Jump to content

2018 Sectional Forfeit Data


Recommended Posts

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1etZh6xp5Gbys7egM_59lOyMm4JNnYfVCreapm2QNO3M/edit?usp=sharing

Here is the data from this year. One disclaimer that this was done AFTER sectional this year instead of before sectional. That means forfeits from kids missing weight, skin issues, etc were added in. In previous years it was done before sectional weigh-ins and lineup changes, so thus I would expect some increase in forfeits.

2017 Data
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1krfJOL8VwuS33WW30KkI6rtHlL-lhu2QhNUcp4Hw8AM/edit?usp=sharing

2016 Data
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bt2uxpHPNLmdWOknWd_9So1K68Z6yYRbYCz69CcjhiU/edit?usp=sharing

2015 Data
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nxe-jTfTxHGlr4Btu8kERBYGZ9FgoDThy-E0n9WClx8/edit?usp=sharing

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, leaveitonthemat said:

Alright, let's get some people fired up!  Looking at the data, a lot more forfeits at 106-113 than all of the other weights.  Let's combine those two weight classes and give us another one in the middle.  1...2...3...GO! lol

Im not touching it.  But WestForkWhite was ripping Heavies and 220s the other day,  I wonder what his opinion on  the 106 and 113 with the  high percentage of forfeits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wrestling Scholar said:

Does everybody remember the post about the increased participation in wrestling by over 1000 wrestlers this year per IHSAA data.   Does anybody believe that when we increase forfeits.

They have used the weight certification data to figure out "participation" over the recent past. That data is obviously going to be some of the most accurate that you can get. 

The question I still have is where did we add participants, was it the top 50 teams adding 15 kids each or was it spread out throughout the teams? Things like that can go a long way into analyzing the participation jump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

They have used the weight certification data to figure out "participation" over the recent past. That data is obviously going to be some of the most accurate that you can get. 

The question I still have is where did we add participants, was it the top 50 teams adding 15 kids each or was it spread out throughout the teams? Things like that can go a long way into analyzing the participation jump.

It would be interesting to see the data of a teams starting roster (or wrestlers that certified for their data) and the number of wrestlers that actually finished the season.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, leaveitonthemat said:

Alright, let's get some people fired up!  Looking at the data, a lot more forfeits at 106-113 than all of the other weights.  Let's combine those two weight classes and give us another one in the middle.  1...2...3...GO! lol

   

         We want a 245 and Unlimited added to the 220 and 285 !!!!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should there be any teams that had 13 forfeits?  I thought if you entered 2 or less wrestlers, forfeits become byes.  My next question would be, if they only entered two wrestlers, and one of the two or both for some reason did not wrestle, do their spots become byes or forfeits?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, XCard said:

Should there be any teams that had 13 forfeits?  I thought if you entered 2 or less wrestlers, forfeits become byes.  My next question would be, if they only entered two wrestlers, and one of the two or both for some reason did not wrestle, do their spots become byes or forfeits?

They were byes of course on those under-3-member teams--he's just showing the ability of all of the sectional-registered teams to fill a lineup, regardless of how small.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eye opening info, But what can you do? Make kids wrestle? I've always thought a 240-255 pound weight class could help a lot especially if kids weigh 240 and have to wrestle heavy, thats rough. Would it benefit anyone to do that? I think it could be a weight class full of great match ups but it doesn't solve much if thats the only move. I love the idea of combining 106/113 but I think something needs to be done at the upper weights to help too, like meeting in the middle of every weight. Just throwing an idea out there, so say we keep 14 weight classes and just bump them all up a bit- 110, 118, 125, 129, 135, 142, 148, 155, 165, 180, 195, 215, 245, 285. This is just rough weights I thought of on the fly also. Let me know what you think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wrestling Scholar said:

Im not touching it.  But WestForkWhite was ripping Heavies and 220s the other day,  I wonder what his opinion on  the 106 and 113 with the  high percentage of forfeits.

