Filling Weight Classes-The 2021-22 Data

[MNbadger]

Like it or not, kids want to participate on the varsity team.  I can tell you from personal experience many student athletes choose to opt out rather than be on JV.  This is my experience coaching three sports for nearly all of my career.  We have some that know and accept that they need to pay their dues on JV but particularly 10-11-12 graders often opt out rather than be on JV.
As far as your scenario of the consecutive forfeits this is again a product of a dual format.  Next we will have folks complaint about strategic forfeits again which are never going away as long as we measure success by winning or losing duals. 

No change in any number of weight classes reduces opportunities unless you think wrestling JV is not an opportunity.  The only way that opportunities are cut are when a team is cut or a co-op is created.  In another viewpoint I could say though that more weight classes decreases opportunities.  How many time does it happen where one team has a forfeit at one weight class and the other team forfeits the next weight class.  Both wrestlers lost an opportunity to wrestle that might have been a match with fewer weight classes.

Coaches must know that wrestling JV is still an opportunity to wrestle.  Look at the Fond du Lac Invitational from yesterday and look at the varsity roster numbers.  This is a rare tournament that has both a varsity and JV division in the same gym at the same team.  This means coaches can choose which division to enter their wrestlers.  Many teams could "fill" more varsity weight classes but chose to put their wrestlers in the JV division because that is what was better for them.

Which one offers more "opportunities"? Have a 14 weight class varsity dual and 6 exhibition matches or 10 weight class varsity and JV duals.

[DocWrestling]

I know it is a philosophical question but maybe one of the reasons wrestling and all sports are declining is because of that attitude that it is varsity of nothing.

At our high school it is very hard to make varsity in almost all sports except wrestling.  Because beginners can be varsity I have not seen more kids participate.

I guess I am too old and made assumptions that kids wanted to be wrestlers because it was the toughest sport mentally and physically and you had to beat someone one on one to make varsity.  It was not a coaches decision.  That pride seems to be missing now.  Something earned rather than given.

[MNbadger]

I don't disagree with you at all with this post.  But as you said it is a reality of the times.

I know it is a philosophical question but maybe one of the reasons wrestling and all sports are declining is because of that attitude that it is varsity of nothing.

At our high school it is very hard to make varsity in almost all sports except wrestling.  Because beginners can be varsity I have not seen more kids participate.

I guess I am too old and made assumptions that kids wanted to be wrestlers because it was the toughest sport mentally and physically and you had to beat someone one on one to make varsity.  It was not a coaches decision.  That pride seems to be missing now.  Something earned rather than given.

[Handles II]

Data for 12/18 weekend:  Eleven in-state individual tournaments. 182 teams participating x 14 weights = 2548 possible wrestlers. Actual wrestlers was 1575. That equals 61%, or an average across all teams of 8.6 wrestlers per participating team.
How full was each weight class?
106 - 48%
113 - 41%
120 - 56%
126 - 53%
132 - 66%
138 - 68%
145 - 70%
152 - 70%
160 - 73%
182 - 62%
195 - 55%
220 - 65%
285 - 65%

[MNbadger]

So if you apply the data the way you are arguing for we should have 8 weight classes, correct? 
again, my question for your data is SO WHAT?  I am not being a smart Alec here.  The whole issue disappears when you stop being so concerned about duals.  If we simply decided to make duals secondary(kind of like track, tennis, CC, etc.) the problem doesn't exist.

