Very even handed article on Whitnall/Greendale co-op

Blast Double · December 23, 2014, 02:30:15 PM

So we are back to the issue of numbers. I feel like this thread is going to repeat the posts from the last hijacked thread.

Greendale has 11 kids on the roster not 17. Not sure where that number keeps coming from?

The only reason I ask the question about forming the co op with Greenfield being ok is because that is a point that is constantly brought up? I don't see what the argument is there other than it is a little closer? Numbers for Greenfield are greater than the numbers for Whitnall?

As far as the administrative side and how that all played out I do not have enough information to defend anyone at this point.

This whole argument from both sides is a matter of your point of view. Are co ops only meant to combine 2 or more schools whose programs are failing and allow them to die a slow death together? From Pewaukee's perspective and many others the answer is yes. This is obviously the traditional way to see a co op.

Could there possibly be a more creative way to try and help revive a program that is failing? The answer to this question is possibly? Unfortunately no one will know until a few years down the road. The problem here is that Pewaukee wants to believe that this co op was not formed for the reasons that the Whitdale coaches are saying it was. So now it has become a way for the Pewaukee faithful to come on the forum and try and destroy a coaches reputation. Only time will tell if the intentions of the co op are true or not. And for that matter we may never find out because the program at Greendale may never come back to a point where it can stand alone? So for now, until proven otherwise, I will believe that the intentions of the co op are what the Whitdale coaches say they are and not what is perceived to be what other people think.

I do know this from being at the dual between Whitdale and Pewaukee. I was sitting next to a kid who came out for wrestling in middle school. He wrestled maybe 3 matches and quit. He looked at me in the middle of the dual and said "this is the most exciting sporting event I have ever watched!" He then said "It actually kind of makes me want to wrestle next year!" I encouraged him to give it another shot and maybe try and convince a couple other kids to also give it a shot. I am not sure if he will ever step foot on the mat again or not. But it was very encouraging to hear some interest from some kids! So maybe just maybe there is some hope for a revival of the Greendale program!? Only time will tell.

head57 · December 23, 2014, 02:47:33 PM

I don't believe co-ops should be granted for any school above a certain student enrollment. Not sure what that number should be (500-600 maybe). If you can't get enough kids out with that number of students then the problem is commitment from those in charge.

If you want to have a viable program at a school with that many kids there is nothing stopping you.

aggressive · December 23, 2014, 03:00:07 PM

So I guess you are saying that Whitnall can't compete with Pewaukee without the co-op. I wonder what the Whitnall coaches think of that.

I hope that young man didn't attend any of the blow-out wins Whitdale had or will have this year.

As for the number 17, here is where I'm guessing it came from (on the other thread)...

This is what was presented to the Greendale School Board:

Our Request for cooperative sponsorship is based on the following reasons:
Greendale High School is experiencing a sharp decline in wrestling. They are wishing to co-op with an area team. Whitnall H.S. is also seeing a downward slide in participation numbers.
Schools in co-op 2-years ago last year this year next year
2011-2012 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Greendale 12 (co-op) 22 17 6
Whitnall 37 33 33 29

crossface21 · December 23, 2014, 03:04:58 PM

We were a co-op a couple years ago. We are one of the largest schools in D1. We only did it because the other school cut the program in the middle of the summer with literally no warning. They are a private school so I guess they didn't really need approval or permission or to give any type of notification?? They asked if we would co-op since we were the closest school to them. There were only 5 kids, 4 seniors and a junior. 2 of the seniors quit. We knew it was only for 2 years, and we weren't going to recruit the other school to keep the co-op going. We only did it because those 5 wrestlers got an extremely raw deal from the school's AD. It wasn't fair to those kids. We knew how it would look on paper to see a large D1 school co-oping, but in this case it was the right thing to do.

crossface21 · December 23, 2014, 03:07:34 PM

I don't see how 37 to 29 is a sharp decline. 37 to 12 would be a sharp decline. The numbers next year could easily be up again close to 35-40. If 37-29 is a sharp decline and reason to co-op, a lot of schools will be able to start making that argument.

bigG · December 23, 2014, 03:13:54 PM

Quote from: aggressive on December 23, 2014, 03:00:07 PM
So I guess you are saying that Whitnall can't compete with Pewaukee without the co-op. I wonder what the Whitnall coaches think of that.