Hard to argue forfeits are higher and have been at those two weights. My point was relating to quality and depth (1-50). A wrestler can gain his way to 220 or Hwt, its not restricted to a height range. We've had 6'7" Hwts and 5'5" Hwts, you cant be much taller than 5'5"(and that would entail ultra thin body types only) and make either 106 or 113. Not many other sports provide kids under 120 lbs with opportunities to excel. Clearly 220s and Hwts are getting those opportunities on the football field and elsewhere. We lose a lot of kids who end up as middle weights when they don't have a chance to compete(ie DTaylor, Steiber, or Spencer Lee). I'm all in favor of cutting a weight to add a middle weight back, but 195-285 should be the area we cut.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wrestling Scholar said:

Does everybody remember the post about the increased participation in wrestling by over 1000 wrestlers this year per IHSAA data.   Does anybody believe that when we increase forfeits.

We had more kids out this year than years past by about 7 or 8.

106 was a forfeit, but I had 8 kids at 138/ 145. 

A good reason to bring back more middle weight classes. 

Edited by jetwrestling
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigManWrestling1 said:

Eye opening info, But what can you do? Make kids wrestle? I've always thought a 240-255 pound weight class could help a lot especially if kids weigh 240 and have to wrestle heavy, thats rough. Would it benefit anyone to do that? I think it could be a weight class full of great match ups but it doesn't solve much if thats the only move. I love the idea of combining 106/113 but I think something needs to be done at the upper weights to help too, like meeting in the middle of every weight. Just throwing an idea out there, so say we keep 14 weight classes and just bump them all up a bit- 110, 118, 125, 129, 135, 142, 148, 155, 165, 180, 195, 215, 245, 285. This is just rough weights I thought of on the fly also. Let me know what you think. 

Oh sweet baby Jesus, don't let them add a 245...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RAJR said:

Oh sweet baby Jesus, don't let them add a 245...

Then what is your solution? I was just throwing ideas out. We need a solution for the forfeit issue. There will always be forfeits but that data is concerning. Every weight class of every school won't have a kid in it, but with some tweaks I think that forfeits can be limited. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the NWCA and NFHS has the data but it would be nice to see all states and how the FF data would break down by class.  I'm guessing most states have similar data.  The issue is using that data to make decisions to help wrestling.

It's clear, at least in Indiana, something needs to be done with 106 and 113.  Don't know that I have the answer but here are my thoughts...

12 Weights:

115, 120, 126, 133, 140, 147, 155, 165, 175, 190, 215, 285

Moving to 12 weights would shorten up dual meets and tournaments, which I firmly believe is a major issue with wrestling.  But, if that is a no go, then...

14 Weights:

115, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 215, 245 or 250, 285

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Clint Gard said:

I'm sure the NWCA and NFHS has the data but it would be nice to see all states and how the FF data would break down by class.  I'm guessing most states have similar data.  The issue is using that data to make decisions to help wrestling.

It's clear, at least in Indiana, something needs to be done with 106 and 113.  Don't know that I have the answer but here are my thoughts...

12 Weights:

115, 120, 126, 133, 140, 147, 155, 165, 175, 190, 215, 285

Moving to 12 weights would shorten up dual meets and tournaments, which I firmly believe is a major issue with wrestling.  But, if that is a no go, then...

14 Weights:

115, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 215, 245 or 250, 285

I feel like 115 is just to high as a starting weight.  Maybe 108. I could even see 110, although some will be at a disadvantage for a few years.  But not starting at 115.  There are several very good light weights that wont make 115 until at least their junior year.  I'd hate to see some talented wrestlers question if they should be in the sport because they are giving up a good percentage of their body weight for multiple years.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm never a fan of raising the lowest weight - its not about how many forfeits there are at that one, it is how little some high school freshman still are.

Went to one tourney this year where every 106 was under 100lbs.   Although there were some forfeits, we don't need a 90lbs kid wrestling a kid 110 or heavier

IMO

Link to post
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.