Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tofurky

Adding an 11th weight class

Recommended Posts

If by improve the sport you mean make it smaller, sure, but I am totally against eliminating weights unless it's the only way to keep the sport around. Better smaller than nothing.

 

The point isn't making it smaller.  We seem to have a problem fielding wrestlers at the 125 lb class, issue with dual tie criteria, it's more difficult recruiting with scholarship numbers etc. the 125lb class (most can't afford to spend scholarship money on 2 guys, better to over recruit in mid weights where guys can go up or down if injury etc.) and sometimes the 125lbers out grown the weight.  285 is a problem as it's not natural for a 197lber to grown into 285, a 285 recruit generally can't cut down to 197, and many of the best high school HWTs are looking to play football.  Raising the bottom weight some with going to 9 with a more even % between the weight classes while dropping the top closer to the 215 high school weight probably provides more high school wrestlers with an opportunity to compete while eliminating (for the fans) that 1-1 TB#2 HWT bout which doesn't seem to help us in the fan base department.  Leave the number of scholarships where they are and the coaches have a little more flexibility to fill the 9 weights and move the best guys around.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you're saying but reducing the number of weights necessarily reduces participation. The difference between 10 and 9 may not be huge initially, but setting the precedent is a slippery slope. Look at the Olympic weights to see an extreme version of what happens when you start cutting weights.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going down to 9 weight classes (with the heavy at 215 to 225) achieves all your pros and eliminates the cons.  11 will never happen, 9 could improve the sport.

 

How does eliminating an entire weight class grow opportunities for more college student-wrestlers and shrink gaps in weight classes? I read your response above to wrestlingnerd, but I'd be curious to know what your nine weight classes would look like in order to give more opportunity to the middle weight kids. 

 

Again, why are football scholarships held up as some sort of untouchable golden calf? Can the Ohio State Buckeyes not win a BCS title with "only" 60 scholarship athletes? Adding a weight class and allowing wrestling to have 1.1 more scholarships (less than $15,000) isn't asking for much for an entire athletic department to share in. I would guess that every single collegiate coach in America would prefer to move to eleven weight classes and a corresponding number of scholarships long before cutting down to nine weights while maintaining 9.9 scholarships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does eliminating an entire weight class grow opportunities for more college student-wrestlers and shrink gaps in weight classes? I read your response above to wrestlingnerd, but I'd be curious to know what your nine weight classes would look like in order to give more opportunity to the middle weight kids. 

 

Again, why are football scholarships held up as some sort of untouchable golden calf? Can the Ohio State Buckeyes not win a BCS title with "only" 60 scholarship athletes? Adding a weight class and allowing wrestling to have 1.1 more scholarships (less than $15,000) isn't asking for much for an entire athletic department to share in. I would guess that every single collegiate coach in America would prefer to move to eleven weight classes and a corresponding number of scholarships long before cutting down to nine weights while maintaining 9.9 scholarships.

 

Current:
125
133 - 6.40%
141 - 6.02%
149 - 5.67%
157 - 5.37%
165 - 5.10%
174 - 5.45%
184 - 5.75%
197 - 7.07%
285 - 44.67%
Well realize haven’t given this a lot of detailed thought (but 11 won’t happen) but there’d been earlier discussion related to ties.  There would be different ways of looking at the math/weight classes, but one would be an equal (say 7%) increase per class, see (the % next to the first weight class is % over the current 125)
128 - 2.40%
137 - 7.00%
147 - 7.00%
157 - 7.00%
168 - 7.00%
180 - 7.00%
192 - 7.00%
206 - 7.00%
220 - 7.00%
another would be unequal (say slight % increase) in the weight increase, see:
128 - 2.40%
135 - 5.75%
143 - 6.00%
152 - 6.25%
162 - 6.50%
173 - 6.75%
185 - 7.00%
199 - 7.25%
216 - 8.50%
 
