Somers wins Super 16
-
- January
- 27
  My colleague, Tony Malakian, covered the Super 16 and witnessed Somers overtake Fox Lane. The Tuskers finished with 156 points to Fox Lane’s 153.5 points. John Jay was third (130 points), Mahopac fourth (126.5) and Carmel fifth (124).
  Here are the finals results:
  96 – Justis Flamio (Mahopac) over Brian Realbuto (Somers): I think it is safe to say Flamio is the one to beat at 96 pounds come sectional time.
  103 – Mike Rose (Carmel) over Penn Gottfried (Ardsley): All Rose does is win and he does so quietly, by a score of 9-1. We’re looking at a Rose-Mike Ahearn (Yorktown) sectional final.
  112 – Joey Grippi (Fox Lane) over Joe Hauser (Lakeland/Panas): Grippi defeats Hauser for the second straight week in a tournament final. This time the score was 17-5. Last week Grippi won at Croton.
  119 – Danny Manley (Ardsley) over John Rayo (White Plains): A tech fall for Manley who is having a great year. Manley will face Pearl River’s Jeff Allison in the Division II 119-pound sectional final.
  125 – Dominick Oddo (Mahopac) over Jeff Almodovar (Ossining): Oddo with a tech (27-11). Oddo and North Rockland’s Marc Zurla in the 125-pound sectional final at Pace in three weeks.
  130 – Nick Annunziata (Fox Lane) over Ryan Martin (Hen Hud): For the third time this season Annunziata beats Martin in a tournament final (O’Connell and Shoreline also). However, Tony Malakian said Annunziata had his hands full with Ossinig’s Clay Neivert in the semis. Annunziata fought off of his back and rallied from a 6-0 deficit.
  135 – Luke Speno (Fox Lane) over Brian DiBetta (John Jay): Speno beats DiBetta for the second time in two weeks, by tech this time. These two will see each other Friday when John Jay travels to Fox Lane.
  140 – John Galea (Lakeland/Panas) gets the win. Tony M. forgot to tell me who the opponent was.
  145 – Mike Realbuto (Somers) over Scott Genovese (John Jay): Realbuto by pin.
  152 – Kyle Friedman (John Jay) over James Brundage (Ossining): It was a decision. However, in the semis, Friedman had a major over Harrison Cook (Fox Lane), 14-3, and Brundage, roared past Tim Lewis (Somers) in the third for a 6-3 win.
  160 – Tyler Lovas (Fox Lane) over Alphonso Rodriguez (Hen Hud): Lovas wins 4-3 in overtime.
  171 – Anthony Pecora (Carmel) over Greg Scott (John Jay): Pecora with a 10-3 win.
  189 – T.J. Nelson (Somers) over Connor Tompkins (Sleepy Hollow), 7-3.
  215 – Pat Koch (Croton) wins by pin in the third period.
  275 – Dave Colombo (Mahopac) pins Sleepy Hollow’s John Lopez.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, January 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm by Tony Pinciaro. 
Print
| 
Email
Let me help you help Tony Malakian with his coverage of the Super 16.
140 – John Galea (Lakeland/Panas) over Rich Driscoll (Ardsley)by pin.
MOW
Freshman – Justice Flamio (Mah)
Sophomore – Luke Speno (FL)
Junior – John Galea(L/P) Dom Oddo(Mah)
Senior – Kyle Friedman (JJCR)
Tony,
You picked 13 of the 15 winners! And….....26 of the 30 finalists! 87% score on both counts! I’m taking you to Atlantic City!
Next up are your divisional predictions!
Well done!
Annunziata never fought off his back u got i all wrong clay neivert was about to pin him but then his nose started to bleed because of the repeatitve chocking of annunziata and annunziata’s hand pushing on clay neivert’s nose in which caused the nose bleed if not for that clay neivert would have got the pin. the comment made in the paper made by annunziata was wrong he can say that he was “fighting” of his back but we all no the other people watching the match know he was stuck.
It was the first time this year that a saw a Dom Oddo match. There was no other MOW. His techqnical abilities were above and beyond all. I imagine that this is what a state champ/place winner and perhaps,future Division I NCAA wrestler looks like!
I think I speak for most wrestling fans when I say I am REALLY looking forward to an Oddo-Zurla match. Assuming they both stay at 125 and since they are in separate divisions, it will be a one shot deal in the sections for a trip to Albany.
