Jump to content

weight changes for 20-21 season?


Recommended Posts

The 15/13 rule might help small schools/teams with low numbers more than one might think. Many times a team has 8 or fewer guys, and by luck of genetics, some of them overlap in weight classes. This is brutal as it discourages kids from sticking around an already small team. If these kids knew they'd have a shot in the state tournament, it might help those small teams from getting any smaller...and the way it looks at some of the meets we've been to, step 1 is stop hemorrhaging athletes, step 2 start adding more athletes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AlaskanMountie said:

I would support the 15/13 proposal so there's no need to beat that drum any further. I see the benefits it would bring and I'm all for it. It's definitely a step in the right direction. The point that I was making that I think you missed was that this proposal would overwhelmingly impact larger programs. Yes, some smaller programs would benefit but that still doesn't reduce the number of forfeits you pinpointed as a major issue in our sport which are overwhelmingly coming from middle to smaller programs. 

The good programs will continue to be good, don't fool yourself into thinking this is going to change anything in this regard. If we would go to 13 weights the strong programs will likely be stronger.

 

This will help the smaller schools with retaining their athletes more than anything. Right now forfeits are a direct result of a lack of participation. If we up the participation we will likely reduce forfeits. At the schools that are struggling with numbers this will keep kids out that aren't #1 and give more kids a positive experience. Maybe giving that freshman 126 one of the extra spots will keep him out and in a year or two he's the starter at a weight you need. Again, all a net positive for the sport and the kids that experience the sport.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2020 at 6:46 PM, Y2CJ41 said:

I don't mind the 13 weight classes, but they are doing very little to tackle the issue of forfeits.

 

The three most forfeited weight classes are 106, 113, and 120 over the course of 2015-2019. This does nothing for those weight classes, instead it eliminates 182 so thus combining 195(4th most forfeited) and 182(9th most forfeited).

 

If we want to artificially affect the forfeit numbers the lowest weigh needs to be something like 110lbs. Increasing the lowest weights by 1lb will do nothing to the forfeit numbers.

 

OR we can tackle the REAL issue and look at how to increase participation. If we want to help participation we need to look at having the ability to enter multiple kids per weight at sectional. Something like 15 kids for 13 weights with no more than 2 per weight. This will help keep kids out for the sport longer and also keep kids from cutting drastic amount of weight to get into the lineup.

 

 

Interesting with the 2 kids per weight. That will help the larger schools, can you see a situation where a strong team gets 20 or more kids through to regionals, or SS? I don't mind, but there will be a lot of yelling if that were to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Trinedad said:

Interesting with the 2 kids per weight. That will help the larger schools, can you see a situation where a strong team gets 20 or more kids through to regionals, or SS? I don't mind, but there will be a lot of yelling if that were to happen.

You would limit it to 16 entries in the 14 weights or 15 entries/13 weights whatever the weight classes are.

 

The biggest obstacle facing the #2 guy will be seeding and placement in the bracket since they likely won't have the matches against sectional opponents and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Y2CJ41 said:

You would limit it to 16 entries in the 14 weights or 15 entries/13 weights whatever the weight classes are.

 

The biggest obstacle facing the #2 guy will be seeding and placement in the bracket since they likely won't have the matches against sectional opponents and such.

No, they wont, but there is a high likelihood that they will have hundreds of hours practicing with the #1 seed, and will in some if not a lot of cases be the 2nd best in the sectional, and in weaker regionals, might be the 2nd there as well. I know a kid that could have won sectional if he has been allowed to be entered as a 2nd string kid.

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

The 15/13 rule might help small schools/teams with low numbers more than one might think. Many times a team has 8 or fewer guys, and by luck of genetics, some of them overlap in weight classes. This is brutal as it discourages kids from sticking around an already small team. If these kids knew they'd have a shot in the state tournament, it might help those small teams from getting any smaller...and the way it looks at some of the meets we've been to, step 1 is stop hemorrhaging athletes, step 2 start adding more athletes.

