ghughes1974

Bump

Bump

Thanks coach for your response. The last idea you shared is something I totally agree with. It's a variation of what we've proposed but it would absolutely help address many of the challenges we were looking to address with the proposal. The idea is essentially to class early rounds of the tournament and come together at the Semi State level. What does everyone think of this? It would be a significant positive step from my perspective.

Thank you for the corrections. I have updated the document and attached it. Sectionals w Class Detail 3-17-21.pdf

BBulldog152, I was thinking more about the data shared for the semi states. Thanks much for sharing that. Perhaps the best way to look at things is what is the single easiest change to make to address the imbalance at the semi state level. I looked through sectionals and the geography. Here is a simple change that would make a huge improvement to balancing the semi states. If the IHSAA moves the Frankfort sectional to Fort Wayne semi state and moves the Delta sectional to New Castle, that significantly improves things. GEOGRAPHY: This change does not appear to create a significant geographic issue. Frankfort sectional is the north side of Indianapolis and contains several 4A schools. Sectional and regional would still be reasonably close. When their wrestlers advance to Semi State, they would have a longer trip to the Fort Wayne Semi State (but no longer than the same trip Fort Wayne wrestlers make the next week when they travel to state at Bankers Life). Delta sectional is in the Muncie area. Muncie is only 20 miles from New Castle. This is an easy 1 to 1 flip flop. SCHOOL SIZE Move to New Castle 16. Delta (10) | class rank 14 Muncie Central, 3A Delta, 2A Yorktown. 2A Cowan, 1A Daleville, 1A Monroe Central, 1A Randolph Southern, 1A Wapahani, 1A Wes-Del, 1A Winchester Community, 1A Move to Fort Wayne 18. Frankfort (10) | Class Rank 24 Carmel, 4A Fishers, 4A Hamilton Southeastern, 4A Westfield 4A Frankfort, 2A Lebanon, 2A Clinton Central, 1A Clinton Prairie, 1A Rossville, 1A Sheridan, 1A SEMI STATE IMPACT Current Semi State ECC SS 75 total teams (class rank 160) 1a- 26 2a- 23 3a -16 4a – 10 FW SS 76 total teams (class rank 145) 1a 31 2a 25 3a 16 4a 4 Ev SS 82 total teams (class rank 177) 1a 25 2a 27 3a 22 4a 8 NC ss 79 total teams (class rank 166) 1a 31 2a 24 3a 9 4a 15 New Split after flip flopping these two sectionals ECC SS 75 total teams (class rank 160) 1a- 26 2a- 23 3a -16 4a – 10 FW SS 76 total teams (class rank 159) 1a 28 2a 25 3a 15 4a 9 Ev SS 83 total teams (class rank 177) 1a 25 2a 27 3a 22 4a 8 NC ss 79 total teams (class rank 156) 1a 34 2a 24 3a 10 4a 11 At a glance the folks in Delta may be thinking this is not good for them, but remember, a chunk of what makes New Castle so challenging just went North. Both roads to state are much more similar with this change. There are still several imbalanced sectionals and regionals we should look at splitting up. But I think this single change is an easy one worth considering.

Has anyone crunched data on the number of forfeits at sectionals this year compared to last year? I think I saw someone had total participant numbers from prior years. If you have, please share.

Has anyone crunched data on the number of forfeits at sectionals this year compared to last year? I think I saw someone had total participant numbers from prior years. If you have, please share.