could make sense to bump the last one up to a fixed number like 220, 225, 230 rather than as above.  If still ~10 scholarships, this allows a coach to (perhaps) recruit 3 guys at ~137, knowing 1 might still be able to go 128, one could back up 137 or 147, etc.  Number of kids with an opportunity to wrestle might stay the same or perhaps even increase as you could also recruit 2 or 3 around that 206 or 199 class, again as 1 might make the cut to 192/185 and one might backup the guy at 220/216 etc.  As it is, most programs have one guy at 285 (& hopefully another who can wrestling him in the room) and perhaps only 1 true 125lber (the exception may be Iowa and OSU as they seem to always have ~3 125 lbers.  Also, you might have more guys wrestling during the season.  Look at NW, IL & MN and the weights they had to forfeit early on.  For IL, with Richards out in the fall Olivieri was wrestling 133 and by rules couldn’t get back down to 125 till Midlands.  NW with Brill’s injury was forfeiting both 157 & believe it was 174.  Believe Minny also forfeited 125 several times. IN was also forfeiting 125.  A lot of programs have pretty marginal HWTs compared to the rest of their lineup and those with a top 10 HWT generally don’t have someone to push them in the room.  You can’t put your starting 197 lber up against these guys, saw John Wise last week and he was a classic case. One of the 9s above could give better workout options at those top 3 weights and the chance to have 5 guys who could all wrestle there.  Across the 9 and with just as many or more recruited and on the roster, more options for guys to wrestle when others are a little “dinged” up during the season.
 
I agree with you on the football thing, but do think the first place scholarship might be used is on additional men’s program like soccer.  For Example with all the talent in the state IL could be almost instantly successful in men’s soccer, there currently aren’t any great D1 options in many states and it aligns well with high school participation.  However, when I’ve brought it up with football coaches etc. (think they’ve all had too many concussions and just can’t grasp the simple math & logic) they complain that say 50 scholarships will kill the chance to compete.  You point out that everyone will have 50, they say they can’t get the guys who can’t afford to go D1, you say use partials on some full on others, etc., then its another reason etc.  Even Urban Meyer after the championship made a statement that seemed to suggest he thought they needed more money to compete.  The paying the athletes, more scholarships etc. will always help the Ohio States, Michigans, Texas’, etc. to the demise of the smaller programs.  Bottom line, as much as we may like, wrestling isn’t going to get the football scholarships.
 
Also, a scholarship costs a lot more than $15k, save me a seat at Midlands again and we can talk in more detail.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When do the Title IXers and the non-revenue sports band together to attack the bloated football scholarships at most universities? 85 scholarships are available per NCAA rules to BCS teams and 63 to FCS teams? Football can't live with 60 scholarships per team, especially in the B10, B12 and PAC10?

The high number of scholarships was designed more for keeping talent away from other teams and was a compromise between the teams that wanted 100 scholarships and the teams that wanted 30 scholarships.

 

If you lower the number of scholarships then the talent will be spread out more as kids that had been getting scholarships to Oklahoma and Penn State would now look to Boise State or Buffalo.

 

The same is true in wrestling. Sure we can allow more scholarships to be offered but it will only be the Big Ten type programs that offer the expanded scholarships which will lead to even less parity. If you want to see more parity and allow for more schools to be more competitive and thus have a greater incentive to invest in the sport then D1 wrestling should go to 8 scholarships per team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Current:
125
133 - 6.40%
141 - 6.02%
149 - 5.67%
157 - 5.37%
165 - 5.10%
174 - 5.45%
184 - 5.75%
197 - 7.07%
285 - 44.67%
 
128 - 2.40%
137 - 7.00%
147 - 7.00%
157 - 7.00%
168 - 7.00%
180 - 7.00%
192 - 7.00%
206 - 7.00%
220 - 7.00%
 
128 - 2.40%
135 - 5.75%
143 - 6.00%
152 - 6.25%
162 - 6.50%
173 - 6.75%
185 - 7.00%
199 - 7.25%
216 - 8.50%

this is how i like to look at any weight arrangement. the eyeball test will get you most of the way there but the % increase from next lower weight will tell you exactly whats going on.

 

128

135.7 - 6%

143.8 - 6%

151.0 - 5%

158.6 - 5%

168.1 - 6%

179.8 - 7%

194.2 - 8%

211.7 - 9%

 

is another possibility. keeps the middle weights more bunched together to increase the opportunity where there are the most competitors. 

 

or rounding off we get

 

128

136

144

151

159

168

180

194

211

 

need to agree on 3 things in order. 1) how many weights 2) the lowest weight 3) increases between weights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem in making slight adjustments to the current 10 weight classes.

 

But do NOT remove the 125 weight class as it consistently produces some of the more exciting and action-packed matches.

 

As far as the gap between 197 and 285, increasing 197 to some higher weight (210 ish) is the best solution IMO.

 

You could adjust all the gaps without removing 125 and still have a weight class higher than 197 to minimize the 88 pound jump to 285.

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...