Filling Weight Classes-The 2021-22 Data

Started by Handles II, December 09, 2021, 11:13:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MNbadger

Comparisons to basketball or other sports are invalid as they do not have the limitation of weight classes.
Quote from: Hillbilly on January 08, 2022, 06:36:58 PM
On The Water tournament had 63 teams.  None of the teams entered 14 wrestlers. 

Obviously there is a high demand, we need more opportunities available.   

Maybe less weight classes along with allowing 7th and 8th graders to compete could increase participation and fill more weights.   

NCAA has 10 weight classes.   I can't think of a sport where we have more spots on high school teams than we do on college teams.   We don't have 15 man football teams for big high schools just to have them play 11 man football in college.

Just to get this out there.   Less weight classes doesn't mean less opportunities.   Everyone is allowed to compete for a varsity spot.   Competition in a wrestling room is a real thing.   We don't make basketball teams bigger to increase opportunities.   5 people on the court per team, with kids competing to get one of those 5 spots.   

Anyway let the fight continue....  Teams filled with kids on varsity who have nobody at the same weight competing for the varsity spot is the equivalent to giving each kid a participation trophy.   Congrats for coming out here is your Letter!
I would like to reach through the screen and slap the next person who starts a thread about "global warming." Wraslfan
"Obama thinks we should all be on welfare."  BigG
"MN will eventually go the way of Greece." Wraslfan

MNbadger

https://www.trackwrestling.com/predefinedtournaments/MainFrame.jsp?newSession=false&TIM=1641739824335&pageName=%2Fpredefinedtournaments%2FTournamentTeams.jsp&twSessionId=rzidwjhqgc

A great day of wrestling.  Lots of competition, lots of cheering fans.  Wrestlers had good and bad days as it should be.  See the teams and numbers....... Let's suppose we made this a dual tournament or a series of tris or double duals or whatever.  This would have been uninspiring in contrast to the day where people cheered for their wrestlers and those from other teams for times when it helped their team's score.
Let's suppose you hold this as a series of tris or double duals with 12 weights.   The results and entertainment level would be the same as with 14 weights or any number of weight classes (neither
would be as exciting as the Saturday individual format).
If you retract, you cut down our ability to recruit especially the lighter weights.  Again I ask you to look at the CDC charts for high school aged boys.  On Saturday more a than a few of the wrestlers were small for 103. 
We have no such complaints in regard to club wrestling where weights are numerous and close together.  The issues disappear if you get away from the emphasis on duals. 
Thanks for listening.
I would like to reach through the screen and slap the next person who starts a thread about "global warming." Wraslfan
"Obama thinks we should all be on welfare."  BigG
"MN will eventually go the way of Greece." Wraslfan

asdf

I see Montini Catholic in IL only brought 6 to Cheesehead.  Crazy to see one the best programs in the nation fall tough times, maybe they need to co-op or talk to the state about reducing classes.  Or maybe a tournament is just a moment in time and brief snapshot of a team.  So many variables why a team may or may not bring kids to a tournament, but unfortunately it doesn't fit a few peoples narrative here.

I was at a JV tournament yesterday.  Kids left to go to the tournament at 7am, got home at 6pm.  Wrestling didn't start til nearly 11am, some kids first match wasn't til past 1pm.  Tournaments like these drive kids out of the sport so much more then a dual with an extra forfeit.  It is just to hard for a few here to come up with better solutions.

Boring duals is so far down the priority list.

padre

Quote from: Hillbilly on January 08, 2022, 06:36:58 PM
On The Water tournament had 63 teams.  None of the teams entered 14 wrestlers. 

Obviously there is a high demand, we need more opportunities available.   

Maybe less weight classes along with allowing 7th and 8th graders to compete could increase participation and fill more weights.   

NCAA has 10 weight classes.   I can't think of a sport where we have more spots on high school teams than we do on college teams.   We don't have 15 man football teams for big high schools just to have them play 11 man football in college.

Just to get this out there.   Less weight classes doesn't mean less opportunities.   Everyone is allowed to compete for a varsity spot.   Competition in a wrestling room is a real thing.   We don't make basketball teams bigger to increase opportunities.   5 people on the court per team, with kids competing to get one of those 5 spots.   

Anyway let the fight continue....  Teams filled with kids on varsity who have nobody at the same weight competing for the varsity spot is the equivalent to giving each kid a participation trophy.   Congrats for coming out here is your Letter!