Data for 12/18 weekend:  Eleven in-state individual tournaments. 182 teams participating x 14 weights = 2548 possible wrestlers. Actual wrestlers was 1575. That equals 61%, or an average across all teams of 8.6 wrestlers per participating team.
How full was each weight class?
106 - 48%
113 - 41%
120 - 56%
126 - 53%
132 - 66%
138 - 68%
145 - 70%
152 - 70%
160 - 73%
182 - 62%
195 - 55%
220 - 65%
285 - 65%

[tigerking]

Data for 12/18 weekend:  Eleven in-state individual tournaments. 182 teams participating x 14 weights = 2548 possible wrestlers. Actual wrestlers was 1575. That equals 61%, or an average across all teams of 8.6 wrestlers per participating team.
How full was each weight class?
106 - 48%
113 - 41%
120 - 56%
126 - 53%
132 - 66%
138 - 68%
145 - 70%
152 - 70%
160 - 73%
182 - 62%
195 - 55%
220 - 65%
285 - 65%

What skews this number too is some teams will not bring their fringe JV/Varsity wrestlers to the Fond du Lac tournament or the E.H. Stech to avoid them getting beat up at these events. Instead they will leave that weight class open. There were a handful of teams that did this last weekend at Fond du Lac.

[MNbadger]

Last Saturday we wrestled in an individual tournament.  We are a program that is rebuilding/struggling.  We had 19 wrestlers in the room last night.  Too many are first year kids, many first year athletes(never did a sport before).  I have a handful of legit kids(a relative term in our conference and section).  We finished 7th out of 11 teams.  We missed 6th place by one point, 5th place by 13 points.  We wrestled ok.  Overall, we had a good day, the wrestlers had a good day.  In a dual format we would likely beat the teams below us and get crushed by those above us. If we were in a dual format, there would have been the forfeits you are unhappy with.  Some brackets were four man or five man round robin, some were full 8 man brackets.  There were mostly full bleachers with enthusiastic fans, including one team from WI (they might have had the biggest contingent of fans in fact).  The crowd got loud when there were close matches, just like always.
A really successful day if you look at it as a whole.   All the kids got three matches or more.  In a dual format this would have been an ugly thing in my opinion. 
Wrestling is at it's heart an individual sports, always will be.  It has nothing to do with too many weight classes.  Additionally, in this tourney, the lowest numbers were in the heavier weight classes.  Retraction will ALWAYS skew the weights heavier, it always has.
This tournament also had a JV portion where all the wrestlers got 2-3 matches each.
The obsession with duals makes for a solution looking for a problem.  This is something that happens in wrestling more than any other sport.  For some reason we are cannibalistic.  Another example is the issue of weight maintenance and certification. 

[Handles II]

So if you apply the data the way you are arguing for we should have 8 weight classes, correct? 
again, my question for your data is SO WHAT?  I am not being a smart Alec here.  The whole issue disappears when you stop being so concerned about duals.  If we simply decided to make duals secondary(kind of like track, tennis, CC, etc.) the problem doesn't exist.

Data for 12/18 weekend:  Eleven in-state individual tournaments. 182 teams participating x 14 weights = 2548 possible wrestlers. Actual wrestlers was 1575. That equals 61%, or an average across all teams of 8.6 wrestlers per participating team.
How full was each weight class?
106 - 48%
113 - 41%
120 - 56%
126 - 53%
132 - 66%
138 - 68%
145 - 70%
152 - 70%
160 - 73%
182 - 62%
195 - 55%
220 - 65%
285 - 65%

The NFHS has identified that 14 weight classes are not ideal for all states, and thus have given states options for the future. Several states were already using different weight classes and/or fewer weight classes because of their own data on their wrestling programs. Therefore, this current data is very relevant to that current issue.

Your idea of  eliminating duals is quite unrealistic at this point and in no way would address the 14 weight issue that schools are having even AT individual tournaments.  I can't imagine teams having, in theory, one, maybe, two home events per year, individual tournaments, and that being a satisfactory way to bring wrestling and non-wrestling spectators to our sport.  As you know, for the most part, only direct family or hard-core fans attend individual tournaments. People really don't want to sit on bleachers in a gym for 8 hours, even some that REALLY like wrestling.  Maybe when collegiate wrestling gets rid of duals, your dream might start to come true, but I can't see that happening.

Tigerking: I'm aware of what you are saying, but in direct opposition there are tournaments letting schools wrestle more than one wrestler per weight class, and schools that throw in JV guys to "get experience" so it pretty much evens out if you look big picture.

