Wisconsin Wrestling Online

I've waited far too long to bring this up, and with the stay at home order expanding, it's time to have this discussion again.

The premise is simple. We struggle to fill all 14 weights. Most duals are a cavalcade of FFs and hand raising. We've raised the weights from 12 in the 1980s to 13 and now to 14. With specialization, among a million other factors, wrestling has lost numbers over the years. I believe that it's time to go back to 12, because numbers show that it is a number that more teams would fill.

The numbers that I'm giving are from regionals. The term "non-varsity" are kids who were either 0-0 entering regionals, or had a .200 winning percentage or less.

Reminder that Pennsylvania is moving to 12 weights:

https://www.pennlive.com/highschoolsports/wrestling/2019/05/piaa-board-of-directors-passes-provision-to-reduce-number-of-wrestling-weight-classes.html



Here goes. First, body fat tests have declined consistently until last year:

(https://i.imgur.com/XTABF2G.png)

Along with the decline in kids, we are filling less and less teams every year. Here's the data on that from 2005 to 2020. The percentages are teams who had 12 or less kids at regionals:

(https://i.imgur.com/AdxjZig.png) (https://i.imgur.com/hTq4xDK.png)[/img]

Not only are we losing teams, those teams are getting smaller. In 2020, 68% of all the teams in Wisconsin had 12 or less wrestlers in their regional lineup.

And often, in D1, teams with 13 or 14 kids in their lineup are really just throwing bodies in there. Here's the amount of teams who had 12 or less when you take out the 0-0 records or kids who have a winning percentage of less than .200 (Worse than 2-8, 4-16, etc.) Credit due to D3 programs. Their kids are, for lack of a better term, their kids. For the most part, D3 programs don't pad their lineups for regionals like D1.

(https://i.imgur.com/rZBl9dq.png)   

75% of the teams in our state can't fill a lineup without throwing out bodies that likely should be on JV. The argument is that we are taking away opportunities, and for a lot of teams in this state, that simply isn't true. Also, JV is an opportunity to wrestle.

To answer some of the arguments that will come...

Every kid that made it to the state tournament belonged there. None of them should have been excluded. Some kids make it, some don't. Having 12 weights doesn't change that.

This isn't about me or the team I was the head coach for. I also coached at teams that had 50 kids.

I love wrestling. That's the reason I bring it up every year. I want our sport viable forever.

A specific weight should not be cut. Weights should be dispersed and spread out where kids are. I have that information as well. It's a different thread, for a different day.

Have a great day everyone. I hope you are all well, both physically and mentally. It's a strange time.

Maybe the WIAA has some time to implement changes since spring sports are halted.

I tend to agree with Ghetto and those who promote this position.

I am not really a believer in the "more weights means more opportunities" for kids. Ghetto is right, JV is an opportunity. Noting wrong with with being on JV at a certain point in your career. Only a limited number of schools can completely fill 14 weights; FF at duals hurts the sport - period. An abundance of them kills the sport. Did you know that boxing used to be a state sponsored high school sport in Wisconsin? That fate could befall wrestling, as well; we aren't impervious to that fate. Wrestling is better off concentrating its talent in fewer weights and keeping the opportunities there for JV development in the terms of tournaments, etc.

Just like a good gin and tonic, its better when its concentrated.

Why is it that everybody agrees with what you are saying but WIAA. I was told that they wanted more kids involved in the sport so they went to 14. Yet Baseball 9 Football 11 and round ball 5. So when they had 12 it was still more than football. I think it's money because when they get to Madison its 14 no matter what we say about it. People have been bringing up this every year and nothing is done about it. If they went back to 12 wrestlers team state would be tougher to get to the finals. If you can't put 14 wrestlers on the mat you don't get past team Sec. You stay home.

I agree with 12 weights. Is it posssible to go down to 12 weights and then 2 matches for everyone at state?

12 weights with three evenly split up divisions with 16 kids qualifying for state is something I could get behind.  Roughly the same amount of kids qualifying for state.  Same regional and state setup.  Easy and not complicated.  Now just get double elimination in at state and you are set.

Quote from: Luke Louison on April 02, 2020, 09:41:02 PM
The idea that the WIAA cares enough about wrestling to forge its own path rather than just follow the NFHS is flawed.

Wisconsin will go to 12 the second the NFHS does, and not a second earlier.

100% true. I've been told that. I'm disappointed that we can't be on the front line of this. Part of it is that we don't get enough support from our coaches association to push the agenda.

Quote from: Luke Louison on April 02, 2020, 09:41:02 PM
The idea that the WIAA cares enough about wrestling to forge its own path rather than just follow the NFHS is flawed.

Wisconsin will go to 12 the second the NFHS does, and not a second earlier.
[/quote

Id agree.  Ive been in coaches meetings for two decades.  Voting has ranged from weight class numbers, date to start wrestling, sectional assignments amongst many many more things.  None changed even though voting was nearly 100 percent.  Now it is with female wrestling...guess we will see on that.

I am not for or against the minimum of weight classes at this point(changing my opinion more yearly)...would like to see a model to make my opinion.  I do know there are many reasons for less wrestlers from school to school.  However, like Luke said unless it gets passed from the NFHS it wont be looked at.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 02, 2020, 09:53:21 PM

Quote from: Luke Louison on April 02, 2020, 09:41:02 PM
The idea that the WIAA cares enough about wrestling to forge its own path rather than just follow the NFHS is flawed.

Wisconsin will go to 12 the second the NFHS does, and not a second earlier.

100% true. I've been told that. I'm disappointed that we can't be on the front line of this. Part of it is that we don't get enough support from our coaches association to push the agenda.

I wouldn't put all the blame on the coaches. There are alot of coaches that do push items and continually talk to the wiaa. Sadley those in charge at the wiaa really dont care.

I do think the  current 7 and 7 plan will be looked at and maybe adjusted in due time. Wisconsin is becoming slowly the only state that mandates that. Wiaa doesnt want to be first or last ;)

Double elimination at state I feel is a higher priority right now.

I was a big let's eliminate weights. Now not so much. I get the arguement of the ff and lack of filling weights. My come back is if some kid does come out and we eliminated that weight he probably doesnt stay out. Also until we get nation wide womens wrestling we will not eliminate weights. I do believe the nfhs has continued to keep the 14 weights is for room for the females to fit in also.

I will say I wouldn't mind seeing 13 weights just for the purpose of duals never have a chance of being tied.

I also believe if we go away from growth allowance there might not be as much shuffling of weight later in the year, thus maybe filling out weights more in certain cases.

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 03, 2020, 10:28:26 AM


I do think the  current 7 and 7 plan will be looked at and maybe adjusted in due time. Wisconsin is becoming slowly the only state that mandates that. Wiaa doesnt want to be first or last ;)

Double elimination at state I feel is a higher priority right now.

I was a big let's eliminate weights. Now not so much. I get the arguement of the ff and lack of filling weights. My come back is if some kid does come out and we eliminated that weight he probably doesnt stay out. Also until we get nation wide womens wrestling we will not eliminate weights. I do believe the nfhs has continued to keep the 14 weights is for room for the females to fit in also.

I will say I wouldn't mind seeing 13 weights just for the purpose of duals never have a chance of being tied.

I agree that the 7/7 rule should be looked at. Tournaments don't build teams however.

Double elimination should be a no brainer.

If a kid comes out for the first time, are we throwing them on varsity right away? It's what we already do. Do they come out because this weight is the only weight for them? Someone who comes out next year, if the weights were to change, would have no frame of reference as to what they should wrestle. They'd just go where they fit in best. I'd say we lose far more kids who are thrown to the wolves on a varsity mat that they have no business being on.

I think the trend is separate girls wrestling, and whatever weight boys are using will be irrelevant. And it should be. Girls are different sizes.

I have fought the argument to reduce weight classes for awhile now, but have come to the realization that 14 is to many.  I think moving to 12 would make for a better sport, and would actually increase the interest in our sport.  Most duals, and even some tournaments have become a joke that don't reflect well on the  sport. 

In compromise perhaps we have different weight classes for duals while keeping the 14 for individual state. 

A dual format with 10 weight classes

110
118
126
134
142
152
162
175
190
HW

Your best wrestlers are still going to be in the line up regardless of their individual weight class and you will have more competitive duals.

Quote from: 1Iota on April 03, 2020, 02:01:25 PM


In compromise perhaps we have different weight classes for duals while keeping the 14 for individual state. 

I have been saying this for years.  Wrestling has a team component and an individual component.  The individual side is still doing pretty well and meeting the needs of wrestlers.  The team component has become a waste of time and money for one dual in a night for 80% of duals.

Individual Tournaments- nothing wrong right now with 14 weight classes except maybe their length.  I would rather have fewer weight classes and make every match 2-2-2 if time is an issue otherwise no pressing issue now.

Duals-  I would have 10 or 11 weight classes.  I would lean towards 10.  Goal is to have at least 20 matches in night.  10 JV matches and 10 varsity matches.  If you have two mats I would wrestle them both at the same time for more action and excitement in the gym at once and more fans in at once.  Too many people only come for either JV or varsity and leave for the other.  We don't need to make duals 3+ hours long from weigh-ins to JV wrestling, to varsity warm-ups, to varsity matches.  3+ hours for 20-30 minutes of actual wrestling time.  For those of you who think kids don't want to wrestle JV well then maybe wrestling at same time as varsity will make it better.

If I were in charge, 12 weights would be fine (although that is not a magic number - someone could convince me that 10 is equally good). I would promote the idea of quadrangulars, as opposed to duals (although again, not locked into it as a sole pattern for meets). As a general principle, concentrate the talent and focus; HS wrestling does not have enough participation and interest to spread itself as thin as it does.

The National Federation of High School sports is up 30,000 wrestlers since going to 14 weight classes in 2002.
Last year Boys wrestling was up 1860 boys making it the 3rd fastest growing boys sport behind Soccer and Track. We also gained 62 teams last year, so the NHFS is supper happy with the growth of  wrestling.
I am super excited to see the growth of Girls wrestling, but maybe the Boys wrestling coaches association should spend all there time focusing how to fix the boys side and turn over the girls wrestling to group of Girls coaches??

In MN there are almost 1600 more boys wrestling then in WI, but they have 90 less teams because there small teams have co-oped. I could make a much stronger argument for Co-oping then cutting weight classes. 8 & 9 man football was designed to stop Co-oping, well it dint work!! teams are still Co-oping.

Wisconsin doesn't need cut weight classes.. Wisconsin needs to fix the HS league.
Before we cut one weight I would fight harder for JR high inclusion, get rid of 7&7 and let coaches design schedules that will help recruit, Fight to get rid of the decent plan, shorten the season by a couple weeks, co-op and share the coaching duties and have more time to develop wrestlers.

Thank you for supporting your position with some numbers. Assuming we take your numbers at face value, it sounds as though you are saying that the numbers in wrestling are growing and thus, 14 weights is a logical step in response. Are you also saying, be extension, that there aren't relatively more forfeits taking place during dual meets these days? Because that is what I am saying (admittedly without providing numeric support for the argument); increased forfeits during duals these days are hurting the sport. Despite the numbers you cite, I get the distinct impression that the sport of wrestling is in a state of decline - not growth...but that is just my impression.

I am not sure of the numbers, but MN might be an aberration if looked at in isolation - it is a unique state for wrestling purposes. I strongly suspect that varsity weights are going unfilled at a higher rate than previous to 2002 and I would contend that, if true, hurts the sport.

Quote from: Luke Louison on April 03, 2020, 11:39:31 AM

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 03, 2020, 10:28:26 AM

I will say I wouldn't mind seeing 13 weights just for the purpose of duals never have a chance of being tied.

Duals absolutely can still be tied with 13 weights. The allure, though, is that you can just have one single tiebreaker (matches won), and be done with it.

That is the point. Should be clearer.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 03, 2020, 12:11:32 PM

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 03, 2020, 10:28:26 AM


I do think the  current 7 and 7 plan will be looked at and maybe adjusted in due time. Wisconsin is becoming slowly the only state that mandates that. Wiaa doesnt want to be first or last ;)

Double elimination at state I feel is a higher priority right now.

I was a big let's eliminate weights. Now not so much. I get the arguement of the ff and lack of filling weights. My come back is if some kid does come out and we eliminated that weight he probably doesnt stay out. Also until we get nation wide womens wrestling we will not eliminate weights. I do believe the nfhs has continued to keep the 14 weights is for room for the females to fit in also.

I will say I wouldn't mind seeing 13 weights just for the purpose of duals never have a chance of being tied.

I agree that the 7/7 rule should be looked at. Tournaments don't build teams however.

Double elimination should be a no brainer.

If a kid comes out for the first time, are we throwing them on varsity right away? It's what we already do. Do they come out because this weight is the only weight for them? Someone who comes out next year, if the weights were to change, would have no frame of reference as to what they should wrestle. They'd just go where they fit in best. I'd say we lose far more kids who are thrown to the wolves on a varsity mat that they have no business being on.

I think the trend is separate girls wrestling, and whatever weight boys are using will be irrelevant. And it should be. Girls are different sizes.

Ghetto the 7/7 rule doesnt have to be about tournaments. 

Example up here are have 8 teams in the conference so all 7 of our duals are spoken for. Luckily 4 of the duals were very close great for competition. The other 3 duals not so competitive. How about those 3 teams dual it out and add some more teams of liked skill and get after it.

Turn the dual meets into quads and wrestle liked schools. Make sense. The 7/7 rule increases spending also. Turn all of your duals into quads and that eliminates 5 duals! Also 5 nights of travel!

Let's think outside the box on this and how to use it. Yes put a match limit on this also.

Quote from: factfinder on April 03, 2020, 06:41:07 PM
The National Federation of High School sports is up 30,000 wrestlers since going to 14 weight classes in 2002.
Last year Boys wrestling was up 1860 boys making it the 3rd fastest growing boys sport behind Soccer and Track. We also gained 62 teams last year, so the NHFS is supper happy with the growth of  wrestling.
I am super excited to see the growth of Girls wrestling, but maybe the Boys wrestling coaches association should spend all there time focusing how to fix the boys side and turn over the girls wrestling to group of Girls coaches??

In MN there are almost 1600 more boys wrestling then in WI, but they have 90 less teams because there small teams have co-oped. I could make a much stronger argument for Co-oping then cutting weight classes. 8 & 9 man football was designed to stop Co-oping, well it dint work!! teams are still Co-oping.

Wisconsin doesn't need cut weight classes.. Wisconsin needs to fix the HS league.
Before we cut one weight I would fight harder for JR high inclusion, get rid of 7&7 and let coaches design schedules that will help recruit, Fight to get rid of the decent plan, shorten the season by a couple weeks, co-op and share the coaching duties and have more time to develop wrestlers.

In Wisconsin why do all the trees lean to the west?










Answer.......Minnesota sucks ;D ;D ;D ;D

Just kidding

Quote from: factfinder on April 03, 2020, 06:41:07 PM
The National Federation of High School sports is up 30,000 wrestlers since going to 14 weight classes in 2002.
Last year Boys wrestling was up 1860 boys making it the 3rd fastest growing boys sport behind Soccer and Track. We also gained 62 teams last year, so the NHFS is supper happy with the growth of  wrestling.
I am super excited to see the growth of Girls wrestling, but maybe the Boys wrestling coaches association should spend all there time focusing how to fix the boys side and turn over the girls wrestling to group of Girls coaches??

In MN there are almost 1600 more boys wrestling then in WI, but they have 90 less teams because there small teams have co-oped. I could make a much stronger argument for Co-oping then cutting weight classes. 8 & 9 man football was designed to stop Co-oping, well it dint work!! teams are still Co-oping.

Wisconsin doesn't need cut weight classes.. Wisconsin needs to fix the HS league.
Before we cut one weight I would fight harder for JR high inclusion, get rid of 7&7 and let coaches design schedules that will help recruit, Fight to get rid of the decent plan, shorten the season by a couple weeks, co-op and share the coaching duties and have more time to develop wrestlers.

There were 239,845 boys wrestling in 2002-2003
There were 247,441 boys wrestling in 2018-2019

In the past 16 seasons, we've increased numbers by 7596.

However, teams have gotten smaller. There are 1300 more teams in the country now than there were in 2002-2003. Team size has dropped from 25.1 to 22.8, which seems insignificant, but it's almost a 10% decrease in that time.

Question:Since Jr. High kids are on HS teams, are they included in the numbers? Interesting that MN has the same amount of teams as they did in 2002-2003, but have less wrestlers. When did JHI start in MN? Was it before 2002-2003 or after?

While we disagree on cutting weights, we do agree on some things. Locking teams into 7/7 hurts teams. Like Littleguy says, having 7 conference duals locking up all of our spots makes no sense for us or any of the teams we wrestle. I'm on board for shortening the season (starting after Thanksgiving would be fine with me). Co-ops are fine, but are tough to administer. It isn't often that the "back half" or non-host school ever comes back to have their own program. I'm not sure the descent program is making us lose kids, but it is tough on coaches to keep track of the paperwork.

If Pennsylvania is thinking of having less weights, then I think it is more likely to happen. Ohio, which is also a strong state, has 100 teams since 2002, but 2400 less kids.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 03, 2020, 11:08:08 PM

Quote from: factfinder on April 03, 2020, 06:41:07 PM
The National Federation of High School sports is up 30,000 wrestlers since going to 14 weight classes in 2002.
Last year Boys wrestling was up 1860 boys making it the 3rd fastest growing boys sport behind Soccer and Track. We also gained 62 teams last year, so the NHFS is supper happy with the growth of  wrestling.
I am super excited to see the growth of Girls wrestling, but maybe the Boys wrestling coaches association should spend all there time focusing how to fix the boys side and turn over the girls wrestling to group of Girls coaches??

In MN there are almost 1600 more boys wrestling then in WI, but they have 90 less teams because there small teams have co-oped. I could make a much stronger argument for Co-oping then cutting weight classes. 8 & 9 man football was designed to stop Co-oping, well it dint work!! teams are still Co-oping.

Wisconsin doesn't need cut weight classes.. Wisconsin needs to fix the HS league.
Before we cut one weight I would fight harder for JR high inclusion, get rid of 7&7 and let coaches design schedules that will help recruit, Fight to get rid of the decent plan, shorten the season by a couple weeks, co-op and share the coaching duties and have more time to develop wrestlers.

There were 239,845 boys wrestling in 2002-2003
There were 247,441 boys wrestling in 2018-2019

In the past 16 seasons, we've increased numbers by 7596.

However, teams have gotten smaller. There are 1300 more teams in the country now than there were in 2002-2003. Team size has dropped from 25.1 to 22.8, which seems insignificant, but it's almost a 10% decrease in that time.

Question:Since Jr. High kids are on HS teams, are they included in the numbers? Interesting that MN has the same amount of teams as they did in 2002-2003, but have less wrestlers. When did JHI start in MN? Was it before 2002-2003 or after?

While we disagree on cutting weights, we do agree on some things. Locking teams into 7/7 hurts teams. Like Littleguy says, having 7 conference duals locking up all of our spots makes no sense for us or any of the teams we wrestle. I'm on board for shortening the season (starting after Thanksgiving would be fine with me). Co-ops are fine, but are tough to administer. It isn't often that the "back half" or non-host school ever comes back to have their own program. I'm not sure the descent program is making us lose kids, but it is tough on coaches to keep track of the paperwork.

If Pennsylvania is thinking of having less weights, then I think it is more likely to happen. Ohio, which is also a strong state, has 100 teams since 2002, but 2400 less kids.

Junior high inclusion has been operational in MN forever, way before 2002.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 03, 2020, 11:08:08 PM

Quote from: factfinder on April 03, 2020, 06:41:07 PM
The National Federation of High School sports is up 30,000 wrestlers since going to 14 weight classes in 2002.
Last year Boys wrestling was up 1860 boys making it the 3rd fastest growing boys sport behind Soccer and Track. We also gained 62 teams last year, so the NHFS is supper happy with the growth of  wrestling.
I am super excited to see the growth of Girls wrestling, but maybe the Boys wrestling coaches association should spend all there time focusing how to fix the boys side and turn over the girls wrestling to group of Girls coaches??

In MN there are almost 1600 more boys wrestling then in WI, but they have 90 less teams because there small teams have co-oped. I could make a much stronger argument for Co-oping then cutting weight classes. 8 & 9 man football was designed to stop Co-oping, well it dint work!! teams are still Co-oping.

Wisconsin doesn't need cut weight classes.. Wisconsin needs to fix the HS league.
Before we cut one weight I would fight harder for JR high inclusion, get rid of 7&7 and let coaches design schedules that will help recruit, Fight to get rid of the decent plan, shorten the season by a couple weeks, co-op and share the coaching duties and have more time to develop wrestlers.

There were 239,845 boys wrestling in 2002-2003
There were 247,441 boys wrestling in 2018-2019

In the past 16 seasons, we've increased numbers by 7596.

However, teams have gotten smaller. There are 1300 more teams in the country now than there were in 2002-2003. Team size has dropped from 25.1 to 22.8, which seems insignificant, but it's almost a 10% decrease in that time.

Question:Since Jr. High kids are on HS teams, are they included in the numbers? Interesting that MN has the same amount of teams as they did in 2002-2003, but have less wrestlers. When did JHI start in MN? Was it before 2002-2003 or after?

While we disagree on cutting weights, we do agree on some things. Locking teams into 7/7 hurts teams. Like Littleguy says, having 7 conference duals locking up all of our spots makes no sense for us or any of the teams we wrestle. I'm on board for shortening the season (starting after Thanksgiving would be fine with me). Co-ops are fine, but are tough to administer. It isn't often that the "back half" or non-host school ever comes back to have their own program. I'm not sure the descent program is making us lose kids, but it is tough on coaches to keep track of the paperwork.

If Pennsylvania is thinking of having less weights, then I think it is more likely to happen. Ohio, which is also a strong state, has 100 teams since 2002, but 2400 less kids.

I think too many of us remember things wishfully.  I wrestled in Wisconsin during the 12 weight era (mid seventies).
I never remember teams having the full jv squads people talk about.  In fact, teams often forfeited weights on varsity. And I just remembered, our "heavyweight" weighed 185.

Get rid of the 7/7
Get rid of the decent plan but keep minimum weight
Look into co oping to keep programs
All on board of starting after Thanksgiving


I think if you get rid of 7/7 you maybe able to find teams that have the same problem as your school as in fordeits.. this would allow team to look for teams that work for them but it also puts alot more strain on coaches and ad to not set in concrete a schedule a few weeks after the previous season is done. You may have to plan on the fly as the season starts.

I dont want to co OP but I'd that saved wrestling for a school they all on board with it.

Quote from: MNbadger on April 04, 2020, 12:41:54 AM
I think too many of us remember things wishfully.  I wrestled in Wisconsin during the 12 weight era (mid seventies).
I never remember teams having the full jv squads people talk about.  In fact, teams often forfeited weights on varsity. And I just remembered, our "heavyweight" weighed 185.

That's how I remember it from the 80s also.  Plenty of forfeits.

Quote from: padre on April 04, 2020, 03:08:30 AM

Quote from: MNbadger on April 04, 2020, 12:41:54 AM
I think too many of us remember things wishfully.  I wrestled in Wisconsin during the 12 weight era (mid seventies).
I never remember teams having the full jv squads people talk about.  In fact, teams often forfeited weights on varsity. And I just remembered, our "heavyweight" weighed 185.

That's how I remember it from the 80s also.  Plenty of forfeits.

Not sure why our memories are so different of those times, but I wrestled in the 70s and coached in the 80s and I don't recollect many FF. Sure, saw the occasional FF here and there, but they were far from the norm.

Quote from: npope on April 04, 2020, 05:50:23 AM

Quote from: padre on April 04, 2020, 03:08:30 AM

Quote from: MNbadger on April 04, 2020, 12:41:54 AM
I think too many of us remember things wishfully.  I wrestled in Wisconsin during the 12 weight era (mid seventies).
I never remember teams having the full jv squads people talk about.  In fact, teams often forfeited weights on varsity. And I just remembered, our "heavyweight" weighed 185.

That's how I remember it from the 80s also.  Plenty of forfeits.

Not sure why our memories are so different of those times, but I wrestled in the 70s and coached in the 80s and I don't recollect many FF. Sure, saw the occasional FF here and there, but they were far from the norm.

