points or average placement reflect the performance of the qualifiers that made state.. Neither one reflects the depth of the sectional beyond the qualifiers, and therefore are unable to reflect the depth of a sectional, but that would be extremely difficult to express quantitatively..

[DarkKnight]

i think its all quack.

Wait til January to figure up regional/sectional assignments, we have to modernize someday, we are using a system over 50 years old. It works, but there can be a better way.

[ChargerDad]

i think its all quack.

Wait til January to figure up regional/sectional assignments, we have to modernize someday, we are using a system over 50 years old. It works, but there can be a better way.

What criteria would you use to make up Regional/Sectional assignments doing it that way??

[wrastle63]

An easy way would be a coaches meeting like in other sports. Obviously wrestling is a little different being team and individual. Could be based on tournament success, dual wins, etc. Obviously most coaches should know for the most part the best teams. At least that way you get the best teams to the sectional tournament. I have been to some team sectionals were two of the teams are way outclassed and there are teams sitting at home who would be much better matchups. Would be better for everyone involved if the best 4 teams are at team sectionals for D2 and D3.