[wrastle63]

So if you apply the data the way you are arguing for we should have 8 weight classes, correct? 
again, my question for your data is SO WHAT?  I am not being a smart Alec here.  The whole issue disappears when you stop being so concerned about duals.  If we simply decided to make duals secondary(kind of like track, tennis, CC, etc.) the problem doesn't exist.

Data for 12/18 weekend:  Eleven in-state individual tournaments. 182 teams participating x 14 weights = 2548 possible wrestlers. Actual wrestlers was 1575. That equals 61%, or an average across all teams of 8.6 wrestlers per participating team.
How full was each weight class?
106 - 48%
113 - 41%
120 - 56%
126 - 53%
132 - 66%
138 - 68%
145 - 70%
152 - 70%
160 - 73%
182 - 62%
195 - 55%
220 - 65%
285 - 65%

The NFHS has identified that 14 weight classes are not ideal for all states, and thus have given states options for the future. Several states were already using different weight classes and/or fewer weight classes because of their own data on their wrestling programs. Therefore, this current data is very relevant to that current issue.

Your idea of  eliminating duals is quite unrealistic at this point and in no way would address the 14 weight issue that schools are having even AT individual tournaments.  I can't imagine teams having, in theory, one, maybe, two home events per year, individual tournaments, and that being a satisfactory way to bring wrestling and non-wrestling spectators to our sport.  As you know, for the most part, only direct family or hard-core fans attend individual tournaments. People really don't want to sit on bleachers in a gym for 8 hours, even some that REALLY like wrestling.  Maybe when collegiate wrestling gets rid of duals, your dream might start to come true, but I can't see that happening.

Tigerking: I'm aware of what you are saying, but in direct opposition there are tournaments letting schools wrestle more than one wrestler per weight class, and schools that throw in JV guys to "get experience" so it pretty much evens out if you look big picture.

He didn't say eliminate duals, so you wasted a whole paragraph on nothing. Yet you haven't addressed his or many others premise of not focusing on duals and focus on individuals.

[Handles II]

So if you apply the data the way you are arguing for we should have 8 weight classes, correct? 
again, my question for your data is SO WHAT?  I am not being a smart Alec here.  The whole issue disappears when you stop being so concerned about duals.  If we simply decided to make duals secondary(kind of like track, tennis, CC, etc.) the problem doesn't exist.

Data for 12/18 weekend:  Eleven in-state individual tournaments. 182 teams participating x 14 weights = 2548 possible wrestlers. Actual wrestlers was 1575. That equals 61%, or an average across all teams of 8.6 wrestlers per participating team.
How full was each weight class?
106 - 48%
113 - 41%
120 - 56%
126 - 53%
132 - 66%
138 - 68%
145 - 70%
152 - 70%
160 - 73%
182 - 62%
195 - 55%
220 - 65%
285 - 65%

The NFHS has identified that 14 weight classes are not ideal for all states, and thus have given states options for the future. Several states were already using different weight classes and/or fewer weight classes because of their own data on their wrestling programs. Therefore, this current data is very relevant to that current issue.

Your idea of  eliminating duals is quite unrealistic at this point and in no way would address the 14 weight issue that schools are having even AT individual tournaments.  I can't imagine teams having, in theory, one, maybe, two home events per year, individual tournaments, and that being a satisfactory way to bring wrestling and non-wrestling spectators to our sport.  As you know, for the most part, only direct family or hard-core fans attend individual tournaments. People really don't want to sit on bleachers in a gym for 8 hours, even some that REALLY like wrestling.  Maybe when collegiate wrestling gets rid of duals, your dream might start to come true, but I can't see that happening.

Tigerking: I'm aware of what you are saying, but in direct opposition there are tournaments letting schools wrestle more than one wrestler per weight class, and schools that throw in JV guys to "get experience" so it pretty much evens out if you look big picture.

He didn't say eliminate duals, so you wasted a whole paragraph on nothing. Yet you haven't addressed his or many others premise of not focusing on duals and focus on individuals.

