One thing that I think the NSWCA could do a little better at is knowing what weight kids are in when they publish the rankings during the season. Some kids for the whole year, they had them at the wrong weight. Also, no matter what class you are in, there are tuff weight classes, (Class C 160) and not so tuff weight classes. I don't think it matters how you shuffle the schools around, it is not going to be fair to everyone. Class A only having 10 schools & B only having 12 schools at their districts really isn't fair to the the class C schools that have 14 schools and D schools now with 18. 40% of the kids at districts in Class A make it to State. Having a lot of tuff teams in one District is not really fair either, they should be spread around, but how do you do that? It's too bad when kids that have really good records are sitting at home during State and a kid with a bad record or losing record in another class is at the State Tounament.

Class A schools only have 8 teams in a district.

Sorry I was looking at Vader's proposed number on Page 1 of this topic for class A. But 8 is even worse isn't it? It should be a little tougher to make it to State than that!

You got it. That is what I think. Half of the kids in each bracket make it to state.

quote:

Originally posted by OC Knights:
Every sport is treated differently when it comest to classifications.

Coops, not participating schools (Omaha Marion in Wrestling), etc. The issue wouldn't be with classifying only one sport b/c that is what they do now.

OC, you're right -- they tried a uniform classification structure when they reclassified A as the top 24 teams back in 1995 (I believe) and it was an unmitigated disaster...1 out of every 3 Class A wrestlers had a .500 record or below, and there were 3-4 who made it with ZERO wins. The outcry was such that A was bumped up to 32 the next year.

Does anyone know of any other states that have 8 medalist-system for state wrestling....or would we be breaking new ground if this ever comes to pass?

Iowa places top 8.

Imho, Iowa deserves to place 8 as they have 8 'district' champions, whereas we only have 4.

South Dakota give 8 medals and I think 4-5 team trophies, but they only have 2 classes.

I did a little number crunching based on the posted district match-ups from last year. Currently, we have a 32-48-64-72(the rest)system. Last year, Class B filled 82.1% of the district spots. Class C filled 76.5% of the district spots, and Class D filled just 65.4% of the district spots. Class A pairings were not posted, so I don't have those numbers. I think it would be safe to assume a number around 85-90%. When you take the actual number of district wrestlers and look at the percent that qualified for state, the numbers look like this...

Class A - 56% (based on a 90% full district)
Class B - 40.5%
Class C - 32.7%
Class D - 38.2%

Now let's compare these results with the number of wrestlers from each class with a winning percentage of .500 or less...

Class A - 30
Class B - 14
Class C - 2
Class D - 9

You can see that there is a huge statistical correlation. This lends much support to the idea of Class A having more teams. Going to a 40-48-56-72 system makes sense statistically based on the numbers. Class A would not have as many wrestlers make it to state with a losing record, plus less than half of them would qualify. Class B would remain about the same. Class C shows that it is the toughest class to qualify for state, so eight less teams would make it very comparable to what B is now (imo). And class D would be left unchanged.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Vader,

Bulldog,

To address your points more succinctly...

1. I fully support the addition of a dual-format state tournament. I would like to see the detailed proposal you afore mentioned.

2. I do not support the addition of a seventh-eighth place individual medal.

3. I do support the addition of a third place team trophy for each class.

Craig,
Just a little tidbit. Try to get the NSWCA website updated. It still shows the rater's from 2004. Not a major deal, but that could be a way to communicate with us as well. Maybe an online link for registration and payment.

Just a thought.

Henry Aschoff

In my lifetime, I would like to see a state (like Nebraska), go against the national federation, and implement something similar to what happens in NAIA, which allows multiple entries per weight class. I would like to see 12 weight classes with 3 varsity wild card entries, for example. This would de-emphasize cutting weight and add to the sport imho. Within this thread there has been comparisons to other sports and states. This would be similar to track and field which allows their three best athletes to compete in any one event, and more than one athlete from a given school can win a medal at the state track meet in the same event as a teammate. The difficulty in this proposal would be for dual contests, but I'm sure something could be installed to be consistent and fair. You asked for something to help the sport of wrestling......I think this could help as most of us have had pile-ups in our line-ups that really never worked out for the best of all the athletes. Something to consider anyway...........

