Jump to content

NickS

Gorillas
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    565

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Articles

Coach

Teams

Team History

Wrestlers

Wrestler Accomplishments

Dual Results

Individual Results

Team Rankings

Individual Rankings Master

Individual Ranking Detail

Tournament Results

Brackets

College Signings

Media

State Bracket Year Info

Team Firsts and Lasts

Family History

Schedule-Main

Schedule-Details

Team History Accomplishments

Current Year Dual Results

Current Year Tournament Results

Forums

Events

Store

Downloads

Everything posted by NickS

  1. NickS
    I'd like for you to point to the post in which I suggested underclassmen can't participate on varsity.
  2. NickS
    Well I would expect underclassmen, on average, to be inferior to upperclassmen. So I would think that you would find more underclassmen in the running for state titles and placing at 103, compared to all the other weights. Since there should be less juniors and seniors at 103 compared to say 112, 119, 125, etc. It's not the underclassmen in the weight I have an issue with, it's the weight class it's self. Way too many forfeits for my taste. If the rate was at around 15-20%, rock on, keep the weight class. But 34%? There needs to be heavy consideration for a realignment.
  3. NickS
    Obviously someone thinks that 30% forfeits are bad for wrestling since Y2 said that the NFHS was looking into a realignment. And I've never seen a thunderous ovation for a 3 lber (or any lber for that matter) getting his hand raised for a forfeit. So are you suggesting that one of the solutions is to make the sport easier? I agree that wrestlers are different because we're willing to do things that most other athletes wouldn't dream or fathom doing. We grind at our sport with pride without much of an audience or being noticed. Which in my opinion, is one of our greatest strengths but also greatest weaknesses. It's a strength because we can block out or become apathetic with the lack of notoriety. But a weakness because, well like how you said it, nobody does care outside of wrestling. So how would expect to grow numbers and keep the sport alive when "nobody cares?" I agree with this as well, 103 isn't the only issue surrounding wrestling. Rule interpretations (stalling, fleeing the mat) and the scoring system need to be revamped to a certain degree. But, this thread is dealing with the 103 issue. If someone wants to start another thread about other issues, I'll be likely there to chime in on those as well.
  4. NickS
    TheAncientElder, Again, I'm not worried about who was good 10, 15, 20 years ago. I'm worried about the state of the weight class, NOW, in the present. You think most of the guys you just listed wouldn't have successful high school careers if they happened to have wrestled 112 underweight for one (maybe two) years? Eliminating the "midgets until they grow up" for less forfeits. I'd do it without losing any sleep. You're not really surprised that list is as big as it is of underclassmen since it is an underclassmen weight class? I wouldn't expect to see as many successful freshman and sophomores at 145 since it's a junior and senior driven weight class. Also when did I ever suggest that 103 lbers were "one name, one-time wonders?"
  5. NickS
    OK, I give in. Since Montana and New York are doing it, everything must be fine. I retract everything I've ever said about forfeit rate and growing participation numbers.
  6. NickS
    At this point, I think we're going to wind-up agreeing to disagree because our definitions of "All-time" wrestlers are apparently different. Which is fine, because I respect most peoples' opinions on here. But the original reason I commented on this thread anyway was for getting more participation, not arguing who is/isn't an all-time wrestler. I feel just keeping 103 because we happen to have some good, young wrestlers there is a (for lack of a better word) stupid. When over 30% of schools can't field the weight, proves that it's more of a negative than a positive. If you eliminated 103, it's not like we will have never heard of Galka, Harper, Fields, or McGill. They would've had difficulties their freshman year, but probably still competitive against the 112 lbers. Then their sophomore years and beyond, they'd grow into 112 and further. So eliminating 103, in the long run wouldn't hurt the development of these younger, smaller kids in my opinion.
  7. NickS
