Vote on weight classes

Started by Aquinaswrestling, March 01, 2023, 02:56:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Aquinaswrestling

Hey All,

This message is mostly for those head coaches of the programs/schools who haven't voted yet on what next year's weight classes should look like.

I know many coaches around the state have already had their AD's place their vote on what they want next year's weight classes to look like.  From the sounds of the chatter I'm hearing, most people are torn between 13 or 14 weight classes.  So I'm just posting to share my opinion (and experience) on the matter and hope folks take a minute to read what I have to share.

I feel like I have a unique viewpoint on the debate between 13 and 14 weights, as I feel like the debate is often regarding teams that have a lot of forfeits/open weights vs. teams who fill most of, if not all their weights.  I've been in both situations and want to share my experience in both.

When I took over the Aquinas wrestling program 15 years ago, we weren't very good.  In fact, to be blunt, we were really bad. I finished my first season as head coach with 9 or 10 kids on my whole roster and we won ONE dual that year. We forfeited anywhere from 4-6 matches that year depending on the dual. The 2nd year we had more kids out, but often still forfeited several weights.

While our total team member numbers has steadily risen over my time here, so has our success. The last several years, we've had to forfeit a weight or two in some duals due to injury or sickness at times, but for the most part, have had 14 weights for almost every dual and tournament we've entered.

Looking back on this history of our program, having only 13 weight classes when we had only 9 or 10 kids wouldn't have helped grow our program, nor would it have helped with our success in terms of wins or losses.  I think folks sometimes think that by having only 13 weights, that duals will simply become more competitive.  I believe that's a false premise.  The only thing only 13 weights will do is make the strong teams even stronger. The Kaukauna's, Marshfield's, Luxemburg-Casco's, Prairie du Chien's and Fennimore's of the world will only become STRONGER dual teams.  And on the opposite end of the spectrum, the teams that fill only 6, 7, 8 or 9 weights like we once did, won't become more competitive simply because there's only 13 weights now instead of 14.  We still would've won only 1 dual my first year coaching here at Aquinas even if we had only 13 weights.

Everyone of us here is for growing the sport of wrestling. Cutting a weight class simply does not help grow the sport of wrestling. In my mind, it's actually counterintuitive to try and grow something by cutting something out of it.

There will be 40 less wrestlers next year at the state meet if a weight is cut. Were there 40 wrestlers at this year's state meet that you feel shouldn't have been there?  I can't think of one who didn't earn the right to be there and experience the thrill of wrestling on the floor of the Kohl Center.

Some have argued that fewer teams will co-op if we go to 13 weights.  Again, having one less weight for a team that only fills 6, 7 or 8 weight classes will not affect whether they decide to co-op or not. I know as I've been there and had discussions about co-oping with another area program when I first started here.  Had there been only 13 weights, the co-op discussion would've been the exact same.

Some argue that the state tournament would be more competitive.  This they are correct about, as there will be essentially the same amount of kids for less weights to choose from.  While this may be better from a fans standpoint in terms of watching wrestling, who is this sport really here for-the kids or the fans? I'm here for the kids, as I know every coach who sits in the corner is as well.

I think ultimately the weights discussion comes down to one question.  "Does cutting one weight help grow the sport of wrestling?" 

I know my answer to the question above, and I'll let each of you come up with your own.  Again, I'm not looking to start a proverbial fight here on the forum, I just wanted to share my experiences having been in both situations of having a team with several forfeits to now having 35+ kids in the room and rarely having to forfeit outside of an injury or illness.

Thanks for your time and consideration, and get those votes in if you haven't already! 

Deke Stanek
Head Wrestling Coach
La Crosse Aquinas High School

bulldog24

Well said! I agree with you 100%

Wis-Mallard

If you want to eliminate an upper weight, vote for 13 weights. If you want to eliminate a lower and upper weight, vote for 12.

I favor sticking with 14.

fryguy518


bigoil

Did going from 12 to 13 and 13 to 14 grow wrestling?

rankwizard

14 classes is great for the sport.

