“Hot Topics in the Sport of Wrestling”

[hasbeen]

We used to have 12 weight classes. That was not a bad thing. We went to 13 and then 14. That in itself was not a bad thing. On the average we are finding it difficult to fill all these weights now. Why is it then that going back to 12 would be so bad? It is just a number. Maybe 10 or 11 would be better? Who knows what the magic optimal number is for participation, opportunity, success, etc., but the statistics seem to show that the vast majority of teams have no chance to fill out 14. Reducing seems like a logical move. Scare tactics like suggesting the WIAA or local school boards would see this as a move of a dying sport and move to eliminate wrestling is ridiculous. Aarons - Your questioning of CLC is a bit unfair to say the least. There is always going to be differing levels of success. You can't simply ask "what has Random Lake done" and expect programs to say "Oh, now I get it. Simple." Reducing the weight classes might not fix the problems of the programs with the biggest struggles, but it will reduce the forfeits by 1 or 2 on most nights and that is a good thing. We are not "tearing it down", it is just a number. We're trying to find the one that works best.

[BDbacker]

I don't ever post in this forum but have been reading it for years. I only post now to ask a series of philosophical questions regarding the potential reduction of weight classes.

It seems specifically the problem is that most teams have issues fielding a full roster of 14. This of course is merely a symptom of a more broad problem the sport is having with limited numbers of participants. If this is wrong please correct me. The proposed remedy is to then reduce the weight classes by 2 or 3 by many in this forum.

My questions regarding this plan of attack are as follows;

(1) How does reducing varsity roster spots/weight classes help grow the sport as a whole?
(2) When dealing with the issue of dwindling participation in a sport are remedies at the high school level the answer? Or is it better combated at the youth level?
(3) If you are a team that has trouble getting your weight classes filled isn't the enticement of a varsity spot a "good sell" to athletes in high school?
(4) Is reducing the number of weight classes truly the only way to remedy this issue? Have all other avenues been exhausted?
(5) Is this a situation where some smaller schools have 4, 5 or 6 state qualifying wrestlers in weight classes and can't fill the rest and are sick of getting beat by teams that only have 1 or 2 state qualifiers (or perhaps none) in dual meets?

I ask these questions not knowing the situations faced by many teams. And I readily admit that the questions appear to be biased towards not changing the status quo. I can only explain that bias by stating that the only way I know of to successfully fight through an ambush is head on, not by retreating.

In closing I truly appreciate all the tireless work done by many of posters in this forum to help grow this great sport that I love.

[ramjet]

I don't ever post in this forum but have been reading it for years. I only post now to ask a series of philosophical questions regarding the potential reduction of weight classes.

It seems specifically the problem is that most teams have issues fielding a full roster of 14. This of course is merely a symptom of a more broad problem the sport is having with limited numbers of participants. If this is wrong please correct me. The proposed remedy is to then reduce the weight classes by 2 or 3 by many in this forum.

My questions regarding this plan of attack are as follows;

(1) How does reducing varsity roster spots/weight classes help grow the sport as a whole?
(2) When dealing with the issue of dwindling participation in a sport are remedies at the high school level the answer? Or is it better combated at the youth level?
(3) If you are a team that has trouble getting your weight classes filled isn't the enticement of a varsity spot a "good sell" to athletes in high school?
(4) Is reducing the number of weight classes truly the only way to remedy this issue? Have all other avenues been exhausted?
(5) Is this a situation where some smaller schools have 4, 5 or 6 state qualifying wrestlers in weight classes and can't fill the rest and are sick of getting beat by teams that only have 1 or 2 state qualifiers (or perhaps none) in dual meets?

I ask these questions not knowing the situations faced by many teams. And I readily admit that the questions appear to be biased towards not changing the status quo. I can only explain that bias by stating that the only way I know of to successfully fight through an ambush is head on, not by retreating.

In closing I truly appreciate all the tireless work done by many of posters in this forum to help grow this great sport that I love.

I will take stab at this;

Fewer number of weight classes improves the level of competition at each weight class in varsity less spots tougher to get those spots. Disallows coaches to "avoid" matches and taking a FF just for team points. Have to wrestle every weight class more drama at dual meets keeping the spectators engaged in the competition.
Fewer weight classes should increase the emphasis on the JV aspect of our sport.
More emphasis on JV will help develope wrestlers not ready to be thrown into the grind of varsity and potentially keeps those that would quit because they are getting pounded on. So for some teams they may only field a varsity team now may have two teams JV and Varsity actually increasing the opportunity.

