No more waiting!!!

[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.

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. 


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. 
[/quote]

1. I've never called a wrestler a loser in my life. Your words. I am saying that if a kid never wrestled a varsity match all season long (0-0 would show that) or has lost 80% of his matches, he most likely is just filling a spot. We have a criteria for varsity letters in our program because filling a weight doesn't (in my opinion) make you a varsity wrestler. At the end of the day, if you can't win more than 2 out of 10 matches, you are likely (hopefully) the only one in the weight on your team.

2. Yes. Forfeits are bad. I don't want to see forfeits. Remember that the 60% number is not accurate for division 3. The number is 80% of teams in division 3, and 68% if you average the three divisions.

3. The trend overall is getting "worse" over the past 11 years. While I know that extrapolating that data over another 11 years isn't going to be 100% accurate, it would show that eventually all D3 schools would be less than 12.

4. I think the last year for 12 weights was 1988. If I could go back to see in trackwrestling what FFs looked like at that point, I would. I would say there were "fuller" teams in the 1980s than there are today. It's life experience. I don't have the math.


At the end of the day, like I've said before, I know nothing will get done. Not sure why I bring it up every year, but I think it's what's best for wrestling. I'll do it again next year. And the year after. And the year after that. Basically until I stop coaching.

[1Iota]

My best idea is to use the college weights but add a 115 for 11 weights.  I would subtract 5 lbs from every weight class for a JV division.

Not everyone is going to fit in an ideal weight class every year so it will hurt some individuals but believe it will help the sport as a whole.

Football does not worry about small freshman kids not ready for varsity but will become stud players by the time they are juniors and seniors.

Basketball does not worry about all the kids under 6ft that basically are fighting for 2 of the 5 starting positions or need some years to grow in strength and height.

And yet they don't seem to be worse off than wrestling in participation numbers.

So 115 becomes 118 by State which means the natural weight of these kids at this class will be 130-140.  You have eliminated a inappropriate term3 of a lot more kids then the small freshman.  You seem to have a real infinity for the large kids, but the reality is that is where most teams struggle to find quality experienced wrestlers, so why are you constantly advocating eliminating 2 classes where kids are at.  In the D-1 106 bracket, half the bracket was upperclassmen.  So stop perpetuating your myth that eliminating the lower weight classes is only effecting small underclassmen.  

[Ghetto]

What weight classes should we cut?
106 because most of them are freshman?
220 because there not talented?
152 because there are to many weight classes in that range?
106-120 because there below collage weight classes?
132 and 138 its kind of the same thing so 135 should be good enough.
Most schools don't have a good HWT so that one is easy.

Lets get the ball rolling what two weight classes would you like to see discarded?

It becomes an argument that no one will win.

How about we take all the data since they started body fat testing kids in Wisconsin, throw it into a database, and see how the weights fit what is actually out there? At our JV tournament, which we've run every year for the past four years, 138 and 145 are always the largest brackets. More weights there. Less at the top and bottom because that is where kids fall. And let's revisit in another few years, to revise it. Change the weights to a name, and no weight will ever get discarded. Only the weight would change every few years.

[dman]

Yikes....clearly people do not understand data and/or statistics...but not going to fix that on here.  

To me, people are trying to solve a problem using a solution that won't have any impact on the result.  First....I don't think number of weight classes solves the real problem of lack of participation (even though I would be good with going to 13 or 12...or staying at 14).  What are the root causes of participation?  I am no Einstein but can guarantee it isn't number of weight classes.....there are probably a host of reasons why participation is down, or not where people want it, and we should be looking at those (society, electronics, parenting, options for athletes, sport promotion, etc.).  As for how to fill weight classes and the distribution of the weight classes....this should be fairly straight forward and that is where a bell shaped curve may come into play as well as some basic statistical concepts.

So...maybe we should get away from the number of weight classes and work on ideas to fix participation?

[Ghetto]

I agree 100% that the number of weight classes does not effect participation one way or the other in it's most basic sense.

In general, if a kid can bide his time on JV, learn skills, have success, etc. instead of being forced into the varsity lineup to fill a weight, we might (YES MIGHT, I DON'T HAVE MATH FOR IT) see less attrition over time. We might see larger teams, and from that, less FFs. So in that aspect, cutting weight classes might help with participation.

[gablesgrip1]

1978:  20,429 participants on 453 teams
1993:   7,795 on 368
2003:   7,368 on 355
2014:    7147 on 334

I am in favor of 12 wt classes

[Stripes]

Is there a trend on what weight classes are most forfeited? I see the percentages of teams that can't field 14 kids, but what weights are missng? Reducing weight classes does not correlate to eliminating forfeits.

[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

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.   

[gablesgrip1]

1978:  20,429 participants on 453 teams
1993:   7,795 on 368
2003:   7,368 on 355
2014:    7147 on 334

I am in favor of 12 wt classes


this is in wisconsin]

[DocWrestling]

Yikes....clearly people do not understand data and/or statistics...but not going to fix that on here.  