In case this is helpful, here are today's sectionals with details on each school's class. I included a "class rank" for each sectional. Sectionals w Class Detail.pdf

Here are some examples that show the significant difference in the make up of some of our sectionals. There are many more examples. Just picked a few that were handy. I gave each of these a "class rank". The concept of Class Rank is to rate the difficulty level of each sectional based on school size. 4 points for a 4A school, 3 points for a 3A school, 2 points for a 2A school, 1 point for a 1A school. Some sectionals have Double the class rank of others. Sectionals in Indiana with significant 4A/3A presence: 25. Avon (11) | class rank 28 Avon, 4A Ben Davis, 4A Brownsburg, 4A Pike, 4A Plainfield, 3A Speedway, 2A Danville Community, 2A Greencastle, 2A North Putnam, 1A South Putnam, 1A Tri-West Hendricks, 1A 22. Warren (10) |class rank 23 Warren Central, 4A Franklin Central, 4A Greenfield-Central, 3A New Palestine, 3A Shelbyville, 3A Indianapolis Howe Academy, 2A Indianapolis Lutheran, 1A Scecina Memorial, 1A Triton Central, 1A Eastern Hancock, 1A 26. Mooresville (10) | class rank 26 Center Grove, 4A Decatur Central, 3A Franklin Community, 3A Greenwood Community, 3A Martinsville, 3A Mooresville, 3A Whiteland Community, 3A Monrovia, 2A Cascade, 1A Cloverdale, 1A Sectionals in Indiana with significant 1A/2A presence: 13. Peru (10) | class rank 12 Maconaquah, 2A Peru, 2A Cass, 1A Caston, 1A? Manchester, 1A. Team State North Miami, 1A Northfield, 1A? Rochester Community, 1A Southwood, 1A Wabash, 1A. Team State Not a perfect system as school size is only one factor. Culture, coaching, school commitment to the sport are all significant factors as well. But school size is a controllable factory when trying to establish balanced sectionals. 23. Tri (10) | class rank 13 Richmond, 3A New Castle, 2A. Team State Blue River Valley, 1A Cambridge City Lincoln, 1A Centerville, 1A. Team State Hagerstown, 1A Knightstown, 1A Northeastern, 1A Shenandoah, 1A Tri, 1A 15. Jay County (9) | class rank 12 Bellmont, 2A. Team State Jay County, 2A Norwell, 2A. Team State Adams Central, 1A. Team State Blackford, 1A Bluffton, 1A. Team State South Adams, 1A, Team State Southern Wells, 1A Union City 1A

The data you shared is a good view of things...of the imbalance. Balancing at any level will help. The data shows that to balance Semi State, Indianapolis should be carved up a little more...sending more large schools up towards FW. Moving a few schools up to FW SS would impact some of the sectionals that feed into NC SS, so there's an opportunity to balance better at that level as well. I think we're talking the same thing for the most part. Your recommendation is to look at the top (SS level) and work down. I was saying start at the bottom (Sectional level) and work up. Either way works.