[aarons23]

We used to have 12 weight classes. That was not a bad thing. We went to 13 and then 14. That in itself was not a bad thing. On the average we are finding it difficult to fill all these weights now. Why is it then that going back to 12 would be so bad? It is just a number. Maybe 10 or 11 would be better? Who knows what the magic optimal number is for participation, opportunity, success, etc., but the statistics seem to show that the vast majority of teams have no chance to fill out 14. Reducing seems like a logical move. Scare tactics like suggesting the WIAA or local school boards would see this as a move of a dying sport and move to eliminate wrestling is ridiculous. Aarons - Your questioning of CLC is a bit unfair to say the least. There is always going to be differing levels of success. You can't simply ask "what has Random Lake done" and expect programs to say "Oh, now I get it. Simple." Reducing the weight classes might not fix the problems of the programs with the biggest struggles, but it will reduce the forfeits by 1 or 2 on most nights and that is a good thing. We are not "tearing it down", it is just a number. We're trying to find the one that works best.

How is it unfair to ask a coach from a successful small enrollment team why he thinks others can not do it.  CLC has a great program....been to state as team last several years......this is a numbers game and CLC being the mathmatician he is has figured it out for RL.....why cant others do it? Especially bigger enrollment schools.  I think to many are ready to just say its ok participation is down so lets just reduce weight classes....IMO....its not ok....more teams needs to look at RL and mimic what they do....

[trout1]

From WIAA site: http://www.wiaawi.org/Sports/Football/8PlayerFBJamboree.aspx

2015 Eight-Player Programs
Abundant Life/Madison Country Day/Saint Ambrose - 185
Birchwood - 87
Bowler/Gresham Community – 177.6
Bruce- 167
Elkhart Lake-Glenbeulah - 150
Gibraltar – 210
Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran – 125
Heritage Christian – 164.3
Lena/Saint Thomas Aquinas Academy - 149
Luck – 125.6
Mellen – 69.3
Menomonie Indian – 240.6
New Auburn - 100
Northwood/Solon Springs - 225
Oakfield - 125
Oneida Nation - 101.6
Prairie Farm - 106
Sevastopol - 155
Siren - 131
Valley Christian - 64
Wayland Academy – 213
Winter 74.66

* Only schools with a three-year enrollment average of 200 or less are eligible for the end-of-the-season jamboree.

Schools with a three-year enrollment average of 200 or less are eligible for the end-of-the-season jamboree.

Thanks...I honestly didn't know it existed here in WI.  Im not against lower enrollment schools having a different set of rules to help them out.  But even in 8 man football it appears the WIAA is saying enrollment of less than 200 for a three year average is the starting point.  How many of those teams have wresting teams?  I can only pick Elkhart Lake out for sure.   

The following teams have wrestling teams on 2016 assignments (a few are part of co-ops)
Bruce- 167 – D3 Sectional A, Regional II
Elkhart Lake-Glenbeulah – 150 – D2 Sectional D, Regional II (as Elkhart Lake-Glenbeulah/Howards Grove
Lena/Saint Thomas Aquinas Academy – 149 – D3 Sectional B, Regional IV
Luck – 125.6 – D2 Sectional A, Regional II (as Luck/Frederic/Grantsburg)
Northwood/Solon Springs – 225 – D3 Sectional A, Regional I
Oakfield – 125 – D3 Sectional D, Regional III
Prairie Farm – 106 – D2 Sectional A, Regional II (as Chetek-Weyerhaeuser/Prairie Farm)

[ramjet]

We used to have 12 weight classes. That was not a bad thing. We went to 13 and then 14. That in itself was not a bad thing. On the average we are finding it difficult to fill all these weights now. Why is it then that going back to 12 would be so bad? It is just a number. Maybe 10 or 11 would be better? Who knows what the magic optimal number is for participation, opportunity, success, etc., but the statistics seem to show that the vast majority of teams have no chance to fill out 14. Reducing seems like a logical move. Scare tactics like suggesting the WIAA or local school boards would see this as a move of a dying sport and move to eliminate wrestling is ridiculous. Aarons - Your questioning of CLC is a bit unfair to say the least. There is always going to be differing levels of success. You can't simply ask "what has Random Lake done" and expect programs to say "Oh, now I get it. Simple." Reducing the weight classes might not fix the problems of the programs with the biggest struggles, but it will reduce the forfeits by 1 or 2 on most nights and that is a good thing. We are not "tearing it down", it is just a number. We're trying to find the one that works best.

How is it unfair to ask a coach from a successful small enrollment team why he thinks others can not do it.  CLC has a great program....been to state as team last several years......this is a numbers game and CLC being the mathmatician he is has figured it out for RL.....why cant others do it? Especially bigger enrollment schools.  I think to many are ready to just say its ok participation is down so lets just reduce weight classes....IMO....its not ok....more teams needs to look at RL and mimic what they do....

