No more waiting!!!

[Handles II]

Dale, It's not cutting if a kid doesn't win a wrestle-off. It's wrestling.

The fact that fewer than 60% of our teams can fill 14 weights can't be ignored any longer. This 14 weight idea has been failing for 16 years.  Ghetto has shown the numbers since 2005. It hasn't increased our number of wrestlers as designed. So since the number of wrestlers hasn't increased, and the number of forfeits has increased (and JV has become almost nothing) simply go back to what is more competitive and realistic for all teams.

[Numbers]

1Iota,
Did you go to state this year?? Do you realize that four years in a row that some of our most talented wrestlers came out of 220??? our 182-195-220 pounders are the most recruited wrestlers in the state this year. 195 at division 1 and 2 were loaded this year...
This is why cutting weight classes is guaranteed to cut talent, the good wrestlers are not cutting weight like they used to and they wont. They are not cutting weight in collage as dramatically as they used to. Obviously kids cut weight but the good wrestlers are training year round and putting on speed and mass.  One of the most exciting NCAA final matches last weekend was heavy weight, wrestling is evolving every day and by eliminating kids from the sport we in WISCONSIN WILL BE THE ONLY THAT LOSE OUT.
Why are some of you so blazes bent on cutting kids out? Lets not make kids pay the price because other community's struggle growing wrestling.

If college had a 220 weight class, that college championship match would not have happened.  So thank the NCAA for not adding a 220 weight class for more opportunity.  (I guess the NCAA must hate kids too.)

[1Iota]

1Iota,
Did you go to state this year?? Do you realize that four years in a row that some of our most talented wrestlers came out of 220??? our 182-195-220 pounders are the most recruited wrestlers in the state this year. 195 at division 1 and 2 were loaded this year...
This is why cutting weight classes is guaranteed to cut talent, the good wrestlers are not cutting weight like they used to and they wont. They are not cutting weight in collage as dramatically as they used to. Obviously kids cut weight but the good wrestlers are training year round and putting on speed and mass.  One of the most exciting NCAA final matches last weekend was heavy weight, wrestling is evolving every day and by eliminating kids from the sport we in WISCONSIN WILL BE THE ONLY THAT LOSE OUT.
Why are some of you so blazes bent on cutting kids out? Lets not make kids pay the price because other community's struggle growing wrestling.

I did attend state & you're correct that those weight classes both had a few of the top prospects in our state, with Raschka being elite.  However if you look at the entire brackets I would offer the opinion that both 106 & 113 had more kids that have succeeded on the national level.  My point is that it seems that whenever the issue of reducing weight classes comes up the first classes offered up for sacrifice are the lower weights, which makes no sense to me. 

[Ghetto]

Hello Ghetto, you and I have danced around this a time or two.  I fully respect your passion for the kids and the sport, yet I disagree.

if a team can field 14, and we go to 12 weight classes, how do we not cut kids?  Can we agree that 12-14+-2?

If it's simple math, and a team has 14 wrestlers, yes they will not have a varsity spot for regionals and therefore the state tournament series. Two less kids will wrestle varsity on that team. They are not "cut". Most of the stronger teams in this state wrestle their "reserve" team at varsity tournaments anyway. This whole cutting idea is complete nonsense. Rare is the day where a kid is a complete stud and has to wrestle JV. Heck, that kid from Kaukauna wrestled at both JV state AND varsity state.

I do not want to take this case by case, because of course there are teams who do fill the full 14 weights with 14 quality kids. I would say that of MOST 14 man rosters, there are two that are just filling a spot.

I have no delusions that my idea will ever go past this forum. I will send the data to the WWCA and let it go from there. I am aware that not everyone agrees with me, and that's fine. I'll just remind folks that we used to have 12 weights, and the sport was certainly not dying then. And next year, the data will show the same thing. Teams can't fill the weight classes. That trend will continue on forever, and somehow we won't think there is a problem. I too understand why we vote the way we do. We'd rather have things stay the same, because it's what we do, rather than take a chance.

[DocWrestling]

Wrestling has become the sport of participation medals.  Everyone gets a medal or trophy from an early age and has nothing to do with results.

This carries into varsity where everyone just expects that there should be a varsity weight class for everyone.

