NFHS member is informally looking for opinions on weight classes

[dave cloud]

WCS145:

Thank you for this post. The analysis is outstanding and I appreciate the amount of time it must have taken you. Your argument for option C was very thorough and enlightening. I appreciate the input from everyone and have gained a lot from reading your posts.

Thanks,

Dave Cloud

[bburgcatman]

I vote for D stay the same. I had 6 103 lbers this year and some that were small enough for an even lower weight class. I am not sure why I always have that many or we are just an anomolie here. i also agree to make another weight class so their wouldnt be anymore ties. This could be either between 171 - 189 or 215 - 285. I like watching the heavyweights, but I really think the small heavyweights are more fun to watch right around 245.

[AJ]

Mr. Cloud,

You said that the NFHS has agreed on 14 weight classes.  I was wondering if there was ever any thought to deleting a weight class or possibly adding one?

[maligned]

If memory serves me, Option A weight classes were determined by taking all the weights of kids in the nation in the preseason and distributing them exactly evenly 14 ways.  Option B was created by taking all kids' preseason weights nationally and assuming they all cut weight to the minimum weight class they would be permitted by the weight control guidelines.  Option C was then a synthesis of the two, assuming some kids will cut to minimum weight and some will stay near preseason weight.
In my mind, why would we pick any other option but the one that gives us the most varsity participation nationally?  Option D (our current system) includes the least possible kids of the 4 options. I get that bumping up 103 would eliminate some opportunities for younger, smaller kids; but those opportunities aren't being flushed down the toilet--they're being multiplied to include even more kids overall.   Option C will most likely be the best reflection of even distribution of all kids.  All anecdotal evidence aside (because one example could be given for any of a million possibilities), the comprehensive data speaks loudly and clearly that a change can be made to include the most possible kids in the country for varsity opportunities.  Why would we go any other direction but the one that fills the most teams and lets the most kids wrestle?  I like Option C.

[dave cloud]

AJ,

There was a proposal a couple of years ago, by PA I believe, to cut to 12 weight classes. Though we all think of Pittsburgh andPhilly, PA is really a very rural state with a lot of small schools. The old joke: Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Kentucky in between. There has been no serious proposal, to my knowledge, to increase the number of weight classes. The NFHS did give Tennessee permission to experiment with a seven weight class wrestling format to accomodate the number of small schools and even large schools that have very few wrestlers in TN.

And PLEASE call me Dave.

[fearless fly]

I chose option D cuase I feel that under weight kids whom are already at a weight disadvantage will be more so if the weight is bumped up. This could discourage these kids to keep on wrestling, especially those that can't seem to gain weight no matter howhard they try.


ff

[naco228]

The gap between 171-189 and 189-215 is just too big.
Option B is the best.

[mtv2112]

If memory serves me, Option A weight classes were determined by taking all the weights of kids in the nation in the preseason and distributing them exactly evenly 14 ways.  Option B was created by taking all kids' preseason weights nationally and assuming they all cut weight to the minimum weight class they would be permitted by the weight control guidelines.  Option C was then a synthesis of the two, assuming some kids will cut to minimum weight and some will stay near preseason weight.
In my mind, why would we pick any other option but the one that gives us the most varsity participation nationally?  Option D (our current system) includes the least possible kids of the 4 options. I get that bumping up 103 would eliminate some opportunities for younger, smaller kids; but those opportunities aren't being flushed down the toilet--they're being multiplied to include even more kids overall.   Option C will most likely be the best reflection of even distribution of all kids.  All anecdotal evidence aside (because one example could be given for any of a million possibilities), the comprehensive data speaks loudly and clearly that a change can be made to include the most possible kids in the country for varsity opportunities.  Why would we go any other direction but the one that fills the most teams and lets the most kids wrestle?  I like Option C.

It is hard to argue with the above statement.  It seems to me that A, B, and C will increase participation and decrease forfeits.  Is this disputed by anyone?

Option D allows for participation by smaller wrestlers, but at the cost of less overall participation.  Pick your poison.  For me it is B or C.

[Short Jay]

I selected option D.  Had this talk last night at the conference banquet and I do not like the fact that we are eliminating a class in the middle.  I believe we have more wrestlers in those middle weight classes than we do towards the top.  

[lpd096]

KEEP IT THE SAME!!!!!!!!

There are SO MANY little guys out there and they love wrestling! I am talking 9th and 10th graders in the 90-95lb range, some even older! Don't change a thing! At least at 103lbs, they can wrestle and compete.

--Coach Tucker, Lowell Wrestling

[mikev]

only one other person on here even mentioned the huge gap between 215 and 285......i know it's to late now to add one in but i would leave everything from 103 thru 171 where it is now and then go 185, 205, 230 and then 275.....that adds a weight class but cuts down the 70 lb difference that we now have at the top.....most of the 285er's i saw this year had more than enough "extra" on them that they could cut to 275....alot of the kids in the low and mid range weights were ripped to the bone to make weight so the big boys could do it too.....and this gives another kid the opportunity to wrestle.....

