NickS

Sorry coming late to this discussion, but I've got to chime in here. This is going to be lengthly, so I'll break it up into different posts so you guys don't lose your minds reading. I have to ask what is the purpose of having a class system? Alot of this class system debate has been centered around having a "true" state champion. I'm against a class system, but this is the wrong take to have against a class system in my opinion. I look at it like this and ask, "what does a class system bring that a single-class doesn't?" The biggest reason I've read, not from this thread, but would be that it brings increased participation. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this because there are more classed-states that are worse than states that are better than Indiana. The states that are better than us have stronger wrestling culture and more people willing to put time into their wrestling product (on top of that, population). I'm going to be candid in saying that bigger schools do have a built-in advantage with size and funding power, generally speaking. I'm an "anti-class" supporter, but I won't fool myself into believing big schools and small schools are on a level playing field. With that being said, it's not necessarily that big school kids work harder than the smaller school kids. It's the quality of the workouts. Since big schools have the aforementioned built-in advantages, their likely to find more wrestlers. Assuming everything's equal with the program and coaches. Wrestler A will get more out of a workout wrestling 4 or 5 other kids from Big School; compared to if Wrestler A is working out against 1, maybe 2, at Small School. This is just a general comparison. Now add in the coaching talent, funding, parent participation all should be stronger at big schools. You can start to see the picture of why big schools have more state qualifiers. Again, I'm speaking generally so there are exceptions to the rule. This is my take on this matter.

I can tell u why... $$$

I'm going to make it clear first off, I'm against a class system (at least for Indiana). But if we did something like you've suggested, what would be the point of breaking up into classes if there's going to be a true champion anyway?

It boils down to making money. Other than that, no impact.

Alright, slightly far-fetched but I'll bite. If you're going to use this logic, I'll use an example with the current system. Team A - Wins 9 matches by a minor decision - 27 points Team B - Wins 5 matches by fall - 30 points Team B wins the meet although they only won 5 matches of the 14. Why should Team A lose since they won almost twice as many matches as Team B? I'm just using your logic. You're right, I want to encourage kids to wrestle too. Which my idea is EXACTLY doing. And a true wrestler knows that all losses aren't counted the same on the team score. I can appreciate good defense and wouldn't want to penalize it. Riding isn't good defense, it's glorified stalling.

You're right, change for the sake of changing is illadvised if not thoughout thoroughly. But I have thought this out, and it only encourages wrestlers to be more offensive-minded. This idea won't have a signficant effect on the matches in which one wrestler is far superior to the other. But where it will have an effect is in the tightly contested matches in which both wrestlers are going back and forth. I just don't think a match in which is dominated by one wrestler by 5, 6, or 7 points, should be scored (team) the same as a tight 1 or 2 point match, when both guys are scoring. The idea of standing up the wrestlers after 20 seconds on the mat is the idea I've suggested previously. Most turns take place within the first 20 seconds of a takedown. After that it is much more difficult to turn. At that point it becomes, is top and/or bottom man stalling because nothing is really going on. This is why I'm firmly against riding time, because it impedes scoring more than creating it. Riding is just glorified stalling, and riding time is encouraging it.

First off, paragraphs much??? That's why we need to make rule changes to combat this "smart wrestling," because it is boring to watch someone just ride. Riding isn't much different than what the 4 corners was back in the day. I've already made suggestion on ways to prevent wrestlers from just riding. If you believe most kids wouldn't care about that team point, then we have a bunch of kids who don't care about the team then. I've always told my wrestlers that all losses aren't the same. One kid losing by a decision, instead of getting pinned, has just as much impact on a meet as all the other kids who do win. So it doesn't all boil down to winning and losing. How much you win/lose by can have just as much impact. I'm beginning to think that you don't have a real grasp of how a dual meet is won. Actually the whole team determines a close dual, not the offensive losers. Like I've stated before, the guys who can limit the bonus team points in a loss have just as much impact as the guys who do win. Sometimes it's strategically correct to tell a kid, who you know is outclassed by his opponent, to just not get pinned or give up as few bonus points as he can. Adding that 1 team point can only make the dual meets that much more interesting.

Umm no actually I was just making the point that basketball, and other sports for that matter, have made radical rule changes to make their sport more appealing. On the other hand, Wrestling folks like to put their head in the sand and say "everything is just fine," like FANMAN said.