Our team never had one.  Coach would look through the halls to find guys to fill weights...that's how I started.  But we did dual many teams that had multiple forfeits.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 03, 2020, 11:08:08 PM

Quote from: factfinder on April 03, 2020, 06:41:07 PM
The National Federation of High School sports is up 30,000 wrestlers since going to 14 weight classes in 2002.
Last year Boys wrestling was up 1860 boys making it the 3rd fastest growing boys sport behind Soccer and Track. We also gained 62 teams last year, so the NHFS is supper happy with the growth of  wrestling.
I am super excited to see the growth of Girls wrestling, but maybe the Boys wrestling coaches association should spend all there time focusing how to fix the boys side and turn over the girls wrestling to group of Girls coaches??

In MN there are almost 1600 more boys wrestling then in WI, but they have 90 less teams because there small teams have co-oped. I could make a much stronger argument for Co-oping then cutting weight classes. 8 & 9 man football was designed to stop Co-oping, well it dint work!! teams are still Co-oping.

Wisconsin doesn't need cut weight classes.. Wisconsin needs to fix the HS league.
Before we cut one weight I would fight harder for JR high inclusion, get rid of 7&7 and let coaches design schedules that will help recruit, Fight to get rid of the decent plan, shorten the season by a couple weeks, co-op and share the coaching duties and have more time to develop wrestlers.

There were 239,845 boys wrestling in 2002-2003
There were 247,441 boys wrestling in 2018-2019

In the past 16 seasons, we've increased numbers by 7596.

However, teams have gotten smaller. There are 1300 more teams in the country now than there were in 2002-2003. Team size has dropped from 25.1 to 22.8, which seems insignificant, but it's almost a 10% decrease in that time.

Question:Since Jr. High kids are on HS teams, are they included in the numbers? Interesting that MN has the same amount of teams as they did in 2002-2003, but have less wrestlers. When did JHI start in MN? Was it before 2002-2003 or after?

While we disagree on cutting weights, we do agree on some things. Locking teams into 7/7 hurts teams. Like Littleguy says, having 7 conference duals locking up all of our spots makes no sense for us or any of the teams we wrestle. I'm on board for shortening the season (starting after Thanksgiving would be fine with me). Co-ops are fine, but are tough to administer. It isn't often that the "back half" or non-host school ever comes back to have their own program. I'm not sure the descent program is making us lose kids, but it is tough on coaches to keep track of the paperwork.

If Pennsylvania is thinking of having less weights, then I think it is more likely to happen. Ohio, which is also a strong state, has 100 teams since 2002, but 2400 less kids.

You are right the numbers are only up 7500 from 2002, but the numbers went up after they raised it 13 as well. Previous to that the numbers were in the 220,000 rang so the increase in opportunities has proven to work.
In 2000 Penn had 8400 kids out and last year they had 9460 so I have no clue why they are looking to eliminate a weight? I know they complain a lot about the 106 pound weight class and all the FF they have at that weight. But based on there numbers maybe they need to move there weights and not cut weights, I believe with strong certainty that is what the NFHS is telling states to do!!!
They are steadfast in holding strong at 14 weights but are OK with states moving the 14 weights to fit their demographics. I know some state are asking for 103 to come back but they struggle to fill 220, so clearly they isn't a one size fits all solution.
I do think 14 weight classes has proven to have worked with providing very stable numbers and steady growth over the past 20. However each state needs to make sure the weight classes fit there demographic's.
Last thought! if most states are stable or seeing some growth and Wisconsin is declining wouldn't the question be what do we need to change? Not lets stay the same but cut opportunities?

1) Numbers are u nationally because there is now wrestling in states that never had it.  Wrestling participants are going down in states that have long had wrestling but going up in states that never had wrestling
2) Minnesota only has more wrestlers because of Junior high inclusion. I am for junior high inclusion only because middle school wrestling is so messed up in this state and is the biggest problem wrestling has.  That is when we lose the most kids.  Would Wisconsin have more wrestlers than Minnesota if we had JHI.  We are also running low on coaches.  Would be nice to have all high school and middle school coaches in the same room working together
3) I am not against Co-ops but it bothers me when someone states that cutting weight classes is cutting opportunities.  If we cut 2 weight classes we are cutting 2 varsity spots but not the opportunity to wrestle.  If we cancel programs to co-op we are cutting 14 varsity spots and we are cutting wrestling opportunities because many families cannot make it work to have their kids practicing in another community.

I do believe that if you have 10 weight classes and JHI you would have very few forfeits and would likely have full JV squads for the most part.   My other point is that JV weight classes should not be the same as varsity.  They should all be maybe 5-8 lbs lighter than the varsity weight classes.  This would make JV work well with JHI.  Some teams would likely come close to filling a JV2 squad with 10 weight classes.

Then have 14 weight classes for the individual state tournament series. 

As many of the guys said, there were plenty of forfeits back in the day.

cutting opportunities is not what we need to do. 14 is a good number.

I've never liked letting facts get in the way of a good story. But with that said, I have a collection of all of the dual meet programs and tournament programs throughout the 1980s and 1990s and so on that Division 1 Hudson High School was in. 
If you wanted to truly know how full rosters were with the teams at say the 1987 New Richmond Invite or a typical dual between Hudson and Menomonie in 1991 or the Division 1 Regional 1 in Sectional A in 1985, I could tell you.

Hint- the family with the last name Forfeit must have been Catholic. 

Unfortunately, we will all be dead before I get back into my office.   

There were 114 teams this past season in regionals with 9 or less wrestlers. 50 in D3, 35 in D1, 29 in D2.

4 teams had one 1 wrestler
2 teams had 2 wrestlers
3 teams had 3 wrestlers
11 teams had 4 wrestlers
11 teams had 5 wrestlers
10 teams had 6 wresters
23 teams had 7 wrestlers
14 teams had 8 wrestlers
31 teams had 9 wrestlers

I think over 30 teams had 10 wrestlers entered into regionals (didnt count those teams)

If you cut to 12 weights, probably over 150 teams (out of the approx 337 teams) will still have at least 2 forfiets in their dual, with over 100 of those teams still having at least 3 forfiets.

I like 14 weights because it gives the little guys a chance (Like Rhett Koenig, Dux, and other wrestlers that were around 100lbs this past season) a chance at 106 and it gives the teams with multiple good big guys a chance to wrestle at the state tourney.

The Empey duo in Sto like the 220/285 options.

More matches to watch at state, more revenue, etc.


There is no perfect system, cutting to 12 weights will have just as many as flaws as having 14 weights.

Quote from: DocWrestling on April 04, 2020, 09:46:31 AM
1) Numbers are u nationally because there is now wrestling in states that never had it.  Wrestling participants are going down in states that have long had wrestling but going up in states that never had wrestling
2) Minnesota only has more wrestlers because of Junior high inclusion. I am for junior high inclusion only because middle school wrestling is so messed up in this state and is the biggest problem wrestling has.  That is when we lose the most kids.  Would Wisconsin have more wrestlers than Minnesota if we had JHI.  We are also running low on coaches.  Would be nice to have all high school and middle school coaches in the same room working together
3) I am not against Co-ops but it bothers me when someone states that cutting weight classes is cutting opportunities.  If we cut 2 weight classes we are cutting 2 varsity spots but not the opportunity to wrestle.  If we cancel programs to co-op we are cutting 14 varsity spots and we are cutting wrestling opportunities because many families cannot make it work to have their kids practicing in another community.

I do believe that if you have 10 weight classes and JHI you would have very few forfeits and would likely have full JV squads for the most part.   My other point is that JV weight classes should not be the same as varsity.  They should all be maybe 5-8 lbs lighter than the varsity weight classes.  This would make JV work well with JHI.  Some teams would likely come close to filling a JV2 squad with 10 weight classes.

Then have 14 weight classes for the individual state tournament series.

Doc,
Cutting weight classes out won't stop Co-ops!!
So instead of 14 spots between a couple communities you will end up with only 12.
FYI only a couple hundred JH kids are on JV or Varsity, 85% of middle schoolers wrestle on the middle school team, a lot skin fold at the start of the year but a huge majority never wrestle on JV or Varsity.

While I do believe we would see a higher quality product by reducing weight classes and perhaps allow it to flourish, I have changed my stance on supporting it.

We were 5 days away from not having a Team State championship this year and 12 days from not having an individual state tournament. We are potentially facing an upcoming season that could be postponed, canceled, or cut short if the Covid-19 persists or pops up. I can't fathom my son missing this season/opportunity. For the record, I don't think the season would be canceled but I see polls on twitter and it is like 70% predicting no NFL season or no fans.

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 01:34:13 PM
There were 114 teams this past season in regionals with 9 or less wrestlers. 50 in D3, 35 in D1, 29 in D2.

4 teams had one 1 wrestler
2 teams had 2 wrestlers
3 teams had 3 wrestlers
11 teams had 4 wrestlers
11 teams had 5 wrestlers
10 teams had 6 wresters
23 teams had 7 wrestlers
14 teams had 8 wrestlers
31 teams had 9 wrestlers

I think over 30 teams had 10 wrestlers entered into regionals (didnt count those teams)

If you cut to 12 weights, probably over 150 teams (out of the approx 337 teams) will still have at least 2 forfiets in their dual, with over 100 of those teams still having at least 3 forfiets.

I like 14 weights because it gives the little guys a chance (Like Rhett Koenig, Dux, and other wrestlers that were around 100lbs this past season) a chance at 106 and it gives the teams with multiple good big guys a chance to wrestle at the state tourney.

The Empey duo in Sto like the 220/285 options.

More matches to watch at state, more revenue, etc.


There is no perfect system, cutting to 12 weights will have just as many as flaws as having 14 weights.

If there were 12 weights, teams with 8 or more would have a chance at duals.

We had a 98 pound weight class when there were 12 weights back in the day. While I don't want to see the lowest weight to go much higher, even if there were 14 weights, the data says it should go up.

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 04, 2020, 12:19:48 PM
I've never liked letting facts get in the way of a good story. But with that said, I have a collection of all of the dual meet programs and tournament programs throughout the 1980s and 1990s and so on that Division 1 Hudson High School was in. 
If you wanted to truly know how full rosters were with the teams at say the 1987 New Richmond Invite or a typical dual between Hudson and Menomonie in 1991 or the Division 1 Regional 1 in Sectional A in 1985, I could tell you.

Hint- the family with the last name Forfeit must have been Catholic. 

Unfortunately, we will all be dead before I get back into my office.

I'd be interested in that data.

Uh, what?

Agree, in a dual of 12 weights, and a team brings 10 competitive wrestlers, now they have a decent shot at winning the dual. It would definitely make more duals interesting.

A team like Arrowhead had state participants at 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, and 195... with a former state qualifier as a 160lb backup... if they had to go PIAA's proposed weights, you're essentially losing the 182 and readjusting 95 to 90, and 220 to 215. Arrowhead would still have lost to Muk, but it would have been a little closer. The 182lb champ Diel probably would have been 190, though I am not sure what his normal weight has been.

I'm definitely not a fan of the 170 to 190 jump. or the decrease for the individual portion. or taking out the little guys... but a decrease for team portion, I could see that being a fun thing to try.

To me this data shows the starting weight should go down.
[https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.pdfquote author=Ghetto link=topic=56002.msg654107#msg654107 date=1586036515]

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 01:34:13 PM
There were 114 teams this past season in regionals with 9 or less wrestlers. 50 in D3, 35 in D1, 29 in D2.

4 teams had one 1 wrestler
2 teams had 2 wrestlers
3 teams had 3 wrestlers
11 teams had 4 wrestlers
11 teams had 5 wrestlers
10 teams had 6 wresters
23 teams had 7 wrestlers
14 teams had 8 wrestlers
31 teams had 9 wrestlers

I think over 30 teams had 10 wrestlers entered into regionals (didnt count those teams)

If you cut to 12 weights, probably over 150 teams (out of the approx 337 teams) will still have at least 2 forfiets in their dual, with over 100 of those teams still having at least 3 forfiets.

I like 14 weights because it gives the little guys a chance (Like Rhett Koenig, Dux, and other wrestlers that were around 100lbs this past season) a chance at 106 and it gives the teams with multiple good big guys a chance to wrestle at the state tourney.

The Empey duo in Sto like the 220/285 options.

More matches to watch at state, more revenue, etc.


There is no perfect system, cutting to 12 weights will have just as many as flaws as having 14 weights.

If there were 12 weights, teams with 8 or more would have a chance at duals.

We had a 98 pound weight class when there were 12 weights back in the day. While I don't want to see the lowest weight to go much higher, even if there were 14 weights, the data says it should go up.
[/quote]

Wrestling data does not show this.

With all due respect Ghetto, I do not understand your point here.  I do not want to go through all the arguments about size of wrestlers.  In my room we have a dearth of bigger kids.  The few we do have are to be blunt, fat.  They cannot safely compete at the weights they are at.  We talk about throwing out inexperienced kids all the time and how bad it is.  I firmly believe it is way more risky (at least in regard to physical safety) to throw out a kid who is to small for the weight rather than inexperienced.
The CDC numbers show the kids we should be recruiting.  I believe wrestling numbers will shrink in both the short term and long term if we enact retraction, especially if we move the starting weight heavier.  It might make for closer losses in duals for a time but again I think you end up with fewer wrestlers.  The data shows that when we add weights the overall number of wrestlers increases.  While I might be in the minority this means more to me than closer duals.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 04, 2020, 06:51:29 PM
Wrestling data does not show this.
[/quite

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 04, 2020, 12:19:48 PM
I've never liked letting facts get in the way of a good story. But with that said, I have a collection of all of the dual meet programs and tournament programs throughout the 1980s and 1990s and so on that Division 1 Hudson High School was in. 
If you wanted to truly know how full rosters were with the teams at say the 1987 New Richmond Invite or a typical dual between Hudson and Menomonie in 1991 or the Division 1 Regional 1 in Sectional A in 1985, I could tell you.

Hint- the family with the last name Forfeit must have been Catholic. 

Unfortunately, we will all be dead before I get back into my office.

While I can't dispute your details, I can tell you that in 1972 in the Middle Border conference (the one in which Hudson participated in at the time), my high school (River Falls) participated in 10 dual meets with a grand total of three forfeits (all coming during the dual with Durand). Other teams on the schedule, e.g., Spring Valley, Prescott, Mondovi, Clear Lake, Baron, etc., brought full 12 member teams (I have the dual meet lineup sheets to back that up). So again, I am not sure what you were seeing in the 1980s, but those French guys named "Forfeit" were not in the lineups that I experienced - even small schools were putting 12 guys on the mat on a regular basis. As a coach at Sheboygan Falls in the 1980s once again I saw very few forfeits in the duals we wrestled in (and the conference in which they wrestled wasn't a wrestling power house). In six years as a coach we never once forfeited a weight due to a lack of a wrestler (although we did on three occasions as a strategic maneuver). I guess my point is that I was never exposed to these supposed forfeit trends even though I was milling around the sport for the better part of one or two decades. I can't vouch for what you were seeing, but that certainly wasn't my experience.

I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

If the NFHS goes with 12 and we end up going 12 sometime in the future, it definitely would be okay to try it.  A little change wouldn't hurt much and could help.

Quote from: MNbadger on April 04, 2020, 07:09:25 PM
With all due respect Ghetto, I do not understand your point here.  I do not want to go through all the arguments about size of wrestlers.  In my room we have a dearth of bigger kids.  The few we do have are to be blunt, fat.  They cannot safely compete at the weights they are at.  We talk about throwing out inexperienced kids all the time and how bad it is.  I firmly believe it is way more risky (at least in regard to physical safety) to throw out a kid who is to small for the weight rather than inexperienced.
The CDC numbers show the kids we should be recruiting.  I believe wrestling numbers will shrink in both the short term and long term if we enact retraction, especially if we move the starting weight heavier.  It might make for closer losses in duals for a time but again I think you end up with fewer wrestlers.  The data shows that when we add weights the overall number of wrestlers increases.  While I might be in the minority this means more to me than closer duals.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 04, 2020, 06:51:29 PM
Wrestling data does not show this.

While the data I have is not the size of the CDC sample, it isn't small. It's 74000 body fat tests over 9 years from the state of Wisconsin. I read your post last night, and I have decided that I will try to get the data from every state I can, for as long as I can go back to create a much larger data pool.

Yes we should continue to recruit every kid of every size to be on our wrestling teams. The last thing I want personally is to move the lowest weight to a point where kids don't come out. The highest I ever wrestled in HS was 119, so I was that guy. That said, I try to keep my own personal biases out of what the data says.

Again, the data shows that we've increased less than 8000 wrestlers in the past 16 years. You could say that it has increased because of the 14 weights, or you could say that it increased because 1300 teams were created in that time.

Quote from: npope on April 04, 2020, 07:17:49 PM

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 04, 2020, 12:19:48 PM
I've never liked letting facts get in the way of a good story. But with that said, I have a collection of all of the dual meet programs and tournament programs throughout the 1980s and 1990s and so on that Division 1 Hudson High School was in. 
If you wanted to truly know how full rosters were with the teams at say the 1987 New Richmond Invite or a typical dual between Hudson and Menomonie in 1991 or the Division 1 Regional 1 in Sectional A in 1985, I could tell you.

Hint- the family with the last name Forfeit must have been Catholic. 

Unfortunately, we will all be dead before I get back into my office.

While I can't dispute your details, I can tell you that in 1972 in the Middle Border conference (the one in which Hudson participated in at the time), my high school (River Falls) participated in 10 dual meets with a grand total of three forfeits (all coming during the dual with Durand). Other teams on the schedule, e.g., Spring Valley, Prescott, Mondovi, Clear Lake, Baron, etc., brought full 12 member teams (I have the dual meet lineup sheets to back that up). So again, I am not sure what you were seeing in the 1980s, but those French guys named "Forfeit" were not in the lineups that I experienced - even small schools were putting 12 guys on the mat on a regular basis. As a coach at Sheboygan Falls in the 1980s once again I saw very few forfeits in the duals we wrestled in (and the conference in which they wrestled wasn't a wrestling power house). In six years as a coach we never once forfeited a weight due to a lack of a wrestler (although we did on three occasions as a strategic maneuver). I guess my point is that I was never exposed to these supposed forfeit trends even though I was milling around the sport for the better part of one or two decades. I can't vouch for what you were seeing, but that certainly wasn't my experience.

Nat -
1972, teams must have brought their A game against you guys.   
That was not the case with Hudson.
In our 1972 dual against Clear Lake, they forfeited 1 and we forfeited 1.  10 matches wrestled out of 12 weights.  That dual had 6 pins and a 22-0 decision, which I will call a pin.   
So just three "real" matches.  A 6-0 dec., a 16-3 dec., and one that doesn't list the score.  It was a snooze-fest to say the least and I'd guess it only lasted 35 min.

Then we wrestled Chippewa Falls and again, 10 of 12 matches wrestled.   This time, it was Hudson forfeiting both matches and the 10 other matches had 6 pins.
Then in 1972 we wrestled Baldwin and they gave us a forefeit.
Blair gave us 3 forfeits in 1972. 
Hudson gave a forfeit to Glenwood City, Mondovi gave Hudson a forfeit. 
I do not have any good data from the rest of the 1972 duels. Durand obviously gave Hudson probably at least 3 forfeits and we gave them probably one back. I hope fans didn't travel for that one. The rest of the duels just list the score and not a box score. It is what it is. I was born in 1972 so my memory isn't real clear.

To be clear though, I am not talking about the glory years in 1972. What I can show you, when I get back into my office, is that when I was in high school, in 1988, it was not uncommon for a Division I regional that Hudson was in to have a weight class or two with just three competitors out of the eight teams. I can show you the bracket. And I can show you the dual box scores in 1988 in which there were in the neighborhood of four forfeits.   
30 years ago, depending on where you were, things didn't look as different as we think they were. 

Was there more wrestlers? Yes. Should there have been more wrestlers? Yes.   Is it practical to believe that in 2020 we should have the same number of wrestlers as we had back then? No.   How many less wrestlers should we have today? I don't know that answer but a lot!   
That paragraph may feed into the argument that we should then have last weight classes if we have less wrestlers.   But as I pointed out, 47 years ago we had less weight classes for more wrestlers and still had forfeits.

Maybe it is a paradigm shift. Just maybe, we are not supposed to NOT have forfeits.   I have said this before. Slot the five basketball players into height increments. And every team can only one player per height class.   Wrap your mind around a sport of wrestling in which it is acceptable to not have a kid in all weight classes. The weight classes are to give the opportunity to everyone, come one come all. But a team is under no obligation to have a kid in every weight class.

Nobody is reading this anymore, because I know that you do not get more than one paragraph deep into a forum read.   So I will leave it with this. A belief that it is so incredibly obvious that we should only have 12 weight classes is the same belief of how incredibly obvious it is as to who should be president and how incredibly obvious it is as to how to handle Coronavirus. It's not as obvious as you think.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 11:23:53 AM

Quote from: MNbadger on April 04, 2020, 07:09:25 PM
With all due respect Ghetto, I do not understand your point here.  I do not want to go through all the arguments about size of wrestlers.  In my room we have a dearth of bigger kids.  The few we do have are to be blunt, fat.  They cannot safely compete at the weights they are at.  We talk about throwing out inexperienced kids all the time and how bad it is.  I firmly believe it is way more risky (at least in regard to physical safety) to throw out a kid who is to small for the weight rather than inexperienced.
The CDC numbers show the kids we should be recruiting.  I believe wrestling numbers will shrink in both the short term and long term if we enact retraction, especially if we move the starting weight heavier.  It might make for closer losses in duals for a time but again I think you end up with fewer wrestlers.  The data shows that when we add weights the overall number of wrestlers increases.  While I might be in the minority this means more to me than closer duals.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 04, 2020, 06:51:29 PM
Wrestling data does not show this.

While the data I have is not the size of the CDC sample, it isn't small. It's 74000 body fat tests over 9 years from the state of Wisconsin. I read your post last night, and I have decided that I will try to get the data from every state I can, for as long as I can go back to create a much larger data pool.

Yes we should continue to recruit every kid of every size to be on our wrestling teams. The last thing I want personally is to move the lowest weight to a point where kids don't come out. The highest I ever wrestled in HS was 119, so I was that guy. That said, I try to keep my own personal biases out of what the data says.

Again, the data shows that we've increased less than 8000 wrestlers in the past 16 years. You could say that it has increased because of the 14 weights, or you could say that it increased because 1300 teams were created in that time.

My guess at least 95% of the increase is due to new schools adding programs.

I wonder if the data shows over 10,000 wrestlers on rosters of programs added in the last 16 years with traditional programs losing a few thousand in last 16 years (even with the expanded number of weight classes).

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

Here is the link with the body fat tests from 2011 to present. The "5 year combined", "7 year combined", etc. Is taking the data from five years,7 years and nine years, then putting 285 as the last weight, then dividing the total number into 14, 13, and 12 equal sections.

I hope that makes sense.

bit.ly/2020WeightMgmt (http://bit.ly/2020WeightMgmt)

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 05, 2020, 11:52:24 AM
Nobody is reading this anymore, because I know that you do not get more than one paragraph deep into a forum read.   So I will leave it with this. A belief that it is so incredibly obvious that we should only have 12 weight classes is the same belief of how incredibly obvious it is as to who should be president and how incredibly obvious it is as to how to handle Coronavirus. It's not as obvious as you think.

I just want you to know that I did read to the bottom.

I have thoughts on the president and corona virus as well, but I'm not gonna get kicked off this forum. At least not today.  ;D

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 05, 2020, 11:52:24 AM

Quote from: npope on April 04, 2020, 07:17:49 PM

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 04, 2020, 12:19:48 PM
I've never liked letting facts get in the way of a good story. But with that said, I have a collection of all of the dual meet programs and tournament programs throughout the 1980s and 1990s and so on that Division 1 Hudson High School was in. 
If you wanted to truly know how full rosters were with the teams at say the 1987 New Richmond Invite or a typical dual between Hudson and Menomonie in 1991 or the Division 1 Regional 1 in Sectional A in 1985, I could tell you.

Hint- the family with the last name Forfeit must have been Catholic. 

Unfortunately, we will all be dead before I get back into my office.

While I can't dispute your details, I can tell you that in 1972 in the Middle Border conference (the one in which Hudson participated in at the time), my high school (River Falls) participated in 10 dual meets with a grand total of three forfeits (all coming during the dual with Durand). Other teams on the schedule, e.g., Spring Valley, Prescott, Mondovi, Clear Lake, Baron, etc., brought full 12 member teams (I have the dual meet lineup sheets to back that up). So again, I am not sure what you were seeing in the 1980s, but those French guys named "Forfeit" were not in the lineups that I experienced - even small schools were putting 12 guys on the mat on a regular basis. As a coach at Sheboygan Falls in the 1980s once again I saw very few forfeits in the duals we wrestled in (and the conference in which they wrestled wasn't a wrestling power house). In six years as a coach we never once forfeited a weight due to a lack of a wrestler (although we did on three occasions as a strategic maneuver). I guess my point is that I was never exposed to these supposed forfeit trends even though I was milling around the sport for the better part of one or two decades. I can't vouch for what you were seeing, but that certainly wasn't my experience.