They could still both get to go to the states based on the new wild card draws, and then they could possibly see each other again when even more is on the line – a higher state place or being eliminated from placing.
I mean no disrespect for the other 125 pounders out there who also want a section crown, but these two seem to be so dominant that it’s hard to see either losing before facing each other in the finals. Last year is was Oddo – this year, we’ll see.
To Champ Eagles, Please go to the blog “135 weight class” and read to reply by Miles E. Neivert on 12/19/06. I guess
what goes around comes around.You have to read it because it sounds like the shoe was on the other foot.
what happened to trumm?
Congratulations to all the ISW members who rocked this tournament.
Justis, Brian and Henry, Mike , Joe Grippi and Hauser, Barbo with a nice win over Caruso, Speno and Dibetta, Realbuto and Genovese, Friedman, Brundage, Cook nice win over Cappalletti, Greg Scott, Nice tourney Jake G, and of course Colombo. You are the class of Section One. I am very proud of all of you. The remaining member who competed showed tremendous growth. These young men train hard for 10-12 months and deserve tremendous credit for all their sacrifices. My hat goes off to each and every one of you. I just wish Section one would wake up and have a true Sectional tournament like those on Long Island where the best kids regardless of whether or not they are on the same team at the same weight could compete for the glory of representing their school and section at the states. I would love to see each athlete compete at the weights they belong at. Anyway Keep up the great work. See you tonight.
Reply to o!. Rye, and Charlie Trumm, was not in the Super 16. If I am not wrong, I believe Charlie has only one loss this year, and has won the Rye, Mamaroneck, Hastings, and Beacon Tournaments at 135.
John –
What are you referring to in this part of your post:
“I just wish Section one would wake up and have a true Sectional tournament like those on Long Island where the best kids regardless of whether or not they are on the same team at the same weight could compete for the glory of representing their school and section at the states. I would love to see each athlete compete at the weights they belong at.”
Do you mean multiple entries instead of just one in their League Tournaments which means more than one kid could earn All-Section honors by being able to qualify? The only way they can do that is that each team is in a “league” with up to 8 teams total; that creates a 16 man bracket. There are 7 leagues (7-8 are combined). With our present system, it would be impossible since we are grouped into two divisions with 17 teams (a 34 man bracket would be too large); we would have to overhaul what we have now which wouldn’t necesarily be a bad idea.
Are you saying there are kids in Section I who are ducking other kids and not competing in a weight they should be in? Or are you saying since there is only one entry per team that kids are being “forced” to bump up a weight to find a slot?
Just curious…
Simple Question – who decides what programs are the Super 16?
If it was the “super 32” then HG would have almost qualified !
cya !
Chap Guy
the top 12 teams from the prior year are automatic entries. Teams apply to the tournament director to fill out last four slots.
I am advocating multiple entries at any weight in the divisional and sectional tournaments, from any team. In Section Eight it isn’t uncommon to see, for example, 2 East Meadow athletes in the section finals.
I think it is possible, maybe not under our current system, but it is doable. The divisionals could go back to 3 sites, or maybe four sites. I admit I didn’t think about logistics, but I know it is done on the Island so it is possible.
There are so many reasons why: Kids do duck one another, teammates are forced into less than ideal weights, coaches are forced to have wrestle-offs or forced to not allow a wrestle off in some cases. The athletes could spend more time training and less cutting. The tournaments would be bigger. I know you can’t have an unlimited divisional tournament, but having for example Dave Cola and Flamio forced to wrestle off in eighth grade sucked, and Marinelli never was at his best weight in three consecutive years.
This year Brundage’s coach let him bump up to get some competition since 45 was weak. His teammates is SOL for “Super 16”. I am fine with that in principle because the best man should pick his spot, but wouldn’t it be nice if that didn’t have to be the case. Multiple entries at Divisionals through States would make the sport better and more attractive. What do you do if you are behind Troy Nickerson, I know you can go up or down, but what if you behind Colombo on Mahopac, you can’t make 215 and you can’t beat him. Theoretically you could be the second best kid in the section and be on the bench. That stinks.
With respect to Coach M.’s comment – what about restructuring divisionals so there are 4 sites, each having 7-8 teams. Double entries allowed, top 4 advance to Sectionals regardless of school.
