The 220 article

[MPhillips]

9 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

The data doesn't support it.

 

9 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

This has been the case for as long as I've been tracking,

[bnwtwg]

20 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.

And has been pointed out in every study of any subject ever, reduced opportunities directly equals reduced participation.

[SetonHallPirate]

40 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

And has been pointed out in every study of any subject ever, reduced opportunities directly equals reduced participation.

So if we had, say, three weight classes in that range, we'd have more participation? Sure, what you said may be accurate, but I'm fairly certain that the correlation isn't exponentially above one.