WWCA meeting

[wrastle63]

Schools do not support "individual" sports very well.  There is a reason why there are a lot fewer gymnastics teams, tennis teams, swim teams, track teams, golf teams, etc.  Schools are not going to pay for coaches for an "individual" sport or might possibly pay for one coach.

For school budgets it will continue to be a numbers game and financial one. Wrestling continues to move from a team bus to a van of a few athletes going to a tournament.

It is only an individual sport for the very best wrestlers.  The other 80% wrestlers are there to be a part of the team.  A team sport to spend some time with friends and try and contribute in some way to the team.  These 80% are the ones that spend there entire Saturdays at tournaments and never place.

Track, Cross Country, and Golf all get support. They are all individual sports just like wrestling where the individual contributes to a team point or score.

[littleguy301]

Sorry. I can't stop myself.

We don't know what will happen when we drop a weight class. What we do know is that with 14 weight classes, over 70% of the teams don't fill a lineup. This is consistent over the past 15 years and the numbers are very slowly trending towards more teams not filling the lineup, not less.

Why wouldn't we try something different? Is going to 13 weights going to make the sport worse? Again, we don't know. Maybe that one kid stays at his home program, or that kid who was forced into the lineup gets to wrestle JV and doesn't quit, or a myriad of things. It's time to try something different rather than doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Ok, is Wisconsin forfeiting weights at sections and at state? I looked and saw 42 individual champs at state and it seem to me that all the brackets were full. So why do you want to cut weight class? Looks like cutting just one weight class you eliminated 40 kids from having a chance to win a state title or even place. Cut 2 weights that would be 80 and 3 weights 120 kids. Where do you want to stop. I believe in Wisconsin you have a JV state also I was told those were 24 person brackets. Sounds like alot of chances maybe eliminated. I dont have the answers but to me taking away chance of kids to get to state doesnt sound like a good idea overall. Wrestling is a sport you may get to wrestle back to a place after a loss. Alot of sports dont get that chance. I understand the not filling line ups but overall taking away chances isnt a sure fire answer either.

Toss in another 128 wrestlers from sectionals that doesnt get a chance and your up to 168 kids in sectionals and state that doesnt get a chance to compete for a title or place.

I will add that with the loss of individuals participating in sectionals and the state event, that has to be a loss of fans for that weight also.

I understand both arguements of keeping the same or reducing weight classes. What I question is which weights to eliminate.

Ghetto.....I saw that 106, 113, 195, 120 were the most forfeited weight classes this past year, is that correct. If this is true then the data shows the bottom 3 classes should be the ones that are reduced. That is going to cause an out rage for sure if those 3 classes are reduced to 1 and reduce 1 upper weight classes. It isnt going to be an easy arguement and never thought of the reduction of what one class brings in loss of kids competing. 2 weight classes are well over 300 kids not getting a chance to compete. I doubt the WIAA reduces classes because of the loss of kids that can compete.

I think we need to really think this out before any drastic changes are made.

[wrastle63]

Sorry. I can't stop myself.

We don't know what will happen when we drop a weight class. What we do know is that with 14 weight classes, over 70% of the teams don't fill a lineup. This is consistent over the past 15 years and the numbers are very slowly trending towards more teams not filling the lineup, not less.

Why wouldn't we try something different? Is going to 13 weights going to make the sport worse? Again, we don't know. Maybe that one kid stays at his home program, or that kid who was forced into the lineup gets to wrestle JV and doesn't quit, or a myriad of things. It's time to try something different rather than doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Ok, is Wisconsin forfeiting weights at sections and at state? I looked and saw 42 individual champs at state and it seem to me that all the brackets were full. So why do you want to cut weight class? Looks like cutting just one weight class you eliminated 40 kids from having a chance to win a state title or even place. Cut 2 weights that would be 80 and 3 weights 120 kids. Where do you want to stop. I believe in Wisconsin you have a JV state also I was told those were 24 person brackets. Sounds like alot of chances maybe eliminated. I dont have the answers but to me taking away chance of kids to get to state doesnt sound like a good idea overall. Wrestling is a sport you may get to wrestle back to a place after a loss. Alot of sports dont get that chance. I understand the not filling line ups but overall taking away chances isnt a sure fire answer either.