Do you know why no teams had 14 wrestlers or just making comments without any knowledge?

We could have had 14 had all went well...unfortunately because of injury, grades and Covid protocol we had 9.  Basically the same story for many of the teams.  I'm not saying most of the teams fill 14 weights but there were a lot of kids out.  Also, plenty of teams don't bring the kids that won't compete well and send them to a jv tournament down the line.

MNbadger

Still better than tris and quads on a school night getting home late........
Quote from: asdf on January 09, 2022, 11:55:57 AM
I see Montini Catholic in IL only brought 6 to Cheesehead.  Crazy to see one the best programs in the nation fall tough times, maybe they need to co-op or talk to the state about reducing classes.  Or maybe a tournament is just a moment in time and brief snapshot of a team.  So many variables why a team may or may not bring kids to a tournament, but unfortunately it doesn't fit a few peoples narrative here.

I was at a JV tournament yesterday.  Kids left to go to the tournament at 7am, got home at 6pm.  Wrestling didn't start til nearly 11am, some kids first match wasn't til past 1pm.  Tournaments like these drive kids out of the sport so much more then a dual with an extra forfeit.  It is just to hard for a few here to come up with better solutions.

Boring duals is so far down the priority list.
I would like to reach through the screen and slap the next person who starts a thread about "global warming." Wraslfan
"Obama thinks we should all be on welfare."  BigG
"MN will eventually go the way of Greece." Wraslfan

Handles II

1/8/22  Our biggest weekend of the year. More teams participated in more tournaments than in previous weekends. This one is interesting because of the JV Challenge tournaments throughout the state (those weren't counted in the totals).  Obviously some kids on some teams fit the description of "varsity fill-ins" and therefore went to a JV tournament rather than going to a varsity tournament if their team was attending one. Therefore this weekend should have numbers that are a bit more true to how many "varsity ready" wrestlers we have vs wrestling varsity simply because there's nobody else available.  Illness was one extenuating circumstance this weekend for a variety of teams. There may have been JV kids who normally might have "filled in" for a sick varsity wrestler, that chose rather to attend their JV challenge tournament. I'm only speculating of course. A trend is showing up that also appeared in my data from 6 years ago and from Regional data previously. The 113 lb weight class once again seems to be the least populated weight with only 42% of teams having a 113.

218 teams participated in in-state Varsity tournaments this weekend creating slots for up to 3,052 wrestlers. 1845 wrestlers competed, which equates to 60%, or 8.4 wrestlers per team.

106 - 55%
113 - 42%
120 - 54%
126 - 60%
132 - 54%
138 - 65%
145 - 72%
152 - 74%
160 - 65%
170 - 67%
182 - 58%
195 - 60%
220 - 67%
285 - 57%

Handles II

Weekend of 1/15: A pretty large shift in the types of tournaments this weekend. More scrambles, and more Invites letting teams bring extra wrestlers. Likely kids who coaches are willing to let them get their feet wet for some varsity action. Quite a few weight classes had several more wrestlers in them than the total number of teams. It's a good way to help fill brackets and get some additional experience before JV State, ect. Kudos to host teams letting this happen, in general there isn't much of a downside. But in this exercise it does skew the "Varsity" numbers a bit, but meh, it all comes out in the wash anyway. 113 again was the least filled weight class. 145/152 were the most filled at 80% each.

We had 157 teams participating (in state) for a total of 2,198 possible wrestlers. There were 1429 actual wrestlers filling 65% of the spots or 9.1 wrestlers per team on average
106 - 55%
113 - 52%
120 - 59%
126 - 60%
132 - 66%
138 - 74%
145 - 80%
152 - 80%
160 - 73%
170 - 66%
182 - 59%
195 - 62%
220 - 66%
285 - 58%

wrastle63

Quote from: Handles II on January 18, 2022, 09:23:32 AM
Weekend of 1/15: A pretty large shift in the types of tournaments this weekend. More scrambles, and more Invites letting teams bring extra wrestlers. Likely kids who coaches are willing to let them get their feet wet for some varsity action. Quite a few weight classes had several more wrestlers in them than the total number of teams. It's a good way to help fill brackets and get some additional experience before JV State, ect. Kudos to host teams letting this happen, in general there isn't much of a downside. But in this exercise it does skew the "Varsity" numbers a bit, but meh, it all comes out in the wash anyway. 113 again was the least filled weight class. 145/152 were the most filled at 80% each.

