Filling Weight Classes-The 2021-22 Data

[npope]

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

Hello Ernie,

I am sorry, but I whole heartedly disagree with your logic on this point. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, because of the existence of JV and freshman level competition, limitations on weight classes likely pushes less-competitive wrestlers into those (arguably more appropriate) venues for competition. Opportunities to wrestle are there, but not for everyone just because they go out for the team. Wrestling on the JV should be no shame for virtually any kid, with rare exceptions. And if it is, then I think we have exposed a broader social issue here, e.g., "If I can't play with the big boys then I won't play at all." The implication is that I shouldn't have to "earn the opportunity" but rather, it should be given to me - there should be a spot on arsity waiting for me if I want it.

The downside (in my opinion) of relatively more weight classes is that is undercuts the rational for having dual meets because teams with a bigger body count, as opposed to concentrated talent in a smaller number of weights, gain an advantage in the dual meet score setting. I have less of a problem with more weights when it comes to tournaments, but if duals are going to remain a part of high school wrestling, more weights is a drag on the system.

IMO, this debate the forum is having is more about societal attitudes than it is about opportunities for a kid to get on the mat.

[ChargerDad]

If we are going to have data driven conversations over reductions in weight classes, which is more than ok, then we also need to analyze the data and understand which forfeits are because of a lack of wrestlers, and which are because of injury or avoiding a really good wrestler to get a matchup you think you can win.  We then need to have data driven conversations over what the weight classes should be.  It's illogical to say "we need to reduce weight classes because of data" and also say "we need to keep 106 where it is because I know some studs that were at 106" or "I know some studs at 220 that would have been at a severe disadvantage if we dropped that weight class to 200".  First the studs who were at 106 would be fine at say 110, or where the data says the bottom weight class should be, and the non studs as already pointed out can have JV opportunities, and the same for the studs at 220.  If you have data driven conversations about weight classes, I think you will find that based on the relatively normal distribution of wrestler weights, you need to have weight classes closer together in the middle weights and stretched out at the extremes if you really want to reduce forfeits.  Then you need to have data driven conversations around the actual impact of reduced weight classes on the number of forfeits and the number of matches wrestled, because it's going to impact both.  You will have fewer forfeits, but you will also have fewer matches wrestled, and I'm guessing the reduction on average will be similar.  You will have duals that end up with more forfeits as kids stack up at a weight class because the classes moved and one of them doesn't far test for the weight class below their old one.  I did a little forecasting based on one teams schedule a couple years ago where they typically had 12 weight classes, went through the entire season results and estimated the reduction in forfeits and reduction in matches per dual.  I had to use the MWC results for current weight classes and estimate where they would be as that's all I have access to.  What I found with my estimates in that one season with that one team was that forfeits would have been down approximately 1 forfeit per dual.  Matches wrestled would have also been down approximately 1 per dual.  There were duals where there would have been more forfeits than with 14 weight classes, and there were duals where there would have been more matches wrestled, but the average was a reduction of 1 forfeit and 1 match wrestled.  Obviously those numbers are going to vary per team, and that only counts the forfeits that are a result of nobody at a weight class because that's the only forfeit that reducing weight classes will have a significant impact on.  For larger schools with full lineups, that reduction in forfeits will be closer to 0, and the reduction in matches wrestled be closer to 2, and for smaller schools the opposite, though it's going to be really hard to get the reduction in forfeits close to 2 because every team has a different roster make up and has holes at different spots, so approaching the max of 2 reduced forfeits is going to be rare.  I'm guessing that if we crunch the data across the entire state, that the reduction in matches wrestled will be greater than the reduction in forfeits.  The impact on the number of matches wrestled and the length of a dual between 2 teams with a handful of wrestlers each is going to be negligible because the odds of the new weight classes lining up with their rosters in a way that creates matchups that didn't exist before is low.  I'm nit opposed to reducing weight classes, but I would like to see the data.  I don't want to just see a data driven argument about the number of forfeits, and an emotionaly driven argument about the number of weight classes being the answer.  It's not "simple math".  It's closer to graduate level statistics than it is simple math.  Argue for the weight classes with the data, with the bell curve, with standard deviations, and with forecasted dual meet results based on data driven weight class choices.  Start the argument with data, finish it with data.

