Jump to content

103, to have or not have?


NickS

Recommended Posts

Y2,

 

Our sport is dying, and if things don't change in the next few years we will not have wrestling at the college level in 20 years. You spent all this time putting together a nice message board to promote our sport, and give us some cheap entertainment, but you want to elliminate a weight class that may eliminate 3% of the wrestlers. Y2, you should be promoting more weight classes, get more kids envolved. What if they said forget Arizona State, it's only one school and they are not that good??? I love to read your post however I wish you would look at the big picture on this. 103 is not my favorite weight class, but it is more exciting then some of the upper weights? Once again, thanks for your time on developing this message board.

 

No one is advocating getting rid of a weight class, merely adjust the weight classes so more programs will have more kids wrestling.  i'm sure if Y2 had his druthers there would be about 22 weight classes but that is not realistic.  I think, like Y2, that adjusting the weight class would help the sport, not hurt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Y2,

 

Our sport is dying, and if things don't change in the next few years we will not have wrestling at the college level in 20 years. You spent all this time putting together a nice message board to promote our sport, and give us some cheap entertainment, but you want to elliminate a weight class that may eliminate 3% of the wrestlers. Y2, you should be promoting more weight classes, get more kids envolved. What if they said forget Arizona State, it's only one school and they are not that good??? I love to read your post however I wish you would look at the big picture on this. 103 is not my favorite weight class, but it is more exciting then some of the upper weights? Once again, thanks for your time on developing this message board.

 

Why is it that when people say that we need to add 3-5lbs to 103lbs that we are eliminating it?

 

Why weren't these same people spouting off that we were eliminating heavyweight last year when 10lbs was added to the maximum?

 

We are not eliminating the weight class, just making it so 25% of the schools don't have to forfeit the weight.  If you want the sport to die, have forfeits.  People hate to see forfeits at all levels, they are worthless and not good for the sport.  Why not take a proactive approach and try to eliminate as many forfeits as possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at Y2's data from last year it seems there is a problem in all the lower weights.

 

103 25%

112 16%

119 13%

125 12%

 

112 may have a 9% decrease from 103, but 16% is still high.

 

At what point to we say a weight class has a problem?  10% ff's?  15% ff's? 20% ff's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at Y2's data from last year it seems there is a problem in all the lower weights.

 

103 25%

112 16%

119 13%

125 12%

 

112 may have a 9% decrease from 103, but 16% is still high.

 

At what point to we say a weight class has a problem?  10% ff's?  15% ff's? 20% ff's?

The optimal number is 0%, you should have known that.  Of course the realist in me knows that that is not possible.  The lowest and heaviest weights will always be the hardest to fill unless we have a range of 130-160lbs for all the weight classes.  Right now over 1/4th of the forfeits are from two weight classes with the average number of forfeits per team being almost 2.  That means during an average dual meet, we will only see 10-12 weights contested instead of the regulation 14. 

 

Anything over 20% is a problem and I would even say over 15% means there is a potential problem.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14.14% of all the weight class spots are being forfeitted.  Here is the forfeit % per weight class.

 

103 - 34.43%

112 - 20.49%

119 - 16.39%

125 - 15.98%

130 - 11.48%

135 -  9.84%

140 - 9.43%

145 - 9.43%

152 - 13.93%

160 - 9.02%

171 - 11.89%

189 - 9.84%

215 - 13.11%

285 - 12.70%

 

Sorry I was wrong about 103, it's being forfeitted at around 34% not 25%.  YIKES!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to rely on your numbers as I'm not going to put the time into researching it. 

 

Our current varsity team has two 103 lb. kids.  One of them is  a sophomore weighing around 104 naturally and the other is a freshman weighing around 98 naturally.  My son is in 8th grade and he weighs around 85.  He will be in the program next year, so I would suspect, unless they start to really grow, that we will end up with three boys at 103lbs..

 

I don't let my kid cut weight because he doesn't have any to cut.  He eats and he has grown taller, but he is in almost every sport so he is always doing something that burns calories. 