 Every state championship last weekend was well deserved. Every bracket had kids wrestling state-title worthy wrestling, but falling short of the title due to the great competition. 

You really aren't helping anyone out by cutting a weight.

whatever

.....same old (unconvincing) arguments.

Seems like anyone who takes the time to post on this topic has their minds already made up.
"....the older I get, the better I was....."

wrastle63

Quote from: whatever on March 01, 2023, 06:08:23 PM.....same old (unconvincing) arguments.

Seems like anyone who takes the time to post on this topic has their minds already made up.
Pot...kettle

Nailbender

I know the survey is already out and all but here would be my opinion.

Keep the weights the same for ALL tournaments. State series included.

Drop the number of weight classes for dual meets. Get as many wrestlers quality varsity matches and put the duals in the coach's hands week to week.

14 weight classes for Individual and 12/13 for all duals. Some schools would have to sit some studs

Barou

I'm probably in a very small minority but I think the ideal situation is 12 weight classes:

105, 115.....college weights.
JHI Mafia

Handles II

If the WIAA goes to two divisions in just a few years, as is the discussion, we will lose far more than 40 kids at State.
A proactive restructuring of weights lead by head coaches and the WWCA could at the very least buy several more years. This 14 weight experiment has gone on for 20 years. It hasn't increased numbers as many of us (myself included) envisioned it would. Going to 15,16,17, weights would not increase numbers. The higher number of weight classes vs lower number of weight classes simply changes the perception of what is a full team, close to full, half full, that administration tends to see. A team with 9 wrestlers across 12 weights is simply a different animal than 9 wrestlers across 14 weights.
I'm not saying that going to 12/13 weights will add the thousands of kids we no longer have out for the sport (girls wrestling might be what helps with that) but it can change the perception. There will still be forfeits, just an average of fewer of them. A team giving up 18 points in ff certainly can be a dual team threat vs giving up 30 points. Same number of wrestlers, very different outcomes. Teams with 9 kids now are often avoiding team tournaments, as they already know the outcome. Going to 12 weights and that team can be competitive, they can win! What does that do in your wrestling room, your school, your community? It creates positive vibes and energy. What can that do? Get more kids to participate.
While I love that we have the number of qualifiers at State that we do, I worry much more about the overall package and experience of our sport at the local level. I'm voting 12 and hoping for a few more JV matches and opportunities along the way.

Willie

Quote from: Handles II on March 02, 2023, 07:45:29 AMIf the WIAA goes to two divisions in just a few years, as is the discussion, we will lose far more than 40 kids at State.
A proactive restructuring of weights lead by head coaches and the WWCA could at the very least buy several more years. This 14 weight experiment has gone on for 20 years. It hasn't increased numbers as many of us (myself included) envisioned it would. Going to 15,16,17, weights would not increase numbers. The higher number of weight classes vs lower number of weight classes simply changes the perception of what is a full team, close to full, half full, that administration tends to see. A team with 9 wrestlers across 12 weights is simply a different animal than 9 wrestlers across 14 weights.
I'm not saying that going to 12/13 weights will add the thousands of kids we no longer have out for the sport (girls wrestling might be what helps with that) but it can change the perception. There will still be forfeits, just an average of fewer of them. A team giving up 18 points in ff certainly can be a dual team threat vs giving up 30 points. Same number of wrestlers, very different outcomes. Teams with 9 kids now are often avoiding team tournaments, as they already know the outcome. Going to 12 weights and that team can be competitive, they can win! What does that do in your wrestling room, your school, your community? It creates positive vibes and energy. What can that do? Get more kids to participate.
While I love that we have the number of qualifiers at State that we do, I worry much more about the overall package and experience of our sport at the local level. I'm voting 12 and hoping for a few more JV matches and opportunities along the way.
Assuming you have 9 wrestlers I doubt you will need any jv opportunities. Coaches that vote for 12 and have 9 wrestlers are just lazy and are hoping to stay relevant, but sorry to say if our team of 24 wrestles your team of 9 in 12 weight classes the outcome will be the same or worse. I've said it before, our school has 200 kids we have 24 boys out in high school, 20+ in middle school and 70+ in K-4th. Build a program not just a high school team.

