Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jaroslav Hasek

Number of NQs from CA and OR have plummeted. Theories?

Recommended Posts

Not enough in-state opportunities. The big point people miss with in-state opportunities is the cost of attending for state kids. As good as PA is, and I believe they are the best, they have 11 Division 1 programs in-state. Kids that aren't "star" recruits can still wrestle at the next level and be able to afford to do so.

 

Elite CA kids get an opportunity -- McIntosh, Welch, Martinez, Nevills, etc -- but those below the superstar level are the ones that suffer, and in a state a large as CA, there are LOT of those kids.

 

Just my educated opinion but the majority of our 1st-4th place winners could wrestle at the D1 level. If we had 11 state programs, these kids would get opportunities and you would see kids like Port, Habat, etc that maybe weren't the top recruits in high school, but shine in college. Right now, there is nowhere for those kids to continue wrestling as they are not 80-90% scholarship kids at out-of-state schools and they can't afford to pay out-of-state tuition to walk on.

 

tuition at bakersfield and cal poly are similar to the pa state schools. the problem is their production. cal poly and bakersfield each had 1 national qualifier. bakersfield had a ca kid in hammond and cal poly's was lotitito from pa. out of 20 chances to qualify guys at reasonably priced ca universities they only were able to get 2 qualifiers. in 1999 these two teams qualified 12 guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you guys are saying there is a direct correlation between the number of D1 programs in a state, and it's number of national qualifiers? And if a state has more programs, they'll qualify more wrestlers?

While this is definitely true, some states have historically over performed based on the number of D1 programs (Ohio, New Jersey) and others have underperformed (North Carolina).

 

I'd like to see North Carolina's numbers, if you have them.

 

below are CA, OR and NC's NQs from 1998-2014. If it's too small to read you can find a bigger version here:

http://jaroslavwrestling.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/ncaa-wrestling-national-qualifiers-from-california-oregon-north-carolina-1998-2014/

 

let me know if you have any other suggestions on states to compare.

 

ca-or-nc-ncaa-nqs-98-14-small.png?w=504

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sockobuw has a good point. Kind of relates to the other thread about the coaching carousel. Some coaches may be really nice guys but they do not produce. Turnbull is one heck of a nice guy but his most recent success story was Jones who was a freak of nature kind of talent. I would guess that the PAC12 schools need to look at their coaches and how well they recruit. If CA is that good and as Tirapelli indicates that their top 4 can compete at the next level, then these coaches are just not bringing in the right kids. As an example, how the heck can ASU be so bad ? I looked at the ASU roster a few years ago and the HS credentials of the team were less than stellar.

It does not add up that you have all that talent with limited opportunities. Those teams should be loaded instead of watered down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaroslav Hasek - nice work - Can you incorperate the drop in schools ? or - How many schools did the qualifiers represent per year ? Like in 1998 34 (10) where 10 = the number of schools (not accurate no, just example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaroslav Hasek - nice work - Can you incorperate the drop in schools ? or - How many schools did the qualifiers represent per year ? Like in 1998 34 (10) where 10 = the number of schools (not accurate no, just example)

 

You would also have to figure out how many qualifiers from the dropped programs were California wrestlers as opposed to wrestlers from other states. Same with Oregon. Our gut tell us that many or most would be home grown wrestlers, but why just go by our gut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not enough in-state opportunities. The big point people miss with in-state opportunities is the cost of attending for state kids. As good as PA is, and I believe they are the best, they have 11 Division 1 programs in-state. Kids that aren't "star" recruits can still wrestle at the next level and be able to afford to do so.

 

Elite CA kids get an opportunity -- McIntosh, Welch, Martinez, Nevills, etc -- but those below the superstar level are the ones that suffer, and in a state a large as CA, there are LOT of those kids.

 

Just my educated opinion but the majority of our 1st-4th place winners could wrestle at the D1 level. If we had 11 state programs, these kids would get opportunities and you would see kids like Port, Habat, etc that maybe weren't the top recruits in high school, but shine in college. Right now, there is nowhere for those kids to continue wrestling as they are not 80-90% scholarship kids at out-of-state schools and they can't afford to pay out-of-state tuition to walk on.

 

tuition at bakersfield and cal poly are similar to the pa state schools. the problem is their production. cal poly and bakersfield each had 1 national qualifier. bakersfield had a ca kid in hammond and cal poly's was lotitito from pa. out of 20 chances to qualify guys at reasonably priced ca universities they only were able to get 2 qualifiers. in 1999 these two teams qualified 12 guys.