I hope that young man didn't attend any of the blow-out wins Whitdale had or will have this year.

As for the number 17, here is where I'm guessing it came from (on the other thread)...

This is what was presented to the Greendale School Board:

Our Request for cooperative sponsorship is based on the following reasons:
Greendale High School is experiencing a sharp decline in wrestling. They are wishing to co-op with an area team. Whitnall H.S. is also seeing a downward slide in participation numbers.
Schools in co-op 2-years ago last year this year next year
2011-2012 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Greendale 12 (co-op) 22 17 6
Whitnall 37 33 33 29

Not just compete. The argument would be that this co-op was intended to fill in the gaps that would allow Whitnall ,not only to compete with, but beat, Pewaukee. These 11 kids could put them over that edge. If a majority coaches on the regional/sectional were okay with it, great. You don't even get a feel for what the wrestling world in that area feels about it because they were allowed no stake in it.

My only issue is the lack of transparency and stakeholder involvement.

1Iota · December 23, 2014, 03:16:39 PM

Quote from: head57 on December 23, 2014, 02:47:33 PM
I don't believe co-ops should be granted for any school above a certain student enrollment. Not sure what that number should be (500-600 maybe). If you can't get enough kids out with that number of students then the problem is commitment from those in charge.

If you want to have a viable program at a school with that many kids there is nothing stopping you.

I agree with this. IMO the only reason for a large school to not be able to have healthy numbers is lack of commitment from the administration & the district. I heard every excuse in the book years ago as to why our school did not have healthy numbers, culture, jobs, to hard for today's kids, ect. We hired a new AD who believed in the positive merits of athletic participation & realized only so many kids can play basketball. He hired a teacher/coach who was passionate about wrestling. He worked closely with the youth club, & recruited in the hallways. We now field multiple wrestlers at every weight class. This to me is more a story about the Greendale administration & district office not giving 2 craps about wrestling.

Brewcity-takedown · December 23, 2014, 03:44:34 PM

I think if Foley transferred to the Whitnall district this wouldn't be a topic on co-op it would be a topic on kids transferring to schools to win championships, or just to beat pewaukee.

aspan43 · December 23, 2014, 03:59:52 PM

"The problem here is that Pewaukee wants to believe that this co op was not formed for the reasons that the Whitdale coaches are saying it was."

Because their reasons make no sense. Quinlan says it was done to create opportunities for wrestlers. What opportunities? 14 varsity spots were eliminated because of this co-op. Gdale projects that it's numbers will be down next year... so why co-op this year? They had a competitive team.

"Greendale has 11 kids on the roster not 17. Not sure where that number keeps coming from? "

17 was the number Gdale themselves said they had ready to go for this season. If they're down to 11 now, why is it that 6 kids dropped out? Could it be they didn't want to have to compete with another schools wrestlers for matches?

This part really bothers me, "The Whitnall and Greendale coaches did not raise the issue of a potential merger at the preseason coaches meeting one week before the vote." Now why would they not bring it up at the coaches meeting if they felt so strongly that they were doing the right thing? They knew that all the other coaches would be against it and go back to their AD's to lobby for a no vote. Then their whole plan would go down the drain. That was a weasel move.

wraslfan · December 23, 2014, 04:36:35 PM

Quote from: aspan43 on December 23, 2014, 03:59:52 PM
This part really bothers me, "The Whitnall and Greendale coaches did not raise the issue of a potential merger at the preseason coaches meeting one week before the vote." Now why would they not bring it up at the coaches meeting if they felt so strongly that they were doing the right thing? They knew that all the other coaches would be against it and go back to their AD's to lobby for a no vote. Then their whole plan would go down the drain.

Very good point. It's pretty hard to defend that decision.

Blast Double · December 23, 2014, 07:11:23 PM

Quote from: aggressive on December 23, 2014, 03:00:07 PM

I hope that young man didn't attend any of the blow-out wins Whitdale had or will have this year.

As for the number 17, here is where I'm guessing it came from (on the other thread)...

This is what was presented to the Greendale School Board:

Our Request for cooperative sponsorship is based on the following reasons:
Greendale High School is experiencing a sharp decline in wrestling. They are wishing to co-op with an area team. Whitnall H.S. is also seeing a downward slide in participation numbers.
Schools in co-op 2-years ago last year this year next year
2011-2012 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Greendale 12 (co-op) 22 17 6
Whitnall 37 33 33 29

So we don't want that kid to be excited about trying the sport again? I am not getting why attending more duals would be a bad thing for this kid to do?