Bump

The intent of this post is to talk about imbalanced sectionals/regionals/semi-states. What are the impacts of the imbalance and what are potential solutions. The current approach is to create sectionals based entirely on geography. There’s no consideration of school size/class mix. Urban areas where there’s a high concentration of talent face a greater challenge to get to semi-state or state. This creates negative impacts: 1. The best kids don’t always make it to state 2. The best teams don’t get invited to team state See the post Growing Small School Wrestling with or without classing for more details on impacts. Here are two alternatives to consider to minimize this issue. The philosophy behind these approaches is to consider a balanced mix of school size/class when forming sectionals in addition to geographic considerations. Option 1: Fully class sectionals 1A – 4A or 1A – 2A. Wrestlers cross classes in regionals. Take 2 existing regionals (which are based on geography), and create 4 sectionals based on classes. Example: two of today’s regionals in the same semi state that are highly imbalanced. 8 large schools in one. 2 large schools in the other. Perry Perry Meridian, 4A Franklin Central, 4A Southport, 4A Warren Central, 4A Greenfield-Central, 3A Roncalli, 3A New Palestine, 3A Shelbyville, 3A Beech Grove, 2A Indianapolis Cardinal Ritter, 2A Indianapolis Crispus Attucks, 2A Indianapolis Emmerich Manual, 2A Indianapolis George Washington, 2A Indianapolis Howe Academy, 2A Providence Cristo Rey, 1A Victory College Prep, 1A Eastern Hancock, 1A Indianapolis Lutheran, 1A Indianapolis Scecina Memorial, 1A Triton Central, 1A Richmond Richmond, 3A East Central, 3A New Castle, 2A. Batesville, 2A Connersville, 2A Franklin County, 2A Greensburg, 2A Lawrenceburg, 2A Rushville Consolidated, 2A South Dearborn, 2A Blue River Valley, 1A Cambridge City Lincoln, 1A Centerville, 1A. Hagerstown, 1A Knightstown, 1A Northeastern, 1A Shenandoah, 1A Tri, 1A Milan, 1A Oldenburg Academy, 1A Union County, 1A Take the same teams, and create four classed sectionals. 4A Perry Meridian, 4A Franklin Central, 4A Southport, 4A Warren Central, 4A 3A Richmond, 3A Greenfield-Central, 3A Roncalli, 3A New Palestine, 3A Shelbyville, 3A East Central, 3A 2A Beech Grove, 2A Indianapolis Cardinal Ritter, 2A Indianapolis Crispus Attucks, 2A Indianapolis Emmerich Manual, 2A Indianapolis George Washington, 2A Indianapolis Howe Academy, 2A New Castle, 2A. Batesville, 2A Connersville, 2A Franklin County, 2A Greensburg, 2A Lawrenceburg, 2A Rushville Consolidated, 2A South Dearborn, 2A 1A Providence Cristo Rey, 1A Victory College Prep, 1A Eastern Hancock, 1A Indianapolis Lutheran, 1A Indianapolis Scecina Memorial, 1A Triton Central 1A Cambridge City Lincoln, 1A Centerville, 1A. Hagerstown, 1A Knightstown, 1A Northeastern, 1A Shenandoah, 1A Tri, 1A Milan, 1A Oldenburg Academy, 1A Union County, 1A Top 3 (or 4) wrestlers from each sectional advance to the next round of the individual tournament...a new regional. The Team that wins each sectional gets to participate in Team State. Use a wild card system to take additional top teams to team state so you still have a chance to make it if you're in a sectional with another powerhouse team. Option 2: Use a “class rank” to ensure sectionals are balanced. This approach would require a consistent “mix” of school sizes in all sectionals. Each sectional would have 10 teams. 1 4A school 2 3A schools 3 2A schools 4 1A schools The goal here is to help make sure the Sectionals start balanced which then leads to balanced Regionals and Semi States. Also, this approach gives teams a much more equal chance to qualify for Dual Team State. To address drive distances, the host location of sectionals changes every other year. So at most, a school would have a longer drive every other year.

The proposal we came up with was geared towards addressing three issues for small schools: 1. Negative impacts of imbalanced sectionals 2. Imbalanced sectionals impacting dual team state participation 3. The reality that very few small school wrestlers make it to state I think it makes sense to create a new thread that talks entirely about the issue of imbalanced sectionals. I think that issue impacts all schools, not just small schools. Look for the forum "Creating Balanced Sectionals, Regionals and Semi-States"

