JWC Posted January 29 Posted January 29 Riffing on that, I would like to see an eleventh weight class offered. Practically that’s not going to happen due to university presidents not wanting to add a scholarship to non-rev sports. So if the weights were adjusted again, what would change? Elimination of 41? 49? Moving 33 to 35? Is the 220 needed?
Seanyd Posted January 29 Posted January 29 Unless they bring back unlimited heavyweight I really don't want to hear it
BIGTENFANBOY Posted January 29 Posted January 29 3 hours ago, JWC said: Riffing on that, I would like to see an eleventh weight class offered. Practically that’s not going to happen due to university presidents not wanting to add a scholarship to non-rev sports. So if the weights were adjusted again, what would change? Elimination of 41? 49? Moving 33 to 35? Is the 220 needed? Bring back the original weights. Drop 118. Add 220. 126 134 142 150 158 167 177 190 220 285
Nak21 Posted January 29 Posted January 29 5 hours ago, BIGTENFANBOY said: Bring back the original weights. Drop 118. Add 220. 126 134 142 150 158 167 177 190 220 285 That could work!! I’m selfish, I’d like to see more wrestling but it’s unlikely. And probably not needed. With the new roster caps/scholarship rules, you wouldn’t be adding, just having another “mouth to feed” from your limit. I doubt any schools are offering the full 30 available, this is wrestling, not football or basketball. So you’ve still got what you got and now you gotta spread it over one more weight. The coaches may dislike it more than an AD. I wish I could recall a post I read about this - really laid out good points as to why it’s unnecessary and would damage the weights around it that are already weak. I can’t recall the details but it was a compelling enough argument it got me in the camp of my head says no, my heart says yes.
Fletcher Posted January 29 Posted January 29 15 minutes ago, Nak21 said: That could work!! I’m selfish, I’d like to see more wrestling but it’s unlikely. And probably not needed. With the new roster caps/scholarship rules, you wouldn’t be adding, just having another “mouth to feed” from your limit. I doubt any schools are offering the full 30 available, this is wrestling, not football or basketball. So you’ve still got what you got and now you gotta spread it over one more weight. The coaches may dislike it more than an AD. I wish I could recall a post I read about this - really laid out good points as to why it’s unnecessary and would damage the weights around it that are already weak. I can’t recall the details but it was a compelling enough argument it got me in the camp of my head says no, my heart says yes. Some of the arguments against it are that 215/220 and hwt are the most forfeited weights at the HS level and the best athletes at that size are all playing football. I don't necessarily agree with those arguments, but that's what people say.
TNwrestling Posted January 29 Posted January 29 NCWA has a 235 weight class. Its a good in between from 97 to 285. Also gives you 11 weight classes. So no more going deep into the criteria to see who wins a dual. If Bo Bassett doesn't ever do anymore than AA two times I will delete my whole ass account.....WrestlingRash sucks
Jim L Posted January 29 Posted January 29 12 hours ago, JWC said: Riffing on that, I would like to see an eleventh weight class offered. Practically that’s not going to happen due to university presidents not wanting to add a scholarship to non-rev sports. So if the weights were adjusted again, what would change? Elimination of 41? 49? Moving 33 to 35? Is the 220 needed? LOL at university presidents thinking about number of weight classes on the wrestling team. Hopefully they have more important things to worry about.
ionel Posted January 29 Posted January 29 1 minute ago, Jim L said: LOL at university presidents thinking about number of weight classes on the wrestling team. Hopefully they have more important things to worry about. Like changing basketball to 6 v 6? .
11986 Posted January 29 Posted January 29 10 hours ago, BIGTENFANBOY said: Bring back the original weights. Drop 118. Add 220. 126 134 142 150 158 167 177 190 220 285 but then what about the gap between 190 and 220? if you naturally weigh 210 solid, do you cut hard to make 190 or bulk a little and take your chances against bigger guys potentially cutting from 235 to 220? I actually like your suggestion and am being a little smart ass about this, with point being anytime you have a sizable gap between weight classes, this dilemma will happen. one solution would be even more weight classes but 1) that waters things down even further and 2) not happening for any number of reasons we all know about.
