Filling Weight Classes-The 2021-22 Data

[Redeemer]

I teach and coach in a large metro/suburban district.  When I started in the late eighties my high school dressed 110 football players for each game.  This was only 10th-12th grade.  Each of the junior we are now a 9-12 school).  We have dropped middle school sports but three years ago before we did so, the middle school I was at could not get enough girls out to field a middle school basketball team.
Participation is down in everything in many areas.
I understand that some might see this as a reason for retraction.  I do not.  I agree with The Pope.
I have had years where we were at the top and years where we forfeited four and five weights.  I have never seen the positives some claim for retraction.  I say this being in the most dual obsessed state there is. 
Given my druthers I would opt to get out of our conference all together.  I would schedule a single dual once a week with teams of our ilk and participate in individual tournaments each Saturday.  I schedule according to my team needs now as well.
It is a mistake to retract and it has been a mistake to raise the starting weight as we have done repeatedly over time.

Very much agree. There are a lot of talented lightweights out there.

[asdf]

Unfortunately when people talk about reducing weights classes it always centers around the lightweights. 

Fun fact-Only 7% of HS athletes go on to collegiate athletics--across all divisions and sports.  Below are the list of WI kids that placed 4th or better at 106# and went onto college.  "U" means they placed as sophomore or older.

Greyson Clark (DI WI commit)
Shane Corrigan (U...D2 Parkside commit)
Tyler Klein ((U...D3 Whitewater)
Nicolar Rivera (no commit yet, but will be college wrestler if he chooses)
Jaden Verhagen (U...D2 U of Mary)
Alec Hunter (U...D2 Parkside)
Hayden Halter (JUCO Central Iowa)
Eric Barnett (U...D1 WI)
Hunter Lewis (U...D1 NCST)
T.Dineen (U...D1 SIUE)
Zeke Smith (U...D3 Loras)
B Koontz (U..D1 OSU)
N. Hensley (U...D2 Parkside)
A Schulist (D1 SIUE)
J. Groshek (U...thought he wrestled in college, but dont see anything on track).

I only went back 5-6 years and did not look at those that placed past 4th.  Sure we are missing a few that never placed or started at 106# and didn't qualify and grew.  What an impressive group of kids!  Wonder how many would be just as successful if they had to start at a higher weight?  Would they have stuck around or maybe just held themselves out a year a trained at club?

Point is WI actually has a strong history with the light weights, hopefully it doesn't get eliminated.  So much can be changed first.  Again, what is WWCA, WIAA, AD groups, Youth Wrestling associations, etc. doing to address this alleged state wide concern (that has been going on since 1995 per other posts)?  I ask this question every time the same 3 or 4 bloggers post this junk and no one ever seems to have that answer. 

[Handles II]

If the stated average is 8.6 wrestlers per team, then for every team that had a full line-up (14 wrestlers) there would be a team that has only 3 wrestlers in the line-up.  That's just not making sense.  Where are the teams that only have 3 kids?  Because I regularly see teams with 13 or 14 kids in the line-up. 

Instead of reducing weight classes across the entire state, have a new division for programs that can't field full teams.  The 8-man football example is a great one.  WIAA didn't make every school in the state play 8-man, only offered it as a solution for those that couldn't get full teams.  Create an 8 weight class division and let those schools that can't get kids compete there for duals.

It's in the math. If there are X number of teams participating in tournaments, then multiply that number by 14 weights. That equals the numbers of wrestlers there would or could be if every weight was filled by every team, ie 100%.   However, when there are teams without a wrestler at a weight, that lowers the percentage. In this case the percentage of possible wrestlers vs actual wrestlers was 62%.  62% of 14 weight classes = 8.6. Thus across each weight class and each team we would get 8.6 wrestlers per team on average.  As a point of emphasis, in looking at each tournament, there wasn't even one weight class where each spot was filled completely, ie 10 schools having 10 160lbers.  In every tournament, every weight, there were empty spots.

I understand averages.  You don't have to teach me 6th grade math. 

My point is that if this calculated average is 8.6, and I know there are many teams with full line-ups, then that would mean there are teams with less than 8 wrestlers.  And, I don't buy it. The OP logic doesn't pass the sniff test.

You are certainly welcome to do the math yourself, but before you do, look at the wwca link that showed even at 12 weight classes, only around 50% of teams could fill all 12. Thus the average is lower than that. Additionally, this was the first weekend of tournaments, so it might be an anomaly.

[Handles II]

A similar document was created based on the last 6 years of Regional data by the WWCA.  I'd suggest logging onto their website, checking out their September notes, and finding the link.  The data is very clear as it relates to participation at the end of the year at Regionals.

Or you can go directly to the document here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t9tVNDg4QQfsaySxJ9aqNQfCFBTPb2KKJ7gU5EaYCqE/edit?usp=sharing

Yes, this is excellent data, and excellent of you to share the link! Hopefully the readers (parents) and WWCA members will be reading it.  When only 25% +/- of the teams in the state can field a full team, there is a problem with the size of the team.