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chiefMTstorm,

Chiefstorm,
There is something that you are talking about already in use in the state of Washington. One of my teammates was from there and his freshman year he only weighed 105 and there was a senior on his team that weighed the same. They went second and third at their state tournament at 103. the only time that there was any problem was with duals and they would basically take turns going up to 112 at every dual. Not for sure how this is set up in their state but I believe that they just can't have more than 14 varsity wrestlers at a tournament. It really is a good rule because some teams have a difficult time finding light or heavyweight kids and then have a good middle weight kid having to sit on JV all year. This rule might also prevent kids from switching schools simply for the reason of making varsity.

Thanks Cactus Man!

I wasn't aware of a state already implementing such a rule. I think it has its place in Nebraska as well.

I should have done more research on this. Wyoming has 2 per weight class per school I think.

Michigan, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and NY all have something in place to allow for a stud back-up to make it to states and earn a medal. I think thats the way it should be, imho. Cuts down on weight cutting and school jumping (transfers).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chiefMTstorm,

I dont have the answers but I do have a couple more issues.

1) Records are only valid if you wrestle the same competition. If a kid is 10-0 and has wrestled the 10 worst kids in state better than a kid who is 0-10 but wrestled the 10 best kids in state? Probably not.

2) How many total kids wrestle in each class?
Does an A school have 100 kids out for wrestling and a D school have 10 out make it unfair because the A schools only compete against 32 teams where the D school competes against 64 at state?
How many kids make a varsity spot at a D school because there isn't anybody there where a kid is JV at an A school but behind some good kids?

The arguement of Class A vs anyone is a void point. That depends on the good programs. I know of Class A programs that have 5-10 kids out and I know of Class D schools that have 20 kids out. All of that data depends on each program individually.

We wrestle quite a few Wyoming schools in the summer and they have a similar format where a team can have 2 kids at all the weight classes. If both kids can qualify for state then that means they deserve to go. I think the goal of instituting a rule like this is to increase the level of participation and improve the quality of wrestling across the state.

Regarding placing 8 as opposed to 6.
Wrestler A wins first two matches loses next three matches gets 6th place medal, going 2-3. Wrestler B loses first match wins next two matches loses again, goes 2-2 and gets nothing. In theory his loses could be against the kids that got 1st and 3rd.

Just food for thought.

That is a good point, Vegas Kid. That actually happened to me my senior year. Except, I went 1-2, and the kids that beat me placed 2nd and 3rd.

Even still, I am not sure that medaling half of the field is justified. Winning two matches at state would get you a medal.

Of course, with the luck of the draw bracketing, some wrestlers get a great draw and win twice and pick up a sixth place medal, they may have even been beaten in districts by a wrestler who was on the wrong side of the draw at state and didn't medal. I have witnessed this scenario many times throughout the years. I think it would be more fair to those districts with tougher competition if there were eight medals.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument.

Red Dawg,

On your first point, I think that your scenario is presumptuous, and the only way to know who was better for sure is for the 10-0 wrestler to wrestle the 0-10 wrestler. Records are important because they are the only criteria one can use past head-to-head. IMO, strength of schedule, same (tougher) competition, etc. is subjective. When you consider the fact that there was 60 wins at state for class A wrestlers in the first four rounds over kids with losing records, that is 21% of all their wins. By adding just two more teams to each district you would curb the drop off in competition at districts. This would help to eliminate the old adage, "Class A is the easiest to qualify for state and the toughest to win." In all other sports, Class A prides themselves on being the best at their prospective sport. Why would they not want wrestling to be the same? Sorry, I am ranting now.

I think OC Knight addressed the second issue well. Some class A schools might have the best overall programs in the state, but some class A schools are struggling. This is the same with ALL classes.

Besides, I thought you were an advocate of Class A wrestling having 40 teams.