We had 157 teams participating (in state) for a total of 2,198 possible wrestlers. There were 1429 actual wrestlers filling 65% of the spots or 9.1 wrestlers per team on average
106 - 55%
113 - 52%
120 - 59%
126 - 60%
132 - 66%
138 - 74%
145 - 80%
152 - 80%
160 - 73%
170 - 66%
182 - 59%
195 - 62%
220 - 66%
285 - 58%
Obviously I don't agree with your proposal of moving to 10 weights. Although you keep seeing that 113 is the lowest % weight class. I try and make small changes that make big impacts in work, etc. What do you think is the smallest change we could make that would make a big impact? 10 weights is very polarizing for a lot of the wrestling community, but maybe there is a small change that would make a big difference.

Ghetto

Quote from: wrastle63 on January 18, 2022, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: Handles II on January 18, 2022, 09:23:32 AM
Weekend of 1/15: A pretty large shift in the types of tournaments this weekend. More scrambles, and more Invites letting teams bring extra wrestlers. Likely kids who coaches are willing to let them get their feet wet for some varsity action. Quite a few weight classes had several more wrestlers in them than the total number of teams. It's a good way to help fill brackets and get some additional experience before JV State, ect. Kudos to host teams letting this happen, in general there isn't much of a downside. But in this exercise it does skew the "Varsity" numbers a bit, but meh, it all comes out in the wash anyway. 113 again was the least filled weight class. 145/152 were the most filled at 80% each.

We had 157 teams participating (in state) for a total of 2,198 possible wrestlers. There were 1429 actual wrestlers filling 65% of the spots or 9.1 wrestlers per team on average
106 - 55%
113 - 52%
120 - 59%
126 - 60%
132 - 66%
138 - 74%
145 - 80%
152 - 80%
160 - 73%
170 - 66%
182 - 59%
195 - 62%
220 - 66%
285 - 58%
Obviously I don't agree with your proposal of moving to 10 weights. Although you keep seeing that 113 is the lowest % weight class. I try and make small changes that make big impacts in work, etc. What do you think is the smallest change we could make that would make a big impact? 10 weights is very polarizing for a lot of the wrestling community, but maybe there is a small change that would make a big difference.

All of it is a bit polarizing. Any data or discussion sends people into a tailspin.

I can't remember who said this years ago, but it's my favorite idea regarding weights.

Name them, like boxing or other sports do. Whether it is 12, 13, or 14, allow the actual weight classes to be determined by actual bodfat data, and go from there. Maybe adjust the weights every 5? years or so? If every state used trackwrestling as a data hub for bodyfat tests, we'd have a huge sample size to pull from.

As long as we are keeping score, I've got something to prove

Handles II

Quote from: wrastle63 on January 18, 2022, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: Handles II on January 18, 2022, 09:23:32 AM
Weekend of 1/15: A pretty large shift in the types of tournaments this weekend. More scrambles, and more Invites letting teams bring extra wrestlers. Likely kids who coaches are willing to let them get their feet wet for some varsity action. Quite a few weight classes had several more wrestlers in them than the total number of teams. It's a good way to help fill brackets and get some additional experience before JV State, ect. Kudos to host teams letting this happen, in general there isn't much of a downside. But in this exercise it does skew the "Varsity" numbers a bit, but meh, it all comes out in the wash anyway. 113 again was the least filled weight class. 145/152 were the most filled at 80% each.

We had 157 teams participating (in state) for a total of 2,198 possible wrestlers. There were 1429 actual wrestlers filling 65% of the spots or 9.1 wrestlers per team on average
106 - 55%
113 - 52%
120 - 59%
126 - 60%
132 - 66%
138 - 74%
145 - 80%
152 - 80%
160 - 73%
170 - 66%
182 - 59%
195 - 62%
220 - 66%
285 - 58%
Obviously I don't agree with your proposal of moving to 10 weights. Although you keep seeing that 113 is the lowest % weight class. I try and make small changes that make big impacts in work, etc. What do you think is the smallest change we could make that would make a big impact? 10 weights is very polarizing for a lot of the wrestling community, but maybe there is a small change that would make a big difference.
Can you show us where I ever once said going to 10 weights is what I am proposing? Didn't think so. The NFHS has proposed 14, 13, 12, starting for the 23-24 season. That's why I'm doing all of this work, so we can see our numbers and make hopefully a decision based on data rather than emotions.