 

That can be a misleading statistic you are using....how many qualifying spots were there in 1999 compared to 2014? In 1999 the Pac-10 at that time qualified 40 automatic spots for the 1999 NCAA Championships (they ended up with 41 with a wild card)...in 2014 the Pac-12 qualified 17 spots. There were 24 less qualifying spots in 2014 for the PAC12. There were 10 teams in 1999 verses 6 in 2014...that is an average of 4 allocations per team in 1999 that would make it equivalent to 24 in 2014. To be fair to the situation, there were less opportunities to qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb stuff Jaroslaw.

 

What is your source?

 

I ask because I'm interested in AA trends, though I find the NQ trends quite worthwhile. I centered on AAs because I thought "opportunity" might act, for many states, as a more impacting "caveat" for NQs than for AAs (as it turns out, several posts in this thread attempt to address that). I thought such caveats would be difficult to measure, but CA and OR are such outliers that identifiable correlations might be shown.

 

On the other hand, for states that would be commonly thought of as NOT top 20, NQs could be viewed as much more significant than AAs, due to sample size. Wrestling historians should want to see NQs, for as many years and as far back as available.

 

I produced the following chart from available information for two states, but would really like to see other top states added. PA and and Ohio D1 AAs by decade, with the first and last lines partial decades:

 

D1 AAs

 

Decade PA....OH

 

29-30 2......2

31-40 9......2

41-50 18.....5

51-60 68.....4

61-70 77.....17

71-80 75.....52

81-90 108....67

91-00 121....73

00-10 110....78

11-14 54.....32

 

Would like to add columns for OK, IA, NJ, IL, NY, MI, etc

 

Ideally this would be combined in a massive chart with NQs. I know. Dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sockobuw has a good point. Kind of relates to the other thread about the coaching carousel. Some coaches may be really nice guys but they do not produce. Turnbull is one heck of a nice guy but his most recent success story was Jones who was a freak of nature kind of talent. I would guess that the PAC12 schools need to look at their coaches and how well they recruit. If CA is that good and as Tirapelli indicates that their top 4 can compete at the next level, then these coaches are just not bringing in the right kids. As an example, how the heck can ASU be so bad ? I looked at the ASU roster a few years ago and the HS credentials of the team were less than stellar.

It does not add up that you have all that talent with limited opportunities. Those teams should be loaded instead of watered down.

 

Here are the Pac-12 starting lineups and high school results

 

Cal State Bakersfield

125 - Sergio Mendez - not a state place winner

133 - Jose Mendoza - 2x state placer (2nd highest finish)

141 - Ian Nickel - 2x state placer (7th highest finish)

149 - Dalton Kelley - state runner-up in Colorado

157 - Spencer Hill - not a state place winner

165 - David Meza - 1x state placer (4th)

174 - Bryce Hammond - 2x state champion

184 - Sean Pollack - not a state place winner

197 - Reuben Franklin - 1x state placer (4th)

285 - Sammy Cervantes - 1x state placer (7th)

 

You really have 1 highly credentialed wrestler, and he took 8th at the NCAA's.

 

Cal Poly

125 - Britain Longmire - 3x Nevada champ

133 - Devin Lotito - 3x PA state place winner (2nd highest finish)

141 - Jacob Leon - 1x state place winner (3rd)

149 - Kyle Chene - 1x state place winner (7th)

157 - Xavier Johnson - not a state place winner

165 - Travis Berridge - Florida state champion

174 - Dominic Kastl - 2x state place winner (4th highest finish)

184 - Kent Beecham - not a state place winner

197 - Nick Johnson - 1x state place winner (4th)

285 - Spencer Empy - 3x Nevada champ

 

Only Empy is a nationally ranked high schooler, and he's a true frosh (along with a lot of other guys wrestling who would be 3rd/4th team in a Big 10/12 lineup). The best wrestler on the team besides Lotito is Kastl, and he was too injured to do anything.

 

These are not exactly 'stacked' lineups. Just wanted to take a look (for my own benefit as well) at what each team is putting on the mat as a starting lineup. At the D1 level, it shouldn't be that surprising that there were only 2 NCAA qualifiers out of this group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you guys are saying there is a direct correlation between the number of D1 programs in a state, and it's number of national qualifiers? And if a state has more programs, they'll qualify more wrestlers?