In most all other sports you have to earn your spot on varsity and it is a dang tough journey and a great accomplishment if you can earn playing time on varsity.  Not in wrestling.  Wrestlers don't even get the respect from their classmates because they simply know you lettered and are on varsity because of what you weigh.

Where along the path did wrestling on JV develop such a stigma like kids are too good to wrestle on JV.

If you want wrestling to be a healthy "team sport", you need middle school "teams", freshman "teams", JV "teams" and varsity "teams that can wrestle duals.  D2 and D3 might not have freshman teams but D1 schools have freshman teams in just about every other sport.

Otherwise just get rid of duals and make everyone varsity and only do individual competitions.

The numbers on this thread have pushed me to think going drastic to 10 weight classes would be the best.  An overwhelming majority of teams would have a full lineup or maybe one forfeit at the most.  They would also have JV teams.  The only negative to this whole system is that some kids would have to wrestle JV until they earned their spot.  Oh the horror!! This already happens at the best programs with their depth so why would everyone else be scared of that?

You are not CUT from wrestling if you have to wrestle JV.  

[Dale Einerson]

Dale, It's not cutting if a kid doesn't win a wrestle-off. It's wrestling.

The fact that fewer than 60% of our teams can fill 14 weights can't be ignored any longer. This 14 weight idea has been failing for 16 years.  Ghetto has shown the numbers since 2005. It hasn't increased our number of wrestlers as designed. So since the number of wrestlers hasn't increased, and the number of forfeits has increased (and JV has become almost nothing) simply go back to what is more competitive and realistic for all teams.

I am not confused about how wrestle-offs work, and yes, I am aware it is wrestling.

Can we not agree that if 40% of the teams can field 14 weight classes then when a cut is made to 12 weight classes that 40% of the teams will lose 2 varsity wrestlers?  Can we at least agree with the math?  Try this, tell me what I have wrong about the math...

I am not saying that I think a reduction in weight classes is a bad idea, I am challenging those making points to reduce to 12 weight classes to do so using proper reasoning.  The cruel, heartless and cold math says there will be less varsity wrestlers.  So, that cannot be a reason to reduce to weight classes...

[Handles II]

There will be fewer varsity positions, and there will be fewer varsity forfeits.  From a fan and coaching standpoint, and perhaps more importantly from that as a former administrator, fewer forfeits and potentially more people on JV is not a bad thing.

[ElectricGuy]

Dale, It's not cutting if a kid doesn't win a wrestle-off. It's wrestling.

The fact that fewer than 60% of our teams can fill 14 weights can't be ignored any longer. This 14 weight idea has been failing for 16 years.  Ghetto has shown the numbers since 2005. It hasn't increased our number of wrestlers as designed. So since the number of wrestlers hasn't increased, and the number of forfeits has increased (and JV has become almost nothing) simply go back to what is more competitive and realistic for all teams.

I am not confused about how wrestle-offs work, and yes, I am aware it is wrestling.

Can we not agree that if 40% of the teams can field 14 weight classes then when a cut is made to 12 weight classes that 40% of the teams will lose 2 varsity wrestlers?  Can we at least agree with the math?  Try this, tell me what I have wrong about the math...

I am not saying that I think a reduction in weight classes is a bad idea, I am challenging those making points to reduce to 12 weight classes to do so using proper reasoning.  The cruel, heartless and cold math says there will be less varsity wrestlers.  So, that cannot be a reason to reduce to weight classes...

You would think that is basic enough math to understand and to agree upon........   

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas. Albert Einstein

Few hundred more varsity wrestlers bumped out,  open enrollment goes up,  then at least we can change to a new topic and have another forum thread/group lament about open enrollment.

[Ghetto]

40% of teams in D1 have 13 or 14. Not 14.

When you take out kids who have not wrestled varsity all season, or lose 80% of their matches, the number of teams really filling weights drops again.

[Dale Einerson]

Just trying to make sure we all understand why reducing weight classes will be good for wrestling; challenging the whole lot of you to come up with strong arguments...am I snarky? Yes.  Do I feel like the arguments to go to 12 weight classes are generally weak and not well supported?  Yes. 

40% of teams in D1 have 13 or 14. Not 14.

When you take out kids who have not wrestled varsity all season, or lose 80% of their matches, the number of teams really filling weights drops again.