Nat -
1972, teams must have brought their A game against you guys.   
That was not the case with Hudson.
In our 1972 dual against Clear Lake, they forfeited 1 and we forfeited 1.  10 matches wrestled out of 12 weights.  That dual had 6 pins and a 22-0 decision, which I will call a pin.   
So just three "real" matches.  A 6-0 dec., a 16-3 dec., and one that doesn't list the score.  It was a snooze-fest to say the least and I'd guess it only lasted 35 min.

Then we wrestled Chippewa Falls and again, 10 of 12 matches wrestled.   This time, it was Hudson forfeiting both matches and the 10 other matches had 6 pins.
Then in 1972 we wrestled Baldwin and they gave us a forefeit.
Blair gave us 3 forfeits in 1972. 
Hudson gave a forfeit to Glenwood City, Mondovi gave Hudson a forfeit. 
I do not have any good data from the rest of the 1972 duels. Durand obviously gave Hudson probably at least 3 forfeits and we gave them probably one back. I hope fans didn't travel for that one. The rest of the duels just list the score and not a box score. It is what it is. I was born in 1972 so my memory isn't real clear.

To be clear though, I am not talking about the glory years in 1972. What I can show you, when I get back into my office, is that when I was in high school, in 1988, it was not uncommon for a Division I regional that Hudson was in to have a weight class or two with just three competitors out of the eight teams. I can show you the bracket. And I can show you the dual box scores in 1988 in which there were in the neighborhood of four forfeits.   
30 years ago, depending on where you were, things didn't look as different as we think they were. 

Was there more wrestlers? Yes. Should there have been more wrestlers? Yes.   Is it practical to believe that in 2020 we should have the same number of wrestlers as we had back then? No.   How many less wrestlers should we have today? I don't know that answer but a lot!   
That paragraph may feed into the argument that we should then have last weight classes if we have less wrestlers.   But as I pointed out, 47 years ago we had less weight classes for more wrestlers and still had forfeits.

Maybe it is a paradigm shift. Just maybe, we are not supposed to NOT have forfeits.   I have said this before. Slot the five basketball players into height increments. And every team can only one player per height class.   Wrap your mind around a sport of wrestling in which it is acceptable to not have a kid in all weight classes. The weight classes are to give the opportunity to everyone, come one come all. But a team is under no obligation to have a kid in every weight class.

Nobody is reading this anymore, because I know that you do not get more than one paragraph deep into a forum read.   So I will leave it with this. A belief that it is so incredibly obvious that we should only have 12 weight classes is the same belief of how incredibly obvious it is as to who should be president and how incredibly obvious it is as to how to handle Coronavirus. It's not as obvious as you think.

I read the whole thing.

I do remember having a full dual at times and remember forfeits in other duals in the 80:s. We were lucky I think not to have as many forfeits at that time overall but there was still forfeits back in the day.

I do remember that there were kids missing duals due to trouble more often back in the day.

Chris, I think there was a dual with Hudson and bw in like 85 that had some forfeits and the line ups look very different. Could have been 84 also. Lots of dumb decisions made on both sides ;D

Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 05, 2020, 11:52:24 AM
Nat -
1972, teams must have brought their A game against you guys.   
That was not the case with Hudson.
In our 1972 dual against Clear Lake, they forfeited 1 and we forfeited 1.  10 matches wrestled out of 12 weights.  That dual had 6 pins and a 22-0 decision, which I will call a pin.   
So just three "real" matches.  A 6-0 dec., a 16-3 dec., and one that doesn't list the score.  It was a snooze-fest to say the least and I'd guess it only lasted 35 min.

Then we wrestled Chippewa Falls and again, 10 of 12 matches wrestled.   This time, it was Hudson forfeiting both matches and the 10 other matches had 6 pins.
Then in 1972 we wrestled Baldwin and they gave us a forefeit.
Blair gave us 3 forfeits in 1972. 
Hudson gave a forfeit to Glenwood City, Mondovi gave Hudson a forfeit. 
I do not have any good data from the rest of the 1972 duels. Durand obviously gave Hudson probably at least 3 forfeits and we gave them probably one back. I hope fans didn't travel for that one. The rest of the duels just list the score and not a box score. It is what it is. I was born in 1972 so my memory isn't real clear.

To be clear though, I am not talking about the glory years in 1972. What I can show you, when I get back into my office, is that when I was in high school, in 1988, it was not uncommon for a Division I regional that Hudson was in to have a weight class or two with just three competitors out of the eight teams. I can show you the bracket. And I can show you the dual box scores in 1988 in which there were in the neighborhood of four forfeits.   
30 years ago, depending on where you were, things didn't look as different as we think they were. 

Was there more wrestlers? Yes. Should there have been more wrestlers? Yes.   Is it practical to believe that in 2020 we should have the same number of wrestlers as we had back then? No.   How many less wrestlers should we have today? I don't know that answer but a lot!   
That paragraph may feed into the argument that we should then have last weight classes if we have less wrestlers.   But as I pointed out, 47 years ago we had less weight classes for more wrestlers and still had forfeits.

Maybe it is a paradigm shift. Just maybe, we are not supposed to NOT have forfeits.   I have said this before. Slot the five basketball players into height increments. And every team can only one player per height class.   Wrap your mind around a sport of wrestling in which it is acceptable to not have a kid in all weight classes. The weight classes are to give the opportunity to everyone, come one come all. But a team is under no obligation to have a kid in every weight class.

Nobody is reading this anymore, because I know that you do not get more than one paragraph deep into a forum read.   So I will leave it with this. A belief that it is so incredibly obvious that we should only have 12 weight classes is the same belief of how incredibly obvious it is as to who should be president and how incredibly obvious it is as to how to handle Coronavirus. It's not as obvious as you think.

Yes Chris, I cannot speak to the late 1980s and after - I was totally out of the game other than to watch my nephews wrestle on occasion. I can tell you that in 1972 Hudson presented a full complement for 12 weights when we wrestled them ;) I don't think anybody was shaking in their boots about RF in 1972...the program was just gaining steam at that time, so I don't think they were bringing their "A game" just because it was RF (Ellsworth, and to a lesser degree, New Richmond were the local "bullies" at the time). And I can't explain why your information from the '70s is so different than my experience. I can only say that RF had 60 kids out for the team in 1972 (and that's before RF actually took off for a couple of decades) and forfeits from other teams were few and far between. When we had duals in the '70s there was almost always a full varsity contingent; an almost full JV crew, and a handful of "C-team" matches.

Quote from: MNbadger on April 05, 2020, 02:15:10 PM
Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

The point isn't for some team that usually is in the bottom third of their conference to upset Coleman, Mukwonago, Stoughton, Kaukauna, etc. It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals. The powers that be do it better. Of course they would be able to consolidate their lineups and be that much better.

I wrestled on a freshman team in the mid 70's. We had almost a full team and wrestled a freshman schedule. We also had 2 freshman on varsity. So it was different back in the day.  That being said when I started coaching I walked into a program that had several forfeits. A few years later we had 30 kids in the room and some state qualifiers. I beat the bushes and found good athletes that became ave to above even though they started wrestling as freshman and sophmores. I took a break for a few years and came back to coaching, It was the specialization where it became real difficult for that late starter to be successful and as a result our numbers suffered. Recruiting burned me out of the wrestling room.

"It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals."
We already have this with 14 weights.  For us, in our conference it would not matter how many weights we go to.  The couple of teams we are competitive with, we are competetive with now.  We had a very exciting dual during the year and we wrestled another close dual in the first round of sections.
The rest of the schedule I try to find competition like us.  I don't see how fewer weights will change this at all.
When we were regularly in the top ten our crowds were never like what you see in certain few rivalries that stick out in people's minds.  They are few and far between and again have nothing to do with the number of weight classes.
All my opinion of course.   

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 06:36:39 PM

Quote from: MNbadger on April 05, 2020, 02:15:10 PM
Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

The point isn't for some team that usually is in the bottom third of their conference to upset Coleman, Mukwonago, Stoughton, Kaukauna, etc. It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals. The powers that be do it better. Of course they would be able to consolidate their lineups and be that much better.

My high school recollection from the late 1980's.

1) We had a full varsity team and a full JV team and that was just with 10th-12th graders.  Our freshman were not at the high school and wrestled for their junior highs with 7th, 8th, and 9th graders.  He had two junior high teams this with many freshman on those teams.  An occasional freshman would go up and wrestle at the high school.  Our junior high teams wrestled duals with weight classes. 

There were some forfeits I am sure from other teams but much less than now.

Duals are the key to high school participation.  Kids want to be part of a team.  Duals give all talent levels a chance to help the team even in losing and also gives each wrestler two chances to win either in their match or as a team.  Those that have competitive duals and emphasize team have the best traditions and success over time.  Many wrestlers quit wrestling because duals have no team concept because result is never in doubt and they hate saturday individual tournaments.  No fun giving up their entire Saturday to go 1-2 and sit around all day after wrestling less than 10 minutes.  Parents also have less time and spend less time going to Saturday tournaments.

This sport's overall success is not about the dominant teams or dominant wrestlers.  It is about the other 80% who are just wrestling for high school fun and to be part of a team.

This sport's overall success is not about the dominant teams or dominant wrestlers.  It is about the other 80% who are just wrestling for high school fun and to be part of a team.

This is true of all High School sports. I agree 100%. As a football coach I wonder how this will affect our fall teams. A summer of no coaches telling kids what to do and when to do it in all sports may turn out to be a good thing. What a relaxing summer for kids and coaches.

Being that wrestling is a tough sport and isn't for all of the young men. Wrestling Is a traditional sport in most places. If the brother wrestles then so will all the boys. Also if the father wrestles so will the son in most cases. But most kids do not want to wrestle JV. If they get to high school and can't wrestle Varsity they will stay home. Also D2 and D3 had lots more farms and farms have lots of kids. Now that the farms are no longer around the people move to bigger towns and that would be D1 where they have every sport and who wants to cut weight. They play hockey or other sports. This might not make a lot of sense to people but farms had 10 kids and that is what happened no farms and no kids. That's what happened in our conference schools. We have 22 kids out and it is hard to be competitive and put 14 kids on the mat. I think team state would have more teams that would be able to win their regionals if we went to 12 wts. Think about that once. Always the same teams that make it to team state. The same D1 D2 D3 teams in the running all the time.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 06, 2020, 05:21:23 PM
But most kids do not want to wrestle JV. If they get to high school and can't wrestle Varsity they will stay home.

If this is true we have much bigger issues.  This is not true at the top programs

Love this annual discussion too bad it means absolutely nothing as far a change goes. Absolutely nothing.

Quote from: ramjet on April 07, 2020, 12:53:59 PM
Love this annual discussion too bad it means absolutely nothing as far a change goes. Absolutely nothing.

Almost like you talking to your wife, eh?  ;)

Quote from: ramjet on April 07, 2020, 12:53:59 PM
Love this annual discussion too bad it means absolutely nothing as far a change goes. Absolutely nothing.

Yeah. I still like to bring it up. When I ask for the data every year, the nice people at the WIAA ask me what I do with the data. I feel obligated to bring it up here.

It's nice that I don't get messages attacking me anymore. I feel like people are coming around to the idea. That or they get tired of my argument. Either way, I believe I am winning. 😜

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 06:36:39 PM

Quote from: MNbadger on April 05, 2020, 02:15:10 PM
Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

You don't need to eliminate opportunities for kids to have competitive duals!!! Just get rid of 7&7 so teams can line up duals with teams at similar talent level.!!! It sounds like the WIAA is finally on board with this!! PROBLEM SOLVED!!
FYI, elite teams don't always like doing duals. Duals are awesome for mid level teams but for elite teams they can really suck. Thank goodness my son's team only had 5 or 6 duals last year because we had so many FF's to very good teams with full line-ups, we had a team that qualified for state FF 8 weights to us. Its awesome that in MN you don't have to do any duals if it doesn't fit for your team.
A couple years ago I looked up a couple of the elite wrestlers in WI and the elite kids were being FF to 50% of there dual matches. I used to love duals but as I have learned more about the sport I could care less about duals. I am not saying duals are not fun, but they really don't mean much.
The point isn't for some team that usually is in the bottom third of their conference to upset Coleman, Mukwonago, Stoughton, Kaukauna, etc. It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals. The powers that be do it better. Of course they would be able to consolidate their lineups and be that much better.

with all the talk about FF at duals I cannt help go back to the idea of getting rid of the 7 and 7 rule.

I think many overlook the idea that now instead of a dual you can have quads and with teams that might work out right for teams that may not have a complete line up.

the one big problem with getting rid of the 7 and 7 rule is that it is going to be more work for the AD and coaches to find those teams to dual with.

also it might be the end of the conference duals, to which many will be upset about.

with that said you can still dual your conference teams if you chose but how about setting up a quad instead of a single dual. cuts down on travel, frees up the season for maybe some more off days. the ideas are endless that I think will be positive for the sport.

as a coach maybe only 1 event a week and you make weight for a quad and you get those 3 matches in on a night and your wrestler doesnt have to make weight again the next week for a FF.

Quote from: factfinder on April 07, 2020, 08:25:59 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 06:36:39 PM

Quote from: MNbadger on April 05, 2020, 02:15:10 PM
Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 05, 2020, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 04, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

You don't need to eliminate opportunities for kids to have competitive duals!!! Just get rid of 7&7 so teams can line up duals with teams at similar talent level.!!! It sounds like the WIAA is finally on board with this!! PROBLEM SOLVED!!
FYI, elite teams don't always like doing duals. Duals are awesome for mid level teams but for elite teams they can really suck. Thank goodness my son's team only had 5 or 6 duals last year because we had so many FF's to very good teams with full line-ups, we had a team that qualified for state FF 8 weights to us. Its awesome that in MN you don't have to do any duals if it doesn't fit for your team.
A couple years ago I looked up a couple of the elite wrestlers in WI and the elite kids were being FF to 50% of there dual matches. I used to love duals but as I have learned more about the sport I could care less about duals. I am not saying duals are not fun, but they really don't mean much.
The point isn't for some team that usually is in the bottom third of their conference to upset Coleman, Mukwonago, Stoughton, Kaukauna, etc. It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals. The powers that be do it better. Of course they would be able to consolidate their lineups and be that much better.

I agree and disagree with your talk about duals.

yes, good teams struggle to find good duals for themselves and maybe tournaments will be the best for them overall.

though I will say that for many teams those duals are great team builders and fan builders. any time you get 2 teams that are close in talent it becomes a very good dual for sure. people get excited for those duals and possibly some really good match ups.

you say the wiaa is starting to get on board with no more 7 and 7? maybe my letters have helped ;D ;D ;D I doubt it ;D

I'm not saying it isnt nice to be conference champs but Id much rather go out looking for decent duals.  We have way too many teams with way too many forfeits and the fun of great duals that could be set up far outweighs conference titles.

You could still hold a conference tournament.

Quote from: padre on April 07, 2020, 09:54:34 PM
I'm not saying it isnt nice to be conference champs but Id much rather go out looking for decent duals.  We have way too many teams with way too many forfeits and the fun of great duals that could be set up far outweighs conference titles.

You could still hold a conference tournament.

Could not agree with you more!!!!! Let the coaches coach!!! If coaches had the ability to line up there own schedule half of this B.S. of cutting to 12 weight classes would go away.
There are so many steps to be taken before we cut weight classes!!

I agree with getting rid of 7x7 rule.  I also would eliminate conference duals and allow independent schedules.  Let the top teams set up great duals amongst themselves outside of conference limitations and even out of division.

I am from Fond du Lac and we were pretty good when I wrestled.  Very few of our conference duals were much fun and none have any memories to me now.  The best duals we had were the most fun and they were against Luxemburg-Casco and Campbellsport.  Those are my memorable dual experiences.

Our conference does not allow for out of conference duals now due to the schedule and number of teams.  At this point I think we would still want to wrestle other conference teams that are of similar talents.  I think Kaukauna would rather dual against Lux-Casco and Wrightstown than wrestle us now or other conference foes.

The one caveat with scheduling is that coaches will still need to work to host some home events.  Teams are going to still want home opportunities for their wrestlers.  As you create more triangulars or quads it gets tougher for teams to have enough events to still be able to host at home.

I agree that coaches and AD's should have the freedom to set up schedules that fit the needs of their teams.

Two discussions in one!  Love it. 

12 weight classes- I'll never be a proponent to take opportunities away from high school kids.   The hardcore wrestling fans who want to see awesome matchups can see them at WWF Freestyle and Greco State or Fargo. 

As far as duals- if you want to feel some energy at a dual, go to a SWAL dual.  For the majority of the duals, it does not matter how many matches are taking place.  It is loud and intense.

Quote from: greysquirrelmobile on April 08, 2020, 11:51:32 AM
Two discussions in one!  Love it. 

12 weight classes- I'll never be a proponent to take opportunities away from high school kids.   The hardcore wrestling fans who want to see awesome matchups can see them at WWF Freestyle and Greco State or Fargo. 

As far as duals- if you want to feel some energy at a dual, go to a SWAL dual.  For the majority of the duals, it does not matter how many matches are taking place.  It is loud and intense.

There are plenty of intense duals and matches already for sure, all around the state.

I don't care if you take it down to 10 weights you won't have competitive duals until you eliminate 7&7 and seed that state tournament. Until teams can travel and set up duals that mean something for there kids you will continue to go to duals and see FF and pins as the hammers avoid each other and pound on lesser experienced kids!!
Talk about an attrition problem!! Cutting weights with out fixing the problems will only grow the tumor faster then it currently is.

A couple of things.

Reminder that 75% of the teams in Wisconsin field 12 or less kids when taking out the 0-0 wrestler and the kids who win less than 20% of their matches (kids who likely should be on JV). So, by some standards, only 1/4 of the teams are working hard.

We don't know what cutting weights will do. I admit that it may do nothing. But all opinions are pure conjecture. There's no way of knowing.

Opportunities are only lost when teams are lost. We've lost some teams in the past 15 years.

In order for a sport to grow, the audience has to grow. Of course hardcore fans will continue to watch. A good dual between two teams brings students. That interest can build programs. It doesn't have to be two top five teams in the state. At one point I started to track the amount of FFs in our conference, but the number was so high. Few duals are within 20 points. The outcome was never in doubt. That's bad for wrestling.

Scheduling duals isn't a simple thing to do. Granted, if you have everyone in the state looking for duals, it would be a lot easier.

I respectfully question your point here;
"Reminder that 75% of the teams in Wisconsin field 12 or less kids when taking out the 0-0 wrestler and the kids who win less than 20% of their matches (kids who likely should be on JV). So, by some standards, only 1/4 of the teams are working hard."
It is pretty arbitrary to carve out the "0-0 wrestler" or the "kids who win less than 20% of their matches".  This does not mean they should likely be on varsity.  You have who you have at some point and they ARE your varsity.  Two less weights is not going to change this.
In our conference I have had kids that were surprisingly good who struggled to win 20% of their matches.  This is why I try to schedule non-conference matches with teams more like us.  One problem is your conference might eat up your dates.  I know you guys in WI have the 7 and 7 rule which makes it doubly tough.  I don't even want to be in/on our conference schedule.
Additionally, even if you eliminated all your 0-0 kids and your less than 20% winners, you'd likely have the same results.  If you took all the kids that won 80% of their matches and put them in a season schedule of competition for the most part there would still be those winning 10% of the time, 20% of the time, etc.  They would all be better of course but your numbers would be mostly the same.

The teams in our conference all 5 of them all together couldn't put a competitive team on the mat. To be honest they couldn't carry our teams jockstraps if they even wear them now days. We have a 1 night match with the 6 teams counting our team and it takes longer to drive there and back then it does to wrestle them all. Why we even spend the time doing this rather then picking up 5 better teams is beyond me.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 09, 2020, 10:14:57 AM
The teams in our conference all 5 of them all together couldn't put a competitive team on the mat. To be honest they couldn't carry our teams jockstraps if they even wear them now days. We have a 1 night match with the 6 teams counting our team and it takes longer to drive there and back then it does to wrestle them all. Why we even spend the time doing this rather then picking up 5 better teams is beyond me.

Well with your statement I see a win/win situation.

Look at the money your school and the other 5 save having to do this in one night instead of making 5 other trips.

Then go look for tournaments or duals with LIKE teams. Maybe the goal for you is to cut down matches due to you dont have kids that want to go hog wild. Sounds like they like it enough to go out so get them matches to fit there needs. Maybe all weekday nights and no tournaments on Saturday until conference and regionals.

Getting rid of 7 and 7 doesnt mean you have to find better teams, it is about finding like teams. Getting teams on the schedule that are just like your team.

Quote from: 1Iota on April 03, 2020, 02:01:25 PM
I have fought the argument to reduce weight classes for awhile now, but have come to the realization that 14 is to many.  I think moving to 12 would make for a better sport, and would actually increase the interest in our sport.  Most duals, and even some tournaments have become a joke that don't reflect well on the  sport. 

In compromise perhaps we have different weight classes for duals while keeping the 14 for individual state. 

A dual format with 10 weight classes

110
118
126
134
142
152
162
175
190
HW

Your best wrestlers are still going to be in the line up regardless of their individual weight class and you will have more competitive duals.

Gotta be at least 12 - something closer to 100 and something between 190 & 285.

Quote from: neutral on April 09, 2020, 02:41:03 PM

Quote from: 1Iota on April 03, 2020, 02:01:25 PM
I have fought the argument to reduce weight classes for awhile now, but have come to the realization that 14 is to many.  I think moving to 12 would make for a better sport, and would actually increase the interest in our sport.  Most duals, and even some tournaments have become a joke that don't reflect well on the  sport. 

In compromise perhaps we have different weight classes for duals while keeping the 14 for individual state. 

A dual format with 10 weight classes

110
118
126
134
142
152
162
175
190
HW

Your best wrestlers are still going to be in the line up regardless of their individual weight class and you will have more competitive duals.

Gotta be at least 12 - something closer to 100 and something between 190 & 285.

108
116
125
135
145
155
165
180
200
HWT

Quote from: MNbadger on April 09, 2020, 07:21:16 AM
I respectfully question your point here;
"Reminder that 75% of the teams in Wisconsin field 12 or less kids when taking out the 0-0 wrestler and the kids who win less than 20% of their matches (kids who likely should be on JV). So, by some standards, only 1/4 of the teams are working hard."
It is pretty arbitrary to carve out the "0-0 wrestler" or the "kids who win less than 20% of their matches".  This does not mean they should likely be on varsity.  You have who you have at some point and they ARE your varsity.  Two less weights is not going to change this.
In our conference I have had kids that were surprisingly good who struggled to win 20% of their matches.  This is why I try to schedule non-conference matches with teams more like us.  One problem is your conference might eat up your dates.  I know you guys in WI have the 7 and 7 rule which makes it doubly tough.  I don't even want to be in/on our conference schedule.
Additionally, even if you eliminated all your 0-0 kids and your less than 20% winners, you'd likely have the same results.  If you took all the kids that won 80% of their matches and put them in a season schedule of competition for the most part there would still be those winning 10% of the time, 20% of the time, etc.  They would all be better of course but your numbers would be mostly the same.

It's not arbitrary at all. If a kid has not wrestled one varsity match and we are in February, then they weren't a varsity kid. It is extremely rare that a kid was injured or didn't wrestle before regionals.

A 4-17 kid probably should have wrestled JV. I've never done the research, but I wonder what the percentages are for kids who are less than .200 and quit the next year. With scramble tournaments, where you get a chance to wrestle kids at your ability level, a 4-17 kid isn't good.

You realize if you take out the 4-17 kid (who you are correct would probably benefit from a year on jv) then the 9-12 kid (who you do consider a varsity kid) will just assume more losses because he doesn't have the 4-17 type kids to beat anymore.  Therefore turning him into the 4-17 "non varsity" kid.  Unless everyone is going to be close to .500 your argument for cutting weight classes will never work.

