Should the NCAA bring back 118 & Unlimited?

[treep2000]

2 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

pssst...

I took the world FS weights and rounded up to the next pound.

Fantastic.

[SetonHallPirate]

3 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

pssst...

I took the world FS weights and rounded up to the next pound.

Honestly, those weights take away from the middle, which is where we already have a glut of wrestlers, and move them up top, where there’s (aside from heavyweight) fewer wrestlers. I get the idea of rationalizing with freestyle, but for the NCAA population, they make no sense.

[bnwtwg]

10 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

Honestly, those weights take away from the middle, which is where we already have a glut of wrestlers, and move them up top, where there’s (aside from heavyweight) fewer wrestlers. I get the idea of rationalizing with freestyle, but for the NCAA population, they make no sense.

But that is my point. There are fewer opportunities of advancement, so fewer heavier athletes compete. It's a snake biting its tail.

[bnwtwg]

If I knew that I wouldn't be getting a football scholarship because I'm not big or fast enough or plain old good enough, but there was a viable alternative in wrestling what do you think I would pursue?

As an example, John Wise spent his freshman year at the world-reknowned perennial football powerhouse Western Illinois. Then he transferred to Illinois where he became an all-american heavyweight. He wrestled 215 in high school, then bulked up his senior year because there were football scholarships to a number of schools but none for wrestling. Why? Because he was too big for 197 and too small for 285 according to coaches, and a scholarship is a scholarship so he went the football route because that was his only option. If he had a wrestling option perhaps he would have made a different decision.

[Major Kong]

350 lb.ers on scholarship too expensive to feed for cash strapped programs!

[jross]

No

[MPhillips]

1 hour ago, bnwtwg said:

It's a snake biting its tail.

Uroboros

[SetonHallPirate]

6 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

But that is my point. There are fewer opportunities of advancement, so fewer heavier athletes compete. It's a snake biting its tail.

You're missing what I'm saying. In terms of numbers of wrestlers that compete, on an annual basis, at the NCAA level, the weights that have the most numbers are 141-149-157, which is exactly where you're thinning out. The weights with the least numbers are 184 and 197, which is exactly where you're adding more weights. (I've literally been looking at these numbers every year for the past 12 years or so, with the exception of 2021, where everything was screwed up due to the truncated schedule)

[bnwtwg]

8 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

You're missing what I'm saying. In terms of numbers of wrestlers that compete, on an annual basis, at the NCAA level, the weights that have the most numbers are 141-149-157, which is exactly where you're thinning out. The weights with the least numbers are 184 and 197, which is exactly where you're adding more weights. (I've literally been looking at these numbers every year for the past 12 years or so, with the exception of 2021, where everything was screwed up due to the truncated schedule)

I'm saying add more between 197 and 285. It is my opinion that the above logic is not seeing the forest for the trees. Fewer opportunities = lower participation from a prospect group.

If this were a business case, I would say there is an unrepresented group and there is an easy solution to fill a gap with a 5x growth potential.

[SetonHallPirate]

6 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

I'm saying add more between 197 and 285. It is my opinion that the above logic is not seeing the forest for the trees. Fewer opportunities = lower participation from a prospect group.

If this were a business case, I would say there is an unrepresented group and there is an easy solution to fill a gap with a 5x growth potential.

If you seriously think that adding weight classes (supply) at weights where there are fewer wrestlers (demand) will increase demand, I sincerely question your grasp on economics...

The weight classes I suggested are based on data done by the NFHS and the NWCA...

[bnwtwg]

2 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

If you seriously think that adding weight classes (supply) at weights where there are fewer wrestlers (demand) will increase demand, I sincerely question your grasp on economics...

The weight classes I suggested are based on data done by the NFHS and the NWCA...

And I'm seriously saying that if you give more opportunities then more positions will open up. I'm not trying to fight but I am fighting for what I believe in. I don't care about the 4th string D3 149 pounder. I do care about losing a varsity 220 D1 because we are too worried about current numbers instead of future potential.

 

Call it, ahem, INCLUSIVENESS.

[TexRef]

7 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

If you seriously think that adding weight classes (supply) at weights where there are fewer wrestlers (demand) will increase demand, I sincerely question your grasp on economics...

The weight classes I suggested are based on data done by the NFHS and the NWCA...

I think @bnwtwg is suggesting the "If you build it, they will come" scenario. I am not so sure that would work in this instance. 

[SetonHallPirate]

Just now, TexRef said:

I think @bnwtwg is suggesting the "If you build it, they will come" scenario. I am not so sure that would work in this instance. 

Yeah...I'm with you. The fact is, compared to the numbers of wrestlers at the weights, generally (and this is pretty consistent over the past 15 years) the weights from 141-157 have had the highest numbers of wrestlers (in terms of weights the wrestlers are actually competing at), whereas 184 and 197 have been the lowest. Surely taking weights from the middleweights and giving them to the upperweights isn't going to stimulate demand for the upperweights to the level suggested. It's just not a finding that makes sense.

[bnwtwg]

On 11/11/2022 at 9:54 PM, SetonHallPirate said:

Yeah...I'm with you. The fact is, compared to the numbers of wrestlers at the weights, generally (and this is pretty consistent over the past 15 years) the weights from 141-157 have had the highest numbers of wrestlers (in terms of weights the wrestlers are actually competing at), whereas 184 and 197 have been the lowest. Surely taking weights from the middleweights and giving them to the upperweights isn't going to stimulate demand for the upperweights to the level suggested. It's just not a finding that makes sense.

