Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This is an argument that will never go anywhere. Should there be 1 Division or Multiple Divisions? Just like a-holes, everyone has an opinion. These are all opinions. Being an Ohio native, I am partial to the three Division system, with private schools being integrated at the Sectional level, and Divisions being based on school enrollment. I have never heard anyone (outside of this thread) say that an Ohio State Championship means nothing because of the 3 Division system. Is Bo Jordan's HS D2 State Championship worthless? Is David Taylor's D2 State Championship worthless? Is Kollin Moore's D3 Championship worthless? Now, go on to PA, where I am at now. There are critics inside of PA for the 2 Divisions. Many people think that 2A is weak. So, would you say that Gavin Teasedale's 2A Championship is worthless? Or Jason Nolf's 2A Championship? No single model is the best, no matter how much you put down other state systems. That being said, the original thread was about Virginia's 6 Class system. When you look at the number of teams in each division, you then make state tournaments comparable to an in-season tournament. The only state that would probably be able to support a 6 class system, would be California. Even then, you still would have such a small number of teams that you water it down too much. And, as has been mentioned, it does cheapen the tournaments when they are held in a high school gymnasium. There are some good wrestlers who come out of Virginia, but their system could stand for some tweaking. The most interesting thing here is that states like OH, PA, CA, NJ, are happy with their respective systems, but it doesn't seem that anyone in the wrestling community in VA is happy with the system in place there. That is what should drive change there, not the opinions that one state or another has the "best" system.
  2. This is not intended to cast dispersions on the character of a wrestler, they just want to compete. I find it interesting that some states allow middle schoolers/junior high students to compete in high school. But if the available pool of athletes is shallow, that's what you need to do in order to fill out teams. While that may not be an issue, just an anomaly; holding your child back just because of a sport is wrong. I would ask where the parents priorities are when they do this. This sort of thing didn't happen when I was growing up, but I did see it when my younger brother was in high school. What is the rational justification for doing this? Generally it is the parents (specifically the dad) living vicariously through his child. You are public ally stating that your child winning is the most important thing to you. If high schools decide to permit a Redshirt year, then the argument against it would have to go away, because the action would be explicitly endorsed by society. However, that's not the case, this is not an action that is either explicitly or implicitly approved by society. How many of these kids have reached the Olympic stage? I ask that because that is the ultimate goal right? It's not just about winning a state championship (or 4) is it? Doesn't that seem shallow? Maybe I'm wrong and thing that parents should have higher concerns. BTW, there are more opportunities for college scholarships through academics than athletics. Maybe parental priorities should be assessed. That's the real question here.
  • Create New...