Toss in another 128 wrestlers from sectionals that doesnt get a chance and your up to 168 kids in sectionals and state that doesnt get a chance to compete for a title or place.

I will add that with the loss of individuals participating in sectionals and the state event, that has to be a loss of fans for that weight also.

I understand both arguements of keeping the same or reducing weight classes. What I question is which weights to eliminate.

Ghetto.....I saw that 106, 113, 195, 120 were the most forfeited weight classes this past year, is that correct. If this is true then the data shows the bottom 3 classes should be the ones that are reduced. That is going to cause an out rage for sure if those 3 classes are reduced to 1 and reduce 1 upper weight classes. It isnt going to be an easy arguement and never thought of the reduction of what one class brings in loss of kids competing. 2 weight classes are well over 300 kids not getting a chance to compete. I doubt the WIAA reduces classes because of the loss of kids that can compete.

I think we need to really think this out before any drastic changes are made.

NAH! We have had declining numbers, so might as well just cut varsity spots. We have to try something and this is the best option. (sarcasm)

[npope]

Look guys, just because there are a limited number of spots available at the state meet does NOT mean someone is denied a chance to compete for the title; EVERYONE has a chance to compete for the title. It begins by winning the varsity spot on your team. Then the next chance to compete for the title comes at regionals...and then sectionals, and then at state. You see, by design it is a narrowing process - it has to be or the tournament would be unmanageable. But just because someone is not at the state meet does NOT mean they didn't get a chance to compete for the title.

And too, just because a kid does not find a spot in the varsity lineup does NOT mean they do not get a chance to compete. Rather, they just get to compete with more similarly skilled athletes, e.g., JV. That's not a crime, that's not an indictment but rather, it is good management of our youth in getting them to be able to compete with comparably skilled kids and possibly experience some success before some zealous parents/coaches throw a young, unprepared, kid to the lions. How do I know he is unprepared for varsity competition? They call is junior varsity for a reason. Certainly there are exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions - they are not the rule.

Now, I don't know the impact increasing or decreasing the number of weights, I just know that this notion of "go varsity or go home" for a relatively younger kid is not a healthy mentality, or at least not one I would wish to cultivate if I were in a position for decision making on the matter.

[Redeemer]

The level of competition at 106, 113, and 120 at state was phenomenal. I am Not sure how cutting the weight classes would benefit the sport.

[bigoil]

I love how this thread talks about doing what ever it takes to grow women's wrestling and how to cut mens wrestling in the same thread!!!
Wrestling is an Individual Sport, duals are fun but know one cares what a teams dual record is!!!
It's all about individual state, NCAA AA, World Medals and Olympic medals.
The best way to support your team in wrestling is to focus on yourself and score points all by yourself. Partners are great but there are a lot of Elite level guys on HS team without quality partners or coaches thanks to private clubs.
Keep 14 weight classes!!

Did Simley win the State tournament this year? last 4 years?

How many individuals are on that team? by my count there are more than 40+ wrestlers. I'm guessing those that are not the regular starters are thrilled to be part of the team and they out number the 14 varsity kids two to one.

"only" 7 wrestlers placed at state for Simley this year, the other half the team didn't place. I'd assume they feel very much part of the team.

Olympics is individual medal sport and yet people are over including those "individuals" on the team were super excited about how the Men's and Women's TEAM did overall.

[littleguy301]

The level of competition at 106, 113, and 120 at state was phenomenal. I am Not sure how cutting the weight classes would benefit the sport.

Look at 195 and all the stud sophomores! How many of wisconsins 195 have floated in and out of the national rankings.

The data shows the 4 lowest number of kids at those weights but man I saw alot of great wrestling in those 4 weight classes as I did in the other 10!