While this is definitely true, some states have historically over performed based on the number of D1 programs (Ohio, New Jersey) and others have underperformed (North Carolina).

 

I'd like to see North Carolina's numbers, if you have them.

 

below are CA, OR and NC's NQs from 1998-2014. If it's too small to read you can find a bigger version here:

http://jaroslavwrestling.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/ncaa-wrestling-national-qualifiers-from-california-oregon-north-carolina-1998-2014/

 

let me know if you have any other suggestions on states to compare.

 

ca-or-nc-ncaa-nqs-98-14-small.png?w=504

 

I am from Colorado so I would be interested in how we are trending. More than that, it would be interesting to see how states that have had high and sustained growth trend. It seems like population shifts don't have a large effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superb stuff Jaroslaw.

 

What is your source?

 

I ask because I'm interested in AA trends, though I find the NQ trends quite worthwhile. I centered on AAs because I thought "opportunity" might act, for many states, as a more impacting "caveat" for NQs than for AAs (as it turns out, several posts in this thread attempt to address that). I thought such caveats would be difficult to measure, but CA and OR are such outliers that identifiable correlations might be shown.

 

On the other hand, for states that would be commonly thought of as NOT top 20, NQs could be viewed as much more significant than AAs, due to sample size. Wrestling historians should want to see NQs, for as many years and as far back as available.

 

I produced the following chart from available information for two states, but would really like to see other top states added. PA and and Ohio D1 AAs by decade, with the first and last lines partial decades:

 

D1 AAs

 

Decade PA....OH

 

29-30 2......2

31-40 9......2

41-50 18.....5

51-60 68.....4

61-70 77.....17

71-80 75.....52

81-90 108....67

91-00 121....73

00-10 110....78

11-14 54.....32

 

Would like to add columns for OK, IA, NJ, IL, NY, MI, etc

 

Ideally this would be combined in a massive chart with NQs. I know. Dream on.

 

Thanks! i just trawl the internet and try to organize everything the best i can on google docs. the lists The Open Mat put together this year for NQs were especially nice. very east to cut and paste on to excel cells too. unfortunately I don't have detailed info going back to to 98 for national qualifiers or AAs, just the last two years. I do i have all the NQs by state from 98-14, but not other details so far. but i'll slowly chip away at gathering the data.

 

i'll defintitley be looking into finding trends as you suggest. i'll try and share all the interesting stuff i find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from Colorado so I would be interested in how we are trending. More than that, it would be interesting to see how states that have had high and sustained growth trend. It seems like population shifts don't have a large effect.

 

here's CO's raw numbers:

2 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 5 3 7 11 12 9 10 9

 

definitely an upward trend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not enough in-state opportunities. The big point people miss with in-state opportunities is the cost of attending for state kids. As good as PA is, and I believe they are the best, they have 11 Division 1 programs in-state. Kids that aren't "star" recruits can still wrestle at the next level and be able to afford to do so.

 

Elite CA kids get an opportunity -- McIntosh, Welch, Martinez, Nevills, etc -- but those below the superstar level are the ones that suffer, and in a state a large as CA, there are LOT of those kids.

 

Just my educated opinion but the majority of our 1st-4th place winners could wrestle at the D1 level. If we had 11 state programs, these kids would get opportunities and you would see kids like Port, Habat, etc that maybe weren't the top recruits in high school, but shine in college. Right now, there is nowhere for those kids to continue wrestling as they are not 80-90% scholarship kids at out-of-state schools and they can't afford to pay out-of-state tuition to walk on.

 

tuition at bakersfield and cal poly are similar to the pa state schools. the problem is their production. cal poly and bakersfield each had 1 national qualifier. bakersfield had a ca kid in hammond and cal poly's was lotitito from pa. out of 20 chances to qualify guys at reasonably priced ca universities they only were able to get 2 qualifiers. in 1999 these two teams qualified 12 guys.

 

That can be a misleading statistic you are using....how many qualifying spots were there in 1999 compared to 2014? In 1999 the Pac-10 at that time qualified 40 automatic spots for the 1999 NCAA Championships (they ended up with 41 with a wild card)...in 2014 the Pac-12 qualified 17 spots. There were 24 less qualifying spots in 2014 for the PAC12. There were 10 teams in 1999 verses 6 in 2014...that is an average of 4 allocations per team in 1999 that would make it equivalent to 24 in 2014. To be fair to the situation, there were less opportunities to qualify.