One problem with my plan – the lack of officials available. Currently there are about 25 officials available to work the postseason. 4 divisional sites (and perhaps 2 more for small school?) means there won’t be enough referees. Some who officiate matches in section 1 work other sectional tournaments instead of our postseason.
Hey RE
There’s a small diff in that Neivert’s win over Dibetta was at his house & was a clean one.
Yes I see your parralel in the 6-0 score & it could go around again.
This was the 1st time the Fox Laner was on his back the entire season & he was put there by a Sophomore.
If you followed the scoring he was penalized 1 point for grabbing Neivert in the eyes, nose & throat.
Nose bleeds come & go but good sportsman are hard to find.
Keep trucking Clay.
If this was such a paltry win for the Fox Laner then why did he give so much press time to a semi-final & not the final.
Go with God grasshopper.
I agree with Degl’s idea on the multi wrestlers from each school. There is a quite talented wrestler in Rose’s weight class for Carmel that may not get a shot for a few years at the weight he should be going at….
what john is saying could happen if we got rid of divisionals for large school. As of now there are 32 large school teams so with double entry you would have a 64 man bracket which is easy to do in 2 weekends. granted most teams dont have 2 guy in some weight classes in some case no 1 in a weight, therefor there would be closer to 48 kids in a bracket give 16 seeded kids(give or take depending on weight class size) byes and everyone else is in the round of 64 could easily be done. but as usual in section 1, the way things are are always the right way and no 1 is willing to consider change unless forced upon. Section 1 didnt place to 6th in sections untill i believe 2000, or 2001 while other sections were doing to so years before.
OBSERVER:
QUIET DOWN…. YOUR SCREAMING….
Actually the double entry is a great idea another idea that is being talked about is getting rid of the divisionals and on that week hosting a Section 1 Dual Meet tournament. Then the following week hosting the open Sectional Tournament full bracket of 32. Also next year Sleepy Hollow, Pearl RIver and Eastchester move up to large school. Both are great ideas multiple entries and the other idea of a Sectional Dual meet tournament and a full bracket at Sectionals. Both great ideas we need people to propose these and come out and help. Both ideas would help our section Let do it!
Add to that tournament thinking, opening up the states. Take the top three from each section, give top guys byes and give more kids the oppurtunity to perform at that level. Gods know they do it in every other sport football now has about 6 state champs, track etc. It’s about time wrestling opens up. Small school/big school was a step but a bigger one needs to be taken. The wild card is also an improvement but let me get a slide ruler…and we shall see what coaches have influence. It’s clear to me by the rankings that some coaches have way more say than others. I know it’s tough to avoid, but I would like to think, and I’m sure it’s true in some cases that coaches would vote for the right kid, not just thier kid.
Juan –
Keep in mind, though, that unless EVERY school participates in a Section Dual Meet tournament, it will count as 2 points against your schedule. EVERY team wrestles in the dual tournament in Section IX, thus it is a sanctioned event and those points do not count, much like the divisional/sectional tournaments which do not count. If every team does not participate, teams would then have to drop a tournament they are already going into to replace it with this. Many teams, which do not have a “good dual team” but have a squad of 5-6 tough kids that make a strong “tournament team” would not choose to eliminate a tournament where those tough kids could shine in place of a dual tournament where they would be “2 and done”. I still like the concept and think it can work but only if we find a way to get everyone involved without having to drop other tournaments
Just wanted to clear up a few things.
The Coaches Association is working hard on trying to implement a Dual Meet Tournament. We have done some research and discovered that every team does not have to enter as was formally beleived. We can have the tournament as long as the Section One Athletic Council approves it. From what we have heard the Athletic council will approve it if it does not cost them more money. The other obstacle is getting all the coaches to agree on a date and securing sites.
As far as the Divisional and Sectional format please understand that the Coaches Association does not make the decisions on the format. If we did there would be multiple entries at the States! All we can do is make proposals and hope that the Athletic Council will vote our way. There are many differing opinions among our coaches on whether we should have two, three, four or no divisional sites at all. I can tell you now that the Athletic Council does not want four sites because of money. We as coaches need to come to a consenseus and push our AD’s to vote our way. Unfortunately this is hard to do when half the coaches in the Section would rather complain then come to the meetings and get involved. We have a meeting at White Plains High School on Wednesday Night. We will be discussing next years format. Please ask your coach if he plans to attend.