Handles II

Quote from: Ghetto on January 18, 2022, 12:14:18 PM
Quote from: wrastle63 on January 18, 2022, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: Handles II on January 18, 2022, 09:23:32 AM
Weekend of 1/15: A pretty large shift in the types of tournaments this weekend. More scrambles, and more Invites letting teams bring extra wrestlers. Likely kids who coaches are willing to let them get their feet wet for some varsity action. Quite a few weight classes had several more wrestlers in them than the total number of teams. It's a good way to help fill brackets and get some additional experience before JV State, ect. Kudos to host teams letting this happen, in general there isn't much of a downside. But in this exercise it does skew the "Varsity" numbers a bit, but meh, it all comes out in the wash anyway. 113 again was the least filled weight class. 145/152 were the most filled at 80% each.

We had 157 teams participating (in state) for a total of 2,198 possible wrestlers. There were 1429 actual wrestlers filling 65% of the spots or 9.1 wrestlers per team on average
106 - 55%
113 - 52%
120 - 59%
126 - 60%
132 - 66%
138 - 74%
145 - 80%
152 - 80%
160 - 73%
170 - 66%
182 - 59%
195 - 62%
220 - 66%
285 - 58%
Obviously I don't agree with your proposal of moving to 10 weights. Although you keep seeing that 113 is the lowest % weight class. I try and make small changes that make big impacts in work, etc. What do you think is the smallest change we could make that would make a big impact? 10 weights is very polarizing for a lot of the wrestling community, but maybe there is a small change that would make a big difference.

All of it is a bit polarizing. Any data or discussion sends people into a tailspin.

I can't remember who said this years ago, but it's my favorite idea regarding weights.

Name them, like boxing or other sports do. Whether it is 12, 13, or 14, allow the actual weight classes to be determined by actual bodfat data, and go from there. Maybe adjust the weights every 5? years or so? If every state used trackwrestling as a data hub for bodyfat tests, we'd have a huge sample size to pull from.

That's not a bad idea. It would probably have to go off of at least some kind of average/trends, maybe 3 years worth of data and then at least a year's notice of any changes.  Though to be honest, as a coach, I'm not a huge fan of constantly moving weight classes, simply because I can't remember them! ;D

Numbers

Quote from: Handles II on January 10, 2022, 10:32:13 AM
218 teams participated in in-state Varsity tournaments this weekend creating slots for up to 3,052 wrestlers. 1845 wrestlers competed, which equates to 60%, or 8.4 wrestlers per team.

106 - 55%
113 - 42%
120 - 54%
126 - 60%
132 - 54%
138 - 65%
145 - 72%
152 - 74%
160 - 65%
170 - 67%
182 - 58%
195 - 60%
220 - 67%
285 - 57%
Not a single weight that even hits 75% filled.  That is after a bunch of coops in the state already.  When over a third of the state weights are vacant, wrestling has a problem.  How do kids even find good partners in practice?

The sad part is even moving to 12 weights will only increase the percentage about 10%.

Wrath

I'm not saying that the numbers shouldn't be reduced......However, we need to remember that this year can't be used as a measuring stick. Last years "pandemic" resulted in a lot of teams not being able to recruit new underclassmen to the sport. In addition, this year every team is decimated with sickness. Whether its COVID, the flu or whatever label you want to use, it's going through rooms like never before. Just food for thought

Handles II

Quote from: Wrath on January 18, 2022, 01:55:02 PM
I'm not saying that the numbers shouldn't be reduced......However, we need to remember that this year can't be used as a measuring stick. Last years "pandemic" resulted in a lot of teams not being able to recruit new underclassmen to the sport. In addition, this year every team is decimated with sickness. Whether its COVID, the flu or whatever label you want to use, it's going through rooms like never before. Just food for thought

This year's numbers are extremely similar to those of the past 6 years. Covid may have made a difference in overall team numbers, but as far as "Varsity" participation, it's nearly identical to other years. And the decision to change weights is after next year. So this year's data should be looked at because what you said might be true, fewer kids were recruited last year and this year, thus in another year our numbers might be even lower.

Ernie1964

I rarely post and understand that many teams, mine included, are forfeiting weight classes.  Getting rid of spots, however, is only going to hurt kids.  It will not help some of our smaller athletes and it will not make our sport more attractive to athletes who have not participated before.  I am not arguing with the data, I just don't see how cutting the number of weight classes is going to improve anything but the percentage of spots filled in a dual.

Ernie Millard