Brandon, thanks for your response. Regarding the distance in that proposed sectional, the approach would be to rotate the location each year. We currently do this in Warren/Shelbyville sectional. One year its in one place, the next year the other. Teams still have to drive, but the long drive is every other year. Perhaps not perfect, but that's the proposed solution. Max is the name of the kid I spoke about who didn't want to go to sectional. Max was never going to be a great wrestler. Started too late, all his training partners were beginners just like him. Slow road to success. When Max wrestled for me, my program was hanging on by a thread. I had 5 guys. The school told me they canceled wrestling when they were down to 4. So lots on the line for my program. When Max wrestled other small schools, he had a fighting chance on the mat and actually did well some of the time. I think what I wanted for Max was to have a fighting chance at sectional. Win or lose, have a good match out there. In small school dual meets, Max's chance of winning was 50/50. As a coach, I can work with that. Push him to give it all he has and get his very best out of him. In the Warren/Shelbyville sectional, he had virtually no chance. That's the problem. It's impossible to keep the kids engaged when they perceive they have no chance. I've got another story. I had a wrestler, Walker, who was a first year kid who drew the state runner up from the prior year in the first round (Jordan Vaughn from FC 4A school). His teammates were joking with him telling him his goal should be to make it 30 seconds without getting pinned. After practice he tells me he doesn't want to wrestle the match. I talk him into it, "you've worked hard all season, everyone competes in sectionals, you do the best you can, its a process, all first year wrestlers pay their dues, etc." He goes to sectionals and gets pounded. Walker does not wrestle the next year. A bad draw could happen to anyone, but it seems to happen often at our sectional. I have more stories. Let me know.

No offense intended to the folks in East Central Indiana. I know you guys are tough. In the end, I am jealous of you and want what you've got...the ability to wrestle schools of a similar size in the first couple rounds of the tournament. I believe it would help me better retain wrestlers I'm currently losing and better build up a tough program and culture...the same way you guys have been able to. And if you are interested in wrestling us, we'd love it. LMK.

Casualwrestling fan, I wrote my post before I saw yours. There's some good points in the design you're proposing. Can I contact you offline? Have some questions. Are you Adams Central head coach? Greg Hughes Indianapolis Lutheran 317-753-7786 greg@continuumgames.com

Same thing happens in a huge way at the Perry regional. My 106 didn't make it through the Perry Regional, but beat 2 Semi State qualifiers and 1 Semi State Quarter finalist at Frosh Soph State last weekend. Totally understand that geography is a factor. So the act of balancing sectionals would still need to be reasonable in that regard. Right now, the sectionals are based primarily/entirely on geography which creates huge imbalance and unintended negative impact on some programs. So the idea with this proposal is to consider both geography and school size. The proposal goes to one side of the spectrum creating a classed state champ, but let's abandon that for a moment and just talk about ways to balance the sectionals. I'll put something together and send out later tonight for everyone's consideration. The framework is pretty much done already. I greatly appreciate the dialog and brainstorming. From my perspective, there's a better way out there. We just have to figure it out together. Shame on us if we throw our hands up and let some of these issues persist.

