Jump to content
RichB

PIAA NEW Weights = 13

Recommended Posts

PIAA is returning to 13 weights. Quickly the same weights as now up to 160. Return to the 5 weights above 160 that existed a decade ago (except 171 became 172) (Pretty much what I was suggesting). Of course now obscure tie breaking rules will no longer be used unless there is, in a given dual, an odd number of double forfeits (null bouts) or double DQ or double DF, I don't remember seeing any of the last 2 in 40 years

Well I guess this is just in the steering committee, and needs to be fully abroved by the association, but that, to me, seems pretty sure

 

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/highschoolsports/2020/04/piaa-wrestling-committee-proposes-13-weight-classes-for-next-season.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with 13 weights, but kids are bigger now day's and I think these weights need to be more fairly distributed ! I am in Iowa and there are as many or more forfeits from 120 - 145 as anywhere with the most being 106. So why take out a heavier weight class at all? Here is at least in my opinion a little more fair set of 13 classes. Also in my opinion you see more undersized 106 kids than anything, or there real big 106 lbers cutting a lot!?!

105,113,121,128,135,142,150,158,167,177,192,220,285 ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like PA caved in to pressure from a few light-weight fans, as their original plan for 12 was very well thought out and distributed, essentially combining the lower 4 into 3, the upper 4 into 3 keeping the middle 6, as almost all data shows the greatest number of forfeits at both ends, especially lights.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there really that many ties that the 13 weights is "needed" so badly or is this just a flimsy excuse since coaches suck at getting kids out for the sport?

And anyone that doesn't realize it, they will still have the same tie-breaking rules since there will be double forfeits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going from 172 to 189 is completely irresponsible. 
 

And does anyone see the irony in the coach taking about how important it was to keep the light weights as is, but then in the next breath saying he wants 8th graders eligible ? If you had ample kids to warrant the light weights as is why would you need middle schoolers?

This is flat out bad for the sport and yet another step towards the eventual elimination of wrestling as a scholastic activity. Hoping smarter people prevail and vote against this and leave it as is at the national level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don;t want 8th graders eligible, although if you have a school with 8th graders in the same building as 12th graders (like maybe the majority of states I would not fight it.

What I would like to see is all 9th graders up with the varsity, O know of no current school in Pennsylvania where 9th and 10th graders are in different buildings (There are a few where 9th and 10th graders are in one building (usually the old HS) and 11th and 12th immediately adjacent, --- Then I would add two JV only weights 93 and 99.with all 9th graders up we could have closer too full JV teams, I would allow 9th graders to compete with the JH/MS if they could certify at 80, maybe 85/86 pounds, buth they would be expected to compete up a class. And I could see 6th graders competing in Middle Schoo7-7-6-6-6-7-7-8--12-17-26-70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RichB said:

I don;t want 8th graders eligible, although if you have a school with 8th graders in the same building as 12th graders (like maybe the majority of states I would not fight it.

What I would like to see is all 9th graders up with the varsity, O know of no current school in Pennsylvania where 9th and 10th graders are in different buildings (There are a few where 9th and 10th graders are in one building (usually the old HS) and 11th and 12th immediately adjacent, --- Then I would add two JV only weights 93 and 99.with all 9th graders up we could have closer too full JV teams, I would allow 9th graders to compete with the JH/MS if they could certify at 80, maybe 85/86 pounds, buth they would be expected to compete up a class. And I could see 6th graders competing in Middle Schoo7-7-6-6-6-7-7-8--12-17-26-70

Still haven't seen an answer, are there really that many ties that people are clamoring for a drop of a weight class to alleviate "confusion?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Still haven't seen an answer, are there really that many ties that people are clamoring for a drop of a weight class to alleviate "confusion?"

You didn't see it all the time?? But in any case, I didn't see that as reason stated. To my knowledge in talking to some in the official discussions it had more to do with forfeits. I think I heard some stat that only 17% (?) of all duals had no forfeits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

You didn't see it all the time?? But in any case, I didn't see that as reason stated. To my knowledge in talking to some in the official discussions it had more to do with forfeits. I think I heard some stat that only 17% (?) of all duals had no forfeits.

@RichB mentioned the ties as either a reason or a "good" side effect.

Reducing the number of weights will not affect the number of forfeits, but sure let's limit the amount of opportunities for athletes to participate in the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BobDole said:

@RichB mentioned the ties as either a reason or a "good" side effect.