[wrastle63]

If we are going to have data driven conversations over reductions in weight classes, which is more than ok, then we also need to analyze the data and understand which forfeits are because of a lack of wrestlers, and which are because of injury or avoiding a really good wrestler to get a matchup you think you can win.  We then need to have data driven conversations over what the weight classes should be.  It's illogical to say "we need to reduce weight classes because of data" and also say "we need to keep 106 where it is because I know some studs that were at 106" or "I know some studs at 220 that would have been at a severe disadvantage if we dropped that weight class to 200".  First the studs who were at 106 would be fine at say 110, or where the data says the bottom weight class should be, and the non studs as already pointed out can have JV opportunities, and the same for the studs at 220.  If you have data driven conversations about weight classes, I think you will find that based on the relatively normal distribution of wrestler weights, you need to have weight classes closer together in the middle weights and stretched out at the extremes if you really want to reduce forfeits.  Then you need to have data driven conversations around the actual impact of reduced weight classes on the number of forfeits and the number of matches wrestled, because it's going to impact both.  You will have fewer forfeits, but you will also have fewer matches wrestled, and I'm guessing the reduction on average will be similar.  You will have duals that end up with more forfeits as kids stack up at a weight class because the classes moved and one of them doesn't far test for the weight class below their old one.  I did a little forecasting based on one teams schedule a couple years ago where they typically had 12 weight classes, went through the entire season results and estimated the reduction in forfeits and reduction in matches per dual.  I had to use the MWC results for current weight classes and estimate where they would be as that's all I have access to.  What I found with my estimates in that one season with that one team was that forfeits would have been down approximately 1 forfeit per dual.  Matches wrestled would have also been down approximately 1 per dual.  There were duals where there would have been more forfeits than with 14 weight classes, and there were duals where there would have been more matches wrestled, but the average was a reduction of 1 forfeit and 1 match wrestled.  Obviously those numbers are going to vary per team, and that only counts the forfeits that are a result of nobody at a weight class because that's the only forfeit that reducing weight classes will have a significant impact on.  For larger schools with full lineups, that reduction in forfeits will be closer to 0, and the reduction in matches wrestled be closer to 2, and for smaller schools the opposite, though it's going to be really hard to get the reduction in forfeits close to 2 because every team has a different roster make up and has holes at different spots, so approaching the max of 2 reduced forfeits is going to be rare.  I'm guessing that if we crunch the data across the entire state, that the reduction in matches wrestled will be greater than the reduction in forfeits.  The impact on the number of matches wrestled and the length of a dual between 2 teams with a handful of wrestlers each is going to be negligible because the odds of the new weight classes lining up with their rosters in a way that creates matchups that didn't exist before is low.  I'm nit opposed to reducing weight classes, but I would like to see the data.  I don't want to just see a data driven argument about the number of forfeits, and an emotionaly driven argument about the number of weight classes being the answer.  It's not "simple math".  It's closer to graduate level statistics than it is simple math.  Argue for the weight classes with the data, with the bell curve, with standard deviations, and with forecasted dual meet results based on data driven weight class choices.  Start the argument with data, finish it with data.

No you have to use the data to go with whatever position you hold and what you think we should do as a state! lol

[DocWrestling]

1) # of Weight classes for duals and tournaments does not need to be the same
2) JV weight classes do not have to be the same as varsity weight classes and probably should not be as they are typically younger
3) A successful format for duals is one that sets up for teams to have increased chance of having 2 kids at each weight class.  Using injury or covid excuses and teams with no back ups shows the system is not set up for success.
4) Going to 12 of 13 weight classes is going to change very little.  Move to 10 weight classes.  Each dual has a varsity and JV dual of hopefully 20 matches plus exhibitions.  Have 14 weight classes at tournaments
5) Need to wrestle more post-match exhibitions after the dual.  Give kids 2 matches even if it matches up a 138lb varsity wrestler with the 132 lb varsity wrestler of the other team in a post match exhibition match.

6) I would have middle school coincide right along with high school and they wrestle on extra mat(s) at duals also.  Have weight classes and duals with the middle schools also and then exhibition matches.  All coaches and wrestlers working together.  You could even convince me to allow 8th graders to wrestle varsity and 7th graders to wrestle JV if needed.  This would create a nice crowd with multiple matches going on at once.

[littleguy301]

Doc.......are we forgetting that we are not binded to the oldn7 and 7 rule. Get 4 teams in the gym and most every kid should get 1 or 2 matches. No need for exhibitions because what do they really do, pride but for the most part kids want their matches to count.

I say 13 weight classes like some states are doing but we need to be careful with the weight we drop. Data is saying that maybe combine the 3 smaller classes into 2 classes.

[wrastle63]

1) # of Weight classes for duals and tournaments does not need to be the same
2) JV weight classes do not have to be the same as varsity weight classes and probably should not be as they are typically younger
3) A successful format for duals is one that sets up for teams to have increased chance of having 2 kids at each weight class.  Using injury or covid excuses and teams with no back ups shows the system is not set up for success.
4) Going to 12 of 13 weight classes is going to change very little.  Move to 10 weight classes.  Each dual has a varsity and JV dual of hopefully 20 matches plus exhibitions.  Have 14 weight classes at tournaments
5) Need to wrestle more post-match exhibitions after the dual.  Give kids 2 matches even if it matches up a 138lb varsity wrestler with the 132 lb varsity wrestler of the other team in a post match exhibition match.