Little guy that doesn't make sense at all. That is not the point. How are you going to get good wrestlers with that method. We have great competition but in other tournaments we also wrestlers am duals with  LC WTown all the good teams. Green Bay United has 3 D1 schools together and can't compete with D3 schools. Wrestling is down in more ways than the stats that say more teams and more kids. Is 14 wts  a money deal for WIAA. At least go to 13 wts  to try to save wrestling. Not too many years ago wrestling was going to be eliminated from the Olimpics. What does that tell you. Something has to change. First thing comes to mind is the tie in D3 this year with 14 wts. If there was 13 wts problem solved. I sure wouldn't want to have been the team to lose that match on a coin flip or the last criteria would you guys.Why don't we just try 13 and see where it goes. Something has to change. Team state would have more teams that would be able to be competitive. If you don't have 14 kids on your team you will not make it to Madison. Plain and simple. How many teams have you guys seen make it out of team sec and how many take state with 12 or even 13 kids. NONE. If Coleman would not had a 132 pounder and would have ff that match they would have lost that match. Putting a kid on the mat and get pinned won it for them. No way was the Coleman kid going to win that match. 13 wrestlers is the start to our problem.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 09, 2020, 08:10:41 PM
Little guy that doesn't make sense at all. That is not the point. How are you going to get good wrestlers with that method. We have great competition but in other tournaments we also wrestlers am duals with  LC WTown all the good teams. Green Bay United has 3 D1 schools together and can't compete with D3 schools. Wrestling is down in more ways than the stats that say more teams and more kids. Is 14 wts  a money deal for WIAA. At least go to 13 wts  to try to save wrestling. Not too many years ago wrestling was going to be eliminated from the Olimpics. What does that tell you. Something has to change. First thing comes to mind is the tie in D3 this year with 14 wts. If there was 13 wts problem solved. I sure wouldn't want to have been the team to lose that match on a coin flip or the last criteria would you guys.Why don't we just try 13 and see where it goes. Something has to change. Team state would have more teams that would be able to be competitive. If you don't have 14 kids on your team you will not make it to Madison. Plain and simple. How many teams have you guys seen make it out of team sec and how many take state with 12 or even 13 kids. NONE. If Coleman would not had a 132 pounder and would have ff that match they would have lost that match. Putting a kid on the mat and get pinned won it for them. No way was the Coleman kid going to win that match. 13 wrestlers is the start to our problem.

A couple of things.  I agree with you in that 13 weight classes with most victories is the best way to decide a winner.  But you still could have an issue if only 12 weight classes were wrestled.  Also, you can not win the state team championship with a coin flip if all other things are equal.  That rule was changed awhile ago.  If it gets to that then you will have co champs.  Lastly Coleman didn't win the state title because their kids wrestled at 132 and got pinned.  Pins, defaults, disqualifications and forfeits all count as the same for that tiebreaker.  They won because they scored the most first match points scored cumulative.  If anything having their kid wrestle at 132 could have cost them the dual if he had scored a misconduct point which is an earlier tie breaker than first match points scored.  So if you want to nit pick at it, it was a coaching error to send him on the mat.  Coach probably wasn't thinking that deeply at the time about it and didn't know if they were ahead on first match points scored.  He was just hoping to get tech falled and win it out right.  The difference in Coleman winning State was their 285lber scoring a reversal for first match points scored in a losing 2-8 effort.

Quote from: downtown on April 09, 2020, 09:20:25 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 09, 2020, 08:10:41 PM
Little guy that doesn't make sense at all. That is not the point. How are you going to get good wrestlers with that method. We have great competition but in other tournaments we also wrestlers am duals with  LC WTown all the good teams. Green Bay United has 3 D1 schools together and can't compete with D3 schools. Wrestling is down in more ways than the stats that say more teams and more kids. Is 14 wts  a money deal for WIAA. At least go to 13 wts  to try to save wrestling. Not too many years ago wrestling was going to be eliminated from the Olimpics. What does that tell you. Something has to change. First thing comes to mind is the tie in D3 this year with 14 wts. If there was 13 wts problem solved. I sure wouldn't want to have been the team to lose that match on a coin flip or the last criteria would you guys.Why don't we just try 13 and see where it goes. Something has to change. Team state would have more teams that would be able to be competitive. If you don't have 14 kids on your team you will not make it to Madison. Plain and simple. How many teams have you guys seen make it out of team sec and how many take state with 12 or even 13 kids. NONE. If Coleman would not had a 132 pounder and would have ff that match they would have lost that match. Putting a kid on the mat and get pinned won it for them. No way was the Coleman kid going to win that match. 13 wrestlers is the start to our problem.

A couple of things.  I agree with you in that 13 weight classes with most victories is the best way to decide a winner.  But you still could have an issue if only 12 weight classes were wrestled.  Also, you can not win the state team championship with a coin flip if all other things are equal.  That rule was changed awhile ago.  If it gets to that then you will have co champs.  Lastly Coleman didn't win the state title because their kids wrestled at 132 and got pinned.  Pins, defaults, disqualifications and forfeits all count as the same for that tiebreaker.  They won because they scored the most first match points scored cumulative.  If anything having their kid wrestle at 132 could have cost them the dual if he had scored a misconduct point which is an earlier tie breaker than first match points scored.  So if you want to nit pick at it, it was a coaching error to send him on the mat.  Coach probably wasn't thinking that deeply at the time about it and didn't know if they were ahead on first match points scored.  He was just hoping to get tech falled and win it out right.  The difference in Coleman winning State was their 285lber scoring a reversal for first match points scored in a losing 2-8 effort.

Coleman did win the team title because they had a kid at 132. If they FF, they would have again tied but criteria F they would have lost.

f. The team giving up the least number of forfeits.
g. The team having the greater number of technical falls shall be declared the winner.
h. The team having the greater number of major decisions shall be declared the winner.
i. The team having the greater number (total match points) of first-point(s) scored shall
be declared the winner.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 09, 2020, 09:55:59 PM
Downtown I said 13. And check the criteria letter q and I quote if none of the above resolves a tie a flip of the disk will determine a winner. And yes the Coleman coach did know what was going on with sendnig a kid to  ff or wrestle. The outcome would have been the same. And as far as the tech fall that wasn't going to happen. But I will agree on a tech fall miracle but that's not the point we need to go with 13 for more reasons than not. D2and D3 schools will not survive and still be a competitive wrestling team. Some D1 schools also look at a school like Bay port. They have one of the biggest schools in D1 and toughest football around excellent coaches are competitive but if you drop to 13 they would be a better team. It's hard to make kids to want to wrestle after middle school kids drop off. Youth programs have lot of kids but as soon as they get into high school they have so many more sport programs to pick from. When your team has 22 kids out they still can't put 14 kids on the mat. Great teams can't win with less than 14 wrestlers. We have 22 wrestlers that's why I am saying this. I just wish WIAA would look at this problem.

I know that you said 13 weights, I am just saying if only twelve weights were wrestled as in a double forfeit you would have the same problem.

I totally missed missed less forfeits being before  first match points scored.  Thanks  for pointing it out.  I can't believe I missed that.  I have never run into it before for a tiebreaker.

I think unless you go to something drastic like 10 weight classes it won't matter losing a weight class or two for the majority of the struggling teams.

Downtown have you found where it says a flip of the disk wins the match yet.

For the state championship final match only, the last criteria is not used.  I believe it is a Wisconsin rule only (not part of the NFHS rules).  In any other match throughout the entire year including up to the state finals it is used.  Just not in the state finals.  I don't remember what year it was changed but it was after the mineral point/cadott tie in the state finals.

To be clear I did know about the disc flip being the ultimate deciding factor in a tied dual when everything else is equal.

I did not realize that the team with less forfeits was a decider before first match points scored cumulative.  I had not realized it.  So that was my miss and my fault which I owned and thanked you for pointing it out.

I don't know where the disc flip rule is published for the team state championship.  I would assume it is an amendment in the wiaa case book somewhere.  I just remember when it was discussed and brought forth. 

Quote from: The wrestler on April 11, 2020, 09:54:04 PM
Are you a Ref. You can't be a coach. Anyone else know about this rule. Seams a little shady to me if its good for any other match but state finals. It can not go both ways. You are right about one thing it was MPoint and Cadott but it was changed after that match so there is only 1 winner not co champs. One set of rules for all the matches but one. Sorry coach we don't use all the rules on this paper we have anther one over here I think we use in case of a tie for the finals only.

It took me all of 5 minutes to find it.  Page 68 of the 2019-20 tournament procedures on the wiaa website.  It is under team tournament procedures.  It says, and I quote....

Ties in Dual Competition During State Team Tournaments
In the event there is a tie in dual competition during the sectional and State phases of competition, National Federation dual meet tie-breaking criteria shall be applied to determine a winner (NF Rule 9-2-2)
Note 1:
Note 2:
If none of the listed criteria resolve the tie in quarterfinal and semifinal competition, an official will meet with captain of each team in center of mat and break tie by flipping colored disc with green representing home team and red representing visiting team.
STATE Championship Finals: NF tie breaking criteria will be applied. If after all NF tie breaking criteria have been applied a tie remains unbroken - Co-Champions will be declared in lieu of flipping a colored disc

Funny how you would attack me for admitting I was wrong and missed something.  Which I was very surprised and disappointed in myself that I had missed it for so many years. Yet here I am finding this and showing you.  You obviously don't coach or ref because you don't even know this rule or why it was applied.  I don't even know you and I am sure that you can be around this sport for the next 40 years and you couldn't rattle of rules, names, history and procedures like I can.

I'll just drop this here....

The NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee has made some rule change proposals for the 2020-2021 wrestling season. These are condensed changes and are NOT official but have been proposed and are being looked at as possibilities.

ART. 1 . . . The competition shall be in the following weight classes:

107 lbs.

114 lbs.

121 lbs.

128 lbs.

134 lbs.

140 lbs.

146 lbs.

152 lbs.

160 lbs.

172 lbs.

189 lbs.

215 lbs.

285 lbs.

NFHS Rationale:

After analysis of a national survey conducted by NWCA, the following information is offered in support of a reduction to 13 weight classes:

· 37 states responded to the survey with 68% indicating a desire to see a reduction of wt classes;

· The proposal removes one weight class from the top of the current weight classes and bumps up lower weight classes by only one pound;

· 50% of the weight classes fall in the 'window' where 50% of the wrestlers are eligible to compete according to their weight plans;

· 13 weight classes provide a natural tie-breaker for dual meets;

· One of the primary speaking points heard from coaches and parents is the concern of losing or raising the lower weight classes; this proposal minimally impacts the bottom weight classes while maintaining an equal distribution of wrestlers throughout all classes.

There are also proposed weight classes for Girls Wrestling.

100 lbs., 106 lbs., 112 lbs., 118 lbs., 124 lbs., 130 lbs., 136 lbs., 142 lbs., 148 lbs., 155 lbs., 170 lbs., 190 lbs., 235 lbs.

In my never ending quest for 12 (but 13 is a step in the right direction) I offer this:

No more weight allowance. Let's be honest. Kids use it to cut to a lower weight, most of the time.

If there was no weight allowance, then the 12 weights could be:

112 (107 from above proposal is 110 at the end of the season)
119
126
133
141
149
157
165
177
190
210
285

I saw on Twitter a proposal to drop 285 to 265. Not sure how I feel about that, but his point was that grown men in the Olympics have to make 265 to wrestle heavyweight.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 11:41:26 AM
In my never ending quest for 12 (but 13 is a step in the right direction) I offer this:

No more weight allowance. Let's be honest. Kids use it to cut to a lower weight, most of the time.

If there was no weight allowance, then the 12 weights could be:

112 (107 from above proposal is 110 at the end of the season)
119
126
133
141
149
157
165
177
190
210
285

I saw on Twitter a proposal to drop 285 to 265. Not sure how I feel about that, but his point was that grown men in the Olympics have to make 265 to wrestle heavyweight.

Awful. You cut out 106 which is a very competitive weight class to keep 220/215. The 13 weight class proposal combines 182, 195 and 220 Into 189 and 215. It also spread out the weights instead of just cutting the lowest weight. If you follow that same thread on twitter there are stats from national coaches meeting that most AAs and NCAA champs start their HS career at 106.

The first 3 weights in college are very small for an adult so it makes sense that they were at 106 as a freshman in high school.

Evan Wick started at 113
Zahid Valencia started at 106
Alex Dieringer started at 103
David Taylor started at 103
Kyle Dale started at 103.

These are just off the top of my head. They are all very small adults right.

Quote from: Wis-Mallard on April 20, 2020, 01:16:59 PM
The first 3 weights in college are very small for an adult so it makes sense that they were at 106 as a freshman in high school.

I am actually surprised that there is not more of a push to move the college weights up a bit especially with all the weight cutting and worrying about managing number of weigh-ins in a season.  I think college wrestling could benefit by bumping up all weights 5 or 6 lbs except heavyweight.

I would not be against lowering heavyweight to 265. What percentage of our present heavyweights are above 265 or can't cut to 265?  I would like to see the bell curve for weight of guys just wrestling heavyweight.

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 20, 2020, 12:28:20 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 11:41:26 AM
In my never ending quest for 12 (but 13 is a step in the right direction) I offer this:

No more weight allowance. Let's be honest. Kids use it to cut to a lower weight, most of the time.

If there was no weight allowance, then the 12 weights could be:

112 (107 from above proposal is 110 at the end of the season)
119
126
133
141
149
157
165
177
190
210
285

I saw on Twitter a proposal to drop 285 to 265. Not sure how I feel about that, but his point was that grown men in the Olympics have to make 265 to wrestle heavyweight.

Awful. You cut out 106 which is a very competitive weight class to keep 220/215. The 13 weight class proposal combines 182, 195 and 220 Into 189 and 215. It also spread out the weights instead of just cutting the lowest weight. If you follow that same thread on twitter there are stats from national coaches meeting that most AAs and NCAA champs start their HS career at 106.

Again, I was going off the premise that the weight allowance is really a weight cutting allowance. 106 is really only 106 for the first third of competitions, then its 108 and 109, so really, 112 is moving the weight up 3 to 4 pounds. If it stays at 112 all season long, very few "bigger guys" are gonna cut to 112 in February.

The body fat data that I have been pulling together puts the lowest weight higher (114), so I thought I was erring on the side of the smaller guy.

Here is data (the curve you asked for).
We are choosing to throw away a good percentage of potential wrestlers.
https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.pdf

Quote from: DocWrestling on April 20, 2020, 02:01:48 PM

Quote from: Wis-Mallard on April 20, 2020, 01:16:59 PM
The first 3 weights in college are very small for an adult so it makes sense that they were at 106 as a freshman in high school.

I am actually surprised that there is not more of a push to move the college weights up a bit especially with all the weight cutting and worrying about managing number of weigh-ins in a season.  I think college wrestling could benefit by bumping up all weights 5 or 6 lbs except heavyweight.

I would not be against lowering heavyweight to 265. What percentage of our present heavyweights are above 265 or can't cut to 265?  I would like to see the bell curve for weight of guys just wrestling heavyweight.

Quote from: MNbadger on April 20, 2020, 04:10:06 PM
Here is data (the curve you asked for).
We are choosing to throw away a good percentage of potential wrestlers.
https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.pdf

Quote from: DocWrestling on April 20, 2020, 02:01:48 PM

Quote from: Wis-Mallard on April 20, 2020, 01:16:59 PM
The first 3 weights in college are very small for an adult so it makes sense that they were at 106 as a freshman in high school.

I am actually surprised that there is not more of a push to move the college weights up a bit especially with all the weight cutting and worrying about managing number of weigh-ins in a season.  I think college wrestling could benefit by bumping up all weights 5 or 6 lbs except heavyweight.

I would not be against lowering heavyweight to 265. What percentage of our present heavyweights are above 265 or can't cut to 265?  I would like to see the bell curve for weight of guys just wrestling heavyweight.

5% of 16 years old weigh less than 105.
5% of 17 year olds weigh less that 110
About 2% of 18 year olds weigh less than 112

All those kids would fit nicely in a 112 lb weight class...
**Even more so if there was no growth allowance
**Even more so if there was mat side weigh-ins
**Even more so if a wrestler had to weigh in below 112 for over 50% of his weigh-ins to be eligible to wrestle that weight class in state tournament series

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 03:36:29 PM

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 20, 2020, 12:28:20 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 11:41:26 AM
In my never ending quest for 12 (but 13 is a step in the right direction) I offer this:

No more weight allowance. Let's be honest. Kids use it to cut to a lower weight, most of the time.

If there was no weight allowance, then the 12 weights could be:

112 (107 from above proposal is 110 at the end of the season)
119
126
133
141
149
157
165
177
190
210
285

I saw on Twitter a proposal to drop 285 to 265. Not sure how I feel about that, but his point was that grown men in the Olympics have to make 265 to wrestle heavyweight.

Awful. You cut out 106 which is a very competitive weight class to keep 220/215. The 13 weight class proposal combines 182, 195 and 220 Into 189 and 215. It also spread out the weights instead of just cutting the lowest weight. If you follow that same thread on twitter there are stats from national coaches meeting that most AAs and NCAA champs start their HS career at 106.

Again, I was going off the premise that the weight allowance is really a weight cutting allowance. 106 is really only 106 for the first third of competitions, then its 108 and 109, so really, 112 is moving the weight up 3 to 4 pounds. If it stays at 112 all season long, very few "bigger guys" are gonna cut to 112 in February.

The body fat data that I have been pulling together puts the lowest weight higher (114), so I thought I was erring on the side of the smaller guy.

But taking their body fat percentage number from the beginning of the season isn't an accurate representation. There are plenty of football players who are heavy coming into season and without cutting weight or skipping meals drop 10-20 pounds. Every year there are football players who say " I'm not cutting weight" and want to stay at what they weigh in the beginning of the season, but by mid year through hard work and conditioning they are down a weight class without even trying. That dramatically would change numbers.

In regard to your point, all but one of my "big guys" aren't.  They are actually over 30 % body fat readings.  I don't even put them out unless it is to take a forfeit.

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 20, 2020, 05:38:23 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 03:36:29 PM

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 20, 2020, 12:28:20 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 11:41:26 AM
In my never ending quest for 12 (but 13 is a step in the right direction) I offer this:

No more weight allowance. Let's be honest. Kids use it to cut to a lower weight, most of the time.

If there was no weight allowance, then the 12 weights could be:

112 (107 from above proposal is 110 at the end of the season)
119
126
133
141
149
157
165
177
190
210
285

I saw on Twitter a proposal to drop 285 to 265. Not sure how I feel about that, but his point was that grown men in the Olympics have to make 265 to wrestle heavyweight.

Awful. You cut out 106 which is a very competitive weight class to keep 220/215. The 13 weight class proposal combines 182, 195 and 220 Into 189 and 215. It also spread out the weights instead of just cutting the lowest weight. If you follow that same thread on twitter there are stats from national coaches meeting that most AAs and NCAA champs start their HS career at 106.

Again, I was going off the premise that the weight allowance is really a weight cutting allowance. 106 is really only 106 for the first third of competitions, then its 108 and 109, so really, 112 is moving the weight up 3 to 4 pounds. If it stays at 112 all season long, very few "bigger guys" are gonna cut to 112 in February.

The body fat data that I have been pulling together puts the lowest weight higher (114), so I thought I was erring on the side of the smaller guy.

But taking their body fat percentage number from the beginning of the season isn't an accurate representation. There are plenty of football players who are heavy coming into season and without cutting weight or skipping meals drop 10-20 pounds. Every year there are football players who say " I'm not cutting weight" and want to stay at what they weigh in the beginning of the season, but by mid year through hard work and conditioning they are down a weight class without even trying. That dramatically would change numbers.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 11:32:47 AM
I'll just drop this here....

The NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee has made some rule change proposals for the 2020-2021 wrestling season. These are condensed changes and are NOT official but have been proposed and are being looked at as possibilities.

ART. 1 . . . The competition shall be in the following weight classes:

107 lbs.

114 lbs.

121 lbs.

128 lbs.

134 lbs.

140 lbs.

146 lbs.

152 lbs.

160 lbs.

172 lbs.

189 lbs.

215 lbs.

285 lbs.

NFHS Rationale:

After analysis of a national survey conducted by NWCA, the following information is offered in support of a reduction to 13 weight classes:

· 37 states responded to the survey with 68% indicating a desire to see a reduction of wt classes;

· The proposal removes one weight class from the top of the current weight classes and bumps up lower weight classes by only one pound;

· 50% of the weight classes fall in the 'window' where 50% of the wrestlers are eligible to compete according to their weight plans;

· 13 weight classes provide a natural tie-breaker for dual meets;

· One of the primary speaking points heard from coaches and parents is the concern of losing or raising the lower weight classes; this proposal minimally impacts the bottom weight classes while maintaining an equal distribution of wrestlers throughout all classes.

There are also proposed weight classes for Girls Wrestling.

100 lbs., 106 lbs., 112 lbs., 118 lbs., 124 lbs., 130 lbs., 136 lbs., 142 lbs., 148 lbs., 155 lbs., 170 lbs., 190 lbs., 235 lbs.

So we might be going back to where we were about 30 years ago except changing 130 to 215?  Just adjusting a few other weight classes by 2 or 3 pounds.

I can't figure out why people are so upset why a 102 pound freshman kid has to wrestle 109 or 112 pound kid. A 230 pound heavyweight is just as undersized wrestling a full sized heavy.  Will be interesting to see if 13 weights are adopted.

I'm sure Taylor, Valencia and others would have been fine at 110 or 112 as a freshman.

There is a bigger difference at the lower weight.  It is a bigger percentage of their total weight.

Quote from: Wis-Mallard on April 20, 2020, 08:02:03 PM
I can't figure out why people are so upset why a 102 pound freshman kid has to wrestle 109 or 112 pound kid. A 230 pound heavyweight is just as undersized wrestling a full sized heavy.  Will be interesting to see if 13 weights are adopted.

I'm sure Taylor, Valencia and others would have been fine at 110 or 112 as a freshman.

I will make some predictions assuming we undergo retraction and raise the lowest weight class;
#1 We will see a decrease in the number of wrestlers over the next five years after twenty plus years of slow but steady increases.
#2 The finish order of the majority of conferences will be the same after retraction as before retraction.
#3 We will see a decrease in the quality of wrestling overall.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 20, 2020, 11:41:26 AM
In my never ending quest for 12 (but 13 is a step in the right direction) I offer this:

No more weight allowance. Let's be honest. Kids use it to cut to a lower weight, most of the time.

If there was no weight allowance, then the 12 weights could be:

112 (107 from above proposal is 110 at the end of the season)
119
126
133
141
149
157
165
177
190
210
285

I saw on Twitter a proposal to drop 285 to 265. Not sure how I feel about that, but his point was that grown men in the Olympics have to make 265 to wrestle heavyweight.

I could get behind this only if you add a 13th weight kn the lower end. I still feel there is a need for the light weight guys.

I see at state every year some real good wrestling in those middle to upper weight classes.

The % difference from 102 and 109 is 6.64%. Light heavyweight at 230 and 285 is 21.36%. An 88 pond kid is 21.32% different than a 109 pounder.

Just think of poor 220 moved up to wrestle heavyweight. I know the big guys have some fluff that is a huge difference.

Anyone that doesn't understand why we have or why we need 14 weight classes does not understand how wrestling or high school sports work.

First we have to understand that wrestling is not a team sport but we try and function like a team sport!!!
Example - The dumbest FF solution I hear is "go to college weights and 3 weights below"??? with this logic applied to other sports then linebacker's in HS would all weigh 235 and they would be 6'3 just like in college, and in Basketball HS point guards would all be 6'4 like in college?
In team sport they have positions that are not determined by size or weight and kids slowly grow in to these positions between their  freshman year and potentially through college years as well. So a 5'8 135 pound freshman playing linebacker will likely be 5'11 and 185lbs his senior year and still playing linebacker. In team sports they don't need to worry about the bell curve of growth because you do not need to be a size or weight to play any position, they typically find a way to get the best kids on the field,court,rink.
Because wrestling is not a team sport we have 14 weight classes to take into account the 4 bell curves.
The average freshman weigh's 135 so the bell curve would be from 105-160.
The average sophomore weighs 160 so the bell curve would be from 132 - 195
The average junior weighs 170 so the bell curve would be from 145 - 220
The average senior weighs 180 so the bell curve would be from 152 - HWT.
I guess if we are inappropriate term3 bent on forcing wrestling to look like a team sport with duals (duals are fun) then we need to understand FF are a necessary part of the sport to allow for the natural growth pattern. Or Wisconsin could do what other states have done to maintain participation numbers and co-op, or spend more time building a k-12 program.

Quote from: Wis-Mallard on April 20, 2020, 11:12:01 PM
The % difference from 102 and 109 is 6.64%. Light heavyweight at 230 and 285 is 21.36%. An 88 pond kid is 21.32% different than a 109 pounder.

Just think of poor 220 moved up to wrestle heavyweight. I know the big guys have some fluff that is a huge difference.