Gene Mills Fan Posted January 29 Posted January 29 10 hours ago, BIGTENFANBOY said: Bring back the original weights. Drop 118. Add 220. 126 134 142 150 158 167 177 190 220 285 The AD doesn't have to worry about 11 if you align with the freestyle weights. 57 kg (125.7 lbs) 61 kg (134.5 lbs) 65 kg (143.3 lbs) 70 kg (154.3 lbs) 74 kg (163.1 lbs) 79 kg (174.2 lbs) 86 kg (189.6 lbs) 92 kg (202.8 lbs) 97 kg (213.8 lbs) 125 kg (275.6 lbs)
moodybooty Posted January 29 Posted January 29 6 hours ago, TNwrestling said: NCWA has a 235 weight class. Its a good in between from 97 to 285. Also gives you 11 weight classes. So no more going deep into the criteria to see who wins a dual. The real answer here is to fund more NCWA programs.
SetonHallPirate Posted January 29 Posted January 29 235 is a bad idea. I was at one point pushing for shifting the top four weight classes to 175, 190, 215, 285. (high school coaches are entirely familiar) The data doesn't support it. The fewest-populated weight classes in Division I, year after year, are generally 197 and 285, the most-populated weight classes are generally 141-157 (I'm talking about number of wrestlers who have wrestled at least one Division I match at the weight). This has been the case for as long as I've been tracking, which is at least a decade.
Seanyd Posted January 29 Posted January 29 13 hours ago, BIGTENFANBOY said: Bring back the original weights. Drop 118. Add 220. 126 134 142 150 158 167 177 190 220 285
WrestlingRash Posted January 30 Posted January 30 125 should not be a weight class. Those are some really really tiny people and midget wrestling is exploitative.
Antitroll2828 Posted January 30 Posted January 30 3 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said: 235 is a bad idea. I was at one point pushing for shifting the top four weight classes to 175, 190, 215, 285. (high school coaches are entirely familiar) The data doesn't support it. The fewest-populated weight classes in Division I, year after year, are generally 197 and 285, the most-populated weight classes are generally 141-157 (I'm talking about number of wrestlers who have wrestled at least one Division I match at the weight). This has been the case for as long as I've been tracking, which is at least a decade.
Hammerlock3 Posted January 30 Posted January 30 if they do a 220 15% body fat max. "Half measures are a coward's form of insanity."
mr.nonothingatall Posted January 30 Posted January 30 6 hours ago, Gene Mills Fan said: The AD doesn't have to worry about 11 if you align with the freestyle weights. 57 kg (125.7 lbs) 61 kg (134.5 lbs) 65 kg (143.3 lbs) 70 kg (154.3 lbs) 74 kg (163.1 lbs) 79 kg (174.2 lbs) 86 kg (189.6 lbs) 92 kg (202.8 lbs) 97 kg (213.8 lbs) 125 kg (275.6 lbs) Full of un-bias blasphemy.
Tyler Perry Posted January 30 Posted January 30 220 is a horrible idea. Either 97 or 285 would be too thin. Look at high school. Most HWTs are 240 anyway, it’s not like there are a lot of tweeners
Fletcher Posted January 30 Posted January 30 3 hours ago, WrestlingRash said: 125 should not be a weight class. Those are some really really tiny people and midget wrestling is exploitative. 100%
Fletcher Posted January 30 Posted January 30 7 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said: 235 is a bad idea. I was at one point pushing for shifting the top four weight classes to 175, 190, 215, 285. (high school coaches are entirely familiar) The data doesn't support it. The fewest-populated weight classes in Division I, year after year, are generally 197 and 285, the most-populated weight classes are generally 141-157 (I'm talking about number of wrestlers who have wrestled at least one Division I match at the weight). This has been the case for as long as I've been tracking, which is at least a decade. I can't recall the last time I've seen a D1 team forfeit 197 or hwt. Every roster is several kids deep at each weight. Not sure where you're getting this "fewest populated weight classes" info. They're plenty populated.
SetonHallPirate Posted January 30 Posted January 30 OK...here's the number of Division I wrestlers that have wrestled at least one Division I match at each weight so far this year (through January 25th): 125: 231 133: 252 141: 266 149: 314 157: 301 165: 295 174: 248 184: 228 197: 224 285: 218
Aidan Gore Garner, North Carolina Class of 2027 Committed to North Carolina State Projected Weight: 157, 165
Will Clanton New York Military Academy, New York Class of 2027 Committed to Mercyhurst Projected Weight: 125
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now