I think there’s a lot of variations of this proposal that could work. You could go with just separating sectionals into two classes initially and schools of all sizes come together in regionals. That would help address some of the problems. We could go with more classes, we could go with less. The goal of this proposal is to address three problems. 1. Sectionals today lack balance. 2. Because Sectionals Lack Balance, Dual Team State criteria is inaccurate and unfair. 3. Only a small number of small school wrestlers make it to state. I think some may argue that #3 isn’t a problem. The argument is the best kids should be at state. Period. If small school wrestlers aren’t as good, they shouldn’t go. When we created this proposal, my biggest worry was that the large schools would feel this way and resist the proposal. They wouldn’t understand the challenges small schools face. They would also see that they face off against more large schools in their sectionals and baulk at that…the optic being that it is a much harder road than facing small schools. That’s why we favored the big schools in having less teams in sectionals and having many more qualifiers from the classed tourney. The data from 2020 shows that big schools (33% of the total schools) make up 67% of the wrestlers who qualified for state. The proposal allows the top 5 wrestlers from 4A and top 5 wrestlers from 3A to attend state. That’s 62.5%...pretty close to what actually happened in 2020. The proposal sends the top 4 from 2A to state (that’s 25%). In 2020, 2A made up 24% of state qualifiers. Then the proposal sends the top 2 from 1A. That’s the remaining 12.5%. This is slightly higher than 2020’s actual 9%. Not perfect but close. But for a moment, let’s go with the philosophy that the tournament system should always send the best kids to Bankers Life. No exceptions. If that’s the case, we still have a problem that needs to be solved. Issue #1 still is a problem in the current system which organizes by region. Sectionals, Regionals, and Semi States are not balanced…not even close. The best wrestlers currently don’t make it to state because of this imbalance. If you set up the sectionals and regionals so that there’s a more even number of large and small schools coming through each, you’re more likely to create balanced sectionals, regionals and semi states. The proposal moves in this direction because we’re basing the sectionals on school size, not by geographic region. When we wrote the proposal, I was worried that big schools wouldn’t understand it. I was also worried that some small schools in regions where there isn’t imbalance wouldn’t get it either. If you’re already in a sectional that is all small schools, then you’re already experiencing what this proposal is designed to do. Here’s a quick case study to illustrate the current imbalance in the system based on geographic regions and not school size. I see some folks from Adams Central responding, so let’s compare Adams Central and Indianapolis Lutheran. We’re both 1A schools. We both had winning dual team records. Lutheran was 17-6. Adams Central was 15-9. The only common opponents we had this season were Jay County and Batesville. It looks like Batesville wrestled with only 4 wrestlers against Adams Central and 8 wrestlers against Lutheran, so that one doesn’t make sense to compare, so let's look at Jay County. Adams Central lost to Jay County 42-30 in dual competition. Lutheran lost to Jay County 39-30. It suggests that maybe, just maybe, we’re comparable dual teams and maybe, just maybe we have comparable talent on our teams. (Heyerly is a beast BTW, he’s my pick to win state next year!) Let’s compare sectionals: Lutheran’s Sectional Warren Central, 4A Franklin Central, 4A Greenfield-Central, 3A New Palestine, 3A Shelbyville, 3A Indianapolis Howe Academy, 2A Indianapolis Lutheran, 1A Scecina Memorial, 1A Triton Central, 1A Eastern Hancock, 1A Adams Central’s Sectional Bellmont, 2A. Jay County, 2A Norwell, 2A. Adams Central, 1A. Blackford, 1A Bluffton, 1A. South Adams, 1A, Southern Wells, 1A Union City 1A According to a common opponent, we look like comparable teams, but our results are polar opposite. Lutheran had only 2 wrestlers make it through sectionals. Adams Central had 8 (four times as many). Lutheran has 1 wrestler make it through regionals. Adams Central has 5 make it through regional. Lutheran has 1 wrestler make it to state. Adams Central has 3. Adams Central is invited to Team State. Lutheran was not invited to Team State. The difference (in my humble opinion)? Lutheran has 5 large schools in our sectional. Adams Central does not. Every season, I’m fighting to retain wrestlers in my program because our sectional sets us back again and again. If we had 8 wrestlers getting through sectionals each year, if we were getting invited to team state (or at least had a reasonable shot at it), we’d be seeing accelerated growth. Separating the sectionals based on school size balances sectionals. It also helps make dual team state criteria more accurate and fair. If equal numbers of large and small schools come together in later rounds…perhaps semi state…then we’re that much close to making sure the best kids are making it to state. I personally like the proposal as written because I like having a classed state champion and also a grand champion. But wanted to write this out to help illustrate other positives. This proposal is a roadmap to an approach that balances our sectionals.

So many truths on the post from Columbus East and Edgewood. Totally agree with the challenges as outlined. The post is a great representation of reality of limitations in training opportunities, differences in culture, differences when every athlete in your school is a multi-sport athlete (because there simply aren't that many athletes). I want to add to that in that there's also a big difference in the regular season opportunities between small schools and large schools. I posted this perspective on a different thread so adding it here. From my perspective, wrestling is already classed. Or I should say, it is classed all year and then at the end of the year we switch to a tournament that is not classed. We are surrounded by large schools but wrestle none of them during the regular season. If I were to ask the schools in our sectional (Warren Central, Franklin Central, Greenfield Central) for a dual meet, they would laugh me out of the room. I don't blame them, we can't fill a roster, we have beginner wrestlers on varsity...normal stuff for a small school. Conferences are generally set up based on school size as most other sports are classed. So all year, we wrestle a small school schedule. A small school schedule means less matches (due to higher percent of forfeits). It often means less competitive matches. Many large schools send their JV teams to the same tournaments we compete in. (Sadly for me, we have only recently started to be able to compete with big school JV teams.) I've had large school coaches in sectional seeding meetings argue that their guy is better because of "strength of schedule." I think that argument is sound. It makes the point I'm trying to make here. Large schools wrestle a more competitive schedule all year. It helps their guys improve at a different rate. But somehow our kids are supposed to be ready for large schools in our sectional after wrestling a small school schedule all year.

