No more waiting!!!

[MNbadger]

From another posting on a different thread...

Dear Mr. Tritz, could you or somebody on your very capable staff produce a standard bell curve of the certified weights for Wisconsin for the past year?  Or, perhaps more simply, list the numbers certified by weight across all divisions?

Pretty please?

Dale

If we don't ask, the answer is "no."

Full disclosure, I didn't read the first two pages.  I apologize.  At least I can say I didn't know, which is far, far better than those that knew and forgot or ignore.

What I learned:
-We have over 11,500 more wrestlers nationwide between 2010 and 2014.  My reaction, whoda thunk?
-We will lose 120 varsity competitors across all 3 divisions, based on Ghetto's numbers, should we reduce to 12 weight classes.

My main point, if we don't use a standard bell curve to set weight classes in the future then we are doomed to fail, just like so many say we failed by going to 14 weight classes. 

I believe, since I believe in math and statistics, that there will be more weight classes in the middle, the most populous part of the curve; less on the outside tails.  Not only did we go to 14 weight classes, but we eliminated a weight in the middle; added one on the tail of the distribution.  The kindest way I can put it, that decision was head-up-backside-stoopid.

I believe anybody that proposes new weight classes without a standard bell curve will also have their head up their backside.

Another point, not as important to me as the standard bell curve, but also important...why do we say "forfeits are bad?"  Coming at it from a different direction, "why are we trying to get teams that can't fill a lineup to state, or to win conference, or to come closer in duals?"  Why is that an all important goal when every team competes on a relatively level playing ground and begins their state run at individual regionals?  Every team has the same opportunity and risk...

Is it so important to reduce the number of forfeits, to have more full lineups, to bench 120 varsity wrestlers?  If it is, then at least do it with a standard bell curve of weight distributions, or not at all.

I wholeheartedly agree Dale.  I think we can keep 14 weights and all but eliminate forfeits.  We will always have some in duals for many reasons.
It will take looking at the weights of the kids and making weight classes that fit the curve.  Likely there will be about a 3 pound difference through the middle weights.

[ElectricGuy]

High School Totals last 20 years. 

Year   # of Wrestlers    # of Teams     Average / Team 1995         216453                 8677            25 2000         239845                 9046            27 2005         243009                 9562            25 2010         272890                 10362           26 2014         284114                 10688           27

Your numbers show an increasing team average.  Or, am I missing something?
With this declining team average, the trend is obvious we need to cut 3-4 weight classes now...  In addition, if this obvious trend above continues we should plan on cutting another 2-4 weight classes cut in the next ten years.  

The Fix to this issue:
A portion of my neighboring teams down here in the Madtown area average 7-9 forfeits in a dual, So cutting a couple weights isn't going to help with that. 

So, lets think out of the box here (or late 90's reference - I'm going to move your cheese)! 

Our first and number one priority, how are we going to make all the teams fair or as I call it down here in the soccer world "madison fair"? 

I think we start with cutting more of the middle weights because they should not have an advantage!  Don't give me this bell curve stuff about that is where most of the kids weights fall, doesn't matter - wouldn't be fair. 

Next get it down to maybe six weights - Example: 100, 130, 160, 190, 220, Hwt  (I read somewhere in this 10 pg thread that most of the recruited talent was coming out of the 182,195,220 weights so this would retain most of that deep talent pool)

Then lastly, we give the smaller schools the opportunity to "draft" from the teams with higher numbers -  a.k.a. the "haves".   We know the "haves" probably came by these numbers by ill-gotten methods,  so this should balance the playing field a bit.   

Yes - exactly!!  The numbers are going up.  My apologies, sarcasm doesn't always translate well into a post. For clarification, I was being entirely sarcastic and facetious with my post.  Though - we do have a number of neighboring teams that do forfeit 7-9 matches any given dual, which cutting a couple weights doesn't solve forfeits at those schools.


Dale beat me to the punch in one of his last post, the question should be why is WI numbers going down while apparently nationally wrestling numbers are going up?  Maybe it's WI has too many clubs (Askren, Advance, XFact, etc..) I'm sure  <-------- Sarcasm

[MNbadger]

High School Totals last 20 years. 

Year   # of Wrestlers    # of Teams     Average / Team 1995         216453                 8677            25 2000         239845                 9046            27 2005         243009                 9562            25 2010         272890                 10362           26 2014         284114                 10688           27

Your numbers show an increasing team average.  Or, am I missing something?
With this declining team average, the trend is obvious we need to cut 3-4 weight classes now...  In addition, if this obvious trend above continues we should plan on cutting another 2-4 weight classes cut in the next ten years.  