So why not go to 20 weights?

Based what you're saying that should really increase the opportunity.

[aarons23]

We used to have 12 weight classes. That was not a bad thing. We went to 13 and then 14. That in itself was not a bad thing. On the average we are finding it difficult to fill all these weights now. Why is it then that going back to 12 would be so bad? It is just a number. Maybe 10 or 11 would be better? Who knows what the magic optimal number is for participation, opportunity, success, etc., but the statistics seem to show that the vast majority of teams have no chance to fill out 14. Reducing seems like a logical move. Scare tactics like suggesting the WIAA or local school boards would see this as a move of a dying sport and move to eliminate wrestling is ridiculous. Aarons - Your questioning of CLC is a bit unfair to say the least. There is always going to be differing levels of success. You can't simply ask "what has Random Lake done" and expect programs to say "Oh, now I get it. Simple." Reducing the weight classes might not fix the problems of the programs with the biggest struggles, but it will reduce the forfeits by 1 or 2 on most nights and that is a good thing. We are not "tearing it down", it is just a number. We're trying to find the one that works best.

How is it unfair to ask a coach from a successful small enrollment team why he thinks others can not do it.  CLC has a great program....been to state as team last several years......this is a numbers game and CLC being the mathmatician he is has figured it out for RL.....why cant others do it? Especially bigger enrollment schools.  I think to many are ready to just say its ok participation is down so lets just reduce weight classes....IMO....its not ok....more teams needs to look at RL and mimic what they do....

So why not go to 20 weights?

Based what you're saying that should really increase the opportunity.

Where did I say anything about increasing? I believe in working to increase participation...not throwing in the towel and decrease opportunities.   Not for cutting weight classes that will have little effect on reducing ff but make the strong teams stronger....or spreading weight classes out more to increase weight cutting. 

[BDbacker]

Ramjet thank you for your answers. That, in whole, is a very good point.

I have children in the Evansville school district and so I go to most of their competitions. In my observations of that particular program I would note the following;

* Many of the JV wrestlers don't get matches at the dual meets because the other team doesn't have JV wrestlers or the weights don't align.
* The Evansville JV wrestlers (along with a few other programs I am aware of) go to at least 2 varsity tournaments every year and compete very well (top 3 the last few years!). I personally think that those JV wrestlers are served very well by wrestling against varsity competition. Of course 9 out of 10 kids in Evansville wrestling are a product of our youth program and have multiple years of experience.

All of this really makes me think this is fundamentally a problem that should be attacked at the youth level.

[ramjet]

We used to have 12 weight classes. That was not a bad thing. We went to 13 and then 14. That in itself was not a bad thing. On the average we are finding it difficult to fill all these weights now. Why is it then that going back to 12 would be so bad? It is just a number. Maybe 10 or 11 would be better? Who knows what the magic optimal number is for participation, opportunity, success, etc., but the statistics seem to show that the vast majority of teams have no chance to fill out 14. Reducing seems like a logical move. Scare tactics like suggesting the WIAA or local school boards would see this as a move of a dying sport and move to eliminate wrestling is ridiculous. Aarons - Your questioning of CLC is a bit unfair to say the least. There is always going to be differing levels of success. You can't simply ask "what has Random Lake done" and expect programs to say "Oh, now I get it. Simple." Reducing the weight classes might not fix the problems of the programs with the biggest struggles, but it will reduce the forfeits by 1 or 2 on most nights and that is a good thing. We are not "tearing it down", it is just a number. We're trying to find the one that works best.

How is it unfair to ask a coach from a successful small enrollment team why he thinks others can not do it.  CLC has a great program....been to state as team last several years......this is a numbers game and CLC being the mathmatician he is has figured it out for RL.....why cant others do it? Especially bigger enrollment schools.  I think to many are ready to just say its ok participation is down so lets just reduce weight classes....IMO....its not ok....more teams needs to look at RL and mimic what they do....

So why not go to 20 weights?

Based what you're saying that should really increase the opportunity.

Where did I say anything about increasing? I believe in working to increase participation...not throwing in the towel and decrease opportunities.   Not for cutting weight classes that will have little effect on reducing ff but make the strong teams stronger....or spreading weight classes out more to increase weight cutting. 

I illustrated in the above poet where in many programs I would think the majority of D2 and D3 where it actually ncreases the quality and quantity of participation.

You say it throwing in the towel do using that logic (your logic)  go to 20 weight classes should increase participation/Opportunity.....right?