I can confirm the bulk of my kids who quit are quitting because of the sectional. I've had multiple first year wrestlers have to wrestle a state ranked guy in the first round. The new guys also see many of the best guys on the team struggle. One year I had a newer kid tell me he wasn't going to sectional. I asked him why not. He said he'd just get pinned and didn't want to be there all day. (This was a kid just a little below 500 that season.) He had a rugby game that day he wanted to play in. I talked to him about all the work he's put in and how he's improving. Talked to him about how it is a process. Said he needed to be there for the team, etc. He agreed to wrestle. Got pinned in the first period by a kid from a large school. He sat in the gym the rest of the day and watched the rest of the team get dismantled. Two years of work into him and he never wrestled again. Shame on him for not being tougher, but when you're the coach of the team and that kid is about 18% of your program...uggh. Let me know if you want more stories. I have more. If anyone thinks the issue isn't real, I would gladly trade sectionals. Any takers?

I should have also mentioned, I don't think the proposal wouldn't require us to change the classification of wrestling to a team sport. The sport still remains a single class with all schools coming together in the end. The main idea is to class the early rounds so you don't have small schools getting destroyed by big schools. Only the best guys from the different school sizes come together in the end for a final round to determine who is the single champ. That's my thought on it. It's not classing, just setting up sectionals based on school size. Which the IHSAA could just define it as the new sectionals. In the end, all paths come together, so by definition the sport is still not classed.

I've heard that argument from the IHSAA about classing the other sports. There's a bylaw they'd have to change or something like that. I think the approach we have to take is to argue that wrestling is different than swimming, cross country, track, golf, because in those individual sports, you both train and compete by yourself. In wrestling you compete as an individual, but you can't train by yourself. All coaches know the value of the "room". As iron sharpens iron, so does one man another. I think changing the bylaw would be a big to do, but changing the categorization of wrestling to a team sport, that change impacts only wrestling so likely not the same challenge. It will take some convincing. The argument needs to be made. No coach can disagree that training partners are critical, and if you have studs in the room, they make everyone around them better.

Thanks for the suggestion. I went ahead and created a new thread. I named it, "Growing Small School Wrestling - with or without classing".