To me, people are trying to solve a problem using a solution that won't have any impact on the result.  First....I don't think number of weight classes solves the real problem of lack of participation (even though I would be good with going to 13 or 12...or staying at 14).  What are the root causes of participation?  I am no Einstein but can guarantee it isn't number of weight classes.....there are probably a host of reasons why participation is down, or not where people want it, and we should be looking at those (society, electronics, parenting, options for athletes, sport promotion, etc.).  As for how to fill weight classes and the distribution of the weight classes....this should be fairly straight forward and that is where a bell shaped curve may come into play as well as some basic statistical concepts.

So...maybe we should get away from the number of weight classes and work on ideas to fix participation?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you but we have to realize that this is much tougher to change and does not necessarily have anything to do with wrestling.  Participation in all sports is going down.  Solving this problem is extremely complex and difficult.

So why can't we do both?   Why can't we react to the present trends by making changes and still try to change "society"?  Then if we get higher participation numbers we can react to that trend.  What is so difficult about change or trying something new?  If it does not work, change back.  You have to be fluid with the rules rather than so rigid.

I agree this conversation likely has to be very different for D3 schools vs. D1 schools.

In the past 40 years, Wisconsin has lost 119 wrestling teams and # of participants is 1/3 of what it was 40 years ago and that is snowballing as wrestling conferences begin to collapse.  Now we have participation teams with 14 weight classes, 3 divisions, etc at a time with a lot fewer wrestlers.  My math says that having more has not helped even if it was not the cause of the decreases.

[Handles II]

Yikes....clearly people do not understand data and/or statistics...but not going to fix that on here.  

To me, people are trying to solve a problem using a solution that won't have any impact on the result.  First....I don't think number of weight classes solves the real problem of lack of participation (even though I would be good with going to 13 or 12...or staying at 14).  What are the root causes of participation?  I am no Einstein but can guarantee it isn't number of weight classes.....there are probably a host of reasons why participation is down, or not where people want it, and we should be looking at those (society, electronics, parenting, options for athletes, sport promotion, etc.).  As for how to fill weight classes and the distribution of the weight classes....this should be fairly straight forward and that is where a bell shaped curve may come into play as well as some basic statistical concepts.

So...maybe we should get away from the number of weight classes and work on ideas to fix participation?

Wasn't going to 14 weights trying to solve a problem without having an impact on the result? It didn't work, so why are people so bent on keeping it?

And while you are very correct on those other issues, the WWCA and WIAA have zero do do with them, nor can they make any changes regarding them. I'm sorry if parents decide playing on an xbox is a better and safer way for their child to spend his free time. That has nothing to do with having too many weight classes or what can be done about it.

[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.

[Dale Einerson]

Yikes....clearly people do not understand data and/or statistics...but not going to fix that on here.  

To me, people are trying to solve a problem using a solution that won't have any impact on the result.  First....I don't think number of weight classes solves the real problem of lack of participation (even though I would be good with going to 13 or 12...or staying at 14).  What are the root causes of participation?  I am no Einstein but can guarantee it isn't number of weight classes.....there are probably a host of reasons why participation is down, or not where people want it, and we should be looking at those (society, electronics, parenting, options for athletes, sport promotion, etc.).  As for how to fill weight classes and the distribution of the weight classes....this should be fairly straight forward and that is where a bell shaped curve may come into play as well as some basic statistical concepts.

So...maybe we should get away from the number of weight classes and work on ideas to fix participation?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you but we have to realize that this is much tougher to change and does not necessarily have anything to do with wrestling.  Participation in all sports is going down.  Solving this problem is extremely complex and difficult.

So why can't we do both?   Why can't we react to the present trends by making changes and still try to change "society"?  Then if we get higher participation numbers we can react to that trend.  What is so difficult about change or trying something new?  If it does not work, change back.  You have to be fluid with the rules rather than so rigid.

I agree this conversation likely has to be very different for D3 schools vs. D1 schools.

In the past 40 years, Wisconsin has lost 119 wrestling teams and # of participants is 1/3 of what it was 40 years ago and that is snowballing as wrestling conferences begin to collapse.  Now we have participation teams with 14 weight classes, 3 divisions, etc at a time with a lot fewer wrestlers.  My math says that having more has not helped even if it was not the cause of the decreases.

I have a slightly different question, why is wrestling participation increasing across the nation, but reducing in Wisconsin? 

And then, can we potentially see a struggle in Wisconsin, that is seeing declining participation, aligning with the nation that is seeing increasing participation? 

Finally, are we so inclined to decrease the number of participants, 120, which is more than 50% of the reduction experienced in Wisconsin between 2003 and 2014, what do we get for it?

[Handles II]

Dale, as Ghetto said, we won't be losing wrestlers. There will be fewer varsity positions. Some wrestlers may be JV. There is a difference. I'm sure you can see that.
I agree with your more current input of finding out where all wrestlers lump regarding where the weight classes are.

Dman, There are states where wrestling is slowly being added and/or growing. That's where most of those numbers are coming from. That does not equate to filling all the weight classes or of those states having solid wrestling in general.

[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.