OR maybe coaches, AD's, and parents will realize the problem lies with them not forfeits and sizes of teams.  Believe it was Willie Saylor that stated those crying that forfeits are the reason for reduced #'s are just trying to make themselves feel better by winning a worthless dual in January.  He is 100% correct. 

Plenty of schools reload every year.  Plenty of schools for decades have barely fielded a team.  Our conference has a team that has been a perennial powerhouse have less then 15 kids out this year suddenly.  Other team has over 50, yet had 5-6 forfeits on varsity 3 years ago.  Forfeits have nothing to do with all these.  In my opinion, it is coaching/administration. 

Those that believe in reducing weight classes are advocating for a lazy solution to a multi-factoral problem.  Many of those advocating admit in past blogs they couldn't field a full team themselves, never had a 106#er, on and on.

Be careful for unintended consequences of changes.  Wrestling could go the way of many other HS sports and have kids opting out of HS seasons for club/AAU.

Unfortunately when a team calls for 14 players and there are only 8-10 available, THIS is what the A.D. School Board members and others involved with budgets will see. It doesn't really matter if it's a dual or not. And if duals are worthless, lets get rid of team state asap. Facts are duals are what get the most people coming into the gym and watching wrestling. Hardcore fans will travel to tournaments, but it won't give exposure to the sport like home duals will.  So whether we like it or not, forfeits in duals, as well as not having kids fill weights in tournaments don't look good for any team that's close to getting the axe. We've lost too many already, and 14 weights can certainly be an eyesore. 

[DocWrestling]

I grew up where our wrestling program was all about the team dual first and then individual.  Emphasis was always on scoring team points or giving up less team points.  This even mattered for individual tournaments. That started with middle school duals

Today I am not even sure what percentage of high school wrestlers know how team scoring works and it is a low priority except for maybe 10% of duals in the state now.

I have accepted duals are going to disappear.  I always thought 10 weight classes for duals and 14 for individual tournaments would be a fun compromise.

Duals allowed a wrestler two chances to win and allowed a wrestler to contribute to the team without even winning.  Losing duals will mean fewer wrestlers.  Pretty hard already for athletic departments to worry about supporting and hiring coaches for wrestling and would get worse if there are fewer home duals.

As was said earlier, participation is declining in all sports so wrestling will have to evolve.

[DocWrestling]

Speaking of weight classes, I am amazed that college wrestling still does not have a 215lb weight class.

[Handles II]

New weekend numbers... Big storm caused some teams to cancel, and others to re-schedule at attend other tournaments. It's great to see that some schools went completely out of their way to add several more schools to their tournaments. Obviously this increased the work load for the host schools. Outstanding efforts on the part of the sport. There were also tournaments that once again allowed more than one competitor from each school per weight. One tournament had 24 teams, but 28 kids in a weight class. Doing this skews the numbers high a little bit. No biggie, and it might offset the kids who couldn't get to the bus because of the storm.
As far as I can tell, there were 12 varsity individual tournaments/scrambles this weekend. Just a note for those of you submitting to Trackwrestling, somehow identifying a tournament as a dual or as a JV event is probably  helpful to the public. 
12 tournaments with 161 teams participating.  161x14= 2254 possible wrestlers.  We had 1457 actual wrestlers. That's 65% of the spots were filled. 65% of 14 weights =9.1 Varsity wrestlers per team.

By weight class:
106 - 55%
113 - 47%
120 - 55%
126 - 62%
132 - 65%
138 - 73%
145 - 82%
152 - 73%
160 - 67%
170 - 72%
182 - 68%
195 - 52%
220 - 62%
285 - 66%

[MNbadger]

So you are proposing that we should have 9 weight classes?

New weekend numbers... Big storm caused some teams to cancel, and others to re-schedule at attend other tournaments. It's great to see that some schools went completely out of their way to add several more schools to their tournaments. Obviously this increased the work load for the host schools. Outstanding efforts on the part of the sport. There were also tournaments that once again allowed more than one competitor from each school per weight. One tournament had 24 teams, but 28 kids in a weight class. Doing this skews the numbers high a little bit. No biggie, and it might offset the kids who couldn't get to the bus because of the storm.
As far as I can tell, there were 12 varsity individual tournaments/scrambles this weekend. Just a note for those of you submitting to Trackwrestling, somehow identifying a tournament as a dual or as a JV event is probably  helpful to the public. 
12 tournaments with 161 teams participating.  161x14= 2254 possible wrestlers.  We had 1457 actual wrestlers. That's 65% of the spots were filled. 65% of 14 weights =9.1 Varsity wrestlers per team.

By weight class:
106 - 55%
113 - 47%
120 - 55%
126 - 62%
132 - 65%
138 - 73%
145 - 82%
152 - 73%
160 - 67%
170 - 72%
182 - 68%
195 - 52%
220 - 62%
285 - 66%

[MNbadger]

"Facts are duals are what get the most people coming into the gym and watching wrestling. Hardcore fans will travel to tournaments, but it won't give exposure to the sport like home duals will. "

Does the WIAA dual tournament draw more fans than the individual tournament? 