Reducing the number of weights will not affect the number of forfeits, but sure let's limit the amount of opportunities for athletes to participate in the sport.

He's not on the committee. I said it's been mentioned all the time just not as an official reason.

Of course it will affect the number of forfeits. By definition it will. Even if all forfeits are strategic rather than lack of numbers it would still lower the number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If forfeits are a concern this should be addressed in colleges where teams with 30 kids on the roster still forfeit sometimes. And If there is a forfeit it implied that the other team does have a kid. So reducing opportunities for kids, especially at weights where they are usually juniors and seniors, to allegedly reduce a few forfeits rings really hollow. There is just no positive outcome to this.  I guess as Bob D says it lets coaches who can’t recruit and build a program off the hook, again at the expense of kids and the sport as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Dole === you sure seen interested in Demanding that PIAA follow you suggestions So Why the Heck Weren't you in Giant Center? Did you have trouble finding Hershey with a Map, a GPS, and a Chocolate Sniffing Dog? Had chance in both Feb and March. I am certain Pa coaches would like to know why Kansas or Indiana or wherever you from has such stronger HS wrestling, since Pennsylvania, because our coaches all suck.

Everyone knows there are participation problems in every sport, It is just more visible in Wrestling than in other sports. You have 19 kids out for Varsity and JV basketball, that might be 8-10 below what you had a dozen years ago, but you will still complete both games,, PIAA Directors saw a problem, so they thought they could solve it their way. The coaches know better, With 19 kids when a couple are sick or hurt, likely you will forfeit a couple (how about let a guy do 3 weights in a dual meet tournament, and a 4 bout span at certification?)

If you will look back at the record I suggested going to fifteen weights, keeping the ones above 160; and going back to the older ones, of 10 years ago below 145. But I also knew that wouldn't happen.  13 is a whole of a lot better than 12 with the lowest late 110.

So what will it be next year, a visit to the PIAA individuals, or or state duals, how about the Ultimate Duals? How about a single dual in Northampton County?

Interestingly, looking at what Bob said last year was, ~drop 106,  and maybe 113 or 195 It looks like about his 25th post lecturing Pa what to do he says keep 14 weights.But start at110?

Edited by RichB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RichB said:

Bob Dole === you sure seen interested in Demanding that PIAA follow you suggestions So Why the Heck Weren't you in Giant Center? Did you have trouble finding Hershey with a Map, a GPS, and a Chocolate Sniffing Dog? Had chance in both Feb and March. I am certain Pa coaches would like to know why Kansas or Indiana or wherever you from has such stronger HS wrestling, since Pennsylvania, because our coaches all suck.

Everyone knows there are participation problems in every sport, It is just more visible in Wrestling than in other sports. You have 19 kids out for Varsity and JV basketball, that might be 8-10 below what you had a dozen years ago, but you will still complete both games,, PIAA Directors saw a problem, so they thought they could solve it their way. The coaches know better, With 19 kids when a couple are sick or hurt, likely you will forfeit a couple (how about let a guy do 3 weights in a dual meet tournament, and a 4 bout span at certification?)

If you will look back at the record I suggested going to fifteen weights, keeping the ones above 160; and going back to the older ones, of 10 years ago below 145. But I also knew that wouldn't happen.  13 is a whole of a lot better than 12 with the lowest late 110.

So what will it be next year, a visit to the PIAA individuals, or or state duals, how about the Ultimate Duals? How about a single dual in Northampton County?

Interestingly, looking at what Bob said last year was, ~drop 106,  and maybe 113 or 195 It looks like about his 25th post lecturing Pa what to do he says keep 14 weights.But start at110?

People like you don't like the truth. If you want to have any affect on forfeits you need to raise the lowest weight. That's the truth since the two lowest weights are the hardest to fill. Taking away an upper weight just makes it so the coach doesn't have to "bother" the football coach to push wrestling. 

The problem isn't the weight classes it's participation and the fact that coaches are getting lazy in recruiting and retaining athletes. As @DynamiteKid stated, going to 13 weights just lets them off the hook even more and hurts the coaches that are actually decent at their job.

Forfeits will still be there next year with 13 weights and that just means we'll have this same conversation next year, and the year after, and the year after talking about how something is wrong with the weight classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobDole said:

People like you don't like the truth. If you want to have any affect on forfeits you need to raise the lowest weight. That's the truth since the two lowest weights are the hardest to fill. Taking away an upper weight just makes it so the coach doesn't have to "bother" the football coach to push wrestling. 