A note to wrestfan. The coaches have absolutley no say in who gets the wild card. It is all determined by a point system basesd on past accomplishments. As far as the rankings they are done on a voluntary basis by a few coaches who are willing to sacrifice their time and energy so that our fans have something to talk about and our sport gets some publicity. I personally try to get as much information as I can before giving my input. Any info you have is welcome. When are people going to realize that THEY DON’T MEAN ANYTHING! They are just for fun. The wrestlers themselves will determine the final rankings.
On a final note, there are many wrestlers who work hard year round and are representing our section well. Some go to Degl, some go to Laurenzi, some go to Hofstra. They are ALL working hard and they are all the “class of the section”. Come States we need to work together and stop pitting them against each other.
Vin –
If it will not count as 2 points against a team to schedule the dual, then that is a good development. My assumption about the points was what I was told by the chair of Section IX that all teams had to be in but perhaps that is now up to each section’s athletic council and that is how they handled it in Orange County. I guess the only obstacle left then is to figure out when to hold it because it seems as if many teams are locked into long-standing tournaments that have been run for so many years on the same weekends – Kohl, Shoreline, Super 16/Rockland County, Port Chester, Mamaroneck, Somers, etc. The other question would be the minimum number of teams and the maximum number of teams allowed to compete, when a team has to commit by, and host schools.
It sounds like this idea, though, is a lot further along then I was lead to believe. Good luck and keep up the hard work getting it done. In the long-run, it could definitely be a good thing for Section I.
tony were gonna need some extentsive research and an extensive preview of the Fox lane John Jay match this friday, it will be epic
I just talked to my pal from section 3, Holland Patent. He said that all teams are invited to the section 3 duals, they have to apply, a committee ranks and chooses the top 16. It is a championship tournament, and it does not count against the 22 point limit. Basically, if all teams, no matter what the size the school is are invited to apply, it will not count against their team points.
This is a great idea, I’m in!
Is it true that the point system will change next year from applying 22pts to a team too applying 22 points to the individual wrestler?
Three years ago I along with a couple of other coaches brought up the concept of double entry into the post season at a meeting with in which we were discussing the Section Tournament. The AD’s there suggested that the local tournaments in Section One need to change their formats to allow double entry and show that the format has success, then bring it to the Section One Athletic Council. Last year I changed the format of the Somers Tournament to allow double entry. I think Ardsley does the same. Other tournaments need to follow.
On another note, I agree with Coach Nicita. Kids in Section One are going to plently of places on the off season to work out-West Point and Sacred Heart included besides the other places mentioned. They are all working hard and they are all the “Class of Section One”.
Observer –
Yes, it is true. The 22 points will be per wrestler which means teams can split their squads and send some to one place and others elsewhere. For example, you can send you top kids to the Eastern States and your other kids to another tournament that same weekend so they are each seeing competition that is geared to where they are in their development as wrestlers.
Coach Rogers –
The real issue then will be in finding the weekend to do it because of long-standing, traditional tournaments and the coaches who may not be willing to give up a great weekend of wrestling for their program which is also a significant fundraiser for them as well. For example, if it were to occur during MLK weekend, New Rochelle isn’t going to give up their tournament one year if they enter the dual tournament, and then try to restart it another year if they choose not to go to the duals. When do you think would be a good time to hold this event?
Ther are two times that seem to be getting the most support. One is early in the season, before Christmas. The problem I see with this is you are seeding on last seasons results and it is before the two lb. allowance. The other time is to have it at the end of the season, possibly the weekend that the Divisionals currently occupy. This of course will be dictated by any changes that will be made in our post-season format. All Coaches, please make every effort to attend Wednesday’s meeting so we can hear all opinions. Also if you have program ads, bring them to the meeting.
Why run it on a weekend? I would think it would be easier to set up pools at top seeded high schools around the section on a Tuesday or Wednesday night. Bring the champs of the pools together for a championship finals on a Thursday night leaving the weekend for regular scheduled tourneys. I lean towards the end of the season so that we can see who the best dual team is.