6) I would have middle school coincide right along with high school and they wrestle on extra mat(s) at duals also.  Have weight classes and duals with the middle schools also and then exhibition matches.  All coaches and wrestlers working together.  You could even convince me to allow 8th graders to wrestle varsity and 7th graders to wrestle JV if needed.  This would create a nice crowd with multiple matches going on at once.

Amen. Is there a rule that we have to have the same number of weight classes for duals and individual tournaments? I would be perfectly fine if we go to 10 weights for duals, but keep 14 for tournaments. It solves both problems. Gives the kids the opportunities to be at their optimal weight, doesn't cut kids from being sectional and state qualifiers, and still makes duals better product.

[Handles II]

Charger,
All of your points are valid, and have been discussed. Here's the deal, the NFHS Representatives are not discussing why team A forfeits the 113 weight class sometimes and other times they forfeit 120. The NFHS isn't asking if kids are injured or recovering. That's too individualized. They have been looking at a huge pile of data from multiple Regions/States over the past several years. They are looking at percentages of teams that can fill 14, 13, or 12 weight classes, and in a slightly lesser amount, which weight classes have the most/fewest percentage of participants through all of those totals.

You've seen their proposed weight classes for each option (posted in this thread). They aren't very bell curved in my opinion, or as much as probably both of us and others feel they should be, but neither are the college weights for that matter. They might also be looking at the realization that JV/Frosh participation is a real and acceptable option for those who aren't in the Varsity line up just as it is in other sports they oversee.

The reality is that each state's Athletics Board (or similar) will need to make decisions to stay the course or change after the end of next season. In some states, this might be done with coaches/Coaches Association input. It won't be input from parents, fans, or wrestlers or those saying "I know a kid...". They will use numbers and percentages of the data, and any voting input they choose to use. I'm trying to provide information either for awareness of coaches who might vote on the decision, or perhaps to give some perspective to those who have always been around teams full or mostly full, or those who have always been around teams that are far less than full, what the numbers are really doing throughout our state. 

[DocWrestling]

Doc.......are we forgetting that we are not binded to the oldn7 and 7 rule. Get 4 teams in the gym and most every kid should get 1 or 2 matches. No need for exhibitions because what do they really do, pride but for the most part kids want their matches to count.

I say 13 weight classes like some states are doing but we need to be careful with the weight we drop. Data is saying that maybe combine the 3 smaller classes into 2 classes.

I like the idea of tris and quads but they also eliminate a lot of opportunities for teams to wrestle in their home gym

[littleguy301]

Doc.......are we forgetting that we are not binded to the oldn7 and 7 rule. Get 4 teams in the gym and most every kid should get 1 or 2 matches. No need for exhibitions because what do they really do, pride but for the most part kids want their matches to count.

I say 13 weight classes like some states are doing but we need to be careful with the weight we drop. Data is saying that maybe combine the 3 smaller classes into 2 classes.

I like the idea of tris and quads but they also eliminate a lot of opportunities for teams to wrestle in their home gym

Be pro active and not a problem with home meets. Our school was going to have 4 home meets this year but we ended up with 2. So your right next year on the old guidelines we were to have 3 but now looking at 4. Have to plan and get get into the school calendar early. Might have to do a Tuesday night, Friday night, Saturday morning or whatever works to get in some tris or quads. Also make it an event, might be some work to do by all but.....

[littleguy301]

Like I said I would go to 13 but that is about the end of it for me. I don't like the idea of taking anything away from kids. Not sure what the answer is. Maybe up as simple as up the pay to get more coaches back into wrestling.

[padre]

Doc.......are we forgetting that we are not binded to the oldn7 and 7 rule. Get 4 teams in the gym and most every kid should get 1 or 2 matches. No need for exhibitions because what do they really do, pride but for the most part kids want their matches to count.

I say 13 weight classes like some states are doing but we need to be careful with the weight we drop. Data is saying that maybe combine the 3 smaller classes into 2 classes.

I like the idea of tris and quads but they also eliminate a lot of opportunities for teams to wrestle in their home gym

Be pro active and not a problem with home meets. Our school was going to have 4 home meets this year but we ended up with 2. So your right next year on the old guidelines we were to have 3 but now looking at 4. Have to plan and get get into the school calendar early. Might have to do a Tuesday night, Friday night, Saturday morning or whatever works to get in some tris or quads. Also make it an event, might be some work to do by all but.....