The problem isn't the weight classes it's participation and the fact that coaches are getting lazy in recruiting and retaining athletes. As @DynamiteKid stated, going to 13 weights just lets them off the hook even more and hurts the coaches that are actually decent at their job.

Forfeits will still be there next year with 13 weights and that just means we'll have this same conversation next year, and the year after, and the year after talking about how something is wrong with the weight classes.

Raising the lower weight doesn't really do as much as you think. It will bring in a few more at the higher end but eliminate more very light kids. The lower weight needs to exist to protect the lighter kids. Eliminating an upper weight should fold kids in more. A bigger weight spread in the upperweights isn't as bad as in the lowers. Look how often the 285 champs were 250 or below. Even 230 or below. 215 (then 220) was added in the 90s to entice football players out. It didn't really work. Some did before and some after. It just weakened Hwt into 2 weight groups. 

Of course there will still be forfeits but again you fail to see the math- are you more likely to have forfeits in 13 or 14 weights? 14 or 15? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, New York is floating a pilot proposal to go to 13 weights (from 15), but a different 13 than Pennsylvania, namely 102-110-118-126-132-138-145-152-160-172-189-215-285...but New York also has seventh-grade eligibility.

 

 

Edited by SetonHallPirate
Edited to add quoted tweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the interesting questions will be how will states handle wrestling out of state with different weights? A few years back when NY had different upper weights NJ couldn't wrestle those weights for fear of losing certification even though the NY weight might have been lower than the NJ weight. The simple fact that it was different caused problems. And it's not up to the state that's different to deal with it but the one that's more inline with the NFHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a reduction in the upper weights was inevitable, which I hope it is not, these new suggestions don’t make sense. 
 

instead of : 172, 189, 215 (or 220) and 285 it makes more sense to do :

170, 185, 200 and 270

I know that going to 270 impacts some of the really big kids. But if they are going to wrestle at the next level they need to get used to the lower weight anyway. I don’t know of many (any) high school 285’s that couldn’t make 270 with minimal effort. The good 230 kids can already be competitive at heavyweight anyway let alone if you reduced it. 
 

185-200 is where you get a lot of big freaky strong kids and having kids that get beat out for 172 going that heavy is irresponsible.  If there isn’t a 215 weight in college, the olympics or mma I struggle to see why the second highest weight needs to be as high as 215 or 220. But there should be 3 weights between 170 and 200. (As there is in college )

 

If someone can make a reasonable argument for 172, 189, 220 and 285 over 170, 185, 200 and 270 I would love to hear it. It is almost unheard of for team to have 2 great big guys where one can make 220 but not 200. It’s pretty  common to have 3 decent kids between 170 and 200. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Raising the lower weight doesn't really do as much as you think. It will bring in a few more at the higher end but eliminate more very light kids. The lower weight needs to exist to protect the lighter kids. Eliminating an upper weight should fold kids in more. A bigger weight spread in the upperweights isn't as bad as in the lowers. Look how often the 285 champs were 250 or below. Even 230 or below. 215 (then 220) was added in the 90s to entice football players out. It didn't really work. Some did before and some after. It just weakened Hwt into 2 weight groups. 

Of course there will still be forfeits but again you fail to see the math- are you more likely to have forfeits in 13 or 14 weights? 14 or 15? 

While not popular combining 106 and 113 would do more than what they are currently proposing(NFHS and PIAA). We are still talking about a half forfeit less per team on average so unless they both are forfeiting the same weight it doesn't do much. According to what I have seen they say there are about 30% forfeits in duals(4 per dual meet) this will take it down to maybe 3 forfeits if we are lucky.

Sadly we will be having the forfeit debate again next year and the year after trying to blame the weight classes, when in fact it's not the weight classes, but participation that we need to look at. The NFHS can't mandate coaches sit in the lunch room and recruit kids or use social media 10x a week so their only option is reducing weight classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree you need to spread out the weights more and keep it more fair. That's why I posted those weights above in a early post. I would say that almost every invite in are state does not have a full 106 or 113 lb bracket until the state meet.