In most small schools, you are utilizing every kid on the team, especially in your 8 man example. You could argue some kids could wrestle their natural weight class and not have to bump but I personally don't believe that will make or break a kid's decision to stick with wrestling. I could be wrong...

 

5 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

The good programs will continue to be good, don't fool yourself into thinking this is going to change anything in this regard. If we would go to 13 weights the strong programs will likely be stronger.

 

This will help the smaller schools with retaining their athletes more than anything. Right now forfeits are a direct result of a lack of participation. If we up the participation we will likely reduce forfeits. At the schools that are struggling with numbers this will keep kids out that aren't #1 and give more kids a positive experience. Maybe giving that freshman 126 one of the extra spots will keep him out and in a year or two he's the starter at a weight you need. Again, all a net positive for the sport and the kids that experience the sport.

 

I never said anything about good programs getting better. My point was the 15/13 will be utilized most by the larger programs as they have the numbers readily available to fill those two spots. I don't argue your point about keeping kids out in smaller programs, I just don't think it will move the needle in regard to forfeits. I would submit that most small schools are utilizing every kid on the roster to fill as many spots as possible. Sure, there may be some kids who are, "stuck," at a weight and can't go up to fill a forfeit and the 15/13 would solve that but I don't think that is the norm or the reason behind the influx of forfeits in small programs. 

 

Again, I'm in favor of the 15/13 idea and I think it's a step in the right direction. Just not sold on it significantly decreasing the number of forfeits. 

Edited by AlaskanMountie
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlaskanMountie said:

In most small schools, you are utilizing every kid on the team, especially in your 8 man example. You could argue some kids could wrestle their natural weight class and not have to bump but I personally don't believe that will make or break a kid's decision to stick with wrestling. I could be wrong...

 

I never said anything about good programs getting better. My point was the 15/13 will be utilized most by the larger programs as they have the numbers readily available to fill those two spots. I don't argue your point about keeping kids out in smaller programs, I just don't think it will move the needle in regard to forfeits. I would submit that most small schools are utilizing every kid on the roster to fill as many spots as possible. Sure, there may be some kids who are, "stuck," at a weight and can't go up to fill a forfeit and the 15/13 would solve that but I don't think that is the norm or the reason behind the influx of forfeits in small programs. 

 

Again, I'm in favor of the 15/13 idea and I think it's a step in the right direction. Just not sold on it significantly decreasing the number of forfeits. 

I have coached 10 seasons (if my count is correct) at Culver, with 7 of those being teams with fewer than 10 wrestlers. In every instance except 1, we had a guy who could not wrestle due to being stuck behind another guy. The one year we didn't, we had two wrestlers. They were actually the same weight also, but one guy was able to bump in that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlaskanMountie said:

In most small schools, you are utilizing every kid on the team, especially in your 8 man example. You could argue some kids could wrestle their natural weight class and not have to bump but I personally don't believe that will make or break a kid's decision to stick with wrestling. I could be wrong...

 

I never said anything about good programs getting better. My point was the 15/13 will be utilized most by the larger programs as they have the numbers readily available to fill those two spots. I don't argue your point about keeping kids out in smaller programs, I just don't think it will move the needle in regard to forfeits. I would submit that most small schools are utilizing every kid on the roster to fill as many spots as possible. Sure, there may be some kids who are, "stuck," at a weight and can't go up to fill a forfeit and the 15/13 would solve that but I don't think that is the norm or the reason behind the influx of forfeits in small programs. 

 

Again, I'm in favor of the 15/13 idea and I think it's a step in the right direction. Just not sold on it significantly decreasing the number of forfeits. 

It will help with participation and more importantly retention of athletes from year to year or even during the season if they have that carrot dangling there that they don't have to be "the man" to wrestle at sectional. 

 

If we increase participation/retention we will reduce forfeits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlaskanMountie said:

Again, I'm in favor of the 15/13 idea and I think it's a step in the right direction. Just not sold on it significantly decreasing the number of forfeits. 