    The argument is best all-times, not just the elite wrestlers. Nick Wiesjahn, very good wrestler, but never won state so I'm not considering him an all-timer. Matt Fields, Tom Churchard, Fernando Martinez all studs with 1 state title each. Again, great wrestlers, but all-timers? Maybe, we have different opinions of what an all-timer is because I think of guys that have multiple state titles. The only guy that comes to mind with 1 state title, that I'd take a look at, is Brennan Cosgrove because he got to the finals multiple times as well. Eric Galka and McGill have a strong case for being all-timers, and Josh Harper is a shoe-in. Don't take this as me trying to knock down these wrestlers because that's not what I'm trying to do. I guess it's all about your interpretation of what an all-timer is. If being a 1-time state champion or 3 or 4 time state placer is good enough, then all the aforementioned wrestlers are all-timers then. But for me, it comes down to how many titles you've won.
  8. NickS
    This is what I think of when it comes to 8th graders. Some can handle it, like the 103 lbers since most of those guys are freshmen and sophomores anyway (alright that's a shot, sorry ;D). Sure, you'll have your Tsirtsis' and Escobedo's that come around. But how often do those types of wrestlers come around vs. the "beat-down" most 8th graders will receive against high schoolers? Would it justify adding 8th graders?
  9. NickS
    Obviously this thread is a piggyback off the other 103 lbs. thread so here are my 2 cents. All of the names that have been mentioned are pretty good wrestlers, but most I wouldn't suggest being Indiana's "best." Some of the names mentioned are from 10+ years ago. Are you really suggesting that since Lance Ellis was an awesome 98 lber (for one year mind you) 20 years ago, that justifies keeping 103 currently? Most of the guys mentioned were 103 lbers for one year, and all could handle a move to 112 by their sophomore years. Keeping 103 isn't about who was good 5, 10, 20 years ago. This isn't about the quality of the weight class, which is down compared to other weights anyway. It's about which weights gets us more particpation NOW, in the present. Frankly, 1/3 of schools not fielding the weight class proves that 103 doesn't do that for wrestling.
  10. NickS
    That's a strong revelation. Good wrestling schools being able to fill 103 more consistently than not-so-good wrestling schools. Let me ask you a football question. Who's more likely to find a quarterback, a good one anyway. A state championship caliber school or a team that never has been out of sectionals? How many forfeits do we see at sectionals? Alot more than zero.
  11. NickS
    Talented? Yes. Most talented? No. Not one wrestler is being considered one of the "pound for pound" best wrestlers in Indiana. Granted, these rankings are based on opinions but these opinions are from people in the know. Looking at the individual rankings, 9 freshman and 4 sophomores are ranked in the top 16 at 103. There are only 7 freshman ranked in all the other weight classes COMBINED. Sorry, I have a hard time believing that 103 has some of the most talented wrestlers when so many underclassmen cloud the rankings. The 103 lbers that get an opportunity to wrestle in college will be able to handle a move to 112. You mean start promoting a weight class that only two-thirds of schools could field last year? Umm, ok. :
  12. NickS
    6 weight classes in the 200's... really??? ??? Most of the participation is between 130 and 189.
  13. NickS
    I'd like to think Indiana kids get recruited because of their level of skill, not necessarily because we've got a one class system. Moving to a class system shouldn't be determined by whether it's easier or harder to win a state title. It's about what's best for wrestling to grow. Y2 has suggested that moving to a class system would make the sport grow in Indiana. I just happen to disagree with it. In my mind, evidence has shown to be inconclusive from states that do have a class system. So I say stay with what we've got. Making the sport grow should be THE ONLY reason to move to a class system... unless your an IHSAA respresentative, then it's about the money. :
  14. NickS
    How many Brandon Wright's are wrestling out there today though? I know by combining 103 and 112 that I'm "hurting" the 103 lbers a little bit. But there are so few of these guys, that the negative impact will not be that significant. In my opinion, if the weight classes are redistributed like I've suggested. The overall positive will outweigh the overall negative. That's the point I'm trying to make. Also, 112 was being forfeitted at more than 20%. If you combined it with 103, that rate should drop to under 15%. I firmly believe that the average 103 lber can battle well with the average 112 lber. Brandon Wright and Camden Eppert, two years ago at 103 would still be state qualiifers at 112, at the minimum semi-state qualifiers.