As far as kids not going out well lets just say that's the parents fault, most adults are lazy and take the easiest road and there kids are doing the same. This gets back to way larger problem in are country!! There is not very many farm kids left in the Midwest as I am guessing steel mill workers or miner kids in the east. When we got to 7th grade and we could start competing in school sports the majority of my friends did just so we could get away from the farm. But if a coach yelled at us we just went harder, because we got that at home, we didn't cry and give up then turn in a coach into the administration for hurting are feelings. Everything is anyone else's fault in todays world but my fault, right!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 7:15 PM, BobDole said:

While not popular combining 106 and 113 would do more than what they are currently proposing(NFHS and PIAA). We are still talking about a half forfeit less per team on average so unless they both are forfeiting the same weight it doesn't do much. According to what I have seen they say there are about 30% forfeits in duals(4 per dual meet) this will take it down to maybe 3 forfeits if we are lucky.

Sadly we will be having the forfeit debate again next year and the year after trying to blame the weight classes, when in fact it's not the weight classes, but participation that we need to look at. The NFHS can't mandate coaches sit in the lunch room and recruit kids or use social media 10x a week so their only option is reducing weight classes.

You have never been to a wrestling meet in Pennsylvania so you have not seen anything, I trust the opinions of the coaches in the state that has been the leader of wrestling, more than an anonymous blowhard who isn't even man enough to say where he is from, The coaches want kids to have a chance of wrestling even id their cohort is only 15th all the participants

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RichB said:

You have never been to a wrestling meet in Pennsylvania so you have not seen anything, I trust the opinions of the coaches in the state that has been the leader of wrestling, more than an anonymous blowhard who isn't even man enough to say where he is from, The coaches want kids to have a chance of wrestling even id their cohort is only 15th all the participants

 

You'd think the supposedly "best" wrestling state in the country would be able have teams filling their lineups and not asking for a reduction in weight classes. Reducing weight classes is the easy way out instead of telling to coaching to man up and recruit the hallways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some dual forfeits counts are misleading.  Team A and B both have 106 pounders.  Team A also has a 113, but Team B does not.  Team A wins toss and requires Team B to send first at 106.  Team B has a decent 106, but Team A has a state champ who has pinned his kid twice in tournaments.  Team B forfeits at 106, bumping their kid up to 113.  Team A has an awful 113, so the coach has to decide...do I want to double-forfeit at 106 and have my 106 bump to 113 and get 6, so Team A would be ahead 6-0 after 113, or do I have my great 6 take a forfeit win, and then have my 113 get pinned, leaving us 6-6 after 2 matches.  So now Team A double-forfeits at 106.  Team B then also decides to not send their 106 out at 113 because his attempt at ducking has failed, so now the box score shows forfeits at 106 and 113.  Remember, if Team B had won the toss, and A had to send first, then the score would have been 6-6. As my following proposal does reduce some forfeits (and because I recall how much someone hated the idea), I once again suggest locked line ups.  Eliminates the significance of a coin toss determining an outcome of a dual meet (which happens far more often than some would suggest) and reduces forfeits.  Combined with matside weigh-ins, the coaches must submit a locked line-up just prior to intros and the anthem.  Can't change any weight class after that.  Can't swap or sub.  Failure to send your submitted wrestler forfeits any right to bump up and duck.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, davenowa said:

some dual forfeits counts are misleading.  Team A and B both have 106 pounders.  Team A also has a 113, but Team B does not.  Team A wins toss and requires Team B to send first at 106.  Team B has a decent 106, but Team A has a state champ who has pinned his kid twice in tournaments.  Team B forfeits at 106, bumping their kid up to 113.  Team A has an awful 113, so the coach has to decide...do I want to double-forfeit at 106 and have my 106 bump to 113 and get 6, so Team A would be ahead 6-0 after 113, or do I have my great 6 take a forfeit win, and then have my 113 get pinned, leaving us 6-6 after 2 matches.  So now Team A double-forfeits at 106.  Team B then also decides to not send their 106 out at 113 because his attempt at ducking has failed, so now the box score shows forfeits at 106 and 113.  Remember, if Team B had won the toss, and A had to send first, then the score would have been 6-6. As my following proposal does reduce some forfeits (and because I recall how much someone hated the idea), I once again suggest locked line ups.  Eliminates the significance of a coin toss determining an outcome of a dual meet (which happens far more often than some would suggest) and reduces forfeits.  Combined with matside weigh-ins, the coaches must submit a locked line-up just prior to intros and the anthem.  Can't change any weight class after that.  Can't swap or sub.  Failure to send your submitted wrestler forfeits any right to bump up and duck.  

#1 this wouldn't be prevented by locked line-ups. With the locked line-up scenario he does this without worry of the other team bumping. 

#2 this happens about .000001% of the time so it has very little affect on forfeit numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...