[littleguy301]

Look guys, just because there are a limited number of spots available at the state meet does NOT mean someone is denied a chance to compete for the title; EVERYONE has a chance to compete for the title. It begins by winning the varsity spot on your team. Then the next chance to compete for the title comes at regionals...and then sectionals, and then at state. You see, by design it is a narrowing process - it has to be or the tournament would be unmanageable. But just because someone is not at the state meet does NOT mean they didn't get a chance to compete for the title.

And too, just because a kid does not find a spot in the varsity lineup does NOT mean they do not get a chance to compete. Rather, they just get to compete with more similarly skilled athletes, e.g., JV. That's not a crime, that's not an indictment but rather, it is good management of our youth in getting them to be able to compete with comparably skilled kids and possibly experience some success before some zealous parents/coaches throw a young, unprepared, kid to the lions. How do I know he is unprepared for varsity competition? They call is junior varsity for a reason. Certainly there are exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions - they are not the rule.

Now, I don't know the impact increasing or decreasing the number of weights, I just know that this notion of "go varsity or go home" for a relatively younger kid is not a healthy mentality, or at least not one I would wish to cultivate if I were in a position for decision making on the matter.

Well eliminating weight classes means there will be less kids competing at state/sectionals and less fans at either even. No matter how you look at it means there is less spots for athletes to compete whether varsity or JV. That in turn lead to less people showing up for meets if their wrestler isn't on varsity or JV.

Yes you have to earn a spot to compete on any level. Just trying to show the numbers the WIAA is going to look at and it is going to be a tough sell to have them or any other organization elimate weights or more than 1.

[sled77]

Others have said and I strongly agree reducing weight classes will not increase participation, pure and simple.

[npope]

My point is that one does NOT have to BE at the state meet in order to have had his/her chance to have competed for the title. Everyone has their chance, it just may not be at the state meet. Fewer weights would mean fewer people at the state meet, true. But cutting weights isn't the point I am making, it's about a bigger principle. BTW, if more at the state meet is better than fewer participants, then why don't we just bring 60 or 80 kids to the state at each weight? There's a reason we don't, and part of it is because the state experience is a "pinnacle experience;" participation is supposed to be reserved for those uniquely skilled, qualified and tested; it stands as a unique achievement. I don't think the unique achievement reflected in a state meet appearance is enhanced by embracing a "more is better" philosophy. All that said, we could chase that tail round and round and never agree on the point.

A possibly bigger issue in my eyes is this seeming willingness of kids to quit if they don't make the varsity as an underclassman (and the seeming effort of some to accommodate kids with that attitude by trying to placate them with more spots on a varsity roster). I think accommodating that attitude does far more harm than good to our youth, much like doling out participation ribbons for anyone who shows up. There are other ways of instilling tenacity in our youth than merely capitulating and saying, "Okay, you get to put on the varsity uniform too, even thought you haven't really earned it yet." This latter strategy is weak and will ultimately do more harm than good. What about the next time the kid is expected to pay some dues before collecting a reward? We are training them to quit if it isn't handed to them.

Anyway, I am sure some will disagree (fine), but I think a lot of people can't see beyond a kid putting on a varsity uniform - its a bigger issue than just that.

[littleguy301]

My point is that one does NOT have to BE at the state meet in order to have had his/her chance to have competed for the title. Everyone has their chance, it just may not be at the state meet. Fewer weights would mean fewer people at the state meet, true. But cutting weights isn't the point I am making, it's about a bigger principle. BTW, if more at the state meet is better than fewer participants, then why don't we just bring 60 or 80 kids to the state at each weight? There's a reason we don't, and part of it is because the state experience is a "pinnacle experience;" participation is supposed to be reserved for those uniquely skilled, qualified and tested; it stands as a unique achievement. I don't think the unique achievement reflected in a state meet appearance is enhanced by embracing a "more is better" philosophy. All that said, we could chase that tail round and round and never agree on the point.