Well if we aren't eliminating them, then we are still having them. If we are having them, then they will still be the draw for wrestling and casual spectators, including administration and school board members, that make decisions on what to keep or what to cut. Additionally, changing the number of weight classes IS happening, so my data is relevant, and his idea is mostly moot.

[MNbadger]

I NEVER suggested eliminating duals.
Like it or not, we are never going to draw the "casual fans" you imagine.
I am over sixty years old.  There was never a time when "casual fans" attended wrestling meets.
Every area has certain rivalries and competitive meets at certain times.  The reality is that the fans at those are diehard wrestling people as well.
I watched part of a varsity basketball game last night at my school(2400 students 9-12).  The majority of the fans were parents.  The parent fans dwarfed the student section which was minuscule.
And I ask again why are you not proposing we go to 8 weight classes if you are wanting to apply your data as you proposed( you stated that in your data the average team size was 8.6)?

[DocWrestling]

Our our high school team is really hurting for numbers and is at the bottom of our conference this year.  Yet our home duals draw well more than parents.  Wrestling fans, teachers , students, and past alumni show up.  We have youth and middle school night which draw in even more. Not like it was when we were more successful but if duals were not the focus of our wrestling program I am not sure we would ever bring together our entire wrestling community.  I can't imagine losing more home events.

You talk often about recruiting kids.  To recruit kids you need the support of parents.  Parents and new wrestlers can understand and follow a dual and learn wrestling better than at an individual tournament.

Besides the most successful wrestlers that want the challenge, most wrestlers like the duals better than getting up early on Saturday morning and spending 10 hours gone to wrestle 3 matches.

Let me make up a number...  Probably only 10% of varsity wrestlers are going to win a medal at an individual tournament.  Kids are wrestling for themselves.  So many more ways to measure success for an average wrestler in a dual and more likely to stay in the sport.

I am the opposite of you guys.  I think we need more duals to save the sport.  We need middle school duals and we need JV duals.  Just matching individuals up and wrestling is not the fun a lot of wrestlers are looking for.  This past weekend at our tournament we had many kids that only had one match or went 0-2 and they were asked if they wanted to wrestle again against another 0-2 wrestler and they declined.

Team duals give kids multiple ways to win and/or help the team.  I think coaches should even invent there own 10 weight classes ahead of time based upon their wrestlers and then battle it out.  Kids would have more fun and that is what saves wrestling

[asdf]

Again-You promote duals as the savior of HS wrestling, yet use tournament #'s as justification for reduction of weight classes.  You and Ghetto in the past have admitted that your numbers may not be the most reliable yet keep hammering away on here as if these #s are gospel.   For example, our school had 12 versus 14 at last weeks tournament due to 2 last minute scratches due to family issue and illness.  This time of year every team has last minute scratches for tons of reasons and often (like in our case) have kids to backfill but just can't due to time/weight constraints.

I believe that wrestling #'s from year to year in the state of overall participation are static and nationwide actually increasing.  Yet at the same time almost all other sports are declining, some big time.

To me, reduction of weight classes is a huge change especially when small changes to increase participation are not being done on a consistent basis both from a statewide or individual school standpoint.  In our area the schools that have the large decline in #s or long term low participation are much the fault of their own.  Not the parents, not the kids.  You will never convince me this is some systemic, state wide issue.

[DocWrestling]

I don't care about sickness, grades, etc.

You need to have a system or format that allows teams to compete at the varsity level AND should have numbers that allow a back-up.

We just wrestle kids that weigh the right amount.  That is what wrestling is now.  Less and less varsity spots are earned or won and developing wrestlers is less.  Spots are just give now.

The numbers provided are just filling weight classes.  They do not even take into account the talent that we used to associate with varsity wrestling.

[Ghetto]

I 100% stand by the numbers I've put out there.

If it were one year, or even five, I'd be less confident, but it's going on 17 years now, and the numbers get worse, not better.