All Great info/ideas. Help me with this…What can be done/Is it worth doing-having more than the sectional champ advance to the States. Anyway of opening that up to include top three? Thanks
You guys are making many great points here. Speaking of divisonals and states, as much as I would love to see Zurla-Oddo, I really one would go up or down, cause these are probably 2 of the best this section has and it is not good that one of them may have to sit in the stands,cause this section needs to really get all its, best kids to Albany. As fot dual entrys at sectionals, it is pretty much a non issue cause right now this is not Long Island, most teams around here can bearly put out a full line up never mind several good kids at one weight, and if the runner up cannot go to states what is the use. This comes from someone who had kids wrestling behind sectional champs. Better yet spend more time on a dual meet tourney, a true Westchester County championship like Rocklands and especially BRING BACK A UNIFIED STATE CHAMPIONSHIP ENOUGH OF THIS DUAL VARSITY AND JV CHAMPIONS!!!
Wrestfan said:
“Add to that tournament thinking, opening up the states. Take the top three from each section, give top guys byes and give more kids the opportunity to perform at that level.� And “What can be done/Is it worth doing-having more than the sectional champ advance to the States. Anyway of opening that up to include top three?�
Here’s the deal:
Serious proposals by the NYSWCA for multiple state entry in NY go back to 2005. Because the NYSPHSAA is a state funded bureaucracy that refuses to allow multiple entries, there is pending legislation in Albany called the “Fairness in Competition Bill.� If passed it will force the NYSPHSAA to allow multiple entries and end the current discrimination against wrestlers in New York.
The wild card entries are a band-aid solution. Although it’s an improvement, the wild cards still fall far short of what is needed.
If you’re not familiar with the legislation or the multiple entry proposals, click on the website below where you’ll find information on the proposals, the legislation and the progress of this effort going back to 2005.
More importantly, you’ll find out what you can do to help. It only takes a small minority to force changes if they are passionate and vocal. Remember, the squeaky wheel always gets the oil.
http://www.sectioniiiwrestling.com/NYSWCA/
Veer,
Thanks for the info. I will absolutly check it out and try to help. I will also spread the word. Like anything else it may take some doing but I’ll give it a shot. Thanks Again
Here’s the argument in favor of the Fairness in Competition Bill:
Our state system of qualifying student athletes for State Championship competition involving certain individual sports does not ensure that the best individual athletes compete at States. This is fundamentally unfair to our children. They are deprived of opportunities to compete at the college level because of this unfairness. The Fairness in Competition bill would begin to address this serious, long standing inequity. I understand that New York State is the only state with such an unfair system. This is ironic, given the leading role New York plays in so many aspects of our national life, including professional sports and entertainment. Why should our children be so seriously disadvantaged in their efforts to compete with student athletes from other states for college opportunities? We should all urge our representatives to act on behalf of our student athletes and to support this important legislation.
This is relating to the information “Veer” posted regarding the State Tournemant. For most our area Vincent Liebel is our state senate rep. I know he has been a big proponent of local sports. Here is his contact info( to help assist the push in passing the “Fairness in Competition Act”(A.2162A/S.2064-A);
Albany Office
Room 609, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3111
Fax: (518) 426-6977
Putnam County Office
1441 Route 22, Suite 205
Brewster, NY 10509
Phone: (845) 279-3773
Fax: (845) 279-7156
Westchester County Office
1974 Commerce Street, Room 113
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Phone: (914) 245-6230
Fax: (914) 245-8803
Hopefully we can politely get some attention to this much need bill.
On the point of us not being LI, I see many forfeits in matches on LI, maybe more so there than in Sec 1. They are pretty much top heavy in the light weight classes.
I don’t think there is an overriding problem here in sec 1 with TOO many skilled wrestlers in the same weight class. Heck, it’s tough enough to field a team with even a full compliment of good wrestlers. I don’t see the point of having too many qualified wrestlers in the same weight class as a problem big enough to try and enact policy change. It’s tough enough to achieve change in more important issues as it is.