Grapl

Quote from: Willie on March 02, 2023, 10:50:45 AMAssuming you have 9 wrestlers I doubt you will need any jv opportunities. Coaches that vote for 12 and have 9 wrestlers are just lazy and are hoping to stay relevant, but sorry to say if our team of 24 wrestles your team of 9 in 12 weight classes the outcome will be the same or worse. I've said it before, our school has 200 kids we have 24 boys out in high school, 20+ in middle school and 70+ in K-4th. Build a program not just a high school t

This 100%

Grapl

I also think we should stop looking at college weights. Those only apply to the 1% then end up in college.

220 to 230
285 to Unlimited. 

We aren't acknowledging that kids are getting bigger.

ChargerDad

Regarding a move from 14 to 12 or 13 weight classes, IMO you cannot be in favor of new weight classes without knowing what they would be would be even if you are the most vocal supporter of reducing weight classes.  Doing so is irresponsible and lazy.  We cannot evaluate a situation based on numbers (forfeits and small brackets), and then use our heart to decide which weight classes need to be eliminated or moved.  Where are the forfeits and the unfilled weight classes?  That's what needs to drive the choice on weight classes if they are going to change.

So, to provide some numbers, I did a quick pass on grabbing numbers from regionals from this year by division and weight class, and here are the 4 weight classes by division with fewest wrestlers at regionals across the state (I could have just listed 3 and it would have been ALL lower weights 106-120 for D1 and D2, and 106, 113, and 126 for D3):

In D1, it was 106, 113, 120, and 285.
In D2, it was 106, 113, 120, and 220.
In D3, it was 106, 113, 120, and 126.

Did anybody expect that data?  To be honest, I didn't.  The weight classes I expected to have the fewest wrestlers were 106, 113, 195, and either 220 or 285.  I guess that demonstrates just a little bit how dangerous it is to form opinions about numbers without actually looking at the numbers.

Adding up all 3 divisions, the lowest wrestler counts across the state were in 106, 113, 120, and 126.

With those numbers, if the desire is to reduce weight classes, where should they be???

I realize this is a small sample size, it's just this year.  I'm not sure how far back we can go given the advent of girls state and what it's impact may be on the number of wrestlers at regionals.  Maybe someone has those numbers from years before girls needed to choose which brackets they wanted to compete in?  Perhaps last years numbers would be useful too??

What are the new proposed 12 and 13 weight classes, and are they trying to address the issue from the upper end of the weight classes, or the lower end, or both??  If we are going to eliminate weight classes because we are trying to address weight classes where there are fewer wrestlers, and therefore forfeits and small brackets, and we primarily or only address it from the upper end of the weight classes, we are wasting our time based on these numbers.  If we reduce the weight classes because of wrestler counts, we absolutely have to use data to determine where the weight classes should be, and doing something like eliminating 182 looks completely insane when you look at these numbers..  182 and 195 didn't make the bottom 5 in wrestler count in any division.  I understand there will likely be other numbers available that have a little different perspective, but IMO these numbers should be enough to demonstrate that advocates of cutting weight classes need to stop with the one sided approach of looking primarily at the upper weights as the place to trim.  It should really be a conversation about where the weight classes should be, not just about what to cut, and the weight classes, as well as the gap between weight classes should be driven by the data (bell curve anyone?).  If you are advocating cutting a weight class, you must also be willing to consider movement at the lighter end of the weight classes (and not a pound like MN did), or you really aren't that interested in addressing the problems of forfeits and small brackets.

Below are the numbers from this years regionals:

D1         D2         D3   
106   90      106   66      106   49
113   79      113   69      113   57
120   88      120   63      120   59
126   95      126   76      126   55
132   107      132   82      132   62
138   107      138   84      138   65
145   103      145   89      145   67
152   108      152   88      152   65
160   110      160   82      160   69
170   97      170   89      170   61
182   102      182   78      182   62
195   102      195   77      195   64
220   100      220   69      220   63
285   93      285   72      285   64