 

I don't know about the statewide numbers, but the numbers at our 2A school show there is a demand for the 103 lb. weight class!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34% where?  You need to use demographics.  Close in around Indy I bet the percentage is way low. 

 

Large schools will have a larger population to choose from and schools with well established programs will possibly have more kids involved to get a 103 pounder.  Indy would have an advantage in that there are a lot of huge schools up there, but I am not sure that argument matters.  I would be interested to know what demographics will tell us that we don't already know.  If 34% is indeed true, then 34% of all matches are forfeits for the 103 weight class for Indiana.  Who cares where?  If the stated goal is to have less forfeits or to have more kids wrestling, then moving the weight up is a legitimate remedy.

 

I don't know how the 34% is calculated, but it may under report the problem.  There are a lot of double forfeits out there.  A better measure would be the number of high schools that are not fielding a wrestler at 103.  One can then argue how many of these high schools would still not field a wrestler if the limit was moved to 108 (or whatever number).  I propose that the 34% forfeit number would drop to around 25% (closer to the 112 but not all the way there).  You can now calculate how many different wrestlers you will have on the rosters.  Probably would have even more because you might get a few reserves as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14.14% of all the weight class spots are being forfeitted.  Here is the forfeit % per weight class.

 

103 - 34.43%

112 - 20.49%

119 - 16.39%

125 - 15.98%

130 - 11.48%

135 -  9.84%

140 - 9.43%

145 - 9.43%

152 - 13.93%

160 - 9.02%

171 - 11.89%

189 - 9.84%

215 - 13.11%

285 - 12.70%

 

Sorry I was wrong about 103, it's being forfeitted at around 34% not 25%.  YIKES!!!

The 25% includes the schools that weren't counted.  Meaning if all 80 of those schools had 103lbers there would be 25% forfeits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally wouldn't mind seeing this happen. Maybe change 103 to 107 or something. But I would also like to see a weight class added in the upper weights. There are big gaps in the upper weights. Maybe split the difference on one the gaps or just re-arrange them and add 1 one to the mix. This will accomplish 2 things: 1) More kids wrestling can't be a bad thing and 2) It will be a clear cut winner in case of a tie. 15 matches, someone has to win 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34% where?  You need to use demographics.  Close in around Indy I bet the percentage is way low. 

 

Why does it matter which areas are able to field the weight class or not?  Are you suggesting that we should keep the weight class as is because just one city can field a lot of 103 lbers?

 

If 34% is indeed true, then 34% of all matches are forfeits for the 103 weight class for Indiana.

 

Well I'm going off of Y2's numbers, so if 34% is wrong blame him  ;D.  But from looking at his data that he's compiled.  He was able to find the forfeit breakdown from 244 schools  in 25 Sectionals.  So that means there are a maximum of 244 varsity spots per weight class.  103 lbs. had 84 forfeits from the 244 known schools, thus... 84/244= 34.43%

 

That's the reason why I would just drop 103 and redistribute the weight classes.  If it were me, this is how my weight classes would look like...

 

112, 118, 124, 130, 136, 142, 148, 154, 160, 168, 176, 189, 215, 285.

 

118 thru 154 would virtually stay the same, as would 215 and 285.  The big changes, for the better, would be 112 (since you're combining 2 weight classes with 103).  Then you would have 160 thru 189 getting filled by current 160, 171, and 189 lbers.  I'm going to assume that 189 will take a small hit with some dropping to 176, but I'm confident there would be reserves there to fill those voids unlike 103.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plausible deniability, easier to deny that a problem exists STATE WIDE than to fix said problem with a solution that will allow for more kids to participate in the sport.

 

I was thinking along the same lines here.  I can just imagine how a conversation between 2 people debating this issue.

 

Realist:  "Statewide, 103 is getting forfeitted 34% of the time."

 

Guy with head in the sand:  "But we have 4 103 lbers."

 

Realist:  "If you eliminated 103, and redistribute the weight classes you would actually get more varsity participation overall"

 

Guy with head in the sand:  "... But... we have 4 103 lbers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.