32 man brackets are ideal for a state tourney. Perfect for NY state with it’s 11 sections plus the other 2/3 representatives. Add in 3 or so wild cards in EACH weight class and you have it. Why did we change in the first place ??
cya !1
I meant to add that there would be 2 representatives in each weight class from each sec. Maybe combine big school with small…
cya
Having 2 wrestlers in each weight class in each Section qualify for States simply magnifies the problem that already exists, by 2. Combining large and small school divisions does not address the problem. The problem in NYS is this—there is not proportionate representation bewteen the various Sections. That is, Section A may have 5 schools with wrestling programs, Section B may have 27 and Section C may have 50. But Section C, B and A each have 1 wrestler qualify for the State competition (in large school) at any given weight class—say, 135. 1 other wrestler qualfies in the small school division for 135. But you can see that there are many more wrestlers in Section C, and presumably many more serious and competitive wrestlers in Section C, at that weight class in that division, than there are in Section A (or Section B for that matter). The wrestlers in the Sections with the fewest wrestling programs have the easiest shot at making it to States. The wrestlers in the Sections with the most wrestling programs have the most difficult shot at making it to States. And there are wrestlers in the Sections with the most wrestling programs who place 2nd or 3rd in their Sectional tournaments who would beat the 1st place Section winners from other Sections if they had a chance to compete against them at States (but they don’t get the chance to compete at States, because only the first place winners from each of the Sectional competitions go to States). Section 1 is one of the Sections in NYS where our high school wrestlers are disadvantaged in this way. It’s unfair. Our kids are not getting a fair opportunity to wrestle at a season-culminating State competition during their most important high school years. This hurts them when they compete for spots on rosters of college teams against wrestlers who go to high school in States where they have a system that allows for more proportionate representation.
kyles mom, i disagree with ur opinion on the number of teams in a secition being the factor. section 7 has 6 teams in the section however teams like northern aderonack central, peru, and beekmantown all have wrestlers that would easily beat some section 1 champs. The fairest way is how college does it. confernce/section champs automatically qulify, while your conference is given wild cards based on previous 5 years results. your section would decide which wrestlers to bring as wild cards. for those of you who say there would be favoratism in selections of these wildcards, think about this you need to bring the best team to insure more wild cards for your section in future years.
The wildcard is absolutly a step in the right direction, The Fairness in Competition Act A.2162 is a bigger step in that direction. And I think well overdue. The Bill was not voted on last year by the state senate, therefore need to be re-introduced. “Veer” has attached a web address above that has alot of info. Included in the webpage are links to your respective state reps and senators. The Bill did pass 92 to 46, but again that was last year and needs to be re-introduced by a state rep. I have a list of the votes that I can attach-all public information. I’m not sure if this is the best place to get the info out. I have contacted two of my local state reps to start the process and feel them out. One is new (no vote last year) and the other voted no. But both returned calls and emails. I think “Veer” is right-squeky wheel gets the oil. At the very least we ALL can make inquries. Regardless of who it shakes out, I think the more kids that get a chance at States the better. I do like the division of small schhol/big school- I personnally would like top 2/3 from each section. I do understand Kyle’s Moms point (and I think it has merrit), but that may take even longer time. Just some thoughts…
Just got word, Assemblyman Morelle (Rochester) will re-introduce the Bill within the next 2 weeks. After that it will receive a new number. That maybe the best time to call reps and senators, referencing the new bill number. As stated above the NO vote- I spoke with assemble woman Galef-ossining office and she would re-consider. I got the sense the opposition was from school boards (Them having to spend more $ for more competitors). That is a concern, but I think rather small when we are talking about individuals and not complete teams. Coaches let me know if you think it would be permissible/OK to make a flyer containing info on the bill and distribute at divisionals or sectionals-I’m not looking to rock the boat or put anyone in a spot with school administrations BUT I think getting info out is good and let people do what the feel is right.
Listen up … the World is not fair and fair will NEVER mean equal. These law makers are ignoring what’s real and shooting for ideal. It’s nonsense. Back in ‘83 and ‘84 I wrestled for little ‘ol New Paltz. You know… when section IX was huge (ulster, sullivan, orange, and rockland counties). We were section IX champs for those two years and ranked 4th in the ENTIRE STATE. I am still thankful that in those days the IDEALISTIC divisions did not exist. New Paltz would have been a division 2 school and wrestlers on our team would not have the opportunity to wrestle greats like Phil Consiglio (North Rockland) or even compete in the NYS Cup at West Point (a team tournament where the best team from each section was invited to compete for a team championship – large schools and small schools alike). Back in those days it was not about crying that your school was too small or that your section was too big. It was about any group of kids and coaches that had the heart to work hard and compete tinaciously would receive the privaledge to compete with the best.