The only way to significantly decrease forfeits is make the sport easier. The reality is that wrestling is tough and not for everyone.
 

I don’t think anyone would vote for making the sport easier.  I agree with the sentiment how much of an impact would 15/13 make on the total number of forfeits? If it decreases it by 5% is it worth? If it decreases it by 25%? Or 40%? I am curious if there are projections to be ran for the possible impact in terms of % points. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reducing opportunities for athletes is not the answer. What happens if this doesn't work? Do we drop to 12 weights...11? How about going the Olympic route and just have 6 weights? While forfeits can happen at large or small schools, it would seem the problem is most severe at smaller schools. Why not have a smaller number of weights for smaller schools?

 

I looked at the NFHS participation statistics for 2018-2019 and 2009-2010. During that span the average wrestling roster size fell by about 8%. During that same time span the average 11-player high school football roster size fell by 9%. Has anyone heard a proposal to reduce from 11 players to 10 on the field? Instead, 6- (+77%) and 8-player (+26%) football programs have grown tremendously while the number of 11-player football programs grew by .1% (during that same span the number of wrestling teams grew by 4.7%). Why not look at this possible solution first instead of punishing those programs that have been more successful in recruiting/retaining wrestlers? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davecloud said:

Reducing opportunities for athletes is not the answer. What happens if this doesn't work? Do we drop to 12 weights...11? How about going the Olympic route and just have 6 weights? While forfeits can happen at large or small schools, it would seem the problem is most severe at smaller schools. Why not have a smaller number of weights for smaller schools?

 

If you have a smaller number of weight classes for smaller schools then Indiana would be forced to class. And based on some of the previous forum conversations heaven forbid Indiana ever follow suit with its surrounding mid-western wrestling states and class wrestling. My guess is the frustration, panic, and sadness would trump the response of COVID. 

Edited by SunDevils
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SunDevils said:


The only way to significantly decrease forfeits is make the sport easier. The reality is that wrestling is tough and not for everyone.
 

I don’t think anyone would vote for making the sport easier.  I agree with the sentiment how much of an impact would 15/13 make on the total number of forfeits? If it decreases it by 5% is it worth? If it decreases it by 25%? Or 40%? I am curious if there are projections to be ran for the possible impact in terms of % points. 

The main thing I'm looking a with a 16/14 or 15/13 rule would be participation and more specifically retention of athletes. If I had a $1 for every kid that retired early due to seeing the writing on the wall that they wouldn't be varsity I would be rich. Kids aren't going to put in the work to be JV as a junior and senior and I honestly don't blame them. At the small schools this would help with the JV kids that are stuck in the middle especially when they have small number anyway. 

 

There is a forfeit problem, but the problem isn't the weight classes it's a participation problem. We need to get kids out for the sport and keep them out at the same time. Giving them an opportunity to wrestle in the state series is a healthy carrot to stick in front of them to keep them working hard and in the sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a downside to the 15/13 or 16/14 rule?

 

Some of you are making the argument that it wouldn't have impact, and I disagree, but am not looking for that argument here...just curious if anyone sees going this direction as a negative?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

The main thing I'm looking a with a 16/14 or 15/13 rule would be participation and more specifically retention of athletes. If I had a $1 for every kid that retired early due to seeing the writing on the wall that they wouldn't be varsity I would be rich. Kids aren't going to put in the work to be JV as a junior and senior and I honestly don't blame them. At the small schools this would help with the JV kids that are stuck in the middle especially when they have small number anyway. 

 

There is a forfeit problem, but the problem isn't the weight classes it's a participation problem. We need to get kids out for the sport and keep them out at the same time. Giving them an opportunity to wrestle in the state series is a healthy carrot to stick in front of them to keep them working hard and in the sport.