The intent of this post is to start a dialog about growing wrestling in Indiana. I believe there's an opportunity to significantly increase participation in small schools. There are currently 213 1A/2A schools with wrestling programs and many of these programs currently struggle with participation and retention of their student athletes. That has absolutely been my experience as head coach of a 1A school. And I know I'm not alone because I've spoken with 45 coaches who have all shared they face the same challenges. A little about me. I grew up in Illinois. They had two classes when I wrestled. I went to Naperville North, a large school in Chicago burbs so I wrestled in the 2A class. Naperville North had a deep wrestling tradition. My senior year, we had two state champs and we were the runner up in dual team state. I currently am the head coach at Lutheran High School. We're a 1A school in Indianapolis. 220 total kids at the school. I restarted their wrestling program 6 years ago. It was previously cancelled due to lack of participation. I started the program because I love wrestling and I wanted my sons to be able to wrestle. In the first two years, the program nearly failed due to lack of participation and poor wrestler retention of the few kids I successfully recruited. But we hung on and we went 17-6 this year in dual team competition and had our first state champ, Hayden Filipovich. To get there, I coach our youth team, I coach our middle school team, and I coach our high school team. From my experience at Naperville North, I am absolutely aware of what a quality program looks like. But there are some things I can't duplicate at a small school. Despite the successes we've had, participation and retention are still a problem. The biggest problem is our sectional, which kills our ability to retain new wrestlers. We face 5 large schools, Warren Central, Franklin Central, Greenfield Central, New Palestine and Shelbyville...as well as several other quality small schools. When my new guys see that sectional, they quit. In six years, all by one of my new wrestlers has quit. Then my tougher, more committed guys have less training partners the following season...a vicious cycle. We had a 17-6 dual team record this year and only two of my wrestlers made it through sectional. This sectional also makes it virtually impossible for us to ever get invited to dual team state. Coming from Illinois, classing seems natural to me. But I understand the culture in Indiana values the single champ tournament. If you're an elite wrestler, it is about as cool as it gets. (Is it possible that most of us coaches were elite wrestlers in our day?) However, the practice of putting small schools up against large schools, especially right away in sectionals, has significant negative impact on wrestling participation at small schools. Coaches asking for classing are simply looking for a solution to this problem. But there is a way to keep the single tournament AND grow wrestling at Indiana's small schools. Attached is a proposal that 45 small school coaches have worked together to develop. The goal is to address some of the challenges small school programs and ultimately grow wrestling at small schools. I look forward to your feedback. Greg Hughes Indianapolis Lutheran ImprovingWrestlingforSmallSchools.pdf

From my perspective, wrestling is already classed. Or I should say, it is classed all year and then at the end of the year we switch to a tournament that is not classed. I coach a 1A school in Indianapolis. We are surrounded by large schools but wrestle none of them during the regular season. If I were to ask the schools in our sectional (Warren Central, Franklin Central) for a dual meet, they would laugh me out of the room. I don't blame them, we can't fill a roster, we have beginner wrestlers on varsity...normal stuff for a small school. Conferences are generally set up based on school size as most other sports are classed. So all year, we wrestle a small school schedule. We did well this year. We went 17-6 in dual meets. But somehow we're supposed to be ready for large schools in our sectional after wrestling a small school schedule all year. Our sectional has five large schools plus a bunch of solid small schools. 17-6 and this year, we got only two wrestlers through our sectional. From my perspective, wrestling is already classed. Its just the tournament at the end of the year where we decide to put small schools against large schools in round 1 of the tournament. For my program, this has devastating effect on participation. I lose nearly all of my first year wrestlers after they see our sectional. In six years coaching, all but one of my new wrestlers that I recruited to the program quit after wrestling in our sectional. I think this dialog comes down to the question of what we want to happen with wrestling in Indiana. The individual tournament is unique and cool in a lot of ways. Its about the elite wrestlers and who can prove they are the best...that's freaking cool and no other state has that. But the way it is administered has significant drawbacks for small schools. We see our new guys give up, wrestle without hope, kids quit before they get started. Then we lose training partners that can help the more committed wrestlers. Vicious cycle. My program almost died before we got started because of our sectional. There are 213 small schools and 99 large schools with wrestling programs. The participation level at small schools is not even close to what it could be. Small school coaches know this. But I don't think the big schools have the same problem so they think we are just bitching when we bring up this topic. So what do we want to do? Do we want to protect a system that is awesome for the elite wrestlers, or do we want more kids wrestling? In my opinion, we can have both. Small school coaches asking for classing are simply trying to solve a problem. But we don't need to class the final tournament to take steps to solve the problem. Changing a few things about how the tournament is administered could have a tremendous positive effect on small school programs. Attached is more about one such option that a growing number of small school coaches are supporting. The idea is to keep the individual tournament, but change the way wrestlers get there. I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. Coach Hughes Indianapolis Lutheran ImprovingWrestlingforSmallSchools.pdf