The Fix to this issue:
A portion of my neighboring teams down here in the Madtown area average 7-9 forfeits in a dual, So cutting a couple weights isn't going to help with that. 

So, lets think out of the box here (or late 90's reference - I'm going to move your cheese)! 

Our first and number one priority, how are we going to make all the teams fair or as I call it down here in the soccer world "madison fair"? 

I think we start with cutting more of the middle weights because they should not have an advantage!  Don't give me this bell curve stuff about that is where most of the kids weights fall, doesn't matter - wouldn't be fair. 

Next get it down to maybe six weights - Example: 100, 130, 160, 190, 220, Hwt  (I read somewhere in this 10 pg thread that most of the recruited talent was coming out of the 182,195,220 weights so this would retain most of that deep talent pool)

Then lastly, we give the smaller schools the opportunity to "draft" from the teams with higher numbers -  a.k.a. the "haves".   We know the "haves" probably came by these numbers by ill-gotten methods,  so this should balance the playing field a bit.   

Yes - exactly!!  The numbers are going up.  My apologies, sarcasm doesn't always translate well into a post. For clarification, I was being entirely sarcastic and facetious with my post.  Though - we do have a number of neighboring teams that do forfeit 7-9 matches any given dual, which cutting a couple weights doesn't solve forfeits at those schools.


Dale beat me to the punch in one of his last post, the question should be why is WI numbers going down while apparently nationally wrestling numbers are going up?  Maybe it's WI has too many clubs (Askren, Advance, XFact, etc..) I'm sure  <-------- Sarcasm

I am sorry I missed the sarcasm, I feel foolish.

[Dale Einerson]

From another posting on a different thread...

Dear Mr. Tritz, could you or somebody on your very capable staff produce a standard bell curve of the certified weights for Wisconsin for the past year?  Or, perhaps more simply, list the numbers certified by weight across all divisions?

Pretty please?

Dale

If we don't ask, the answer is "no."

Full disclosure, I didn't read the first two pages.  I apologize.  At least I can say I didn't know, which is far, far better than those that knew and forgot or ignore.

What I learned:
-We have over 11,500 more wrestlers nationwide between 2010 and 2014.  My reaction, whoda thunk?
-We will lose 120 varsity competitors across all 3 divisions, based on Ghetto's numbers, should we reduce to 12 weight classes.

My main point, if we don't use a standard bell curve to set weight classes in the future then we are doomed to fail, just like so many say we failed by going to 14 weight classes. 

I believe, since I believe in math and statistics, that there will be more weight classes in the middle, the most populous part of the curve; less on the outside tails.  Not only did we go to 14 weight classes, but we eliminated a weight in the middle; added one on the tail of the distribution.  The kindest way I can put it, that decision was head-up-backside-stoopid.

I believe anybody that proposes new weight classes without a standard bell curve will also have their head up their backside.

Another point, not as important to me as the standard bell curve, but also important...why do we say "forfeits are bad?"  Coming at it from a different direction, "why are we trying to get teams that can't fill a lineup to state, or to win conference, or to come closer in duals?"  Why is that an all important goal when every team competes on a relatively level playing ground and begins their state run at individual regionals?  Every team has the same opportunity and risk...

Is it so important to reduce the number of forfeits, to have more full lineups, to bench 120 varsity wrestlers?  If it is, then at least do it with a standard bell curve of weight distributions, or not at all.

I wholeheartedly agree Dale.  I think we can keep 14 weights and all but eliminate forfeits.  We will always have some in duals for many reasons.
It will take looking at the weights of the kids and making weight classes that fit the curve.  Likely there will be about a 3 pound difference through the middle weights.

And, I will add, if there were, say, 3lb differences between weights in the middle, based on a standard bell curve, imagine the absolute fun and intrigue of coaching decisions to create match ups in duals.  What an absolute hoot!  Who won the coin flip, what is the starting weight, where are the strengths on my team v. the other team, what is the score, what do we need for bonus points or non-pins?  That would be exciting.

[bigoil]

7 teams in D3 had 14 "varsity" kids. (see above for definition)
6 teams in D3 had 13

Dale,

Since you admitted to not reading the first two pages, here is a very telling post (I know it surprised me as well that it was from ghetto). Another poster followed up with a great deduction from this data, realistically, only 13 teams in D3 have a chance at the D3 team title.

[DocWrestling]

Participation is up nationally because states and schools that never have had wrestling are adding it.  In those states that have long had wrestling programs established, the numbers are going down.  Not sure what the trend is for number of wrestlers per team

It is not just a Wisconsin thing with participation numbers going down.