So the chart that you show above are the numbers that you are referring to? Then let me point out to you that if you actually read the chart it says that the projected numbers for Greendale in the 2014-15 season (which is the current season) is 6. Not the 17 that you are saying for the 2013-14 season.

As far as the meeting and the co op not being brought up there I have nothing to defend this? You are right it does seem a little shady but I have never been in this meeting or have ever heard anything about what is talked about at these meetings. Is that the proper time and place to bring up the co op? And that is an honest question to someone who has the knowledge to answer it.

crossface21 · December 23, 2014, 07:43:52 PM

I guess a thought that came to my mind as well is that if that was in fact the presentation that was given to justify a co-op, it makes it sound like that presentation was given last year. It stated that the numbers would be 6 for Greendale, and 29 for Whitnall. How do they know what the numbers would be before the season even started?

As others have said, the transparency in the whole process is the problem here.

MNbadger · December 23, 2014, 08:33:10 PM

"I don't believe co-ops should be granted for any school above a certain student enrollment. Not sure what that number should be (500-600 maybe). If you can't get enough kids out with that number of students then the problem is commitment from those in charge.

If you want to have a viable program at a school with that many kids there is nothing stopping you."

I don't have any stake in this coop discussion but I take issue with the above statement. I have spent my career involved at every level in a district with a high school having 2300-2600 students 10-12 depending upon the year.
Ther were points when I coached the high school (15 years) where I had wrestlers three deep at every weight. Some years we couldn't fill all of one line up. I had one season where we forfeited the first four weights. I worked hard always, recruited at my junior high, ran the youth program, on and on.
I stepped down four years ago and we have been struggling with numbers before and since doing so.
I think part of the reason is how refined and competitive it has become. Recruiting a kid at 9th grade is almost cruel. Trying to find a win in our conference with all the kids who are veteran wrestlers from elementary age is very tough. It is all about the youth and getting kids to a high level early. Our youth program just hasn't taken off and it is not for a lack of trying.

wraslfan · December 23, 2014, 08:52:32 PM

Quote from: Blast Double on December 23, 2014, 07:11:23 PM
As far as the meeting and the co op not being brought up there I have nothing to defend this? You are right it does seem a little shady but I have never been in this meeting or have ever heard anything about what is talked about at these meetings. Is that the proper time and place to bring up the co op? And that is an honest question to someone who has the knowledge to answer it.

I probably should have worded that better...I guess the decision to not discuss it at that particular meeting doesn't need to be "defended." It just made me question why it was not brought up for discussion. You may be right, maybe that isn't the time or place for the discussion. I'd still rather have the Greendale wrestlers have a place to wrestle than not. Hopefully it does get Greendale back on the right track and building their own team again. It will be hard to recruit Greendale wrestlers in Whitnall hallways though!

padre · December 23, 2014, 09:16:02 PM

I have heard Green Bay will be combining all of their schools into one team....seems odd to me that these teams can't get any sort of numbers.

Whats the excuse? I've heard them all.

If you can't create at least 2 decent teams from that population there is something wrong with what they are doing.

There are many teams out there that I'm surprised the success of youth has not transferred to the high school level. Port was once a proud program that at times has few wrestlers comes to mind besides many others so I guess it seems it can happen to anyone...I can't believe it's all about being a tough sport because programs can still fill the numbers if there is the right type of leadership.

Trust me..we are not in a good situation as only our head coach is in the school but between him and the rest of the coaches we talk to every kid that ever roams the halls and in a school(multiple times for most whether it is spring, summer or fall) that is approaching 300 enrollment and no history of a Coleman or such we all know it is dependant on us to fill classes from year to year. No one ever said all classes have to be great wrestlers(we take anyone and see how it goes)....but when I see these huge enrollment schools with such few kids you have to question the dedication of the coaches. Coaching is not just showing up for the first day of practice....yet I know some that think it is.

My coach of the year every year is Kirk Bahr from Menominee Indian....the guy doesn't have what anyone would call a great wrestling population to draw from but year after year basically fills every class and he is D3....if he can why can't any school with big populations?