So, lets see if I can summarize the reason proposed to go to 12 weight classes:  We desire to go to 12 weight classes because a lot of the kids dropped to JV were losers. 

There will be fewer varsity positions, and there will be fewer varsity forfeits.  From a fan and coaching standpoint, and perhaps more importantly from that as a former administrator, fewer forfeits and potentially more people on JV is not a bad thing.

Lets see if I can summarize the reasoning to go to 12 weight classes accurately.  Forfeits are bad.  We don't want to see forfeits.  Even if 40% of the teams don't forfeit, and we will put 1-2 kids from 40% of the teams on JV and pretend that is good, we will feel like we did the right thing by removing painful forfeits.  Don't pollute our "feels" with any real math about how many forfeits would actually go away, just know what I know and ignore the cold, heartless, cruel math;  demote 1-2 kids from 40% of the teams and that will be good for wrestling participation. 

[Stripes]

There will be fewer varsity positions, and there will be fewer varsity forfeits.  From a fan and coaching standpoint, and perhaps more importantly from that as a former administrator, fewer forfeits and potentially more people on JV is not a bad thing.

Only one of your statements is guaranteed to be true. It is a guarantee that you will lose varsity spots. It is not a guarantee that you will reduce forfeits. If you cut weights there is also a high likelihood that you also force more weight cutting.

[DocWrestling]

By your argument that reducing two weight classes will hurt wrestling participation, can we then extrapolate that you feel that having more weight classes would increase participation?

Here is the simple math I cannot get passed.

You have rules that say 14 weight classes is your "starting lineup" yet less than 1/3 of teams can even put a full "starting lineup" out for their competitions.  

What kind of system is that?  Should the system not have rules that allow 90% of team to put out a full starting lineup?  Should their not be a system that makes it even possible to have back-ups available if a guy gets hurt, sick or is ineligible.

Why doesn't tennis have 7 singles matches and 6 doubles matches?  Why doesn't wrestling have 20 weight classes?

[Handles II]

Yes Dale, I understand you are being snarky, but the evidence is there, the real numbers are there. If you really think that math is the way to find the solution, it's simple. Look at the numbers. Look at the numbers from other states. 14 weights is more than the mean, median, or mode can fill. There was zero evidence or "math" to say that it would benefit wrestling, yet it happened anyway, so maybe math isn't always the answer. It was done so as an experiment to improve numbers, especially of 11th and 12th grade football players who have never participated in the sport. It hasn't worked. If something, a new idea, a new advertisement isn't working, hasn't worked, and won't work, and all the numbers reflect it, do you as a businessman keep pushing it to work? How about if it hasn't worked for 16 years? Are you going to push to keep it for 20?

[Dale Einerson]

By your argument that reducing two weight classes will hurt wrestling participation, can we then extrapolate that you feel that having more weight classes would increase participation?

Here is the simple math I cannot get passed.

You have rules that say 14 weight classes is your "starting lineup" yet less than 1/3 of teams can even put a full "starting lineup" out for their competitions.  

What kind of system is that?  Should the system not have rules that allow 90% of team to put out a full starting lineup?  Should their not be a system that makes it even possible to have back-ups available if a guy gets hurt, sick or is ineligible.

Why doesn't tennis have 7 singles matches and 6 doubles matches?  Why doesn't wrestling have 20 weight classes?

My argument is more than an argument, if you reduce from 14 to 12 weight classes, we will see 1-2 kids from 40% of the D1 programs demoted to JV, therefor precisely reducing varsity wrestling opportunities.  That is a mathematical fact.  I propose we all deal with this undeniable fact if we want to move forward on reducing weight classes.  It is definitely in the "con" category.

I must add, that 40% is more than 1/3, so, again, math is a cruel master, deal with it.

The discussion on extrapolation and the question "why doesn't wrestling have 20 weight classes" are non-starters with me, I guess I am just not easily distracted by straw man arguments.  

The comparison to tennis is  a non-starter for me as well.  I just had handles explaining this was wrestling, to me, apparently he needs to be talking to you.

What I am attempting to do is challenge those that want to go to 12 weight classes to use compelling arguments; as we can plainly see, many of the arguments are not well thought out, nor are they well articulated.  

[MNbadger]

So let's keep 14 weights and shift the weights down.  You then have more participation and less forfeits.