Also, a 15/13 or 16/14 scenario could incorporate a lot of strategy. Coaches could depending on their sectionals could really impact the state tournament if they use wise discretion and implement their two extra wrestlers at weight classes they are likely to advance. Which means smaller teams could get more points in the state tournament and could lead to a more diverse team invite list to A and AA of the ISWCA tournament. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my take: I have always believed in numbers make you better. At Adams Central we had max 200 boys. Obviously, some of them have to play basketball but we had several years 50 participants. The reason was not an excellent coach but providing an opportunity to compete. We had a varsity, JV an C team schedule and tournaments for all. I had several young men who I would have liked to have been the “extra.” When I was at FW South, we struggled to have  20 and fill all the weights but we had some great “backups” that I would have liked to have as “extras.” At New Haven we averaged about 36 but had a few years when we would forfeit a weight. Again, I would have loved to place a “backup” as an “extra.” When I finished at South Adams we had 18 and struggled to fill all the weights but we had some excellent “backups.” I have always said that wrestling will be the hardest thing a student will ever do (paraphrasing Gable) but giving students an opportunity to compete, that’s what keeps them and brings others along with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

The main thing I'm looking a with a 16/14 or 15/13 rule would be participation and more specifically retention of athletes. If I had a $1 for every kid that retired early due to seeing the writing on the wall that they wouldn't be varsity I would be rich. Kids aren't going to put in the work to be JV as a junior and senior and I honestly don't blame them. At the small schools this would help with the JV kids that are stuck in the middle especially when they have small number anyway. 

 

There is a forfeit problem, but the problem isn't the weight classes it's a participation problem. We need to get kids out for the sport and keep them out at the same time. Giving them an opportunity to wrestle in the state series is a healthy carrot to stick in front of them to keep them working hard and in the sport.

The 15/13 or 16/14 is a good proposal to help participation numbers but I would argue that if you could combine participation with more success, you would start to move the needle on both participation and forfeits. The best way to do this is to implement the 15/13 or 16/14 proposal along with class wrestling. For those of you who want to argue, "class wrestling," please save your fingers the trouble. I am injecting the class piece for the sake of participation and success. I was very much against class wrestling when I wrestled at Crown Point but I did a 180 when I took over a 1A program in 2011. If you want to submit that class wrestling would not increase participation and success, I'm all ears. 

Edited by AlaskanMountie
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 5:47 PM, Galagore said:

Is there a downside to the 15/13 or 16/14 rule?

 

Some of you are making the argument that it wouldn't have impact, and I disagree, but am not looking for that argument here...just curious if anyone sees going this direction as a negative?

I see a few possible negatives.

1. A rule like this would cause the teams that are already dominating to dominate even more.  I wouldn't think that some dominant teams back-up knocking a small school kid who would have otherwise been a regional qualifier out of the tournament would be good for the growth of the sport at the small school.  I've seen a few small schools say it would be good because their backup would get into the tournament, but they would most likely be 2 and out, and your kid who could be a regional qualifier is going to have a much tougher road.

2. I have found that the toughest kid to keep out for the team is the above average wrestler who gets frustrated they don't make it to semi-state or out of sectionals.  That group would be even harder to keep out under this proposal.  The "I suck I didn't get out of sectional" kid becomes the "I suck I get beat by Carroll's JV Kid".

 

With that said I am not saying this proposal is the worst thing I have ever seen, but I do think it would have a much larger effect on the dominant teams than your smaller schools.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ENoblewrestling said:

I see a few possible negatives.

1. A rule like this would cause the teams that are already dominating to dominate even more.  I wouldn't think that some dominant teams back-up knocking a small school kid who would have otherwise been a regional qualifier out of the tournament would be good for the growth of the sport at the small school.  I've seen a few small schools say it would be good because their backup would get into the tournament, but they would most likely be 2 and out, and your kid who could be a regional qualifier is going to have a much tougher road.

Going 2 and out in the tournament is much better than not even getting a chance to participate. How many 2 or 3's at track sectional don't make the final heat? 

 

3 hours ago, ENoblewrestling said:

2. I have found that the toughest kid to keep out for the team is the above average wrestler who gets frustrated they don't make it to semi-state or out of sectionals.  That group would be even harder to keep out under this proposal.  The "I suck I didn't get out of sectional" kid becomes the "I suck I get beat by Carroll's JV Kid".