You're right, this is nonsense. I'm just suggesting giving one team point to the losing wrestler who scores an offensive point. This, on the other hand, is not nonsense. And I'm sure basketball gurus thought basketball was just "fine" before the introduction of the 3-point line or the shot clock. I'm sure many fans loved watching the 4-corners being used as an offensive strategy too.

Money is always the driving force. Who brings in more, wretling or basketball? I don't agree with this logic, but it is what it is.

These scenarios are what I'm kind of pointing at. Not all matches that end in a minor decision (major, tech, and pin included) are the same. Match #1: Wrestler A dominates Wrestler B by 5 or 6 points without giving up an offensive point. Match #2: Wrestler A beats Wrestler B by 1 point in a back and forth bout. Under the current system, there's no difference as far as team scoring. Rewarding the losing wrestler that scored offensive points helps distinguish the differences. I'm glad to see one of my ideas is growing on someone. ;D

Feds shmeds.

I think everything is fine except I'd like to see one team point given to the losing wrestler who scores an offensive point.

That's kind of the point. There should be a difference between a 7-0 and a 6-5 match as far as team scoring goes. You're contradicting yourself within the same argument. You say you don't want to reward the losing wrestler. But is not getting pinned (tech'd or major'd for that matter) rewarding the losing wrestler? What wrong message?

I'm not really trying to imply which is the toughest. Just posting what the scores were between the 4 semi-states.

What makes it great for me, and this isn't even including the matches necessarily. It is the recognition of each wrestlers accompishment of reaching the pinnacle of Indiana wrestling (i.e. parade of champions). The atmosphere of knowing that the Indiana wrestling community is under just one roof for that weekend is intense. Getting to see wrestlers for the first time from the other side of the state that are talked (hyped) about on these forums. The only issue I have is, why do they start at 6 and not more around 12? Kids leave school early anyway, so missing one day of school shouldn't be an issue. That's pretty much what the kids are thinking about all day anyway, so what's the problem? Heavyweights don't even get onto the mat till past 10 I think, at least pretty close anyway.

I'm piggybacking off of the "toughest semi-state" thread here because I always find it interesting to know the scoring each semi-state does at state. I've had a little free time lately so I decided to figure out the placement points accrued by each semi-state at last year's state finals. I used the placement point system that's used for tournmanets that have 8 placers (at least this is what I think it is). So correct me if I'm wrong please. 1st - 16 2nd - 12 3rd - 9 4th - 7 5th - 5 6th - 3 7th - 2 8th - 1 Merrillville: 279 points - 36 placers - 6 champions New Castle: 199 points - 30 placers - 4 champions Evansville Reitz: 148 points - 24 placers - 2 champions Woodlan: 144 points - 22 placers - 2 champions

I'd like to see 1 team point given to the wrestler who loses a match, but scores an offensive point (takedown, reversal, backpoints).

I'm actually for keeping tech. falls and pin scoring at where they are right now. I was just playing devil's advocate and showing evidence that suggests that tech. falls are tougher to accomplish than pins. I believe pins should be worth more just because of the "wow" factor they have with fans versus what a tech. fall may induce. But I firmly believe that tech. falls show which wrestler was superior more-so than a pin, generally speaking.

1 time in 35 years proves that being disqualified via stalling is virtually a non-factor. You'd have to be literally running off the mat in order to be disqualified.

When did I ever say that it hasn't ever happened? I just said that I think I've never seen it personally in my wrestling experience. Can you give me examples of when it's happened at State please? Besides, the original reason for my comment on this issue was that disqualifications don't come by often enough to keep kids from stalling, not that it never happens.

OK, got it. Well that's just being silly comparing technical violations to escapes. Apples to oranges. The point I'm trying to make is that it only takes one move or combinations to get a pin. But it takes many moves or combinations to get a tech. fall.

TV Points? I don't get it. So you're saying it's not easier to hit one big move for a fall compared to dominating an opponent for X minutes with multiple moves (or a move hit multiple times)?

I don't know, could be all 40 or 0. I don't think a possible disqualification is as strong a deterrent for stalling as you make it sound like. In all my years of wrestling, I can't think of a situation were a wrestler was disqualified for stalling.

Let me play devil's advocate here. I just did a quick count on the number of falls and tech. falls at last year's State Finals. There were 40 falls and just 5 tech. falls. So obviously it was much more difficult to get a tech. fall. If we're going to reward a wrestler for difficulty, a tech. fall should actually be worth more than a fall. With that being said, a fall is more "crowd pleasing" than a tech. fall. It is an interesting quandary if you ask me.