Lol yea if your HWT is 285 there aren't many that are. Plus your talking about bumping a 220 up. Of course the percentage is going to be higher. Great argument  ::)

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 21, 2020, 05:35:08 AM

Quote from: Wis-Mallard on April 20, 2020, 11:12:01 PM
The % difference from 102 and 109 is 6.64%. Light heavyweight at 230 and 285 is 21.36%. An 88 pond kid is 21.32% different than a 109 pounder.

Just think of poor 220 moved up to wrestle heavyweight. I know the big guys have some fluff that is a huge difference.

Lol yea if your HWT is 285 there aren't many that are. Plus your talking about bumping a 220 up. Of course the percentage is going to be higher. Great argument  ::)

A 233 pound heavyweight is 7.04% different than a 250 heavyweight. So we typically have some weight differences at more than just 106. I'm simply pointing out that there are other situations where a guy has to wrestle bigger guys. If you have two 190 pound kids and no 220 one kid has to wrestle 220 and give up weight.   

Keeping the lowest weight low also creates incentives to cheat the system and have big weight cuts to make sure you can fill all the weights or win a state title at a weight dominated by freshman and sophomores. If everything has to be fair for every kid that steps on the mat why not bring back 98 pounds?

Even at 19 years old 220 is 95th percentile according to CDC whereas 15 year olds which is part way through freshman year would be at 20th percentile for 106. An 18 year old at 5th percentile is 115. That's basically 112. Yea let's skew the numbers heavier.... ::)

10% of 15 year olds (high school freshmen) are under 100 pounds.
You can push the weights up by as many pounds as you like, the same cutting will continue.  That was the flawed logic the last tome it was done and we are still claiming it is an issue

Quote from: DocWrestling on April 20, 2020, 04:43:10 PM

Quote from: MNbadger on April 20, 2020, 04:10:06 PM
Here is data (the curve you asked for).
We are choosing to throw away a good percentage of potential wrestlers.
https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.pdf

Quote from: DocWrestling on April 20, 2020, 02:01:48 PM

Quote from: Wis-Mallard on April 20, 2020, 01:16:59 PM
The first 3 weights in college are very small for an adult so it makes sense that they were at 106 as a freshman in high school.

I am actually surprised that there is not more of a push to move the college weights up a bit especially with all the weight cutting and worrying about managing number of weigh-ins in a season.  I think college wrestling could benefit by bumping up all weights 5 or 6 lbs except heavyweight.

I would not be against lowering heavyweight to 265. What percentage of our present heavyweights are above 265 or can't cut to 265?  I would like to see the bell curve for weight of guys just wrestling heavyweight.

5% of 16 years old weigh less than 105.
5% of 17 year olds weigh less that 110
About 2% of 18 year olds weigh less than 112

All those kids would fit nicely in a 112 lb weight class...
**Even more so if there was no growth allowance
**Even more so if there was mat side weigh-ins
**Even more so if a wrestler had to weigh in below 112 for over 50% of his weigh-ins to be eligible to wrestle that weight class in state tournament series

I realize only the most passionate visit this board.  Why do we stress about the lowest weight class?

Not every freshman should be a varsity wrestler.  Some really good wrestlers might not make state as a freshman if they only weigh 96 pounds.  That is okay.  They may place at state as a sophomore.

Not being able to field a full team is an issue.  Forfeits are really bad for the sport.

13 weight classes is a step in the right direction.

Well said.

Quote from: factfinder on April 21, 2020, 04:36:42 AM
Anyone that doesn't understand why we have or why we need 14 weight classes does not understand how wrestling or high school sports work.

First we have to understand that wrestling is not a team sport but we try and function like a team sport!!!
Example - The dumbest FF solution I hear is "go to college weights and 3 weights below"??? with this logic applied to other sports then linebacker's in HS would all weigh 235 and they would be 6'3 just like in college, and in Basketball HS point guards would all be 6'4 like in college?
In team sport they have positions that are not determined by size or weight and kids slowly grow in to these positions between their  freshman year and potentially through college years as well. So a 5'8 135 pound freshman playing linebacker will likely be 5'11 and 185lbs his senior year and still playing linebacker. In team sports they don't need to worry about the bell curve of growth because you do not need to be a size or weight to play any position, they typically find a way to get the best kids on the field,court,rink.
Because wrestling is not a team sport we have 14 weight classes to take into account the 4 bell curves.
The average freshman weigh's 135 so the bell curve would be from 105-160.
The average sophomore weighs 160 so the bell curve would be from 132 - 195
The average junior weighs 170 so the bell curve would be from 145 - 220
The average senior weighs 180 so the bell curve would be from 152 - HWT.
I guess if we are inappropriate term3 bent on forcing wrestling to look like a team sport with duals (duals are fun) then we need to understand FF are a necessary part of the sport to allow for the natural growth pattern. Or Wisconsin could do what other states have done to maintain participation numbers and co-op, or spend more time building a k-12 program.

Quote from: Numbers on April 21, 2020, 07:39:13 AM
I realize only the most passionate visit this board.  Why do we stress about the lowest weight class?

Not every freshman should be a varsity wrestler.  Some really good wrestlers might not make state as a freshman if they only weigh 96 pounds.  That is okay.  They may place at state as a sophomore.

Not being able to field a full team is an issue.  Forfeits are really bad for the sport.

13 weight classes is a step in the right direction.

Not a single person on here said every freshman should be varsity. Your point about forfeits being really bad actually explains my point. Hey Numbers look at the numbers! There are more kids under 110 in HS than their are above 200 according to the CDC. Yet we have 2 weight classes above 200. Even as a 20 year old the 95th percentile is only 210. But yea keep bumping the weights up further it makes ZERO sense.

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 21, 2020, 08:40:26 AM

Quote from: Numbers on April 21, 2020, 07:39:13 AM
I realize only the most passionate visit this board.  Why do we stress about the lowest weight class?

Not every freshman should be a varsity wrestler.  Some really good wrestlers might not make state as a freshman if they only weigh 96 pounds.  That is okay.  They may place at state as a sophomore.

Not being able to field a full team is an issue.  Forfeits are really bad for the sport.

13 weight classes is a step in the right direction.

Look at your messages.
Not a single person on here said every freshman should be varsity. Your point about forfeits being really bad actually explains my point. Hey Numbers look at the numbers! There are more kids under 110 in HS than their are above 200 according to the CDC. Yet we have 2 weight classes above 200. Even as a 20 year old the 95th percentile is only 210. But yea keep bumping the weights up further it makes ZERO sense.

Now it has been posted some where that since we went to 14 weight classes the number of kids that have come out has gone up.

If that is true, I certainly dont want to cut any weight classes!

People, get rid of the 7/7 and try to get a dual with a team that is in your same boat.

For all the people out here that want to drop weights, what if you were in duals with teams like your teams. Both teams had a couple of ff but the rest matched up real good and you had duals.

Should tennis cut back due to lack of kids? They dont but has anyone ever been to a high school tennis meet. Same goes for cross country, golf and other sports.

I would bet a school that has problems filling out a wrestling line up has a problem filling out a full line up in another sport also.

Now I could be wrong but I read in girls hockey there is well over 200 schools that are in evolved with girls hockey but yet they only field 90 plus teams. Lots of co ops and sounds like not alot of numbers either. I dont hear that hockey wants to reduce to 5 players on a team. Heck they split into 2 divisions! More teams at state!

I could be wrong but schools dropped from 11 to 9 man football. I still hear numbers are dropping.

While I understand because I was all for dropping weights not so long ago. I now believe in the idea of giving every one a chance and do not want to take away anything because you never get it back.

Lot at the up rear in the Olympics taking away weights. I seriously doubt we ever have more than 6 weights again. Wouldn't it have been nice to have dake, Taylor and a few more on the last Olympic team. Gosh the medals!

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 21, 2020, 09:05:14 AM
Now it has been posted some where that since we went to 14 weight classes the number of kids that have come out has gone up.

If that is true, I certainly dont want to cut any weight classes!

People, get rid of the 7/7 and try to get a dual with a team that is in your same boat.

For all the people out here that want to drop weights, what if you were in duals with teams like your teams. Both teams had a couple of ff but the rest matched up real good and you had duals.

This assumes that you have kids at the same weights

Should tennis cut back due to lack of kids? They dont but has anyone ever been to a high school tennis meet. Same goes for cross country, golf and other sports.

Tennis can put 5 kids of any size on the court. There are no weight classes. Same with every other sport. Our sport is unique in that aspect. Can't really compare.

The proposed changes get rid of big guy and are a very minor shift in the rest of the weights towards the middle. Going from 13 to 14 weights is that no that big of a deal. Going from 10 to 6 in the Olympics really sucks.

Now I could be wrong little guy. lm not understanding why a team would spend time looking for other teams that have as many ff as your team. That's not what teams look for. They look for better teams to wrestle and set goals for a team championship at the end. Our coach is not in this sport to get a partisapation ribbon. Why is a team satisfied with ff and looking for a team you can beat all the time. We are looking for all teams to be a competitive team not any less. Almost every year our team can only put 13 on the mat. We manage but when it gets to the end of the year it's hard to win and make it to team state. All the numbers and stats we put together isn't going to change the problem we have. Look at tournaments when they ask for 16 teams and if they have 20 teams you still can't fill a 16 man brackets. I'm not saying this is going to solve all the problems we have but this is a start moving to 13. Sometimes I wonder if we are all watching the same movie so to speak. The only time they have a full brackets is at sectionals. WIAA please do something and listen to the fans.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 21, 2020, 11:00:11 AM
Factfinder for sure you don't know the facts. Wrestling is not a team sport if you only have 9 wrestlers but put 13 on the mat and then you have a team. WRONG statement sir. That's what this post is all about. I'm guessing your team has never made it to team state because those boys that are not going to make it out of sectionals are good enough as a team to win a state championship. Some teams might come out of Individual state with only one state champ but can compete for a Team State Title. And for those people don't think a Team Title isn't the same your wrong. A team title means that your team has 14 champs on one team. That's what we are trying to do here people. As the old saying goes less is more.

My son's team has won state two years in a row and is favored to win again next year, They are ranked in the top ten in the nation. I guess I don't get your point? In Wisconsin your team makes team state based on how they do at an individual tournament (regionals).

Quote from: Ghetto on April 21, 2020, 09:37:29 AM

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 21, 2020, 09:05:14 AM
Now it has been posted some where that since we went to 14 weight classes the number of kids that have come out has gone up.

If that is true, I certainly dont want to cut any weight classes!

People, get rid of the 7/7 and try to get a dual with a team that is in your same boat.

For all the people out here that want to drop weights, what if you were in duals with teams like your teams. Both teams had a couple of ff but the rest matched up real good and you had duals.

This assumes that you have kids at the same weights

Should tennis cut back due to lack of kids? They dont but has anyone ever been to a high school tennis meet. Same goes for cross country, golf and other sports.

Tennis can put 5 kids of any size on the court. There are no weight classes. Same with every other sport. Our sport is unique in that aspect. Can't really compare.

well I dont know my tennis that well but isnt there 7 matches contested in a meet?

4 singles and 3 doubles. that would make they need 10 kids. Many school do not field an entire team of 4 singles and 3 doubles but I dont hear tennis people talking about cutting down.

find a team that works for you with kids at around the same weights.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 21, 2020, 10:38:35 AM
Now I could be wrong little guy. lm not understanding why a team would spend time looking for other teams that have as many ff as your team. That's not what teams look for. They look for better teams to wrestle and set goals for a team championship at the end. Our coach is not in this sport to get a partisapation ribbon. Why is a team satisfied with ff and looking for a team you can beat all the time. We are looking for all teams to be a competitive team not any less. Almost every year our team can only put 13 on the mat. We manage but when it gets to the end of the year it's hard to win and make it to team state. All the numbers and stats we put together isn't going to change the problem we have. Look at tournaments when they ask for 16 teams and if they have 20 teams you still can't fill a 16 man brackets. I'm not saying this is going to solve all the problems we have but this is a start moving to 13. Sometimes I wonder if we are all watching the same movie so to speak. The only time they have a full brackets is at sectionals. WIAA please do something and listen to the fans.

you want the WIAA to do something and you dont want to do it your self.

so your saying your coach is lazy then,

send out emails, post on this forum and ask around to see if there is teams that match what you have.

dont look for teams your going to mop up on look for teams that are in your boat and will be good for you.

example: if you have a team of 12 kids that fill out 11 weights look and see if there is another team in your boat with weights around the same as yours. We all spend time on track wrestling looking at track records look to see what those teams have.

if there is no 7/7 rule

example: then if you have a team of 6 kids look for getting mainly into tournaments to get those kids matches. sure it sucks not to have a home dual but put your wrestlers in the best spot.

look to co-op. dont play the victum card, swallow your ego and co-op with a school that makes sense.

bottom line is dont let the WIAA solve your problems because it isnt going to work very well overall for most involved.

My only hope in this topic is that those of you who want to reduce the number of weight classes at the very least know that there are a lot of us who are equally invested, who wishes to remain at 14 for equally good reasons. We are not as vocal because we are not trying to change anything. We already have what we want. So if it seems that this is a very one-sided conversation, that is because only one side is speaking. Just know, that your belief, which seems incredibly obvious and is a no-brainer to you, it is incredibly obvious and a no-brainer to me also even though we are 180° apart.

When I have this conversation with my inner circle, we clarify what our desired outcome is.   You want better, more competitive duals with more teams having a chance.   Fair enough.

I want more wrestlers.

We have a different desired outcome.

Your not wrong, I'm not wrong.

I was the head coach at Bruce High School, division 3.  I was the head coach at Plymouth High School, division 2. I am the head coach at Hudson High School, division 1. I have coached in southeastern Wisconsin on Lake Michigan and northwestern Wisconsin on the St. Croix River.  I have seen both sides of the coin. My team at Plymouth had six athletes when I moved there.  I've had a team in Hudson ranked number one.

None of that means anything other than to give me a qualified opinion. And here it is.......

With 100% guarantee, I will have less kids on my team with 13 weights then I will if I have 14 weights. Take that to the bank, it is a guarantee.

Might not be true for you. Didn't say it was. I'm talking about my team and my guarantee.

nicely said Mr Hanson!

I will stand behind having 14 weight classes if that means we keep just 1 kid out or wrestling gets 1 more kid out.

Our team has been competitive and are in the mix every year 6 team state titles 5 2nd place in twenty years. I'm not talking about our team I'm talking WIAA in general. Coach is always wrestling tough teams. If you people are worried about your team and trying to figure out what to do your wrong. Let's look at the big picture. More teams down to Madison for team Titles. When that comes to you then your team gets better and it all rubs off to the next kid. Not all wrestlers can make it to individual state. If you have 13 good wrestlers as a team you may win. Every year it's the same teams that make it. You can not win team sectionals when you have 10-11-12-13- wrestlers. That's where the team comes in. What fun is it to go and watch 9 kids wrestle and lose all the time. Are team doesn't need to co-op and that will never happen. The answer is not to look for teams that have what you have and wrestle. I'm sure if your team is ranked in the nation like you say your coach isn't looking for teams like that he is looking for tougher teams to make his team better. Look at teams that make it to individual state. You have 3 or 4 weights in a row from schools because good wrestlers rub off on other kids. It's a fact fact finder. Look at the big picture and not put a bandaid on it and patch it fix it.  When two teams wrestle end in a tie there is no criteria needed who won more matches 6-7 = 13. Done deal. Losing one weight is not going to fix all the ff but it will help for sure.

Fact finder. I think your team won 3 years in a row.

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 21, 2020, 01:32:30 PM
My only hope in this topic is that those of you who want to reduce the number of weight classes at the very least know that there are a lot of us who are equally invested, who wishes to remain at 14 for equally good reasons. We are not as vocal because we are not trying to change anything. We already have what we want. So if it seems that this is a very one-sided conversation, that is because only one side is speaking. Just know, that your belief, which seems incredibly obvious and is a no-brainer to you, it is incredibly obvious and a no-brainer to me also even though we are 180° apart.

When I have this conversation with my inner circle, we clarify what our desired outcome is.   You want better, more competitive duals with more teams having a chance.   Fair enough.

I want more wrestlers.

We have a different desired outcome.

Your not wrong, I'm not wrong.

I was the head coach at Bruce High School, division 3.  I was the head coach at Plymouth High School, division 2. I am the head coach at Hudson High School, division 1. I have coached in southeastern Wisconsin on Lake Michigan and northwestern Wisconsin on the St. Croix River.  I have seen both sides of the coin. My team at Plymouth had six athletes when I moved there.  I've had a team in Hudson ranked number one.

None of that means anything other than to give me a qualified opinion. And here it is.......

With 100% guarantee, I will have less kids on my team with 13 weights then I will if I have 14 weights. Take that to the bank, it is a guarantee.

Might not be true for you. Didn't say it was. I'm talking about my team and my guarantee.

I'm interested in your opinion. I have also coached on both sides of the spectrum, number-wise. When I was at Muskego, we took two busses because we couldn't fit on one. I coached/coach at Whitefish Bay, where we had 8 last year.

What makes you think that dropping to 13 weights would make you lose kids? Don't you already have kids that wrestle JV because they have a better kid in front of them? Is that why kids would quit?

I in no way am being sarcastic, because I don't get it. I wrestled in a program where we had over 100 kids when I was a freshman. There were 12 weights. That same school now has maybe 30 with 14 weights. I think they have a great coach who works in the building. Back then we did not.

I do want more competitive duals. You are 100% right about that. I also want for more teams to fill weights so the product looks better to the non or average fan. I also want more numbers. I don't think they are correlated, and that's why I am asking.

I truly don't think we have a different desired outcome. At the end of the day both of us want wrestling to be better and to grow. What we disagree on is how that is going to happen.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 21, 2020, 05:01:21 PM
Fact finder. I think your team won 3 years in a row.

From a guy who calls himself factfinder ;D

Quote from: Ghetto on April 21, 2020, 05:52:13 PM

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 21, 2020, 01:32:30 PM
My only hope in this topic is that those of you who want to reduce the number of weight classes at the very least know that there are a lot of us who are equally invested, who wishes to remain at 14 for equally good reasons. We are not as vocal because we are not trying to change anything. We already have what we want. So if it seems that this is a very one-sided conversation, that is because only one side is speaking. Just know, that your belief, which seems incredibly obvious and is a no-brainer to you, it is incredibly obvious and a no-brainer to me also even though we are 180° apart.

When I have this conversation with my inner circle, we clarify what our desired outcome is.   You want better, more competitive duals with more teams having a chance.   Fair enough.

I want more wrestlers.

We have a different desired outcome.

Your not wrong, I'm not wrong.

I was the head coach at Bruce High School, division 3.  I was the head coach at Plymouth High School, division 2. I am the head coach at Hudson High School, division 1. I have coached in southeastern Wisconsin on Lake Michigan and northwestern Wisconsin on the St. Croix River.  I have seen both sides of the coin. My team at Plymouth had six athletes when I moved there.  I've had a team in Hudson ranked number one.

None of that means anything other than to give me a qualified opinion. And here it is.......

With 100% guarantee, I will have less kids on my team with 13 weights then I will if I have 14 weights. Take that to the bank, it is a guarantee.

Might not be true for you. Didn't say it was. I'm talking about my team and my guarantee.

I'm interested in your opinion. I have also coached on both sides of the spectrum, number-wise. When I was at Muskego, we took two busses because we couldn't fit on one. I coached/coach at Whitefish Bay, where we had 8 last year.

What makes you think that dropping to 13 weights would make you lose kids? Don't you already have kids that wrestle JV because they have a better kid in front of them? Is that why kids would quit?

I in no way am being sarcastic, because I don't get it. I wrestled in a program where we had over 100 kids when I was a freshman. There were 12 weights. That same school now has maybe 30 with 14 weights. I think they have a great coach who works in the building. Back then we did not.

I do want more competitive duals. You are 100% right about that. I also want for more teams to fill weights so the product looks better to the non or average fan. I also want more numbers. I don't think they are correlated, and that's why I am asking.

I truly don't think we have a different desired outcome. At the end of the day both of us want wrestling to be better and to grow. What we disagree on is how that is going to happen.

I think you answered your own question.  When you coached at Muskego you were able to get those big #'s with 14 weight classes.   I don't see in anyway how Muskego would have gotten even bigger #'s with less opportunity for varsity.  I would even wager that with 1-2 less varsity spots you would get a couple kids that would quit due to that lessened opportunity.  Also, why should kids from a team like Muskego lose varsity opportunities due to other programs inability to fill their rosters?

When you coached at WFB-even with the excitement of having one of the best wrestlers in the state, co-op'ing, and some of the best clubs within driving distance you couldn't recruit more then 8 kids.   I find it hard to believe that one or 2 less forfeits would suddenly make the dual so exciting that a kid will want to join that team.  Even with 10-12 weights you would have still had 6-8 matches the years you were there.  In no way will a parent or kid look at WFB and say, "geez, I had no desire to join that team or sport when it was 14 spots, but now that it is 12 (or whatever), I'm all in."  Cutting to 1-2 varsity spots would have made WFB competitive in maybe 25% more of their duals.  It is hard to believe that would garner more interest in the sport at the expense of limiting thru-out the whole state.

From your past posts you lurk on Twitter also.  I am assuming you have read the recent posts about weight classes by Willie Saylor and a bunch of others. To me the ratio for keeping 14 versus limiting is around 2 or 3 for keeping for every one that wants to reduce.  I really enjoyed Evan Wick's mother's statement about her sons being held back a year because they would have been 91# freshman, and they would not have been able to showcase their skills in the short time in high school.  I wonder what  options they would have had if the lowest weight class was 112# as you suggest.

Finally-off Track, Muskego actually had 47 kids fat test this year, not 30.  You are correct, WFB was at 8, but now 15 kids and I see they even had a 106#er fat test for the first time in years.  Overall, it looks like both teams are trending positive #'s the past couple years-much like the overall #'s in the state as another poster pointed out.

I will say it again, get rid of 7 and 7 and a team with a small roster wouldn't have to deal with a dual forfeit issue.

I think in Wisconsin we notice the glaring forfeits because we are forced to have 7 duals. Meaning 2 teams have to dual it out on a Thursday night or whatever night. Dual last less than a half and hour and it has little fan fair. If that same team was to be able to schedule tournaments no many would know about the forfeits.

I cannt count the amount of times I have looked at results and see a team with lower numbers and say how tough they were.

Look at other sports outside of wrestling. Taking away spots isnt the answer or the first thing that comes to mind in those sports, that I know of.

Quote from: asdfg on April 21, 2020, 10:00:31 PM
I think you answered your own question.  When you coached at Muskego you were able to get those big #'s with 14 weight classes.   I don't see in anyway how Muskego would have gotten even bigger #'s with less opportunity for varsity.  I would even wager that with 1-2 less varsity spots you would get a couple kids that would quit due to that lessened opportunity.  Also, why should kids from a team like Muskego lose varsity opportunities due to other programs inability to fill their rosters?

I coached at Muskego in the 1990s. I think there were 13 weights then. If we had 80 kids, then 67 were wrestling JV. We go to 12 weights and now kids are going to quit?

When you coached at WFB-even with the excitement of having one of the best wrestlers in the state, co-op'ing, and some of the best clubs within driving distance you couldn't recruit more then 8 kids.   I find it hard to believe that one or 2 less forfeits would suddenly make the dual so exciting that a kid will want to join that team.  Even with 10-12 weights you would have still had 6-8 matches the years you were there.  In no way will a parent or kid look at WFB and say, "geez, I had no desire to join that team or sport when it was 14 spots, but now that it is 12 (or whatever), I'm all in."  Cutting to 1-2 varsity spots would have made WFB competitive in maybe 25% more of their duals.  It is hard to believe that would garner more interest in the sport at the expense of limiting thru-out the whole state.

Just to clarify, I was the head coach at Bay from 2006 to 2017. When I started in 2006, we returned zero kids. None. At one point we had 28 kids in the room, so it's not true to say that I couldn't recruit more than 8 kids. While I'll never make the hall of fame, I worked hard to build a program, and I did. When we did have good duals kids did join our program so they could be a part of it. While I will agree that kids don't look at the weights, they would see an actual exciting dual and possibly think wrestling is for them. To watch a constant stream of FFs, that isn't creating excitement for anyone. Cutting 1-2 weights would have made 4 of our 7 duals last year competitive. Also, just as an aside, I started the co-op with USM because we saw that our numbers were gonna be low, and we actually added a school that had never had a wrestling program.

From your past posts you lurk on Twitter also.  I am assuming you have read the recent posts about weight classes by Willie Saylor and a bunch of others. To me the ratio for keeping 14 versus limiting is around 2 or 3 for keeping for every one that wants to reduce.  I really enjoyed Evan Wick's mother's statement about her sons being held back a year because they would have been 91# freshman, and they would not have been able to showcase their skills in the short time in high school.  I wonder what  options they would have had if the lowest weight class was 112# as you suggest.