[wrastle63]

"Facts are duals are what get the most people coming into the gym and watching wrestling. Hardcore fans will travel to tournaments, but it won't give exposure to the sport like home duals will. "

Does the WIAA dual tournament draw more fans than the individual tournament?

LOL exactly.

He doesn't have a plan he just wants to cut weight classes because Math.....

[Handles II]

So you are proposing that we should have 9 weight classes?

New weekend numbers... Big storm caused some teams to cancel, and others to re-schedule at attend other tournaments. It's great to see that some schools went completely out of their way to add several more schools to their tournaments. Obviously this increased the work load for the host schools. Outstanding efforts on the part of the sport. There were also tournaments that once again allowed more than one competitor from each school per weight. One tournament had 24 teams, but 28 kids in a weight class. Doing this skews the numbers high a little bit. No biggie, and it might offset the kids who couldn't get to the bus because of the storm.
As far as I can tell, there were 12 varsity individual tournaments/scrambles this weekend. Just a note for those of you submitting to Trackwrestling, somehow identifying a tournament as a dual or as a JV event is probably  helpful to the public. 
12 tournaments with 161 teams participating.  161x14= 2254 possible wrestlers.  We had 1457 actual wrestlers. That's 65% of the spots were filled. 65% of 14 weights =9.1 Varsity wrestlers per team.

By weight class:
106 - 55%
113 - 47%
120 - 55%
126 - 62%
132 - 65%
138 - 73%
145 - 82%
152 - 73%
160 - 67%
170 - 72%
182 - 68%
195 - 52%
220 - 62%
285 - 66%

I'm putting out data for people to see. Personally I feel 14 weights is too difficult for the majority of our teams to fill on a regular basis. The data I put out 6 years ago, the WWCA data spanning the following 5 years, and thus far this year seem to show exactly that.  Personally, since you are asking, I feel that going back to 12 weights would be a positive. No kids would lose their "opportunity" to wrestle. They might not get a free spot on Varsity, but that is very different than a program being cut or co-oped.  14 weights imo has been a 20 year long experiment that has not benefitted the sport in the ways that was hoped. If anything it has created more forfeits, less beneficial JV experiences, and has probably contributed to the loss of programs.

[Handles II]

"Facts are duals are what get the most people coming into the gym and watching wrestling. Hardcore fans will travel to tournaments, but it won't give exposure to the sport like home duals will. "

Does the WIAA dual tournament draw more fans than the individual tournament?

Is the WIAA tournament in your home school gym? Sorry man, but you certainly knew before posing that question that it wasn't relevant to the scope of the problem.

[MNbadger]

The sport has been what it is.  It has nothing to do with the number of weight classes.  More weight classes is more opportunity.  The CDC data tells us we are no recruiting many small athletes.  I am happy to work at it as I have for 40+ years.  I think the opportunity should be there.  In fact, just this season I got a junior out for the first time.  He is under 113 pounds and certifies to 106 easily. 
All this aside, the twenty year experiment as you call it is not one.  Wrestling has been 5th in popularity for high school boys for all of my life(I am 63 yo).  It has been consistent in this regard.  The idea that ADs cut based on this is flawed.  It might be used as an excuse in a few cases.
As I said, participation is down in our district in everything.  I hear the same from many of our opponents.  To think that wrestling will ever be the choice of a non-wrestling family/individuls as far as spectators is a dead end street.  We tend to consume what is shoved in our faces(FB, BB, BSB, etc.). 
Earlier, I posted about our high school and football participation.  Attendance has paralleled participation.  Even in years where our programs are competitive, the spectators, including students, is very low. 
We are forfeiting four weights this season at this point.  Some of the kids I put out there are virtually the same as a forfeit due to their lack of experience and/or not being near their certified weight.  We wrestle ten out of fourteen weights.  If we win 7/10 we call it a win.  The wrestlers understand this.  If I wanted to be selfish, I would demand we have only 126, 138, and 145 lb weight classes.  We would win more duals but who cares?  I know I don't.

[PAUL]

Other than a few snide remarks and personal digs, I'd say that this is an excellent discussion and there are lots and lots of good viewpoints here.  I have no answers, I guess just that flexibility needs to be key and it's especially tough since some huge schools don't get many kids out while some tiny ones can pull impressive numbers.  I think 14 is great for (most) tournaments but maybe there could be 12 (or even 10) formats for some duals.  Possibly there could even be 10-man dual tournaments to attract smaller programs - not sure on this.  I also think schools/coaches need to very carefully consider their scheduling (every season) to best utilize the kids they have - both in terms of talent and numbers. 

[MNbadger]

The same applies to our home gym. 

"Facts are duals are what get the most people coming into the gym and watching wrestling. Hardcore fans will travel to tournaments, but it won't give exposure to the sport like home duals will. "

Does the WIAA dual tournament draw more fans than the individual tournament?

Is the WIAA tournament in your home school gym? Sorry man, but you certainly knew before posing that question that it wasn't relevant to the scope of the problem.