  15. NickS
    It seems that this is the only argument that can be made for hanging on to this weight class. So we should keep 103 just because it's tradition? Nevermind the fact that we can open up MORE varsity spots for bigger kids. Also another point that I forgot to make. When you drop 103, which would be bumping them up to 112. Those kids will actually get matches more often instead of having their hand automatically raised 1/3 of the time.
  16. NickS
    Well I'm saying something about heavyweight and it's a more than fair comparison. I would say it's more unfair for a 230 lber to wrestle a 285 lber compared to 103 wrestling 112, yet it's accepted. I'm not advocating a 240 lb. class, just saying it won't hurt the few 103 lbers there are to move up. How many kids are going around at 90 lbs in high school? A handful, maybe? I bet the majority of kids have to cut to wrestle 103. I wrestled 145 and could beat everyone up to 189. I was on a semi-state team too, not some pushover if you were wondering. In fact, I wrestled a kid in the 190 lb. range and made him puke. So don't tell me an average 103 lber can't wrestle with 112 lbs. kids. What I see being unfair is when a 160 or 171 lbs. class commonly has 3, 4, or 5 kids have to wrestle-off for 1 varsity spot. While a 103 lb. class has a hard time just giving out that spot.
  17. NickS
    You don't think that most of the 103 lbers can wrestle 112? There's an 8% weight difference between 103 and 112. There are some heavyweights who weigh between 230 and 240. That means kids that weigh 230 could have to matchup with someone who was 19% more body weight than himself. Yet that's accepted, but 103's can't wrestle 112? C'mon.
  18. NickS
    Can't tell if you're being facetious. If you are, when did I ever state about adding 235?
  19. NickS
    I was thinking along the same lines here. I can just imagine how a conversation between 2 people debating this issue. Realist: "Statewide, 103 is getting forfeitted 34% of the time." Guy with head in the sand: "But we have 4 103 lbers." Realist: "If you eliminated 103, and redistribute the weight classes you would actually get more varsity participation overall" Guy with head in the sand: "... But... we have 4 103 lbers."
  20. NickS
    34% forfeits... that's all that needs to be said. If you've guys have 3 or 4 103 lbers. Makes you kind of wonder how many teams have more than 3 or 4 160, 171, 189 lbers riding the pine.
  21. NickS
    Why does it matter which areas are able to field the weight class or not? Are you suggesting that we should keep the weight class as is because just one city can field a lot of 103 lbers? Well I'm going off of Y2's numbers, so if 34% is wrong blame him ;D. But from looking at his data that he's compiled. He was able to find the forfeit breakdown from 244 schools in 25 Sectionals. So that means there are a maximum of 244 varsity spots per weight class. 103 lbs. had 84 forfeits from the 244 known schools, thus... 84/244= 34.43% That's the reason why I would just drop 103 and redistribute the weight classes. If it were me, this is how my weight classes would look like... 112, 118, 124, 130, 136, 142, 148, 154, 160, 168, 176, 189, 215, 285. 118 thru 154 would virtually stay the same, as would 215 and 285. The big changes, for the better, would be 112 (since you're combining 2 weight classes with 103). Then you would have 160 thru 189 getting filled by current 160, 171, and 189 lbers. I'm going to assume that 189 will take a small hit with some dropping to 176, but I'm confident there would be reserves there to fill those voids unlike 103.
  22. NickS
    14.14% of all the weight class spots are being forfeitted. Here is the forfeit % per weight class. 103 - 34.43% 112 - 20.49% 119 - 16.39% 125 - 15.98% 130 - 11.48% 135 - 9.84% 140 - 9.43% 145 - 9.43% 152 - 13.93% 160 - 9.02% 171 - 11.89% 189 - 9.84% 215 - 13.11% 285 - 12.70% Sorry I was wrong about 103, it's being forfeitted at around 34% not 25%. YIKES!!!
  23. NickS
    Hey, you're finally coming around. ;D
  24. NickS
    You make it sound like I have a personal vendetta against 103 lbers, when in reality that's far from the case. If 145 and/or 152 was having the same issues, I'd be advocating the same thing. So you're fine with 25% of teams not fielding a varsity spot... umm ok, just making sure. This goes beyond just the Sectionals, it's an issue being dealt with during the regular season at EVERY meet and tournament. So don't address a growing issue until it is blown out of proportion... nice.
  25. NickS
    I think he'll have a future in this sport.
×
×
  • 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.