It is not just a wrestling thing with participation numbers going down in all sports.

For the record I believe a bell curve should be used.  Use that data to change the weights every couple years.  Where I disagree ist that the bell curve should be weighted more to what juniors and seniors weigh and JV weights should be weighted towards what freshman and sophomores weigh.

And somehow it should not be weighted by the 145 that a wrestler can wrestle during the season but now weighs 170 lbs 3 weeks after the season.  Maybe you use 8 or 9% for the weight classes but still allow wrestlers to go to 7% if the want to.

[bigG]

It's taking off pretty well in Texas; but, as you say, in places where there's been little or none. Nonetheless, I was glad when my nephew got into rasslin' down in Houston.

[Dale Einerson]

7 teams in D3 had 14 "varsity" kids. (see above for definition)
6 teams in D3 had 13

Dale,

Since you admitted to not reading the first two pages, here is a very telling post (I know it surprised me as well that it was from ghetto). Another poster followed up with a great deduction from this data, realistically, only 13 teams in D3 have a chance at the D3 team title.

It was helpful to go back to the initial posts and the information provided!

Here is where you and I part ways...i say; I believe I am correct in saying this, that every team in D3 has a chance at the D3 team title.  They all have individual regionals to determine who goes to Team Sectionals.  I must admit, I do not understand how socialism has crept into our sport.

All of those t-shirts with amazing slogans on them for wrestling, like, "hold my headgear while I kiss your girlfriend," or "wrestling is not a sport, it is a lifestyle."  But, the reality is, the statement and belief behind it that we are going to have to legislate so the teams that don't succeed at competing with a level set of rules have a better chance...perhaps the t-shirts should say, "wrestling, where we whine and cry about not succeeding under the same rules as those who succeed."

Which is part of my reason in saying the arguments for reducing weight classes are not well thought out and not well articulated.  Leveling the playing field is not a reason to reduce weight classes.  It is weakness defined...

As proof, in D3, Stratford and Fennimore.  Stratford took a long-term approach and build from the youth program up.  Fennimore has always had tough individuals and nice teams, then they add a proven and committed Coach who has been there and done that; a well-earned state championship.

So please, in my biased and noisy opinion, come up with better reasons for reducing weight classes...

[Barou]

7 teams in D3 had 14 "varsity" kids. (see above for definition)
6 teams in D3 had 13

Dale,

Since you admitted to not reading the first two pages, here is a very telling post (I know it surprised me as well that it was from ghetto). Another poster followed up with a great deduction from this data, realistically, only 13 teams in D3 have a chance at the D3 team title.

It was helpful to go back to the initial posts and the information provided!

Here is where you and I part ways...i say; I believe I am correct in saying this, that every team in D3 has a chance at the D3 team title.  They all have individual regionals to determine who goes to Team Sectionals.  I must admit, I do not understand how socialism has crept into our sport.

All of those t-shirts with amazing slogans on them for wrestling, like, "hold my headgear while I kiss your girlfriend," or "wrestling is not a sport, it is a lifestyle."  But, the reality is, the statement and belief behind it that we are going to have to legislate so the teams that don't succeed at competing with a level set of rules have a better chance...perhaps the t-shirts should say, "wrestling, where we whine and cry about not succeeding under the same rules as those who succeed."

Which is part of my reason in saying the arguments for reducing weight classes are not well thought out and not well articulated.  Leveling the playing field is not a reason to reduce weight classes.  It is weakness defined...

As proof, in D3, Stratford and Fennimore.  Stratford took a long-term approach and build from the youth program up.  Fennimore has always had tough individuals and nice teams, then they add a proven and committed Coach who has been there and done that; a well-earned state championship.

So please, in my biased and noisy opinion, come up with better reasons for reducing weight classes...

And from what I hear both D3 programs you mention also benefited from open enrollment.  Not that I have an issue with that at all (100% totally fine with that) should be noted though.

[Dale Einerson]

Participation is up nationally because states and schools that never have had wrestling are adding it.  In those states that have long had wrestling programs established, the numbers are going down.  Not sure what the trend is for number of wrestlers per team

It is not just a Wisconsin thing with participation numbers going down.

It is not just a wrestling thing with participation numbers going down in all sports.

For the record I believe a bell curve should be used.  Use that data to change the weights every couple years.  Where I disagree ist that the bell curve should be weighted more to what juniors and seniors weigh and JV weights should be weighted towards what freshman and sophomores weigh.