I do more than lurk on Twitter  ;D  I do follow Willie, but that doesn't make me think he's right. Willie looks at elite level wrestling. That's all he cares about. He thinks the sport is fine because the highest level kids are light years better than they were. He doesn't look at the sport overall. No one will argue with Willie because he's got a big ole' mouth and will call you dumb for arguing with him. There are people out there on Twitter that are on the other side. Almost 70% of coaches in the country voted to reduce weights, BTW.

Finally-off Track, Muskego actually had 47 kids fat test this year, not 30.  You are correct, WFB was at 8, but now 15 kids and I see they even had a 106#er fat test for the first time in years.  Overall, it looks like both teams are trending positive #'s the past couple years-much like the overall #'s in the state as another poster pointed out.

I wrestled at Muskego in the late 80's and we had over 100 kids in the room. There were 12 weights. I know what WFB has in the room because I work with our kids/middle schoolers and still have a hand in our program. We have had a 106 pounder for most of the years that I've been involved in the program. Overall, we are not trending up as a state. We have lost almost 1000 kids from 2012 til now.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 21, 2020, 10:34:24 PM
For s..st and giggles when you reply to this post put how many kids made it to individual state for last three years and how many times you team makes for last ten years.
Example: 6-4-3 ind
Example: 2-1st and 3-2nd team
I have no idea where any of you are  from and don't want to know. Just want to get some info to see where we are at and talking about. Thanks

Dnp, dnp, dnp, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1
Made team sectional for the first time in 25 years. 1 and done there. Glory years from 85 to 96. 1-1, 4-2 top 4 4 times.

So up and coming with 6 freshmen, 3 sophomores, 2 juniors and 3 seniors in last years line up.

Enough info for you?

Quote from: Ghetto on April 21, 2020, 05:52:13 PM

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 21, 2020, 01:32:30 PM
My only hope in this topic is that those of you who want to reduce the number of weight classes at the very least know that there are a lot of us who are equally invested, who wishes to remain at 14 for equally good reasons. We are not as vocal because we are not trying to change anything. We already have what we want. So if it seems that this is a very one-sided conversation, that is because only one side is speaking. Just know, that your belief, which seems incredibly obvious and is a no-brainer to you, it is incredibly obvious and a no-brainer to me also even though we are 180° apart.

When I have this conversation with my inner circle, we clarify what our desired outcome is.   You want better, more competitive duals with more teams having a chance.   Fair enough.

I want more wrestlers.

We have a different desired outcome.

Your not wrong, I'm not wrong.

I was the head coach at Bruce High School, division 3.  I was the head coach at Plymouth High School, division 2. I am the head coach at Hudson High School, division 1. I have coached in southeastern Wisconsin on Lake Michigan and northwestern Wisconsin on the St. Croix River.  I have seen both sides of the coin. My team at Plymouth had six athletes when I moved there.  I've had a team in Hudson ranked number one.

None of that means anything other than to give me a qualified opinion. And here it is.......

With 100% guarantee, I will have less kids on my team with 13 weights then I will if I have 14 weights. Take that to the bank, it is a guarantee.

Might not be true for you. Didn't say it was. I'm talking about my team and my guarantee.

I'm interested in your opinion. I have also coached on both sides of the spectrum, number-wise. When I was at Muskego, we took two busses because we couldn't fit on one. I coached/coach at Whitefish Bay, where we had 8 last year.

What makes you think that dropping to 13 weights would make you lose kids? Don't you already have kids that wrestle JV because they have a better kid in front of them? Is that why kids would quit?

I in no way am being sarcastic, because I don't get it. I wrestled in a program where we had over 100 kids when I was a freshman. There were 12 weights. That same school now has maybe 30 with 14 weights. I think they have a great coach who works in the building. Back then we did not.

I do want more competitive duals. You are 100% right about that. I also want for more teams to fill weights so the product looks better to the non or average fan. I also want more numbers. I don't think they are correlated, and that's why I am asking.

I truly don't think we have a different desired outcome. At the end of the day both of us want wrestling to be better and to grow. What we disagree on is how that is going to happen.

24 years ago, I thought 40 athletes was my magic number and I needed/wanted to achieve that by 10+10+10+10=40
I was wrong.
40 is still the correct number but I need/want to get there 12+12+10+6=40

The sophomore class stays as large as the freshman class because that is the class I recruit.  I lose 3 of those 12 freshmen but I find 3 kids from the hallway to join as sophomores. 

9th + 10 will ALWAYS be larger than 11th + 12th. 

The reason is as the path to Varsity gets less-realistic, the more likely a kid will have better options outside the room.  Providing depth is simply not enticing enough, generally speaking.

So yes, Ghetto, I do have kids waiting patiently for their chance.  And they either get their chance or they discontinue for greener pastures.

Wrestling is TOUGH.  And the intrinsic reward is only evident to parents.  I got to be honest, I can't blame the kids. 

Just a quick question..... if we still had 10 Olympic weights, would we have more of our senior-level athletes continue their journey than we currently have with 6 Olympic weights?  That answer is yes.             

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 22, 2020, 08:49:34 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 21, 2020, 05:52:13 PM

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 21, 2020, 01:32:30 PM
My only hope in this topic is that those of you who want to reduce the number of weight classes at the very least know that there are a lot of us who are equally invested, who wishes to remain at 14 for equally good reasons. We are not as vocal because we are not trying to change anything. We already have what we want. So if it seems that this is a very one-sided conversation, that is because only one side is speaking. Just know, that your belief, which seems incredibly obvious and is a no-brainer to you, it is incredibly obvious and a no-brainer to me also even though we are 180° apart.

When I have this conversation with my inner circle, we clarify what our desired outcome is.   You want better, more competitive duals with more teams having a chance.   Fair enough.

I want more wrestlers.

We have a different desired outcome.

Your not wrong, I'm not wrong.

I was the head coach at Bruce High School, division 3.  I was the head coach at Plymouth High School, division 2. I am the head coach at Hudson High School, division 1. I have coached in southeastern Wisconsin on Lake Michigan and northwestern Wisconsin on the St. Croix River.  I have seen both sides of the coin. My team at Plymouth had six athletes when I moved there.  I've had a team in Hudson ranked number one.

None of that means anything other than to give me a qualified opinion. And here it is.......

With 100% guarantee, I will have less kids on my team with 13 weights then I will if I have 14 weights. Take that to the bank, it is a guarantee.

Might not be true for you. Didn't say it was. I'm talking about my team and my guarantee.

I'm interested in your opinion. I have also coached on both sides of the spectrum, number-wise. When I was at Muskego, we took two busses because we couldn't fit on one. I coached/coach at Whitefish Bay, where we had 8 last year.

What makes you think that dropping to 13 weights would make you lose kids? Don't you already have kids that wrestle JV because they have a better kid in front of them? Is that why kids would quit?

I in no way am being sarcastic, because I don't get it. I wrestled in a program where we had over 100 kids when I was a freshman. There were 12 weights. That same school now has maybe 30 with 14 weights. I think they have a great coach who works in the building. Back then we did not.

I do want more competitive duals. You are 100% right about that. I also want for more teams to fill weights so the product looks better to the non or average fan. I also want more numbers. I don't think they are correlated, and that's why I am asking.

I truly don't think we have a different desired outcome. At the end of the day both of us want wrestling to be better and to grow. What we disagree on is how that is going to happen.

24 years ago, I thought 40 athletes was my magic number and I needed/wanted to achieve that by 10+10+10+10=40
I was wrong.
40 is still the correct number but I need/want to get there 12+12+10+6=40

The sophomore class stays as large as the freshman class because that is the class I recruit.  I lose 3 of those 12 freshmen but I find 3 kids from the hallway to join as sophomores. 

9th + 10 will ALWAYS be larger than 11th + 12th. 

The reason is as the path to Varsity gets less-realistic, the more likely a kid will have better options outside the room.  Providing depth is simply not enticing enough, generally speaking.

So yes, Ghetto, I do have kids waiting patiently for their chance.  And they either get their chance or they discontinue for greener pastures.

Wrestling is TOUGH.  And the intrinsic reward is only evident to parents.  I got to be honest, I can't blame the kids. 

Just a quick question..... if we still had 10 Olympic weights, would we have more of our senior-level athletes continue their journey than we currently have with 6 Olympic weights?  That answer is yes.          

Completely agree with this! Our sights are a little lower than 40 currently more like 30, but the same process. The last statement is interesting. Obviously senior level is different than high school, but the reason guys stick it out is to meet goals: sectional qualifier-qualify WTT or make national team, state qualifier-make the world/Olympic team, state place winner/champ-world/Olympic medalist.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 22, 2020, 10:09:13 AM
Haven't heard from factfinder for a while. Must be looking up facts on (his sons) team. FYI factfinder you sons team is one of the best in the state always has and always will be. I can't see moving to 13 will make a difference on your sons team. We could move to 9 and it wouldn't matter. Why is it when the numbers dropped in football they went to 8 man teams. Why cuz numbers were dropping. Why can't we do the same. If you guys think I'm talking about wrestling as a idividual sport I'm not it is a team sport. Numbers are down so let's try to fix it. I respect all coaches statements and I am not a coach and never was one at the high school level but that doesn't mean I can't see what's going on. I wrested in youth wrestled in high school and always have been involved with our team missed some matches but always been there for 42 years.  I know how many we have out year after year and it is always 20-23 boys . If a wt is dropped from the sport we have varsity reserve to absorb it and 13 is still more than football baseball and round ball. When our coach starts out the year he has only one goal for the team and that's a Team State Title and the rest follows that. I'm thinking for the teams that have never have the opportunity for a team title don't care about it. That's what this is all about teams will be better and more competitive. Think about it if a team has to give up a game cuz they only can put 4 guys out to play basketball or 9 guys on a football team before 8 man 7 guys for baseball. They don't play the game cuz it's not even players. But they do it in wrestling. If you say wrestling is not a team sport then why do they give 6 points for a ff when you don't have enough boys.

Well factfinder hasn't quite gotten to the level of cliff klaven ;D ;D

What I have been trying to say is basically all sports at the high school level are losing kids left and right. Overall the numbers are down in all sports. Maybe the new sports like bowling, trap shooting, mens volleyball and so on are gaining but the well established sports are losing.

Example, I am a big high school sports buff overall. What I have noticed is you now have 9 man football for the lack of numbers. 30 years ago those schools that dropped to 9 had the numbers for 11 man football and their enrollment size in many cases are around the same.

I have noticed volleyball seemed to always have 3 teams and some times 4 from each school. Now it is not in common to see schools playing each other with just varsity and jv.

Tennis, I notice that teams forfeit a singles or dual in their meets.
Cross country needs 4 to score but run 5 but some schools run only 4 heck they have a formula for schools eith 3 runners also.
Golf is the same.
I see schools that have ok only 1 kid in an event even though they can have 2 in track.
I noticed last year a school played a softball game with 8 players when you can have 9.

What I dont hear is in those sports I just mentioned talk about eliminating a spot so they can be more competitive like you hear in wrestling.

Can you image the track coach saying we have to eliminate the 100 because I dont have any one that can run it.
How about the softball coach saying we have to do away with second base because I cannt field one to play it.

Eliminating spots will just give another reason for some kid to say they aren't going out.

If my memory is correct D3 had a team that took a team state Championship 2 years in a row with two boys which had 4 kids out all year. I believe it was Coleman. So it can be done in track.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 22, 2020, 01:27:29 PM
If my memory is correct D3 had a team that took a team state Championship 2 years in a row with two boys which had 4 kids out all year. I believe it was Coleman. So it can be done in track.

I think you better read this over and see what it sounds like! Then check your facts!
With two boys?
And four kids out all year?

Quad you better check yours and get back to me on that thanks. But it is a fact. Sorry but that is for Team Titles in Track and field

WWO, Sorry, I thought this was a wrestling site!

Quote from: thequad on April 22, 2020, 03:36:27 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 22, 2020, 01:27:29 PM
If my memory is correct D3 had a team that took a team state Championship 2 years in a row with two boys which had 4 kids out all year. I believe it was Coleman. So it can be done in track.

I think you better read this over and see what it sounds like! Then check your facts!
With two boys?
And four kids out all year?

I know quite a few years back a D3 team lost the team state title by one point with 1 qualifier.

Our girls team won back to back recently and basically had 3 scorers.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 22, 2020, 01:27:29 PM
If my memory is correct D3 had a team that took a team state Championship 2 years in a row with two boys which had 4 kids out all year. I believe it was Coleman. So it can be done in track.

I think Richland center in d2 won team state with Paul aneer winning 3 events or maybe 4. Not sure how many you can be in.

Back in the 70's park falls won state with David Greenwood winning the max amount of events.

Not sure how many kids we on those teams but if there was only a few then their respective meets were alot of forfeits in alot of other events. Those school didn't ask to eliminate those events the kids were not able to compete in.

Sorry Quad my fault didn't realize you didn't read the post above that one. But it is a wrestling site talking about dropping to 12 weights. Right guys

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 22, 2020, 08:49:34 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 21, 2020, 05:52:13 PM

Quote from: Chris Hansen on April 21, 2020, 01:32:30 PM
My only hope in this topic is that those of you who want to reduce the number of weight classes at the very least know that there are a lot of us who are equally invested, who wishes to remain at 14 for equally good reasons. We are not as vocal because we are not trying to change anything. We already have what we want. So if it seems that this is a very one-sided conversation, that is because only one side is speaking. Just know, that your belief, which seems incredibly obvious and is a no-brainer to you, it is incredibly obvious and a no-brainer to me also even though we are 180° apart.

When I have this conversation with my inner circle, we clarify what our desired outcome is.   You want better, more competitive duals with more teams having a chance.   Fair enough.

I want more wrestlers.

We have a different desired outcome.

Your not wrong, I'm not wrong.

I was the head coach at Bruce High School, division 3.  I was the head coach at Plymouth High School, division 2. I am the head coach at Hudson High School, division 1. I have coached in southeastern Wisconsin on Lake Michigan and northwestern Wisconsin on the St. Croix River.  I have seen both sides of the coin. My team at Plymouth had six athletes when I moved there.  I've had a team in Hudson ranked number one.

None of that means anything other than to give me a qualified opinion. And here it is.......

With 100% guarantee, I will have less kids on my team with 13 weights then I will if I have 14 weights. Take that to the bank, it is a guarantee.

Might not be true for you. Didn't say it was. I'm talking about my team and my guarantee.

I'm interested in your opinion. I have also coached on both sides of the spectrum, number-wise. When I was at Muskego, we took two busses because we couldn't fit on one. I coached/coach at Whitefish Bay, where we had 8 last year.

What makes you think that dropping to 13 weights would make you lose kids? Don't you already have kids that wrestle JV because they have a better kid in front of them? Is that why kids would quit?

I in no way am being sarcastic, because I don't get it. I wrestled in a program where we had over 100 kids when I was a freshman. There were 12 weights. That same school now has maybe 30 with 14 weights. I think they have a great coach who works in the building. Back then we did not.

I do want more competitive duals. You are 100% right about that. I also want for more teams to fill weights so the product looks better to the non or average fan. I also want more numbers. I don't think they are correlated, and that's why I am asking.

I truly don't think we have a different desired outcome. At the end of the day both of us want wrestling to be better and to grow. What we disagree on is how that is going to happen.

24 years ago, I thought 40 athletes was my magic number and I needed/wanted to achieve that by 10+10+10+10=40
I was wrong.
40 is still the correct number but I need/want to get there 12+12+10+6=40

The sophomore class stays as large as the freshman class because that is the class I recruit.  I lose 3 of those 12 freshmen but I find 3 kids from the hallway to join as sophomores. 

9th + 10 will ALWAYS be larger than 11th + 12th. 

The reason is as the path to Varsity gets less-realistic, the more likely a kid will have better options outside the room.  Providing depth is simply not enticing enough, generally speaking.

So yes, Ghetto, I do have kids waiting patiently for their chance.  And they either get their chance or they discontinue for greener pastures.

Wrestling is TOUGH.  And the intrinsic reward is only evident to parents.  I got to be honest, I can't blame the kids. 

Just a quick question..... if we still had 10 Olympic weights, would we have more of our senior-level athletes continue their journey than we currently have with 6 Olympic weights?  That answer is yes.           

Of course that answer is yes. Totally different animal. Senior level athletes are in it for that one goal- to be a world or Olympic champion.    The Olympics come around every four years. Guys won't go another four years. I think that analogy works for seniors in HS being bumped out of the lineup, but teams have the power of relationships to keep kids around.

In 1996 Sugar River won state in D 2 track and field with only 2 qualifiers.  Those 2 qualifiers placed in 6 events and won 2 of them.  The second place team that year was Cuba City which only had one competitor a kid named Josh Kuepers (i think that was his name) he won 3 events and took second in another event to single handily bring home the runner up trophy for Cuba City.  That is pretty impressive.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 22, 2020, 10:09:13 AM
Haven't heard from factfinder for a while. Must be looking up facts on (his sons) team. FYI factfinder you sons team is one of the best in the state always has and always will be. I can't see moving to 13 will make a difference on your sons team. We could move to 9 and it wouldn't matter. Why is it when the numbers dropped in football they went to 8 man teams. Why cuz numbers were dropping. Why can't we do the same. If you guys think I'm talking about wrestling as a idividual sport I'm not it is a team sport. Numbers are down so let's try to fix it. I respect all coaches statements and I am not a coach and never was one at the high school level but that doesn't mean I can't see what's going on. I wrested in youth wrestled in high school and always have been involved with our team missed some matches but always been there for 42 years.  I know how many we have out year after year and it is always 20-23 boys . If a wt is dropped from the sport we have varsity reserve to absorb it and 13 is still more than football baseball and round ball. When our coach starts out the year he has only one goal for the team and that's a Team State Title and the rest follows that. I'm thinking for the teams that have never have the opportunity for a team title don't care about it. That's what this is all about teams will be better and more competitive. Think about it if a team has to give up a game cuz they only can put 4 guys out to play basketball or 9 guys on a football team before 8 man 7 guys for baseball. They don't play the game cuz it's not even players. But they do it in wrestling. If you say wrestling is not a team sport then why do they give 6 points for a ff when you don't have enough boys.

You realize that not every team has the goal to win a team state title.  Some is to win their conference.  Some to place top 3 in their conference and some just to win a dual.  You need to look at what is best for the entire state of wrestling not just on how it can make Coleman more competitive.  You have to look at it from D 3 all the way up to D 1.  From the worst teams to the best teams. 

Fourteen weight classes is probably to many.  I just hard time reducing weight classes to accommodate the teams that frankly aren't working as hard to field a full lineup as the top teams.  A full lineup is rarely if ever full of 14 truly varsity caliber kids.  About 5-10 teams in a given year can claim that throughout the whole state in wrestling and they should be rewarded for their efforts not penalized.  Very few football teams throughout the state can claim that all 11 starters are "varsity" ready.  That is what makes up a team.  Some great kids, some average kids and some up and comers/not good kids. 

Quote from: The wrestler on April 22, 2020, 10:09:13 AM
Haven't heard from factfinder for a while. Must be looking up facts on (his sons) team. FYI factfinder you sons team is one of the best in the state always has and always will be. I can't see moving to 13 will make a difference on your sons team. We could move to 9 and it wouldn't matter. Why is it when the numbers dropped in football they went to 8 man teams. Why cuz numbers were dropping. Why can't we do the same. If you guys think I'm talking about wrestling as a idividual sport I'm not it is a team sport. Numbers are down so let's try to fix it. I respect all coaches statements and I am not a coach and never was one at the high school level but that doesn't mean I can't see what's going on. I wrested in youth wrestled in high school and always have been involved with our team missed some matches but always been there for 42 years.  I know how many we have out year after year and it is always 20-23 boys . If a wt is dropped from the sport we have varsity reserve to absorb it and 13 is still more than football baseball and round ball. When our coach starts out the year he has only one goal for the team and that's a Team State Title and the rest follows that. I'm thinking for the teams that have never have the opportunity for a team title don't care about it. That's what this is all about teams will be better and more competitive. Think about it if a team has to give up a game cuz they only can put 4 guys out to play basketball or 9 guys on a football team before 8 man 7 guys for baseball. They don't play the game cuz it's not even players. But they do it in wrestling. If you say wrestling is not a team sport then why do they give 6 points for a ff when you don't have enough boys.

Thanks for checking in ;D
Another reason that they dropped to 9 man football was to avoid co-oping!!! well that dint work!!!
8 and 9 man football teams are co-oping and there is even less opportunities then if the would have merged sooner. Thanks for pointing out that colossal mistake, I believe even the WIAA is opposed to expanding 8 man football.

For those talking track. When one kid can participate in 4 events its far different than on kid being able to participate in one weight class.
This very fact was pointed out by our tour guide at the Olympic training center when we were at the pool. He said swimming and track only work because the best athletes can participate in multiple events, and non starters can be used in preliminary races to get to the medal rounds.. He said wrestling and boxing get screwed because they are only allowed one athlete per weight and there's no substitution.
Comparing the two sports, at any level, isn't oranges for oranges.

New weight classes for the 2021-2022 season will be out next week!
The National Coaches Association said the numbers don't support a reduction but the pressure to change is over whelming so the 2021-2022 season will be reduced by one or possibly two weight classes. They recommended several changes to the NFHS and don't know what way they will vote but the likely changes will look at a merge at the upper and lower weights.
the thoughts are If the vote for 13 weight classes wins the merge will most likely happen at 182&195 and if they take out two weight classes they will merge 106 & 113 as well. Obviously weights will all be slightly adjusted to make the new weight classes be as fair as possible.

Quote from: factfinder on April 24, 2020, 07:26:06 AM
New weight classes for the 2021-2022 season will be out next week!
The National Coaches Association said the numbers don't support a reduction but the pressure to change is over whelming so the 2021-2022 season will be reduced by one or possibly two weight classes. They recommended several changes to the NFHS and don't know what way they will vote but the likely changes will look at a merge at the upper and lower weights.
the thoughts are If the vote for 13 weight classes wins the merge will most likely happen at 182&195 and if they take out two weight classes they will merge 106 & 113 as well. Obviously weights will all be slightly adjusted to make the new weight classes be as fair as possible.

107 lbs.
114 lbs.
121 lbs.
128 lbs.
134 lbs.
140 lbs.
146 lbs.
152 lbs.
160 lbs.
172 lbs.
189 lbs.
215 lbs.
285 lbs.

This is one of the rumored sets of weight classes.

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 24, 2020, 12:46:40 PM

Quote from: factfinder on April 24, 2020, 07:26:06 AM
New weight classes for the 2021-2022 season will be out next week!
The National Coaches Association said the numbers don't support a reduction but the pressure to change is over whelming so the 2021-2022 season will be reduced by one or possibly two weight classes. They recommended several changes to the NFHS and don't know what way they will vote but the likely changes will look at a merge at the upper and lower weights.
the thoughts are If the vote for 13 weight classes wins the merge will most likely happen at 182&195 and if they take out two weight classes they will merge 106 & 113 as well. Obviously weights will all be slightly adjusted to make the new weight classes be as fair as possible.

107 lbs.
114 lbs.
121 lbs.
128 lbs.
134 lbs.
140 lbs.
146 lbs.
152 lbs.
160 lbs.
172 lbs.
189 lbs.
215 lbs.
285 lbs.

This is one of the rumored sets of weight classes.

If they go to 13 weights that seems like a likely layout, if they go 12 it will most likely have the first weight start at 112.

Quote from: factfinder on April 24, 2020, 01:13:26 PM

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 24, 2020, 12:46:40 PM

Quote from: factfinder on April 24, 2020, 07:26:06 AM
New weight classes for the 2021-2022 season will be out next week!
The National Coaches Association said the numbers don't support a reduction but the pressure to change is over whelming so the 2021-2022 season will be reduced by one or possibly two weight classes. They recommended several changes to the NFHS and don't know what way they will vote but the likely changes will look at a merge at the upper and lower weights.
the thoughts are If the vote for 13 weight classes wins the merge will most likely happen at 182&195 and if they take out two weight classes they will merge 106 & 113 as well. Obviously weights will all be slightly adjusted to make the new weight classes be as fair as possible.

107 lbs.
114 lbs.
121 lbs.
128 lbs.
134 lbs.
140 lbs.
146 lbs.
152 lbs.
160 lbs.
172 lbs.
189 lbs.
215 lbs.
285 lbs.