[aarons23]

We used to have 12 weight classes. That was not a bad thing. We went to 13 and then 14. That in itself was not a bad thing. On the average we are finding it difficult to fill all these weights now. Why is it then that going back to 12 would be so bad? It is just a number. Maybe 10 or 11 would be better? Who knows what the magic optimal number is for participation, opportunity, success, etc., but the statistics seem to show that the vast majority of teams have no chance to fill out 14. Reducing seems like a logical move. Scare tactics like suggesting the WIAA or local school boards would see this as a move of a dying sport and move to eliminate wrestling is ridiculous. Aarons - Your questioning of CLC is a bit unfair to say the least. There is always going to be differing levels of success. You can't simply ask "what has Random Lake done" and expect programs to say "Oh, now I get it. Simple." Reducing the weight classes might not fix the problems of the programs with the biggest struggles, but it will reduce the forfeits by 1 or 2 on most nights and that is a good thing. We are not "tearing it down", it is just a number. We're trying to find the one that works best.

How is it unfair to ask a coach from a successful small enrollment team why he thinks others can not do it.  CLC has a great program....been to state as team last several years......this is a numbers game and CLC being the mathmatician he is has figured it out for RL.....why cant others do it? Especially bigger enrollment schools.  I think to many are ready to just say its ok participation is down so lets just reduce weight classes....IMO....its not ok....more teams needs to look at RL and mimic what they do....

So why not go to 20 weights?

Based what you're saying that should really increase the opportunity.

Where did I say anything about increasing? I believe in working to increase participation...not throwing in the towel and decrease opportunities.   Not for cutting weight classes that will have little effect on reducing ff but make the strong teams stronger....or spreading weight classes out more to increase weight cutting. 

I illustrated in the above poet where in many programs I would think the majority of D2 and D3 where it actually ncreases the quality and quantity of participation.

You say it throwing in the towel do using that logic (your logic)  go to 20 weight classes should increase participation/Opportunity.....right?

according to your logic why don't we go to 10 or maybe  go to 5 heck lets take it down the one Ram

[ramjet]

We used to have 12 weight classes. That was not a bad thing. We went to 13 and then 14. That in itself was not a bad thing. On the average we are finding it difficult to fill all these weights now. Why is it then that going back to 12 would be so bad? It is just a number. Maybe 10 or 11 would be better? Who knows what the magic optimal number is for participation, opportunity, success, etc., but the statistics seem to show that the vast majority of teams have no chance to fill out 14. Reducing seems like a logical move. Scare tactics like suggesting the WIAA or local school boards would see this as a move of a dying sport and move to eliminate wrestling is ridiculous. Aarons - Your questioning of CLC is a bit unfair to say the least. There is always going to be differing levels of success. You can't simply ask "what has Random Lake done" and expect programs to say "Oh, now I get it. Simple." Reducing the weight classes might not fix the problems of the programs with the biggest struggles, but it will reduce the forfeits by 1 or 2 on most nights and that is a good thing. We are not "tearing it down", it is just a number. We're trying to find the one that works best.

How is it unfair to ask a coach from a successful small enrollment team why he thinks others can not do it.  CLC has a great program....been to state as team last several years......this is a numbers game and CLC being the mathmatician he is has figured it out for RL.....why cant others do it? Especially bigger enrollment schools.  I think to many are ready to just say its ok participation is down so lets just reduce weight classes....IMO....its not ok....more teams needs to look at RL and mimic what they do....

So why not go to 20 weights?

Based what you're saying that should really increase the opportunity.

Where did I say anything about increasing? I believe in working to increase participation...not throwing in the towel and decrease opportunities.   Not for cutting weight classes that will have little effect on reducing ff but make the strong teams stronger....or spreading weight classes out more to increase weight cutting. 

I illustrated in the above poet where in many programs I would think the majority of D2 and D3 where it actually ncreases the quality and quantity of participation.

You say it throwing in the towel do using that logic (your logic)  go to 20 weight classes should increase participation/Opportunity.....right?

according to your logic why don't we go to 10 or maybe  go to 5 heck lets take it down the one Ram

In D3 10 would be even better but I would compromise at 12.

Heck some years ago the WIAA really messed up bye moving a middle weight and adding a big boy weight.

But instantly it made 138-145 tougher and more competitive.

[DarkKnight]

I'd want the same # of weight classes in all divisions. you cant be changing weight classes division vs division.

there is always gonna be some thing to complain about no matter if we have 12 or 14 weight classes. its not a bad topic.

[Troy Grindle]

I don't ever post in this forum but have been reading it for years. I only post now to ask a series of philosophical questions regarding the potential reduction of weight classes.