And somehow it should not be weighted by the 145 that a wrestler can wrestle during the season but now weighs 170 lbs 3 weeks after the season.  Maybe you use 8 or 9% for the weight classes but still allow wrestlers to go to 7% if the want to.

It would be very beneficial to look at data a few ways to make some headway in this discussion.  I suggest, since declining numbers are an issue, take 7th graders through 12 graders, the weights they weighed at the time of certifications.  Adds competitors, maximizes numbers, is simpler than your proposal (most first time high school parents absolutely freak out about this whole 5-7% thing), and if weight cutting is an issue, set the bell curve where people are, not where inexperienced people are challenged to make unhealthy choices that potentially affect their quality of life.  That doesn't mean somebody can't go down to 7%, but I predict with more weight classes in the middle where a significant majority of high school aged boys already are, would help with the numbers problem to the maximum extent.

[DocWrestling]

1) Could we agree that reducing the number of weight classes might improve the competitiveness and experience for the 60-70% of teams that have struggled to fill 14 weight classes.  The top 25% will likely be the traditional powers and not much will change with that.  They will still dominate.

2) Could we agree that reducing the number of weight classes might actually save some programs as it will look much better to administrators?  This might take going all the way to 11 weight classes or something..  Cross country and tennis programs are not being cut even though many teams only have less than 10 on the team but with that 10 they can field a full team.

3) Could we agree that reducing the weight classes would likely improve the JV experience with duals, etc also and more paid coaches?

I agree that reducing to 13 would likely have minimal effect on any of this which is why I have gone off the deep end and think a drastic change to 10 or 11 weights would be ideal.  In the end I think reducing the number of weight classes would greatly improve the team aspect of the sport.

My hope is that improving the team aspect would lead to increased participation. We are not short of great wrestlers.  We are short the wrestlers that are average and wrestle for the fun and to help the team.  90% of teams that get on the bus for a dual already know the result of the dual so all that matters is the individual part.  Reducing the weight classes changes that outside of those top teams which will always be very tough to beat.  Fans do not come to watch individuals, they come to watch exciting team events

[DocWrestling]

It would be very beneficial to look at data a few ways to make some headway in this discussion.  I suggest, since declining numbers are an issue, take 7th graders through 12 graders, the weights they weighed at the time of certifications.  Adds competitors, maximizes numbers, is simpler than your proposal (most first time high school parents absolutely freak out about this whole 5-7% thing), and if weight cutting is an issue, set the bell curve where people are, not where inexperienced people are challenged to make unhealthy choices that potentially affect their quality of life.  That doesn't mean somebody can't go down to 7%, but I predict with more weight classes in the middle where a significant majority of high school aged boys already are, would help with the numbers problem to the maximum extent.

I agree with that

[foose4]

I took a look at all the D3 Regionals this year.   In those I looked at all teams with 10-12 wrestlers (who some are saying should be helped to get to full teams)

This is the breakdown of what weights they were missing

35 total teams

106 - 14
113 - 15   (6) teams missed both 106 & 113
120 - 9
126 - 2
132 - 4
138 - 4
145 - 2
152 - 3
160 - 3
170 - 8
182 - 8
195 - 6
220 - 12
285 - 9     (4) teams missed both 220 & 285

Again, where do you propose we take out some weight classes?
 
Taking out a weight on the bottom only helps 17% of the teams (6 teams with no 106 and 113).
Taking out a weight on the top helps 11% (4 teams with no 220 and 285).  

So basically at 12 you may not help these teams get to a full roster anyway if the weights taken out and moved don't align with the roster they have this year.

AND to agree with Dale.....33 kids in D3 who participated this year would not have been able to if we went to 12 weights......I agree with Dale and think it's wrong to eliminate their chance at competing.

I know you will bring up JV, etc. but has anyone gone to a HS football or Basketball or Baseball game lately, most of those teams don't have full rosters of studs, sure some do, and they win lots of games and state championships.  Most have some great kids, some good kids, some average kids and some fillers....and they all are playing.  So why does wrestling have to be different?

In D5 to D7 Football most rosters are filled with freshman and sophomores, with quite a few seeing extended playing time due to low particpation of Juniors & Seniors.

[Handles II]

7 teams in D3 had 14 "varsity" kids. (see above for definition)
6 teams in D3 had 13

Dale,

Since you admitted to not reading the first two pages, here is a very telling post (I know it surprised me as well that it was from ghetto). Another poster followed up with a great deduction from this data, realistically, only 13 teams in D3 have a chance at the D3 team title.

It was helpful to go back to the initial posts and the information provided!