This is one of the rumored sets of weight classes.

If they go to 13 weights that seems like a likely layout, if they go 12 it will most likely have the first weight start at 112.

Question is with some classes 6 pounds apart will there be weight allowances? 128 to 160 could have alot of moving if we still put 3 pounds into effect at regionals.

If we go to 12 classes there is go in ng to be alot of peeved off people of the 110 or 112 classes

So if we go to 12 classes, will the average time of duals even be 1 hour? With 14 weights I dont think the average time was even 1 hour with all the forfeits.

I was at a dual tournament that had a dual last less than 10 minutes this year. 2 marchea wrestled and 10 or 11 forfeits. 1 double if not 2.

14 is best

Okay cut to 12.

The duals that aren't entertaining last year, won't be any more entertaining. You'll think it will be, but then it'll happen, and then it'll be, oh well, the dual happened the way it was gonna happen with 14 weights. not much of a change.

There will be more kids not wrestling because they can't give a varsity spot because their school already has a kid at the weight they'd like to wrestle at. Dont pay to jump up 2-3 weight classes or cut an extra 10 pounds to make a weight.

Quote from: DarkKnight on April 26, 2020, 09:53:28 AM
Okay cut to 12.

The duals that aren't entertaining last year, won't be any more entertaining. You'll think it will be, but then it'll happen, and then it'll be, oh well, the dual happened the way it was gonna happen with 14 weights. not much of a change.

There will be more kids not wrestling because they can't give a varsity spot because their school already has a kid at the weight they'd like to wrestle at. Dont pay to jump up 2-3 weight classes or cut an extra 10 pounds to make a weight.

Most kids in the spot you talk about will not cut 10 pounds and the easy answer is they will not give up the weight to move up either.

While many of us believe jv is a great thing, sadely it isnt widely accepted in today's youth.

While I am a big wrestling fan, we also have to look at outside sports. The numbers are dropping in many. Just not the time to be cutting weight classes. If this fails I hope we all know that we will never get this spots back again.

For the people that are still going to be involved in 10 years and we have numbers in the 6k range, please dont wonder why.

40 kids, if there are 14 weights and all are filled, means 26 kids are not wrestling varsity
40 kids, if 13 weights, means 27 kids are JV
40 kids, 12 weights, 28 JV

We talk about kids quitting, and that may happen. What may also be happening is we are putting kids out on varsity that don't belong, and they are quitting.

If there are 12 or 13 weights, there are less places to run, less "lineup fillers" and more possible decent matches. That would lead to less pins/FFs and longer duals.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Actually I just looked up that match and if we went to 12 weight there might not even have 2 matches. There would have been 1 for sure cancelled and the other we can debate.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Wrestling numbers are down in WI you are correct but nationally numbers are up and they have been slowly going up since we went to 14 weight classes. In the 2019 season wrestling was the 3rd fastest growing sport for boys.

Quote from: factfinder on April 26, 2020, 08:16:54 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Wrestling numbers are down in WI you are correct but nationally numbers are up and they have been slowly going up since we went to 14 weight classes. In the 2019 season wrestling was the 3rd fastest growing sport for boys.

Not always the case that co-op teams will move up a division.  For example, Chetek-Weyerhauser-Prairie Farm actually dropped to D3 this year. 

Quote from: factfinder on April 26, 2020, 08:16:54 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Wrestling numbers are down in WI you are correct but nationally numbers are up and they have been slowly going up since we went to 14 weight classes. In the 2019 season wrestling was the 3rd fastest growing sport for boys.

I think it was posted that numbers were up a tick in Wisconsin this year.

I am a product of the 80`s and we had some forfeits also with 12 weight classes.

What is the make up of GET-MM coop? Is this all one school or are they fairly evenly split? A coop in the State finals would seem to at least possibly support two teams.

Quote from: bigoil on April 27, 2020, 08:08:21 AM
What is the make up of GET-MM coop? Is this all one school or are they fairly evenly split? A coop in the State finals would seem to at least possibly support two teams.

Get is a make up of 3 towns and is seperate for about all other sports but wrestling.

Mm is a make up of 2 towns and they were 2 separate schools I believe at one time.

I think the only thing they co op in is wrestling.

Yeah I'm not talking about the 5 communities but rather two schools. Combined they were state finalists and state qualifiers before that.

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 04:07:01 PM
Ghetto 40 kids were in 1980 now 22-14=8. Read all of it. Don't respond if you don't have the facts.

Uh. Ok

My point is that if we take away one weight, only one more kid is wrestling JV.

And that's a maybe.

If you have 22 kids on a team, It is extremely likely that some of them are in the same weight class anyway, and are already wrestling JV. Redistributing the weights may not change any of the kids in the scenario of having 22.

Quote from: factfinder on April 26, 2020, 08:16:54 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Wrestling numbers are down in WI you are correct but nationally numbers are up and they have been slowly going up since we went to 14 weight classes. In the 2019 season wrestling was the 3rd fastest growing sport for boys.

There are more teams with wrestling, and that is great, but teams have actually gotten smaller over time.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 27, 2020, 10:37:27 AM

Quote from: factfinder on April 26, 2020, 08:16:54 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Wrestling numbers are down in WI you are correct but nationally numbers are up and they have been slowly going up since we went to 14 weight classes. In the 2019 season wrestling was the 3rd fastest growing sport for boys.

There are more teams with wrestling, and that is great, but teams have actually gotten smaller over time.

One big contributor to this trend is probably decreased student populations in many schools. 

Two toughest teams in the state THE ENTIRE STATE  Coleman and Wrightstown....then look at Fennimore and Stratford.... yes allot of yap yap on D1 when in fact some excellent very strong teams at the the other two levels....good programs will continue to be good because they have culture community and coaching..

Quote from: ramjet on April 27, 2020, 12:23:06 PM
Two toughest teams in the state THE ENTIRE STATE  Coleman and Wrightstown....then look at Fennimore and Stratford.... yes allot of yap yap on D1 when in fact some excellent very strong teams at the the other two levels....good programs will continue to be good because they have culture community and coaching..

I think you toss a couple more teams into discussions that are not D1.

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 27, 2020, 12:49:33 PM

Quote from: ramjet on April 27, 2020, 12:23:06 PM
Two toughest teams in the state THE ENTIRE STATE  Coleman and Wrightstown....then look at Fennimore and Stratford.... yes allot of yap yap on D1 when in fact some excellent very strong teams at the the other two levels....good programs will continue to be good because they have culture community and coaching..

I think you toss a couple more teams into discussions that are not D1.

Absolutely LC  comes to mind several others.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 27, 2020, 10:37:27 AM

Quote from: factfinder on April 26, 2020, 08:16:54 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Wrestling numbers are down in WI you are correct but nationally numbers are up and they have been slowly going up since we went to 14 weight classes. In the 2019 season wrestling was the 3rd fastest growing sport for boys.

There are more teams with wrestling, and that is great, but teams have actually gotten smaller over time.

Obviously as small towns continue to struggle with population declines and big schools offer more and more extra curricular activities you will see declines, No argument from me on that.
But if you have been around the sport for a long time (as I know you have) the quality of wrestling has gotten much better especially since 2013 when the sport buckled down after almost losing the sport in the Olympics. So even though some numbers maybe down the quality is up so I would argue its easier to fill a true qualified line up more so then back in the 80s or 90s.
One thing we can all agree on is weather we are at 14 weights or 12 weights the top programs will continue to dominate and struggling programs will struggle because quality coaching will always win over big numbers or same numbers. Other then reducing opportunities for some kids I don't truly see anything changing, but at this point I hope I am wrong and after this point I won't sit and complain, I will support the change.

Quote from: factfinder on April 27, 2020, 02:10:38 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 27, 2020, 10:37:27 AM

Quote from: factfinder on April 26, 2020, 08:16:54 PM

Quote from: The wrestler on April 26, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
In 1980 we had 500 students in our school had 40 wrestlers in a smaller wrestling room than they have now with 12 weight classes. 2020 we have 220 students 22 wrestlers bigger wrestling room and 14 weight classes. I do not know how old you guys are but I'm sure you did not see the 1980's and if you did you know what I'm talking about. Why not go to 13. Take care of a lot of situations with 13. Littleguy said went to a match out of 14 only 2 matches wrestled. If you move to 12 it won't solve anything. If it doesn't work all we will hear is we should of stayed at 14. If we move to 13 I think it will be a smoother transition. I don't care what you say wrestling is going down hill. After wrestling season is over the kids don't want to even talk about wrestling. The sport of wrestling is going all in or stay home. It is putting lots of pressure on the kids more so than when we wrestled.  Numbers are dropping no matter how you look at it. If we can't put 14 Varsity boys on the mat what does that say about our Varsity Reserve boys. How many school can put together a full second team. The answer is not a co-op cuz you put 2 D3 teams together and then you are a D2 team. Can't compete in D3 how can you compete in D2.

Wrestling numbers are down in WI you are correct but nationally numbers are up and they have been slowly going up since we went to 14 weight classes. In the 2019 season wrestling was the 3rd fastest growing sport for boys.

There are more teams with wrestling, and that is great, but teams have actually gotten smaller over time.

Obviously as small towns continue to struggle with population declines and big schools offer more and more extra curricular activities you will see declines, No argument from me on that.
But if you have been around the sport for a long time (as I know you have) the quality of wrestling has gotten much better especially since 2013 when the sport buckled down after almost losing the sport in the Olympics. So even though some numbers maybe down the quality is up so I would argue its easier to fill a true qualified line up more so then back in the 80s or 90s.
One thing we can all agree on is weather we are at 14 weights or 12 weights the top programs will continue to dominate and struggling programs will struggle because quality coaching will always win over big numbers or same numbers. Other then reducing opportunities for some kids I don't truly see anything changing, but at this point I hope I am wrong and after this point I won't sit and complain, I will support the change.

I would agree that wrestling is much better than it was before. The best kids are much better than our best were overall. I'd say that our academies are to be thanked for that. Not only do they make kids better, but in many ways, they make coaching better. There are also tons of places to watch the highest level technique. We get the opportunity to learn from the greats like never before.

The best teams are the best teams. They have special programs and I am appreciative of the hard work and dedication that goes into their being successful for decades. Some teams will never be good, for many reasons. There are many ways (I think) reducing weights is a positive, but mainly its for those middle teams to be competitive with other middle teams. If that happens, and teams grow stronger from it, then everyone will be happy.

Quote from: ramjet on April 27, 2020, 01:01:54 PM

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 27, 2020, 12:49:33 PM

Quote from: ramjet on April 27, 2020, 12:23:06 PM
Two toughest teams in the state THE ENTIRE STATE  Coleman and Wrightstown....then look at Fennimore and Stratford.... yes allot of yap yap on D1 when in fact some excellent very strong teams at the the other two levels....good programs will continue to be good because they have culture community and coaching..

I think you toss a couple more teams into discussions that are not D1.

Absolutely LC  comes to mind several others.

Over time, Ellsworth, st criox falls, cadet, boycville, mineral point just off the top of my head.

Mmget and PDC this year. Going to be fun with alot of those mentioned teams have a nice returning line up coming back for next year.

Here is a question for fact finder.

I was told the numbers in girls wrestling are separate in the stats as the boys. Sure you get girls limped in due to body fat tests but with some states I believe girls are counted seperate.

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 27, 2020, 06:30:30 PM
Here is a question for fact finder.

I was told the numbers in girls wrestling are separate in the stats as the boys. Sure you get girls limped in due to body fat tests but with some states I believe girls are counted seperate.

Wisconsin did not separate girls from boys in their 18-19 participation numbers.

States that showed girls statistics:

(https://i.imgur.com/ZdHbQOn.png)

Ok. Just a tad confuseed. Only guessing but what are the first and second columns numbers. Just want to be exact and not guessing.

So some states combined and some states do not. So with out girls wrestling is not growing then?

I will support going to 13 weight classes because it makes sense for dual reasons. Now if it goes to 12, well same problem as 14 and now it becomes taking away spots.

Note to people, I am a d2 guy and support the D2 and D3 schools big time.

I am one that would like college go to 11 eleven weight classes and the Olympics back to 10 classes or 8 at least. Ok make it 9 for team events ;D

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 28, 2020, 12:32:22 AM
Ok. Just a tad confuseed. Only guessing but what are the first and second columns numbers. Just want to be exact and not guessing.

So some states combined and some states do not. So with out girls wrestling is not growing then?

Sorry. I chopped that graphic off a bit.

The first column is teams. Second column is participants.

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 28, 2020, 12:37:13 AM
I will support going to 13 weight classes because it makes sense for dual reasons. Now if it goes to 12, well same problem as 14 and now it becomes taking away spots.

Note to people, I am a d2 guy and support the D2 and D3 schools big time.

I am one that would like college go to 11 eleven weight classes and the Olympics back to 10 classes or 8 at least. Ok make it 9 for team events ;D

I get why 13 is attractive for a simple answer to dual victories. I'll take 13 as a small victory if that is where we go.

How many duals ended in a tie this year? In the 25 years I've coached wrestling, I can remember ending in a tie twice. I'm gonna look on trackwrestling for this year.

I hope you and the family are doing well LG.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 10:34:55 AM

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 28, 2020, 12:37:13 AM
I will support going to 13 weight classes because it makes sense for dual reasons. Now if it goes to 12, well same problem as 14 and now it becomes taking away spots.

Note to people, I am a d2 guy and support the D2 and D3 schools big time.

I am one that would like college go to 11 eleven weight classes and the Olympics back to 10 classes or 8 at least. Ok make it 9 for team events

I get why 13 is attractive for a simple answer to dual victories. I'll take 13 as a small victory if that is where we go.

How many duals ended in a tie this year? In the 25 years I've coached wrestling, I can remember ending in a tie twice. I'm gonna look on trackwrestling for this year.

I hope you and the family are doing well LG.

My school has had a hand full of ties over the years. Had 2 in one year and both went to the 7 tie breaker.

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 28, 2020, 11:00:58 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 10:34:55 AM

Quote from: littleguy301 on April 28, 2020, 12:37:13 AM
I will support going to 13 weight classes because it makes sense for dual reasons. Now if it goes to 12, well same problem as 14 and now it becomes taking away spots.

Note to people, I am a d2 guy and support the D2 and D3 schools big time.

I am one that would like college go to 11 eleven weight classes and the Olympics back to 10 classes or 8 at least. Ok make it 9 for team events

I get why 13 is attractive for a simple answer to dual victories. I'll take 13 as a small victory if that is where we go.

How many duals ended in a tie this year? In the 25 years I've coached wrestling, I can remember ending in a tie twice. I'm gonna look on trackwrestling for this year.

I hope you and the family are doing well LG.

My school has had a hand full of ties over the years. Had 2 in one year and both went to the 7 tie breaker.

We are doing well. Hope your doing well also ;D

I looked at all the duals in Wisconsin for the past season. 500 duals or so. There were six ties that I saw. There may have been more, but that's a long list of duals. My eyes are tired.

I have a feeling with the data that has been collected I would not be surprised to see the NHFS come out with no changes today.

Is it today?

Nice!!

I hope that there is transparency in the data, no matter the outcome. How are we looking at this? That would be interesting to the nerd in me.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 12:11:10 PM
Is it today?

Nice!!

I hope that there is transparency in the data, no matter the outcome. How are we looking at this? That would be interesting to the nerd in me.

not sure as to how to look at it. I will support the move to 13 but I will not to 12.

I think this will be rushed a tick. I think there should be more thought put into this for the long run.

I hear the arguments for dropping weight classes. what is my main problem is we are crossing a fine line as to punishing teams that do fill out line ups.

I look at it this way that in each division there is 16 teams that do fill out line ups or have the possiblity of doing so. I go by sectionals teams. Now I understand that 16 is a small % of the total teams in each division.

Is there like 30% of the teams that fill out line ups? I am wondering what the % will be with 13 weight classes and 12 weight classes. Will it be a monster difference or will it be the same old.

Looks like no approved changes in weight classes! Great news!

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/2020-21-high-school-wrestling-rules-changes-address-weigh-in-procedures-hair-length-restrictions/

Great News!!

Maybe we can now switch to yearly forum posts of what the successful schools are doing to consistently increase or maintain their #'s instead of this crud.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am.

Really don't see how this is great news at all. As our numbers continue to drop, we in Wisconsin will stay status quo. Because the WIAA won't stray from the NFHS, we will continue to not do what is best for teams. We'll keep our seat at the table so we can have a vote (However our vote truly means nothing if we aren't voting to change anything)

I'll never stop bringing this up.

I would however, love to see how teams are trying to grow. It's not a whole lot different than what many other teams are doing. In fact, I was in a Google Meet with a bunch of coaches from around the state a few weeks back and we talked about growing our programs. It was great.

At least we don't have to worry about haircuts at weigh-ins. That's gonna grow wrestling for sure.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 03:55:53 PM
I can't tell you how disappointed I am.

Really don't see how this is great news at all. As our numbers continue to drop, we in Wisconsin will stay status quo. Because the WIAA won't stray from the NFHS, we will continue to not do what is best for teams. We'll keep our seat at the table so we can have a vote (However our vote truly means nothing if we aren't voting to change anything)

I'll never stop bringing this up.

I would however, love to see how teams are trying to grow. It's not a whole lot different than what many other teams are doing. In fact, I was in a Google Meet with a bunch of coaches from around the state a few weeks back and we talked about growing our programs. It was great.

At least we don't have to worry about haircuts at weigh-ins. That's gonna grow wrestling for sure.

I'm confused-how are "#'s continuing to drop"?  Off your first post in this thread, WI had more #'s this year since 2015, and overall minimal changes in #'s in the past 4+ years? 

Also-care to share what you heard at the meeting to grow the sport?

Quote from: asdfg on April 28, 2020, 04:06:04 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 03:55:53 PM
I can't tell you how disappointed I am.

Really don't see how this is great news at all. As our numbers continue to drop, we in Wisconsin will stay status quo. Because the WIAA won't stray from the NFHS, we will continue to not do what is best for teams. We'll keep our seat at the table so we can have a vote (However our vote truly means nothing if we aren't voting to change anything)

I'll never stop bringing this up.

I would however, love to see how teams are trying to grow. It's not a whole lot different than what many other teams are doing. In fact, I was in a Google Meet with a bunch of coaches from around the state a few weeks back and we talked about growing our programs. It was great.

At least we don't have to worry about haircuts at weigh-ins. That's gonna grow wrestling for sure.

I'm confused-how are "#'s continuing to drop"?  Off your first post in this thread, WI had more #'s this year since 2015, and overall minimal changes in #'s in the past 4+ years? 

Also-care to share what you heard at the meeting to grow the sport?

Sorry. I was sulking a bit.

Numbers were up almost 400 from 18-19 to 19-20. We regained the numbers we lost from 15-16 on. I hope we are on an uptick.

Here's the notes that I took from our video chat. There were more, but I couldn't write as fast as people were talking.

1. Put your upper classmen with young guys. Drilling and maybe conditioning. Kids stay with their buddy. Those older buddies also mentor the young guys in the hallways, etc.

2. "Good game" lines after practice. Kinda like a handshake line after a dual.

3. Having awards be core value awards. No MVP, Pinner award, etc. The awards at the banquet are for whatever your program holds to be most valuable.

4. Have a "lock in" before the first night of the season

5.  5 stages of team development (from a book)

6.  21 Ways to be a Great Teammate (a book)

7. "The Hard Hat" (book)

8.  Captain's book study weekly or whatever time frame makes sense

9.  High School Practice with middle school

10.  Two levels of practice- Higher level kids and beginners

11.  Hire the most popular teacher in the middle school to be the wrestling coach and give him an assistant that knows wrestling

12.  Have a system from kids club to HS

13.  Head coach goes to JV tournaments/schedule varsity and JV on different weekends if possible

14.  There is no 14. I lost the second sheet.  :(

There was more ideas. I couldn't write them all down, and I lost my second piece of paper. It was a lot of fun listening to guys from programs that I don't know. I hope we do it again soon.

The hair rule I think could be a factor in getting kids out.

How many other sports have a hair rule?

Just looking at the nfhs quickly. Looks that many sports have dropped in numbers and some alot worse than wrestling.

So....I dont hear sport in the other sports talk about eliminating positions in their respective sports.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 03:55:53 PM
I can't tell you how disappointed I am.

Really don't see how this is great news at all. As our numbers continue to drop, we in Wisconsin will stay status quo. Because the WIAA won't stray from the NFHS, we will continue to not do what is best for teams. We'll keep our seat at the table so we can have a vote (However our vote truly means nothing if we aren't voting to change anything)

I'll never stop bringing this up.

I would however, love to see how teams are trying to grow. It's not a whole lot different than what many other teams are doing. In fact, I was in a Google Meet with a bunch of coaches from around the state a few weeks back and we talked about growing our programs. It was great.

At least we don't have to worry about haircuts at weigh-ins. That's gonna grow wrestling for sure.

Speaking of growing wrestling.... if we would have cut to 12 weight classes like you said we would have 80 less state qualifiers across divisions and 24 less state place winners. I am the opposite of give everyone a trophy, but you cut those out for the individual state tournament and you lose fans at tournaments, WIAA loses money, less wrestling action, and probably some kids get frustrated and quit. If you want to go to 12 for duals sure, but the individual state series should NOT or ever reduce weight classes if we want to grow the sport. Look at basketball they used to have 3 divisions and now they are up to 5. More opportunity=more kids. More kids=Growing the sport

We are not going to grow something by cutting opportunities.

Then why doesnt the WWF cut down the youth state classes. Let's start there first and cut numbers for the next level.

If this doesnt work out wrestling will never get these classes back.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 09:44:12 PM

Quote from: asdfg on April 28, 2020, 04:06:04 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 03:55:53 PM
I can't tell you how disappointed I am.

Really don't see how this is great news at all. As our numbers continue to drop, we in Wisconsin will stay status quo. Because the WIAA won't stray from the NFHS, we will continue to not do what is best for teams. We'll keep our seat at the table so we can have a vote (However our vote truly means nothing if we aren't voting to change anything)

I'll never stop bringing this up.

I would however, love to see how teams are trying to grow. It's not a whole lot different than what many other teams are doing. In fact, I was in a Google Meet with a bunch of coaches from around the state a few weeks back and we talked about growing our programs. It was great.

At least we don't have to worry about haircuts at weigh-ins. That's gonna grow wrestling for sure.

I'm confused-how are "#'s continuing to drop"?  Off your first post in this thread, WI had more #'s this year since 2015, and overall minimal changes in #'s in the past 4+ years? 

Also-care to share what you heard at the meeting to grow the sport?

Sorry. I was sulking a bit.

Numbers were up almost 400 from 18-19 to 19-20. We regained the numbers we lost from 15-16 on. I hope we are on an uptick.

Here's the notes that I took from our video chat. There were more, but I couldn't write as fast as people were talking.

1. Put your upper classmen with young guys. Drilling and maybe conditioning. Kids stay with their buddy. Those older buddies also mentor the young guys in the hallways, etc.

2. "Good game" lines after practice. Kinda like a handshake line after a dual.

3. Having awards be core value awards. No MVP, Pinner award, etc. The awards at the banquet are for whatever your program holds to be most valuable.

4. Have a "lock in" before the first night of the season

5.  5 stages of team development (from a book)

6.  21 Ways to be a Great Teammate (a book)

7. "The Hard Hat" (book)

8.  Captain's book study weekly or whatever time frame makes sense

9.  High School Practice with middle school

10.  Two levels of practice- Higher level kids and beginners

11.  Hire the most popular teacher in the middle school to be the wrestling coach and give him an assistant that knows wrestling

12.  Have a system from kids club to HS

13.  Head coach goes to JV tournaments/schedule varsity and JV on different weekends if possible

14.  There is no 14. I lost the second sheet.  :(

There was more ideas. I couldn't write them all down, and I lost my second piece of paper. It was a lot of fun listening to guys from programs that I don't know. I hope we do it again soon.

I apologize if it comes across as attacking Ghetto.  Clearly Ghetto is in a position of influence in some manner in WI.  He has the ability to be in Google Meetups with coaches that are discussing the growth and success of the sport.  It takes 3 comments and pulling teeth to get a brief synopsis of what actually are some really good resources and ideas.  Yet we get 12 pages  and YEARLY "sulking" and "hoping for a small victory" of why we need to limit the sport.  Maybe I am missing the posts, but it sure would seem to make more sense to have the leaders, coaches, and those in the know in the state promoting and producing forum posts on what they have found successful, not why we need to give up varsity spots.

Also-Off the list Ghetto posted:

21 ways to be a great teammate.  Book "the Hard hat" by Jon Gordon.