 

If they are losing to backups that means they are already on the fridge of not qualifying for regional or semi-state. If the backup could make the varsity at another weight they would likely be there. They definitely don't want to be a #2 or #3 going into semi-state hoping for a good draw. 

 

I guess I didn't see too many people quitting after Al Smith last year when a backup was 5th. I didn't know losing to a Carroll JV kid caused that many kids to quit the sport. I guess I'll tell them to stop winning matches because they are a detriment to the sport.

 

3 hours ago, ENoblewrestling said:

With that said I am not saying this proposal is the worst thing I have ever seen, but I do think it would have a much larger effect on the dominant teams than your smaller schools.  

You basically are calling it the worst thing you have seen by saying that. 

 

Go ask Thomas Pompei or Steven Bradley how having multiple entries helps their programs. Maybe I'll just talk to them about it to show you how beneficial it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the whole idea of 14 with 16 or 13 with 15. My only concern which may not be as big of an issue is the whole sectional bracketing process. I have two questions would teams have to state their 2 extra right off the back if so what would happen...which i assume is rare in an event that a weight class would have more than 16 wrestlers? Next question what about the process on replacements after seeding meeting? For example a team has 2 entered in 132 one or both are seeded. The higher seed can't compete which would move the seeds up as normal but would that teams number 2 count as a replacement or could they ad a 3rd to the weight class if they have more. And finally would it be fill 14 with 2 extra or just enter a lineup of 16 with no more than 2 in a weight class  for example could you fill 8 with 1 and 4 with 2 having 2 empty weight classes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which i assume is rare in an event that a weight class would have more than 16 wrestlers?

There are plenty of options here. First off, there should be some realignment this year and we can keep every sectional to 9 or 10 teams we should be fine. If distributed evenly we would have 9.6 teams per sectional. It would be EXTREMELY rare that 7 or more teams would submit an extra wrestler at a weight. If that case would arise there are plenty of options such as first teams to submit their roster gets the "spot" or something as simple as a random draw as to who has to submit at a different weight. 

 

Based off last year's forfeits you would have the possibility in 119 of 448 weights. 

 

If this would have the awesome affect of growing the number of participants we would need to look into a two day sectional tournament or some sort of different alignment or qualification system to enter the tournament.

 

Next question what about the process on replacements after seeding meeting? 
If a seeded kid drops out everyone moves up a spot. The wrestler is seeded, not the team.

 

And finally would it be fill 14 with 2 extra or just enter a lineup of 16 with no more than 2 in a weight class  for example could you fill 8 with 1 and 4 with 2 having 2 empty weight classes?

16 entries with no more than 2 per weight, so technically you could enter 8 weight classes with 2 kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know when the NFHS will make their official announcement? and we will see the IHSWCA poll results?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Y2CJ41 said:

 

 

Next question what about the process on replacements after seeding meeting? 
If a seeded kid drops out everyone moves up a spot. The wrestler is seeded, not the team.

 

 

Well yeah but if the team of a seeded wrestler has a replacement they would fill in as the 6th seed. My question  would be would that go to the teams 2nd wrestler or their replacement if they had a 3rd wrestler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bbulldog152 said:

Well yeah but if the team of a seeded wrestler has a replacement they would fill in as the 6th seed. My question  would be would that go to the teams 2nd wrestler or their replacement if they had a 3rd wrestler.

Think of bracketing in terms of individuals, not teams. We would want to keep individuals where they were randomly drawn other than the fairness of reslotting seeds. The new replacement would go where the now non-existent 6-seed slot used to be because it's the only non-drawn slot available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2020 at 4:50 PM, AJ said:

Do we know when the NFHS will make their official announcement? and we will see the IHSWCA poll results?

 

The last I checked, The IHSWCA vote was 17% of coaches wanted it reduced to 13 weights. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.