 

you are absolutely correct that it gets very complex when trying to compare the two different systems. the old system used the 5 year sliding window that could artificially inflate your round of 12 guys by having intra-conference match-ups take place in the wrestlebacks. it was a tall task for underrepresented conferences to gain qualifiers with less guys in the bracket. i did cite the qualifier difference in one of my earlier posts in the thread. i think everyone would agree that the current system is much better, and gets the right guys to the tournament. the 20 guys from the two schools had the same chance to qualify, they just had to earn it during the year and didn't do it.

 

cal poly was much better in the past few years than they were in the late 90's. however, losing henson then perry has had a very negative affect on their team. 1 qualifier was probably very hard for them to swallow with their recent success. bakersfield is fighting a tough battle to keep the program. it is very difficult to recruit with uncertainty. they had 4 different guys AA for 5 honors 98-00. they have completely fallen off since the athletic dept brought the program's status into question. the slight downward trend has been drastically increased the past few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sockobuw has a good point. Kind of relates to the other thread about the coaching carousel. Some coaches may be really nice guys but they do not produce. Turnbull is one heck of a nice guy but his most recent success story was Jones who was a freak of nature kind of talent. I would guess that the PAC12 schools need to look at their coaches and how well they recruit. If CA is that good and as Tirapelli indicates that their top 4 can compete at the next level, then these coaches are just not bringing in the right kids. As an example, how the heck can ASU be so bad ? I looked at the ASU roster a few years ago and the HS credentials of the team were less than stellar.

It does not add up that you have all that talent with limited opportunities. Those teams should be loaded instead of watered down.

 

Here are the Pac-12 starting lineups and high school results

 

Cal State Bakersfield

125 - Sergio Mendez - not a state place winner

133 - Jose Mendoza - 2x state placer (2nd highest finish)

141 - Ian Nickel - 2x state placer (7th highest finish)

149 - Dalton Kelley - state runner-up in Colorado

157 - Spencer Hill - not a state place winner

165 - David Meza - 1x state placer (4th)

174 - Bryce Hammond - 2x state champion

184 - Sean Pollack - not a state place winner

197 - Reuben Franklin - 1x state placer (4th)

285 - Sammy Cervantes - 1x state placer (7th)

 

You really have 1 highly credentialed wrestler, and he took 8th at the NCAA's.

 

Cal Poly

125 - Britain Longmire - 3x Nevada champ

133 - Devin Lotito - 3x PA state place winner (2nd highest finish)

141 - Jacob Leon - 1x state place winner (3rd)

149 - Kyle Chene - 1x state place winner (7th)

157 - Xavier Johnson - not a state place winner

165 - Travis Berridge - Florida state champion

174 - Dominic Kastl - 2x state place winner (4th highest finish)

184 - Kent Beecham - not a state place winner

197 - Nick Johnson - 1x state place winner (4th)

285 - Spencer Empy - 3x Nevada champ

 

Only Empy is a nationally ranked high schooler, and he's a true frosh (along with a lot of other guys wrestling who would be 3rd/4th team in a Big 10/12 lineup). The best wrestler on the team besides Lotito is Kastl, and he was too injured to do anything.

 

These are not exactly 'stacked' lineups. Just wanted to take a look (for my own benefit as well) at what each team is putting on the mat as a starting lineup. At the D1 level, it shouldn't be that surprising that there were only 2 NCAA qualifiers out of this group.

 

 

why aren't they able to get some of the top tier guys? the coaching changover at call poly with henson and perry still hurting? the athletic dept at bakersfield?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superb stuff Jaroslaw.

 

What is your source?

 

I ask because I'm interested in AA trends, though I find the NQ trends quite worthwhile. I centered on AAs because I thought "opportunity" might act, for many states, as a more impacting "caveat" for NQs than for AAs (as it turns out, several posts in this thread attempt to address that). I thought such caveats would be difficult to measure, but CA and OR are such outliers that identifiable correlations might be shown.

 

On the other hand, for states that would be commonly thought of as NOT top 20, NQs could be viewed as much more significant than AAs, due to sample size. Wrestling historians should want to see NQs, for as many years and as far back as available.