1-As a team member, one of the things you control each day is your effort. Effort is a cornerstone value that you can control and allow oneself to be the best.
2-While well done is greater than well said, don't just show effort, demand it vocally to your teammates.
3-The key to success is be a life-long learner. Stay humble and hungry along the way.
4-Try to be the best you can be. Pursue excellence. Give more percent of yourself each opportunity you get.
5-Stay positive and spread that positivity.
6-Don't complain.
7-Work hard for your team. Put your team first. Give credit where credit is due.
8-If you want commitment, be committed.
9-Be consistent in your attitude, effort, and actions.
10-Before you expect the best of yourself, you can expect the best from your team.
11-If you respect everyone, they will respect you
12-Be an energy fountain, not a drain.
13-Without communication, you can't build trusting relationships
14-Connect with your teammates. Get to know them as people on and off the field.
15-Greatness is a focus a focus on making oneself better and ones team better.
16-Be selfless.
17-Show you care, don't just say how much you care.
18-Be a loyal friend to  your teammates.
19-Love your team first. Commit to that. They will then love you back.
20-Be willing to sacrifice some of your wants for what the team needs.
21-Leave the place better than you found it.

Quote from: asdfg on April 29, 2020, 10:48:35 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 09:44:12 PM

Quote from: asdfg on April 28, 2020, 04:06:04 PM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 28, 2020, 03:55:53 PM
I can't tell you how disappointed I am.

Really don't see how this is great news at all. As our numbers continue to drop, we in Wisconsin will stay status quo. Because the WIAA won't stray from the NFHS, we will continue to not do what is best for teams. We'll keep our seat at the table so we can have a vote (However our vote truly means nothing if we aren't voting to change anything)

I'll never stop bringing this up.

I would however, love to see how teams are trying to grow. It's not a whole lot different than what many other teams are doing. In fact, I was in a Google Meet with a bunch of coaches from around the state a few weeks back and we talked about growing our programs. It was great.

At least we don't have to worry about haircuts at weigh-ins. That's gonna grow wrestling for sure.

I'm confused-how are "#'s continuing to drop"?  Off your first post in this thread, WI had more #'s this year since 2015, and overall minimal changes in #'s in the past 4+ years? 

Also-care to share what you heard at the meeting to grow the sport?

Sorry. I was sulking a bit.

Numbers were up almost 400 from 18-19 to 19-20. We regained the numbers we lost from 15-16 on. I hope we are on an uptick.

Here's the notes that I took from our video chat. There were more, but I couldn't write as fast as people were talking.

1. Put your upper classmen with young guys. Drilling and maybe conditioning. Kids stay with their buddy. Those older buddies also mentor the young guys in the hallways, etc.

2. "Good game" lines after practice. Kinda like a handshake line after a dual.

3. Having awards be core value awards. No MVP, Pinner award, etc. The awards at the banquet are for whatever your program holds to be most valuable.

4. Have a "lock in" before the first night of the season

5.  5 stages of team development (from a book)

6.  21 Ways to be a Great Teammate (a book)

7. "The Hard Hat" (book)

8.  Captain's book study weekly or whatever time frame makes sense

9.  High School Practice with middle school

10.  Two levels of practice- Higher level kids and beginners

11.  Hire the most popular teacher in the middle school to be the wrestling coach and give him an assistant that knows wrestling

12.  Have a system from kids club to HS

13.  Head coach goes to JV tournaments/schedule varsity and JV on different weekends if possible

14.  There is no 14. I lost the second sheet.  :(

There was more ideas. I couldn't write them all down, and I lost my second piece of paper. It was a lot of fun listening to guys from programs that I don't know. I hope we do it again soon.

I apologize if it comes across as attacking Ghetto.  Clearly Ghetto is in a position of influence in some manner in WI.  He has the ability to be in Google Meetups with coaches that are discussing the growth and success of the sport.  It takes 3 comments and pulling teeth to get a brief synopsis of what actually are some really good resources and ideas.  Yet we get 12 pages  and YEARLY "sulking" and "hoping for a small victory" of why we need to limit the sport.  Maybe I am missing the posts, but it sure would seem to make more sense to have the leaders, coaches, and those in the know in the state promoting and producing forum posts on what they have found successful, not why we need to give up varsity spots.

Also-Off the list Ghetto posted:

21 ways to be a great teammate.  Book "the Hard hat" by Jon Gordon.

1-As a team member, one of the things you control each day is your effort. Effort is a cornerstone value that you can control and allow oneself to be the best.
2-While well done is greater than well said, don't just show effort, demand it vocally to your teammates.
3-The key to success is be a life-long learner. Stay humble and hungry along the way.
4-Try to be the best you can be. Pursue excellence. Give more percent of yourself each opportunity you get.
5-Stay positive and spread that positivity.
6-Don't complain.
7-Work hard for your team. Put your team first. Give credit where credit is due.
8-If you want commitment, be committed.
9-Be consistent in your attitude, effort, and actions.
10-Before you expect the best of yourself, you can expect the best from your team.
11-If you respect everyone, they will respect you
12-Be an energy fountain, not a drain.
13-Without communication, you can't build trusting relationships
14-Connect with your teammates. Get to know them as people on and off the field.
15-Greatness is a focus a focus on making oneself better and ones team better.
16-Be selfless.
17-Show you care, don't just say how much you care.
18-Be a loyal friend to  your teammates.
19-Love your team first. Commit to that. They will then love you back.
20-Be willing to sacrifice some of your wants for what the team needs.
21-Leave the place better than you found it.

I've been attacked far worse than what you've done.

You asked me once, and I responded. That ain't pulling teeth.

I post yearly statistics on the fact that almost 70% of our HS teams in Wisconsin don't fill the 14 weight classes in the most important tournament of the year. It's not sulking.

Reducing weight classes to what is actually a manageable number for a large majority of teams in this state is not limiting the sport IMO. But we clearly don't agree, and that's fine with me.

I totally agree with you on the sharing of ideas. Funny how we never see coaches from any of the large programs ever come on here, at least not publicly. Why is that? I know a lot of coaches lurk here.

Either way, I hope you were able to get something from the list. If it helps, awesome.

Pennsylvania still in the future with 13 weight idea. Vote is in May.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 29, 2020, 06:31:10 PM
Pennsylvania still in the future with 13 weight idea. Vote is in May.

For duals sure let's go to 13 or even 12, but why are we trying to take away opportunities from kids for the individual part of the sport. That doesn't make an sense and is the opposite of growing the sport. I love the data Ghetto, but if you want to solve a dual problem let's not hurt the tournament part of our sport.

Less weight classes will lower wrestling numbers. That is the opposite of growing the sport. Again as I said other sports growing opportunities(more divisions) which means there is a higher chance of making it to sectionals or state. To get more kids we need more opportunities not cutting weight classes.

Let's focus on more important problems that will help grow our sport than cut opportunities like: double elimination at state, get rid of 7+7 rule, restructuring the regional/sectional system so it is the same for all divisions, seperating the best teams in a sectional(they at least get to dual at team sectionals), seeding state, addressing weight cutting/growth allowance, etc.

The real question should be Board shorts or singlets?

Or Should we put the team logo on the face masks ?

12-13 or 14 is the least of this sports worries.

Are we going to have a season should be more of the focus than this.

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 30, 2020, 06:50:32 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 29, 2020, 06:31:10 PM
Pennsylvania still in the future with 13 weight idea. Vote is in May.

For duals sure let's go to 13 or even 12, but why are we trying to take away opportunities from kids for the individual part of the sport. That doesn't make an sense and is the opposite of growing the sport. I love the data Ghetto, but if you want to solve a dual problem let's not hurt the tournament part of our sport.

Less weight classes will lower wrestling numbers. That is the opposite of growing the sport. Again as I said other sports growing opportunities(more divisions) which means there is a higher chance of making it to sectionals or state. To get more kids we need more opportunities not cutting weight classes.

Let's focus on more important problems that will help grow our sport than cut opportunities like: double elimination at state, get rid of 7+7 rule, restructuring the regional/sectional system so it is the same for all divisions, seperating the best teams in a sectional(they at least get to dual at team sectionals), seeding state, addressing weight cutting/growth allowance, etc.

I would be all in for 12 for duals and 14 for tournaments. All day.

Truth is we don't know if lowering the weight classes will lower numbers. It hasn't been done at the HS level. We see an increase in kids as we've increased weights, but there's no real way to show a direct correlation between going to 14 weights and increased participation. I am all in for four divisions at state if it will increase our numbers. 12/13 weights along with four divisions might be the trick.

It is my contention that wrestling JV is an opportunity. Even if we cut to 12 weights, we have more varsity performers than any other sport. Football gets more kids in the game, but most other sports don't go 12 deep on their bench.

I am also for getting rid of the 7/7 rule, double elimination at state, etc. Is there really a debate FOR single elimination? Really it's a time/logistics issue. Same with 7/7. The only reason to keep it is because we've always done it that way.

The weight allowance issue could be debated.

While I totally agree that some sectionals are stacked, and it's unfair, this is true in all sports. It would take a complete overhaul of how the WIAA does things. They'd also have to relinquish some control to coaches, and I just don't see that happening.

Quote from: ramjet on April 30, 2020, 08:26:47 AM
The real question should be Board shorts or singlets?

Or Should we put the team logo on the face masks ?

12-13 or 14 is the least of this sports worries.

Are we going to have a season should be more of the focus than this.

We already can use both Board Shorts and singlets.

We have zero control over whether or not we have a season.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 30, 2020, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 30, 2020, 06:50:32 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 29, 2020, 06:31:10 PM
Pennsylvania still in the future with 13 weight idea. Vote is in May.

For duals sure let's go to 13 or even 12, but why are we trying to take away opportunities from kids for the individual part of the sport. That doesn't make an sense and is the opposite of growing the sport. I love the data Ghetto, but if you want to solve a dual problem let's not hurt the tournament part of our sport.

Less weight classes will lower wrestling numbers. That is the opposite of growing the sport. Again as I said other sports growing opportunities(more divisions) which means there is a higher chance of making it to sectionals or state. To get more kids we need more opportunities not cutting weight classes.

Let's focus on more important problems that will help grow our sport than cut opportunities like: double elimination at state, get rid of 7+7 rule, restructuring the regional/sectional system so it is the same for all divisions, seperating the best teams in a sectional(they at least get to dual at team sectionals), seeding state, addressing weight cutting/growth allowance, etc.

I would be all in for 12 for duals and 14 for tournaments. All day.

Truth is we don't know if lowering the weight classes will lower numbers. It hasn't been done at the HS level. We see an increase in kids as we've increased weights, but there's no real way to show a direct correlation between going to 14 weights and increased participation. I am all in for four divisions at state if it will increase our numbers. 12/13 weights along with four divisions might be the trick.

It is my contention that wrestling JV is an opportunity. Even if we cut to 12 weights, we have more varsity performers than any other sport. Football gets more kids in the game, but most other sports don't go 12 deep on their bench.

I am also for getting rid of the 7/7 rule, double elimination at state, etc. Is there really a debate FOR single elimination? Really it's a time/logistics issue. Same with 7/7. The only reason to keep it is because we've always done it that way.

The weight allowance issue could be debated.

While I totally agree that some sectionals are stacked, and it's unfair, this is true in all sports. It would take a complete overhaul of how the WIAA does things. They'd also have to relinquish some control to coaches, and I just don't see that happening.

The thing we tend to overlook about reshuffling the deck for Sectionals is that program dominance does go through periods of change.  I get that there are programs that have a long history of success, but even they go through ups and downs.  Sometimes, those down periods can be persistent which might force the WIAA to totally reconfigure the assignments more regularly than we might expect.  Also, with the cost of travel and inadequate school funding, I can see some districts thinking that their increased expenses due to reassignment is unfair.  There are also stacked regionals, especially in certain Division 2 and 3 weight classes, when only 2 kids can advance.  Is that unfair, too?  Bottom line: The WIAA probably doesn't want to open this can of worms and I can see why.  The focus should be on other structural options that improve opportunities throughout the tournament system.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 30, 2020, 10:15:04 AM

Quote from: ramjet on April 30, 2020, 08:26:47 AM
The real question should be Board shorts or singlets?

Or Should we put the team logo on the face masks ?

12-13 or 14 is the least of this sports worries.

Are we going to have a season should be more of the focus than this.

We already can use both Board Shorts and singlets.

We have zero control over whether or not we have a season.

As a school you are correct however let's hope some innovative business people find a way to have competitions for wrestling that will salvage the sport. Then they can use as many weight classes they deem reasonable so everyone gets some wrestling in.

Might be time to move this sport to a club sport.

Quote from: Ghetto on April 30, 2020, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 30, 2020, 06:50:32 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 29, 2020, 06:31:10 PM
Pennsylvania still in the future with 13 weight idea. Vote is in May.

For duals sure let's go to 13 or even 12, but why are we trying to take away opportunities from kids for the individual part of the sport. That doesn't make an sense and is the opposite of growing the sport. I love the data Ghetto, but if you want to solve a dual problem let's not hurt the tournament part of our sport.

Less weight classes will lower wrestling numbers. That is the opposite of growing the sport. Again as I said other sports growing opportunities(more divisions) which means there is a higher chance of making it to sectionals or state. To get more kids we need more opportunities not cutting weight classes.

Let's focus on more important problems that will help grow our sport than cut opportunities like: double elimination at state, get rid of 7+7 rule, restructuring the regional/sectional system so it is the same for all divisions, seperating the best teams in a sectional(they at least get to dual at team sectionals), seeding state, addressing weight cutting/growth allowance, etc.

I would be all in for 12 for duals and 14 for tournaments. All day.

Truth is we don't know if lowering the weight classes will lower numbers. It hasn't been done at the HS level. We see an increase in kids as we've increased weights, but there's no real way to show a direct correlation between going to 14 weights and increased participation. I am all in for four divisions at state if it will increase our numbers. 12/13 weights along with four divisions might be the trick.

It is my contention that wrestling JV is an opportunity. Even if we cut to 12 weights, we have more varsity performers than any other sport. Football gets more kids in the game, but most other sports don't go 12 deep on their bench.

I am also for getting rid of the 7/7 rule, double elimination at state, etc. Is there really a debate FOR single elimination? Really it's a time/logistics issue. Same with 7/7. The only reason to keep it is because we've always done it that way.

The weight allowance issue could be debated.

While I totally agree that some sectionals are stacked, and it's unfair, this is true in all sports. It would take a complete overhaul of how the WIAA does things. They'd also have to relinquish some control to coaches, and I just don't see that happening.

-"JV is an opportunity" and filling that opportunity just by offering less varsity spots will do nothing to increase participation #'s.  So the solution to increasing JV opportunity is to have less kids make Varsity??? I can't imagine a kid saying, "wow, there are 20 kids instead of 19 on the JV squad, so I am going out."  or the reverse--"wow, 13 spots on varsity instead of 14, so I'm going to go out now."

-comparing wrestling to other sports is a false equivalency.  Stop it.  But if you want to debate, fine.  Generally speaking-Football has opportunity for starters on defense, offense and Special teams.  Soccer,  basketball, etc. will sub in multiple players a game to allow for varsity playing time, much more then 14 spots.  Tennis has singles and doubles. Track has tons of varsity spots.  Generally speaking, except for getting coded or injury, wrestling starts and finishes with the same kids, no need to knock it down less.  Also-While wrestling has 14 varsity spots, it really is opportunity for 1 to 2 spots for a kid because that varsity spot is size dependent.  A big kid in football has opportunity for O-line, D-line, Linebacker, etc.  The B-ball kid can try to crack the line-up in 3-4 spots, on and on.

-"we don't know if lowering weight classes will lower numbers."  Well we also don't know if lowering weight classes will raise numbers either.  As lots of people are saying-there are lots of concrete, objective changes that can and should occur first.

Quote from: asdfg on April 30, 2020, 11:09:45 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 30, 2020, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 30, 2020, 06:50:32 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 29, 2020, 06:31:10 PM
Pennsylvania still in the future with 13 weight idea. Vote is in May.

For duals sure let's go to 13 or even 12, but why are we trying to take away opportunities from kids for the individual part of the sport. That doesn't make an sense and is the opposite of growing the sport. I love the data Ghetto, but if you want to solve a dual problem let's not hurt the tournament part of our sport.

Less weight classes will lower wrestling numbers. That is the opposite of growing the sport. Again as I said other sports growing opportunities(more divisions) which means there is a higher chance of making it to sectionals or state. To get more kids we need more opportunities not cutting weight classes.

Let's focus on more important problems that will help grow our sport than cut opportunities like: double elimination at state, get rid of 7+7 rule, restructuring the regional/sectional system so it is the same for all divisions, seperating the best teams in a sectional(they at least get to dual at team sectionals), seeding state, addressing weight cutting/growth allowance, etc.

I would be all in for 12 for duals and 14 for tournaments. All day.

Truth is we don't know if lowering the weight classes will lower numbers. It hasn't been done at the HS level. We see an increase in kids as we've increased weights, but there's no real way to show a direct correlation between going to 14 weights and increased participation. I am all in for four divisions at state if it will increase our numbers. 12/13 weights along with four divisions might be the trick.

It is my contention that wrestling JV is an opportunity. Even if we cut to 12 weights, we have more varsity performers than any other sport. Football gets more kids in the game, but most other sports don't go 12 deep on their bench.

I am also for getting rid of the 7/7 rule, double elimination at state, etc. Is there really a debate FOR single elimination? Really it's a time/logistics issue. Same with 7/7. The only reason to keep it is because we've always done it that way.

The weight allowance issue could be debated.

While I totally agree that some sectionals are stacked, and it's unfair, this is true in all sports. It would take a complete overhaul of how the WIAA does things. They'd also have to relinquish some control to coaches, and I just don't see that happening.

-"JV is an opportunity" and filling that opportunity just by offering less varsity spots will do nothing to increase participation #'s.  So the solution to increasing JV opportunity is to have less kids make Varsity??? I can't imagine a kid saying, "wow, there are 20 kids instead of 19 on the JV squad, so I am going out."  or the reverse--"wow, 13 spots on varsity instead of 14, so I'm going to go out now."

-comparing wrestling to other sports is a false equivalency.  Stop it.  But if you want to debate, fine.  Generally speaking-Football has opportunity for starters on defense, offense and Special teams.  Soccer,  basketball, etc. will sub in multiple players a game to allow for varsity playing time, much more then 14 spots.  Tennis has singles and doubles. Track has tons of varsity spots.  Generally speaking, except for getting coded or injury, wrestling starts and finishes with the same kids, no need to knock it down less.  Also-While wrestling has 14 varsity spots, it really is opportunity for 1 to 2 spots for a kid because that varsity spot is size dependent.  A big kid in football has opportunity for O-line, D-line, Linebacker, etc.  The B-ball kid can try to crack the line-up in 3-4 spots, on and on.

-"we don't know if lowering weight classes will lower numbers."  Well we also don't know if lowering weight classes will raise numbers either.  As lots of people are saying-there are lots of concrete, objective changes that can and should occur first.

JV is an opportunity to wrestle. We talk about removing opportunities. We are taking a varsity spot, maybe, if the team fills all the weights. We are not taking away the opportunity to wrestle. I'll go back to the things I've said a million times on here: Most teams don't fill 14 weights, and when they do, often times it's just with a body. Do kids go out for wrestling because they can make varsity and that is their reasoning? Meaning- a kid who has never wrestled before sees that there is a spot at 126 and because he weighs that, he would get put in there?

Correct. We don't know what will happen. Also correct that there are plenty of concrete things that can happen. What wrestling should not do in my opinion (or any sport) is do one thing and hope it works without doing others.

Well said.  You did a better job of explaining that than I could have.

Quote from: asdfg on April 30, 2020, 11:09:45 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 30, 2020, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: wrastle63 on April 30, 2020, 06:50:32 AM

Quote from: Ghetto on April 29, 2020, 06:31:10 PM
Pennsylvania still in the future with 13 weight idea. Vote is in May.

For duals sure let's go to 13 or even 12, but why are we trying to take away opportunities from kids for the individual part of the sport. That doesn't make an sense and is the opposite of growing the sport. I love the data Ghetto, but if you want to solve a dual problem let's not hurt the tournament part of our sport.

Less weight classes will lower wrestling numbers. That is the opposite of growing the sport. Again as I said other sports growing opportunities(more divisions) which means there is a higher chance of making it to sectionals or state. To get more kids we need more opportunities not cutting weight classes.

Let's focus on more important problems that will help grow our sport than cut opportunities like: double elimination at state, get rid of 7+7 rule, restructuring the regional/sectional system so it is the same for all divisions, seperating the best teams in a sectional(they at least get to dual at team sectionals), seeding state, addressing weight cutting/growth allowance, etc.

I would be all in for 12 for duals and 14 for tournaments. All day.

Truth is we don't know if lowering the weight classes will lower numbers. It hasn't been done at the HS level. We see an increase in kids as we've increased weights, but there's no real way to show a direct correlation between going to 14 weights and increased participation. I am all in for four divisions at state if it will increase our numbers. 12/13 weights along with four divisions might be the trick.

It is my contention that wrestling JV is an opportunity. Even if we cut to 12 weights, we have more varsity performers than any other sport. Football gets more kids in the game, but most other sports don't go 12 deep on their bench.

I am also for getting rid of the 7/7 rule, double elimination at state, etc. Is there really a debate FOR single elimination? Really it's a time/logistics issue. Same with 7/7. The only reason to keep it is because we've always done it that way.

The weight allowance issue could be debated.

While I totally agree that some sectionals are stacked, and it's unfair, this is true in all sports. It would take a complete overhaul of how the WIAA does things. They'd also have to relinquish some control to coaches, and I just don't see that happening.

-"JV is an opportunity" and filling that opportunity just by offering less varsity spots will do nothing to increase participation #'s.  So the solution to increasing JV opportunity is to have less kids make Varsity??? I can't imagine a kid saying, "wow, there are 20 kids instead of 19 on the JV squad, so I am going out."  or the reverse--"wow, 13 spots on varsity instead of 14, so I'm going to go out now."

-comparing wrestling to other sports is a false equivalency.  Stop it.  But if you want to debate, fine.  Generally speaking-Football has opportunity for starters on defense, offense and Special teams.  Soccer,  basketball, etc. will sub in multiple players a game to allow for varsity playing time, much more then 14 spots.  Tennis has singles and doubles. Track has tons of varsity spots.  Generally speaking, except for getting coded or injury, wrestling starts and finishes with the same kids, no need to knock it down less.  Also-While wrestling has 14 varsity spots, it really is opportunity for 1 to 2 spots for a kid because that varsity spot is size dependent.  A big kid in football has opportunity for O-line, D-line, Linebacker, etc.  The B-ball kid can try to crack the line-up in 3-4 spots, on and on.

-"we don't know if lowering weight classes will lower numbers."  Well we also don't know if lowering weight classes will raise numbers either.  As lots of people are saying-there are lots of concrete, objective changes that can and should occur first.

Pennsylvania sees 'issues' with keeping 14 weight classes in high school

https://intermatwrestle.com/articles/23586

(Note: clicking 'quote' instead of 'reply' seems to be an annoying virus of its own. Just sayin')

"Might be time to move this sport to a club sport."
Club sports are suspended presently due to C19 as well.

That's going to change here very soon....

JV opportunities are ok if you are on a winning team like Coleman for example but not so much on a team with 8 kids......

Going to 12 weights will encourage weight cutting and will reduce participation....

Quote from: ramjet on April 30, 2020, 05:47:35 PM
That's going to change here very soon....

JV opportunities are ok if you are on a winning team like Coleman for example but not so much on a team with 8 kids......

Going to 12 weights will encourage weight cutting and will reduce participation....

Weight management/cutting happens now.  Would moving to 12 weights increase that number by 5%? Maybe.

Remember there are plenty of kids that wrestle up a weight, not cutting at all, and still giving up weight.

If wrestling were just a club sport numbers would be incredibly low.

Make 2 divisions then, one with 14 weights and 1 with 12 weights.

Quote from: ramjet on April 30, 2020, 08:26:47 AM
...Are we going to have a season should be more of the focus than this....

Made an attempt at a genuine discussion with this focus. Name calling, finger pointing, accusations etc. ensued.
Can we try it again and have success?

No

See small teams the kids in many cases are bunched up around the same weights. HS kids have an average size. In many small programs the athletes are e in those weights so they get bunched up. If you remove one or two weights the spread becomes wider. Harder to make weight. One side or the other. That concerns me. The lower number of weight classes will not change who the top teams are. They are champs for very specific and consistent reasons. It will not bring more wrestlers into the sport. It almost seems like an attempt to "level the playing field" Won't work.