[fearless fly]

I selected option D.  Had this talk last night at the conference banquet and I do not like the fact that we are eliminating a class in the middle.  I believe we have more wrestlers in those middle weight classes than we do towards the top.  

I couldn't agree more Short Jay. If memory serves me correctly over the last couple of years, most of the arguments for to raise the 103 lb class was to condense the middle weights because of more wrestlers in those weights. None of the options, as I see them, do this. All they are doing is closing the gap in the upper weights, which I see a need for, but they are actually spreading the gap at the middle weights overall when they do that.  Option A comes the closest to doing that but I think 110 is too high for 103s and 192 and 216 is almost a joke of a bump up.


ff

[jap1971]

I don't disagree that something needs to be or should be done to eliminate as many forfiets as possible, but I also don't like eliminating a weight class in the middle where most of the participants and better athletes fall.  Why couldn't wee increase 103 to 106, move 112 to 113 (keeping a significant weight gap) and leave all other classes the same.  Seems to me that would solve both problems listed above.  The only negative I still see would be the very large gaps at the top (171-189 and 189 - 215).  Best thing to do there would be add a weight class, but from what I have heard that won't happen.

[NickS]

I don't know where you guys see how these options are eliminating a middle weight.  Going off the numbers I posted, 135 thru 189 are our most populated weight classes.  That is 7 weight classes.

Option A would actually add a class for these wrestlers... 136, 141, 146, 152, 159, 167, 177, and 192.
Option B still has 7 classes... 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, and 195.
and Option C would add a class as well... 134, 140, 146, 152, 159, 167, 177, and 192.

So this perception of that "we would lose a middle weight class" is actually false.  In fact, quite the opposite is what would happen, in reality.

[Short Jay]

Depends on where you start.  You start at around 135 lbs but look at 125 to 140 you have now made 3 weight classes out of 4 old ones in order to add towards the top. 

[GCAC]

The perception that we're losing a weight in the middle with A,B, or C is NOT false. In all three of these options, 160 is the 9th weight class. Under the current system it is the 10th weight class. Any way you look at it, that is moving a weight class from the middle to the upper weights.

I realize that is possible to take a set of statistics and data and make them  support whichever side of an argument you choose to favor. I also believe that most of these posts are well intentioned with the best interest of the sport as a whole at heart.

Having said that, as I stated earlier, in 3 decades of coaching, we've always had 40-50% of our roster between 119 1nd 160. That is not a trend. That is not cyclical. That is simply where most of the wrestlers are.

If  we only have the four options, and cannot add a 15th weight,  then I vote D  (no change)


Ed Hamant
Asst.Coach
Greenfield Central

[NickS]

The perception that we're losing a weight in the middle with A,B, or C is NOT false. In all three of these options, 160 is the 9th weight class. Under the current system it is the 10th weight class. Any way you look at it, that is moving a weight class from the middle to the upper weights.

I realize that is possible to take a set of statistics and data and make them  support whichever side of an argument you choose to favor. I also believe that most of these posts are well intentioned with the best interest of the sport as a whole at heart.

Having said that, as I stated earlier, in 3 decades of coaching, we've always had 40-50% of our roster between 119 1nd 160. That is not a trend. That is not cyclical. That is simply where most of the wrestlers are.

If  we only have the four options, and cannot add a 15th weight,  then I vote D  (no change)


Ed Hamant
Asst.Coach
Greenfield Central

I don't want to burst your bubble, but 119 thru 160 is 8 weight classes.  If 40-50% of your roster is between those weight classes.  That means 50-60% of your roster is in the other 6 weight classes.  So according to your estimations, most of your wrestlers are actually not in the 119-160 range.  Just saying...

[royboy74]

I'll take option B except let's lose 220.  If you can't cut down to 195 you are a heavyweight.

[GMSCoach]

Although I like option B the best I myself would like to see the addition of weight classes. We are all about having kids participate aren't we!? I would like to see a 98 - 102 lbs. class and possibly another on the way to 285 somewhere.  In my conference we have 22 middle school weight classes and are probably going to add one more next year all due to the dedication to let as many student athletes participate as possible.  Why is adding a weight class such an issue?

2 cents is a pretty good deal!

GMS Coach

[panther83]

I tend to agree with GMS.
If we are looking for more participation, and less forfiets.
Add 2 classes. 98 for the incoming middle school little guys, and add a weight class between 171-215.
There are 22 weight classes in our Middle school system as well.

Coming from Middle school, one of the largest pools of competition will be from your 85,90, 95, 100, 105 pound 8th graders transitioning in their Freshmen year. They are all competing for a 103lb spot. 
That does not even include the upper classmen cutting down from weights of 115-120 that happens on a regular basis at most schools.

Just seems to me there can be a happy medium without punishing smaller wrestlers.


Just my 2 scents.

[fearless fly]

I know they had the meeting last week...surely someone can fill us in a little.  What gives???


ff

[dave cloud]

I will post results of the meeting as soon as I receive the press release by e-mail from the NFHS. We are embargoed from discussing results of the meeting until we receive the e-mail from NFHS. I checked and the release is supposed to be tomorrow (Friday) or early next week.

Dave Cloud