They said the same thing about women's wrestling and now that is the fastest growing sport. And since my grasp on economics is lacking, do you want to ask how my F list leading technology company is rolling like a Narikuni ankle lace when everyone else looks like Zain during this downturn?

[Husker_Du]

On 11/11/2022 at 6:02 PM, bnwtwg said:

And I'm seriously saying that if you give more opportunities then more positions will open up. I'm not trying to fight but I am fighting for what I believe in. I don't care about the 4th string D3 149 pounder. I do care about losing a varsity 220 D1 because we are too worried about current numbers instead of future potential.

 

Call it, ahem, INCLUSIVENESS.

when did this happen? ever?

when was there a viable DI prospect between 197 and 285 that said 'ef it'. please tell me you have more than your john wise anecdote. 

[bnwtwg]

54 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

when did this happen? ever?

when was there a viable DI prospect between 197 and 285 that said 'ef it'. please tell me you have more than your john wise anecdote. 

Is Snyder not the best example possible? What about fellow 2x world champion and HS 220 and 285 J’Den Cox. What about the other examples provided in this thread?

I was simply trying to provide an example other than “hurr durr look at the glaring exception to the rule” in Snyder, but as a 103 did you not feel the same restrictions with regards to next level opportunities?

[bnwtwg]

58 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

when did this happen? ever?

when was there a viable DI prospect between 197 and 285 that said 'ef it'. please tell me you have more than your john wise anecdote. 

Also, what about that kid from Iowa? What’s his name? You probably know it since you do rankings and such. I think he’s doing some other sport… is it rugby?

[Husker_Du]

20 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Is Snyder not the best example possible? What about fellow 2x world champion and HS 220 and 285 J’Den Cox. What about the other examples provided in this thread?

I was simply trying to provide an example other than “hurr durr look at the glaring exception to the rule” in Snyder, but as a 103 did you not feel the same restrictions with regards to next level opportunities?

an example of what? that you don't need a weight in the middle b/c they can figure it out and still be uber successful?

your thesis was that kids leave the sport b/c their isn't a weight class for them. i'm asking for examples. 

as a very small high school kid, i wouldn't mind 118 for the kurt mchenry's of the world. but pragmatically, that's an outlier. ask any college coach in the country what's the most difficult weight to recruit and he'll tell you 125. because they just never stay small enough.

[bnwtwg]

1 minute ago, Husker_Du said:

an example of what? that you don't need a weight in the middle b/c they can figure it out and still be uber successful?

your thesis was that kids leave the sport b/c their isn't a weight class for them. i'm asking for examples. 

as a very small high school kid, i wouldn't mind 118 for the kurt mchenry's of the world. but pragmatically, that's an outlier. ask any college coach in the country what's the most difficult weight to recruit and he'll tell you 125. because they just never stay small enough.

I gave you a great current example. Plenty of others in this thread. Do you want to dive into the examples of who took a football scholarship or skipped college athletics because the opportunity did not exist? If so, then start with every 195 and 220 and 285 state placer and subtract the number of available college opportunities. Now give a multiplier of NCAA wrestlers who bump up because 2 pounds from high school the end of college is quite a bit. That group # is your napkin math delta.

But I am asking a very serious question, and I am asking with genuine empathy: why are we fighting this proposed growth as a sport that is fighting for growth?

[Husker_Du]

22 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

I gave you a great current example. Plenty of others in this thread.

a great current example of what? plenty of other what? define it for me. everyone listed is doing fine. and Ben Kueter is not playing football b/c he doesn't have a weight class. that is preposterous. 

Do you want to dive into the examples of who took a football scholarship or skipped college athletics because the opportunity did not exist?

Yes. i want a list of great wrestling prospects who turned down wrestling b/c they weren't offered a scholarship. Otherwise it's all either conjecture and or inaccurate. (it's inaccurate btw)

If so, then start with every 195 and 220 and 285 state placer and subtract the number of available college opportunities. Now give a multiplier of NCAA wrestlers who bump up because 2 pounds from high school the end of college is quite a bit. That group # is your napkin math delta.

Why on earth would you suggest that every state placer from 195-285 is worthy of a DI scholarship? that doesn't even apply to state placers at the other weights. 

But I am asking a very serious question, and I am asking with genuine empathy: why are we fighting this proposed growth as a sport that is fighting for growth?

for a litany of reasons: 1) it's not difficult to move up or down. 2) the talent pool is not good 3) the rate of participation is not high 4) the ncaa is never going to go to 11 weights 5) we're already at 9.9 for 10 starting spots 

if there was such a need/want for this to happen you'd have the college coaches pushing for it. they aren't. because they are acutely aware of all of the above

[TexRef]

7 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

an example of what? that you don't need a weight in the middle b/c they can figure it out and still be uber successful?

your thesis was that kids leave the sport b/c their isn't a weight class for them. i'm asking for examples. 

as a very small high school kid, i wouldn't mind 118 for the kurt mchenry's of the world. but pragmatically, that's an outlier. ask any college coach in the country what's the most difficult weight to recruit and he'll tell you 125. because they just never stay small enough.

Yeah it is constantly changing...125 this season and 133 or higher next season.