Very even handed article on Whitnall/Greendale co-op

1Iota · December 22, 2014, 07:00:58 PM

http://www.lakecountrynow.com/news/livingsunday/building-blocks-weighing-the-issues-in-woodland-wrestling-controversy-b99413728z1-286593221.html?lc=Tablet

wraslfan · December 22, 2014, 08:42:15 PM

That is a good article, both sides of the argument have merit. Was Whitnal struggling with numbers as well? Or just Greendale?

neutral · December 22, 2014, 09:22:23 PM

I agree. Very well written.

While I think cooping might be the right way to go for Greendale (corrected from Whitnall) - I don't like the idea of it being with a team that is sustainable on its own.

Seems to me that cooping should join 2 teams that are both in need of manpower.

bigG · December 23, 2014, 06:54:06 AM

Where might they (G-dale)go to find a team that actually needs their numbers, then?

neutral · December 23, 2014, 07:37:24 AM

Milwaukee? ... (as close or closer than Whitnall ... & closer than many coops)

Or - why not join the Cudahy/St.Francis/St.ThomasMoore coop ... (still has only 21 wrestlers) ... (again - as close or closer than Whitnall ... & closer than many coops)

There are 45 wrestlers on the Whitnall-Greendale roster. If Greendale had few ... Whitnal had enough (by general atandards).

boowrestle · December 23, 2014, 08:06:44 AM

Whitnall had 29/30 kids on their roster listed on trackwrestling,co-op is there to help out 2-3 regressing programs,greendale falls into this catagory but whitnall does not.

neutral · December 23, 2014, 09:13:30 AM

... so Greendale had 15-16 ?

... plus 21 at Cudahy/St.Francis/St.Thomas Moore ... would have made 36-37 - only slightly larger than Whitnall alone (29-30) ... where the goal should be to remain independent where possible. IMO ... 29-30 is possible (though certainly not ideal). However - if we are going to start cooping to create ideal eviroments ... there would be massive changes.

At this point ... I'm with Kurth & the conspiracy theorists.

bigG · December 23, 2014, 09:16:55 AM

So they should only be aloud to co-op if both schools need the help?

Though it sounds like some ugly politics the way this all happened; it doesn't mean we should ban co-ops that only benefit one of the teams.

My team wasn't hurting for numbers when we co-oped with the neighboring district that had only two wrestlers. Now, that school has a full team and so do we.

Whitnall and Greendale are relatively close. Cud/SF/TM , it's a nice drive from Greendale. Whitnall is a neighboring district.

I'm just disappointed the ADs kind of left the wrestling coaches out of it; save for that guy in Pewaukee.

I'm always with Kurth.

neutral · December 23, 2014, 09:28:06 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 23, 2014, 09:16:55 AM
So they should only be aloud to co-op if both schools need the help?

No - but if there is an equally needy program in the same or a reasonably nearby area ... why not strengthen both?

Also - Greendale is nearly equidistant to Cudahy/ST.Francis/St.Thomas Moore and Whitnall.

aggressive · December 23, 2014, 09:58:08 AM

Big G, from what you've said about that co-op, I think your situation was different. Whitnall intentionally took on a bunch of Greendale standouts that now make up half the lineup that beat Pewaukee and West Allis Central. Greendale and Whitnall would have each been competitive this year. This wasn't just about helping a struggling program. This was about winning conference and sectional titles this year.

Blast Double · December 23, 2014, 10:02:26 AM

Distance from Greendale High school to:

Greenfield High School = 2.1 miles
Whitney High = 4.2 miles
Cudahy High (if that is where they practice?) = 8.9 miles

Greenfield has 40 kids on their roster? So if Greendale formed a co op with them everyone would be fine with it?

aggressive · December 23, 2014, 10:17:12 AM

Nope. I wouldn't have been fine with it. And it doesn't sound like Greenfield's coach would have given up his own wrestlers' spots.
Greendale could have fielded a team. Nine returners. Get a few kids out of the hall and a few incoming freshmen. There's your team- just like everyone else. Whitnall should have faced Pewaukee with what they developed. Not with what they borrowed.

aspan43 · December 23, 2014, 10:21:47 AM

Greendale shouldn't have co-oped with anybody this year. By their own count they had 17 wrestlers ready to go this year.

1Iota · December 23, 2014, 10:56:57 AM

If it is true that Greendale has 17 wrestlers out, there really was no need to co-op. A much better solution would be to build from within. I think the real issue must be with the Greendale administration, & a lack of concern over the future of the program. There is no reason for a school the size of Greendale to not be able to field a full squad with plenty of JV wrestlers as well. I remember years ago when informed the numbers were weigh down at our local HS. The administration hired a teacher who would serve as the coach & he built the program to a squad with over 50 members in 3 years.

bigG · December 23, 2014, 11:18:36 AM

Quote from: Blast Double on December 23, 2014, 10:02:26 AM
Distance from Greendale High school to:

Greenfield High School = 2.1 miles 3minutes
Whitney High = 4.2 miles 5 minutes
Cudahy High (if that is where they practice?) = 8.9 miles 15-20 minutes at rush hour, Layton gets packed, College has gotten much busier, Grange gets garbled

Miles and minutes don't match very well in the greater Milwaukee area.

Greenfield has 40 kids on their roster? So if Greendale formed a co op with them everyone would be fine with it?

Doesn't sound like the co-op is on the line here. There is that sentiment that:1. this was done for a competition advantage so that this one super-team might be a (team)state qualifier. 2. Coaches were left out of the loop. You want conspiracy theory? Don't invite stakeholders. Sounds like the greatest stakeholders had no say in this. You don't send your AD to a seeding meeting, right?

All these great points could have been brought up had the coaches been allowed ownership of this process. Poorly managed from and administrative perspective, IMO.