 

I produced the following chart from available information for two states, but would really like to see other top states added. PA and and Ohio D1 AAs by decade, with the first and last lines partial decades:

 

D1 AAs

 

Decade PA....OH

 

29-30 2......2

31-40 9......2

41-50 18.....5

51-60 68.....4

61-70 77.....17

71-80 75.....52

81-90 108....67

91-00 121....73

00-10 110....78

11-14 54.....32

 

Would like to add columns for OK, IA, NJ, IL, NY, MI, etc

 

Ideally this would be combined in a massive chart with NQs. I know. Dream on.

 

I think this decade by decade breakdown is really the right way to approach things. Now we need to begin to figure out what happened in the 1950s in Pennsylvania and the 1970s in Ohio.

 

Was there a sudden burst in D1 programs (say in the early 1950s / 1970s)? Is there some other dynamic at play?

 

I have a basic hypothesis about the way this works -- college teams produce well-trained athletes. The most successful athletes coach at the college level. The others filter back to the local community to coach high school and bring their training methods with them, raising the level of the region. The better trained athletes produce more AAs, leading to more local interest in wrestling, leading to more college athletes, etc. A virtuous feedback loop.

 

If that hypothesis is true, it's hard to understand why this hasn't happened in NC, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North Carolina is a puzzler. I recently saw a list somewhere of the number of high school wrestlers in each state. North Carolina was in the top ten in participants. I think Texas may have been in there also or bordering top ten.

 

I had an internet conversation with one of the super32 folks, back when it was getting ready to take off as a place to be for great off-season competition. That person explained the state tournament series in N. Carolina was something like an invitational with only the wrestlers with the best won-loss records getting in. I was floored in that it would seem to foster the notion of avoiding tough competition in-season to keep those won-loss records looking pristine. I think it was also mentioned that the junior high situation was somewhat chaotic. I still wonder if I understood their concept correctly. Maybe it's changed or never was like that.

 

At that time you could count on N Carolina wrestlers to descend in droves on senior nationals (which is off-season).

 

Anyway, I'm glad they have high participation numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ca has some very tough wrestlers. I expect the number of qualifiers and AA's to trend upward. Tirapelli and others in CA have done a great job in recent years getting the CA kids some exposure. CA kids are making a name for themselves at NHSCA events, Flo nationals, The Beast and Fargo. I am curious if the number of college commitments is on the rise for Cali kids ?

There are many opportunities for PA kids in PA but there are just about as many PA qualifiers that go to out of state schools. Coaches at PA colleges do not get a bonus for recruiting PA kids. Coaches will get the best kid they can get wether they are from PA or not.

 

I'm curious the ratio of in state vs out of state qualifiers for all states. I'm guessing there are far more Nj qualifying for out of state schools than for in state. Is that so for PA as well? What's the ratio?

 

Your answer for PA is 33 qualified for in-state schools, and 30 qualified for out-of-state schools, for a total of 63 qualifiers. I got the information from PA Power Wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tirapell, This is what I have been wondering. Is the culture in CA one that does not make many kids interested in wrestling at the college level?

 

You cite the lack of All-State credentials on the in-state teams but it isn't as if all of the top-4 place winners are recruited to go out of state. Are kids just not interested in wrestling in college or not interested in the schools that offer wrestling? Could the lack of state credentials in the lineups be less indicative of a lack of talent but rather a lack of credentials based on the state qualifier system for the single championship? I mean, are the starters better than many of the state placers despite not placing? (This is sometimes the case in PA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this decade by decade breakdown is really the right way to approach things. Now we need to begin to figure out what happened in the 1950s in Pennsylvania and the 1970s in Ohio.

 

don't know about Ohio, but in PA this is what did it:

in the early 50's our District had 13 schools with wrestling.

By the mid-60's our district had 56 schools with wrestling.

 

The expansion around the state was similar, I suppose.

 

It was a wrestling explosion and effected what was going on nationally with PA wrestlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# of NQs by state, and for in state schools:

 

PA 63 total, 33 in state schools (52%),

OH 31 total, 11 in state schools (35%)

NJ 24 total, 8 in state schools (33%)

NY 20 total, 7 in state schools (35%)

CA 13 total, 2 in state schools (15%)

 

Clearly having a large number of in state schools inflates the number of NQs for PA. They're the only power state that has more in state qualifiers than out of state. Having more in state D1 programs in these other states would spread of the number of NQs out far more evenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the pa schools only competed against each other for the qualifying spots you may have a point. however, they have to earn qualification spots for their conference then win in the conference. the EWL is the only conference that is heavy on pa teams. whatever makes you feel better about why another state is able to produce way above nj. was the 17 all-americans directly related to more in-state schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the pa schools only competed against each other for the qualifying spots you may have a point. however, they have to earn qualification spots for their conference then win in the conference. the EWL is the only conference that is heavy on pa teams. whatever makes you feel better about why another state is able to produce way above nj. was the 17 all-americans directly related to more in-state schools?