Here is where you and I part ways...i say; I believe I am correct in saying this, that every team in D3 has a chance at the D3 team title.  They all have individual regionals to determine who goes to Team Sectionals.  I must admit, I do not understand how socialism has crept into our sport.

All of those t-shirts with amazing slogans on them for wrestling, like, "hold my headgear while I kiss your girlfriend," or "wrestling is not a sport, it is a lifestyle."  But, the reality is, the statement and belief behind it that we are going to have to legislate so the teams that don't succeed at competing with a level set of rules have a better chance...perhaps the t-shirts should say, "wrestling, where we whine and cry about not succeeding under the same rules as those who succeed."

Which is part of my reason in saying the arguments for reducing weight classes are not well thought out and not well articulated.  Leveling the playing field is not a reason to reduce weight classes.  It is weakness defined...

As proof, in D3, Stratford and Fennimore.  Stratford took a long-term approach and build from the youth program up.  Fennimore has always had tough individuals and nice teams, then they add a proven and committed Coach who has been there and done that; a well-earned state championship.

So please, in my biased and noisy opinion, come up with better reasons for reducing weight classes...

Dale, making better competition is better for the sport. We can see that with the NFL regarding profit sharing, salary caps, and draft pick order. Having more teams able to compete with their peers in a "who's gonna win this game?" has made the NFL one of the most popular sports. They did it right. They didn't want to continue with the parody that was starting, and visibly happening in other sports.

Of course we can applaud those few teams who regularly can fill all 14 weights with quality wrestlers. We know however that the same coach using the same formulas applied to build one team in one school may not have the same effect in another. So to ignore or only focus, nay, continue to "reward" only a few programs, we are certainly  belittling those coaches and individuals who are doing everything in their power to get the job done, including using the ideas and efforts of the "successful", but it simply doesn't happen. We know of winning programs who, under that same coach who did things "right" are now floundering in mediocrity, not due to his efforts and that of others in the program. And for some teams, that difference is simply having 14 guys. It's tough for a team of 10 good kids to make up 24 points of forfeits. When the crowd starts leaving because the result is in the bag, that's not a positive for our sport.

Back on page 3, Ramjet said something that may be close to being true "90% of the teams that get on the bus for a dual already know the outcome because of forfeits". While it certainly isn't 90%, the large number of forfeits, which IN PART is related to the number of required weights absolutely is playing a part in determining wins/losses and if the coaches and wrestlers know it, so does the public. That's where my concern is. If we ONLY rearrange the weights based off of a bell curve, for many many teams in the state, that will simply mean filling or attempting to fill another weight with a kid who really should be on JV. It will still mean finding 14 varsity-ready guys. 14 guys of varying weights.That is still a tall order for well over 150 teams in the state. And JV will still be 3,4,5,6,7, matches total. When we talk about building our youth programs, but there not being a JV level to continue that growth (for many) we are helping push some of those kids out.

[bigoil]

I took a look at all the D3 Regionals this year.   In those I looked at all teams with 10-12 wrestlers (who some are saying should be helped to get to full teams)

This is the breakdown of what weights they were missing

35 total teams

106 - 14
113 - 15   (6) teams missed both 106 & 113
120 - 9
126 - 2
132 - 4
138 - 4
145 - 2
152 - 3
160 - 3
170 - 8
182 - 8
195 - 6
220 - 12
285 - 9     (4) teams missed both 220 & 285

Again, where do you propose we take out some weight classes?
 
Taking out a weight on the bottom only helps 17% of the teams (6 teams with no 106 and 113).
Taking out a weight on the top helps 11% (4 teams with no 220 and 285).  

So basically at 12 you may not help these teams get to a full roster anyway if the weights taken out and moved don't align with the roster they have this year.

AND to agree with Dale.....33 kids in D3 who participated this year would not have been able to if we went to 12 weights......I agree with Dale and think it's wrong to eliminate their chance at competing.

I know you will bring up JV, etc. but has anyone gone to a HS football or Basketball or Baseball game lately, most of those teams don't have full rosters of studs, sure some do, and they win lots of games and state championships.  Most have some great kids, some good kids, some average kids and some fillers....and they all are playing.  So why does wrestling have to be different?

In D5 to D7 Football most rosters are filled with freshman and sophomores, with quite a few seeing extended playing time due to low particpation of Juniors & Seniors.

There are more than 35 teams in D3 aren't there? Assuming your cross-section is an accurate portrayal of all D3 schools, then the data is accurate but your statements I don't believe are. Cutting a weight class on the bottom will help 23 schools (29-6) out of 35 or 65% of the schools (54% on the top of weight brackets).