A possibly bigger issue in my eyes is this seeming willingness of kids to quit if they don't make the varsity as an underclassman (and the seeming effort of some to accommodate kids with that attitude by trying to placate them with more spots on a varsity roster). I think accommodating that attitude does far more harm than good to our youth, much like doling out participation ribbons for anyone who shows up. There are other ways of instilling tenacity in our youth than merely capitulating and saying, "Okay, you get to put on the varsity uniform too, even thought you haven't really earned it yet." This latter strategy is weak and will ultimately do more harm than good. What about the next time the kid is expected to pay some dues before collecting a reward? We are training them to quit if it isn't handed to them.

Anyway, I am sure some will disagree (fine), but I think a lot of people can't see beyond a kid putting on a varsity uniform - its a bigger issue than just that.

First of all I dont give a RIP what event your talking about PERIOD! I am piggie back some one elses post of least weights equal less kids in either varsity or JV!

First of all if you look at the WIAA or NFHS they are not going to eliminate weight classes because they look at numbers. Now some states have reduced weight classes and I havent heard any feed back at this point.

NFHS has let states do experiment with this but for one the WIAA isnt planning on reduction for at least next year. While I am not a fan of the WIAA I will give them this, they are pretty constitant on preaching giving kids a chance and crowning a state champ. I would get that if coaches and AD want a reduction the WIAA would probably go with what is recommended but I would also bet there would be no chance of getting the classes back.

I dont understand what your getting at about state. I am once again piggie backing the numbers if less. Looking at it as the WIAA probably would. I can say I want to cut weights in wrestling because most teams dont fill the weight classes. Mostly true statement but what about the 300 plus kids in the state series that dont get to a weight class. The kids at local tournaments that dont get to compete.. there is 2 sides to the arguement.

Also your point about kids quitting because they dont get a spot. Well I am sure that is a reason among many that kids use for quitting a sport. I dont have an answer to why kids think that and if you do have an answer please let coaches know how to solve that issue!

[Ghetto]

"Getting rid of weight X" is an emotional argument. That's the problem. Everyone knows someone great who wrestled that weight.

No kid that went to state was undeserving.

Again, we THINK that going to 13 weights will not increase participation. We THINK it's a bad idea. We KNOW that less kids are wrestling. It's been 15+ years of decline. Maybe it's time to try something?

I don't know how it is in other parts of the state, but near us there is never a limit on how many JV matches we can have at a dual or how many JV kids we bring to a tournament. Going to 13 weights isn't gonna result in kids not being able to wrestle.

[Numbers]

The discussion should be about moving to 12 weights.

If a team has 2 varsity caliber kids at a weight (or two), the coach has the option to find tournaments that will allow multiple entries.  Tournaments will adjust.  Life will be fine and wrestling will move forward. 

The idea of having JV duals instead of just JV matches is a bonus.

[wrastle63]

Still hasn't been addressed, but why do we have to reduce weight classes for individual tournaments like the state series. Would allow for individuals to compete at their best weight class and also create better duals. I am all in favor of reducing weight classes for duals. IMO go to 12 weight classes for duals and get rid of 106 and 195 based on the data that has been presented. If there are good 106s or 195s they can wrestle up to 113 or 220(which both had lower % of wrestlers as well). Everything else is exactly the same.

[Ghetto]

Still hasn't been addressed, but why do we have to reduce weight classes for individual tournaments like the state series. Would allow for individuals to compete at their best weight class and also create better duals. I am all in favor of reducing weight classes for duals. IMO go to 12 weight classes for duals and get rid of 106 and 195 based on the data that has been presented. If there are good 106s or 195s they can wrestle up to 113 or 220(which both had lower % of wrestlers as well). Everything else is exactly the same.

I would be all in for 14 weights for the state tournament series. 12 for the season.

With the data in trackwrestling, it would be easy to see if a kid could make 106 or whatever weight. Keep it simple. No weight allowance. Or just call the weights 109, etc. for regionals.

Love that idea.