It seems specifically the problem is that most teams have issues fielding a full roster of 14. This of course is merely a symptom of a more broad problem the sport is having with limited numbers of participants. If this is wrong please correct me. The proposed remedy is to then reduce the weight classes by 2 or 3 by many in this forum.

My questions regarding this plan of attack are as follows;

(1) How does reducing varsity roster spots/weight classes help grow the sport as a whole?
(2) When dealing with the issue of dwindling participation in a sport are remedies at the high school level the answer? Or is it better combated at the youth level?
(3) If you are a team that has trouble getting your weight classes filled isn't the enticement of a varsity spot a "good sell" to athletes in high school?
(4) Is reducing the number of weight classes truly the only way to remedy this issue? Have all other avenues been exhausted?
(5) Is this a situation where some smaller schools have 4, 5 or 6 state qualifying wrestlers in weight classes and can't fill the rest and are sick of getting beat by teams that only have 1 or 2 state qualifiers (or perhaps none) in dual meets?

I ask these questions not knowing the situations faced by many teams. And I readily admit that the questions appear to be biased towards not changing the status quo. I can only explain that bias by stating that the only way I know of to successfully fight through an ambush is head on, not by retreating.

In closing I truly appreciate all the tireless work done by many of posters in this forum to help grow this great sport that I love.

I will take a crack at this also.

1) A kid who is a first year wrestler (usually a freshman who you convinced to wrestle because he was athletic) won't go out and get pummeled by the senior who was a state qualifier last year and pinned in 23 seconds.  Instead he will wrestle a j.v. match and it will be a horribly wrestled technique match but very entertaining and win or lose he will have a smile on his face and talk with his friends about the match afterwards.  He won't be talking to his friends after a 23 second beat down and will be very quiet and embarrassed.  Pay attention this year at a varsity dual directly after that match instead of watching the next match and you will see it.  Every single high school coach knows what I am talking about and you almost always lose that kid after one year of him wrestling up on varsity when he shouldn't be.  But he is the only person you have so you wrestle him in duals. 

2) The remedies are in the youth and middle school levels.  But a personality like Scott Arneson isn't at every school and or willing to be the middle school coach.  Very few people are willing to coach the team when their kids aren't involved in the youth anymore.  The youth clubs that do have the same coaches every year at that level develop a system and they are the better programs because of it.  Most parents can't/don't care to see past their own kids.

3) Not a good sell when your program is the laughing stock of it's school.  A letter sounds really cool up until you are a freshman sitting on a 5-25 record with all 5 wins coming by forfeit or bye.  Those kids almost never come back out and would probably have if they could have wrestled j.v. for a year.  It is very tough to not wrestle kids at the varsity weights and j.v. instead.  Big props for Ghetto having the balls to do it.  That is why he built a solid program because he was a big picture guy.

4) No not the only way but I think it is worth a shot of trying something.  If it doesn't work after 4-6 years than change it back.  I wish the schools would give the kids an automatic A in gym class for the semester if they joined a sport during that semester and give the kid the option of going to gym class or study hall.  That would certainly raise the numbers, increase school spirit because most kids would be in sports and help kids get into shape that wouldn't normally go out for a sport.  I highly doubt the WIAA or the school administration would go for that though.

5) No I don't think so.  At least not from my perspective and other coaches that I talk to.  High school coaches love to win but more than that they care about the well being of the sport and put it at a higher level than winning in most cases. 

You stated that your kids wrestle for Evansville and one of the reasons for their success (I am thinking) is because somebody put the program above themselves years ago for the big picture.  Now you and your kids are benefiting from that.  Most people aren't willing to do that.  Most parents want to know how will this benefit my kid first, then the program a distant second.  When you find programs that parents are willing to band together for the greater good that is when clubs start to turn it around but it takes about 10 years and an unbelievable amount of work.  Where I coach we have that and we have started to turn the corner.  But it was really hard and it started long before I even got there by people who's kids are long since graduated but they cared about the well being of not only the program but the sport as a whole.  That was why they started it and that is why they still give back.  We are at the point now where we can almost field a full team with high quality wrestlers but as I look out at the wrestling landscape I know we are the minority.  While something like this would hurt our team in the future it would help the sport as a whole. 

Just my thought and I know that a lot of people have different thoughts on this.

[ramjet]

I want to a ask all the posters a serious question here;

Do you think that some kids are more predisposed to wrestle and stick with it because of specific personality traits than others?

[aarons23]

I want to a ask all the posters a serious question here;

Do you think that some kids are more predisposed to wrestle and stick with it because of specific personality traits than others?

Yes but that doesn't mean the sport can not be for others.