 

Why are you getting nasty about it? Where did I make this a PA/NJ thing? I compared PA to OH, NJ, CA, NY. It's a statistical fact. Why do YOU think PA is the only power state that has more in state NQs than out of state? There are far more out of state D1 programs, why is PA the only state that produces more in state qualifiers?

And yes, if you really need it explained to you, more in state opportunities = more in state qualifiers = more PA AAs.

Do you refute this?

 

I'll throw in Illinois. 21 NQs, 2 in state (9%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
North Carolina is a puzzler. I recently saw a list somewhere of the number of high school wrestlers in each state. North Carolina was in the top ten in participants. I think Texas may have been in there also or bordering top ten.

 

I had an internet conversation with one of the super32 folks, back when it was getting ready to take off as a place to be for great off-season competition. That person explained the state tournament series in N. Carolina was something like an invitational with only the wrestlers with the best won-loss records getting in. I was floored in that it would seem to foster the notion of avoiding tough competition in-season to keep those won-loss records looking pristine. I think it was also mentioned that the junior high situation was somewhat chaotic. I still wonder if I understood their concept correctly. Maybe it's changed or never was like that.

 

At that time you could count on N Carolina wrestlers to descend in droves on senior nationals (which is off-season).

 

Anyway, I'm glad they have high participation numbers.

North Carolina is in the top 10 as far as high school participants are concerned. And Texas is 5th. Here are the 2013 numbers:

 

California 27,634

Illinois 16,385

New York 13,668

Ohio 11,581

Texas 10,639

Michigan 10,374

New Jersey 9,893

Pennsylvania 9,740

North Carolina 9,441

Georgia 8,730

Washington 8,413

Florida 8,104

Minnesota 8,020

Wisconsin 7,622

Missouri 7,600

Indiana 7,589

Virginia 6,730

Iowa 6,709

Arizona 6,149

Colorado 5,362

Maryland 5,245

Kansas 5,156

South Carolina 5,145

Oregon 5,064

Nebraska 4,547

Massachusetts 4,531

Tennessee 4,302

Oklahoma 3,636

Utah 3,380

Connecticut 2,941

Nevada 2,634

Idaho 2,476

Alabama 2,185

Kentucky 2,079

Louisiana 1,750

West Virginia 1,615

New Mexico 1,573

Montana 1,504

Alaska 1,398

South Dakota 1,311

Wyoming 1,161

Delaware 1,138

Hawaii 1,002

Rhode Island 971

Maine 909

North Dakota 856

New Hampshire 781

Arkansas 295

Vermont 170

Mississippi 25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put this in perspective, California would need 31 Division 1 programs to be on par per capita with Pennsylvania. We currently have 3, with Stanford being private and extremely difficult to get into.

 

By keeping programs while others have cut, PA is quite a bit ahead of the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California could get more qualifiers if they had a California Centric Conference. Teams that should start a conference:

 

Cal Poly (BW)

Cal State Bakersfield (WAC)

Grand Canyon (WAC)

Utah Valley (WAC)

 

Possible teams to join the conference:

Fresno State (Mountain West)

CSU Northridge (BW)

CSU Long Beach (BW)

CSU Davis (BW)

CSU Riverside (BW)

CSU Irvine (BW)

CSU Santa Barbara (BW)

CSU Fullerton (BW)

 

This would allow the Big West, Western Athletic Conference, or Mountain Pacific Sports Federation to sponsor the conference (if it didn't take a Wrestling only conference name.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 Full D1 Member Institutions in California

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Davis

University of California, Irvine

University of California, Los Angeles

California Polytechnic State University

University of California, Riverside

University of California, Santa Barbara

California State University, Bakersfield

California State University, Fresno

California State University, Fullerton

California State University, Long Beach

California State University, Northridge

California State University, Sacramento

Loyola Marymount University

University of the Pacific

Pepperdine University

Saint Mary's College of California

University of San Diego

San Diego State University

University of San Francisco

San Jose State University

Santa Clara University

University of Southern California

Stanford University

 

Bold offer wrestling. A pretty sad list.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...