The quads this year have been great!!!  It hides somewhat the forfeits and gets a lot of good match ups for the wrestlers and the fans!!

[Handles II]

Conferences! Bragging rights!  Most teams looked to fill as many weights as they could so some JV kids were given their "shot".  Fyi, I only did conferences of the 2/5 weekend, not the weekend before. Time and energy were the main influencers, but like with all of these weekends, things tend to average out similarly.
220 teams participated  with room for 3,080 wrestlers to participate. 2,201 wrestlers did participate and wrestled their hearts out.  That equates to 10.001 varsity wrestlers per team. 
106 - 57%
113 - 61%
120 - 70%
126 - 67%
132 - 74%
138 - 79%
145 - 79%
152 - 71%
160 - 79%
170 - 72%
182 - 71%
195 - 66%
220 - 70%
285 - 74%

[knighthead]

In looking at last week's conference tournaments , the Southeast Conference has  8 teams. The smallest 4 teams had 9,9,2, and 0 wrestlers on their rosters. No teams had a full team.There was a weight class that had 3 wrestlers in it. The winner had 2 byes and championship match. Some conferences don't have a conference tournament. Maybe it's time to rethink some of these conference tournaments. Use dual meets to determine a conference champion and open up another date for an individual tournament. At least the kids would get some valuable mat time. Just a thought.

[drbrad]

In looking at last week's conference tournaments , the Southeast Conference has  8 teams. The smallest 4 teams had 9,9,2, and 0 wrestlers on their rosters. No teams had a full team.There was a weight class that had 3 wrestlers in it. The winner had 2 byes and championship match. Some conferences don't have a conference tournament. Maybe it's time to rethink some of these conference tournaments. Use dual meets to determine a conference champion and open up another date for an individual tournament. At least the kids would get some valuable mat time. Just a thought.

I agree. Loooong ago (early '80's) our Conference Tourney was a BIG deal. However, there were some big differences compared to today. First, back then more of the teams had full rosters (nevermind the discussion of weight classes, there were more wrestlers per team and more evenly divided between biggest and smallest rosters). Also, for most teams, there were fewer and smaller tournaments throughout the season. We had maybe two or three 8 team and one 12-16 team tourneys. After mostly wrestling duals, an individual tournament was exciting. Now, tourneys (especially large ones) are more plentiful. At least in our conference, the energy and excitement just isn't there like it used to be. Plus, brackets are often not filled, some with three or four wrestlers. In our particular case, our regional is almost a repeat of conference tourney (includes all but 2 conference teams, add just 1 team from outside conference). So many if not most matches from last Saturday will be repeated this Saturday. Since wrestlers are focused on State Championship Series, much of the meaning is lost from conference tourney. Maybe others have differing thoughts, but I agree that this past weekend could be utilized in better ways- perhaps out of conference/division quads or tourneys. This could offer more kids more matches (against non-regional opponents if desired) to warm up for regionals.

[Ghetto]

In looking at last week's conference tournaments , the Southeast Conference has  8 teams. The smallest 4 teams had 9,9,2, and 0 wrestlers on their rosters. No teams had a full team.There was a weight class that had 3 wrestlers in it. The winner had 2 byes and championship match. Some conferences don't have a conference tournament. Maybe it's time to rethink some of these conference tournaments. Use dual meets to determine a conference champion and open up another date for an individual tournament. At least the kids would get some valuable mat time. Just a thought.

I agree. Loooong ago (early '80's) our Conference Tourney was a BIG deal. However, there were some big differences compared to today. First, back then more of the teams had full rosters (nevermind the discussion of weight classes, there were more wrestlers per team and more evenly divided between biggest and smallest rosters). Also, for most teams, there were fewer and smaller tournaments throughout the season. We had maybe two or three 8 team and one 12-16 team tourneys. After mostly wrestling duals, an individual tournament was exciting. Now, tourneys (especially large ones) are more plentiful. At least in our conference, the energy and excitement just isn't there like it used to be. Plus, brackets are often not filled, some with three or four wrestlers. In our particular case, our regional is almost a repeat of conference tourney (includes all but 2 conference teams, add just 1 team from outside conference). So many if not most matches from last Saturday will be repeated this Saturday. Since wrestlers are focused on State Championship Series, much of the meaning is lost from conference tourney. Maybe others have differing thoughts, but I agree that this past weekend could be utilized in better ways- perhaps out of conference/division quads or tourneys. This could offer more kids more matches (against non-regional opponents if desired) to warm up for regionals.

If conferences would combine to make, say, the Woodland/Southeast tournament, there would at least be 16 teams to pick from. As most conferences are 8ish teams, there could be 16 man scramble brackets that could allow for more wrestling.