district wrestler count

D1N-632 D4N-326
Is this the best we can do to make it as fair as possible for kansas wrestlers?


D1N-632
D1S-588
D2N-445
D2S-405
D3E-510
D3W-444
D4N-326
D4S-471

We cannot re-allign the districts until D1 decides it is needed. To date, they have said it wasn't necessary as a group and they carry the weight of any vote.

I did some quick analysis and with a little creativity it could look something like this...

Of course it was a quick analysis of current team sizes and trying to map the geographical locations...

This creates a Standard Deviation of about 20 per district... The current Standard Deviation is about 188

Just playing with numbers

Of course this would require change and as we all know too well... change is a difficult thing

Dist Wrestlers
1 984
2 970
3 948
4 938

I'm in D1 and I'm for change. 1220 wrestlers in D1; 973 in D3; 850 in D2 and 797 in D4. My guess is the guys in SE Kansas would prefer the drive to Wichita for District tourney rather than 3.5 hour haul they have to Holton this year. Sorry Western Kansas folks, I know you drive for hours for tourneys, but the numbers speak for themselves. D2 needs to expand, too.

Redistricting will not happen for one main reason, D1 does not want it to happen. Right now D1 has enough votes that they, for the most part, can dictate what happens for the rest of the state. D1 will vote on a subject at their District Meeting, if the vote passes 51% to 49% then the entire Distirct will vote that way at the State Meeting. If the power(number of wrestlers) is more evenenly distributed then D1 loses their power. This is why redistricting will NOT happen.

Previous redistricting was ~~20 years ago. The Southeastern KS communities were happy they were able to stay with D1 vs Coffeyville & Independence going to D 2. But then again, tournament entries were $7-$8.00. And novice tournaments were unheard of..........

So for those of us that are not as educated as some what does D1 stand to loose in regards to power? Less tournaments? Money? I assume they will stay rather close in regards to drives unless you are at the northern or southern most part. I honestly don't know the answer and was curious.

seems to me you would want the kids spread out more evenly to give everyone a more equal chance of making it to state.

It's admirable that you think it's for the kids. If that were true, redistricting would have happened a long time ago.

Shawnee county could easily move to D3 and even things up quite a bit. We've presented this option for three years at the D1 meetings and as Sport0 and Beeson say, there is no interest. I'm all in favor of this simple change.

I coach and have a vote in D1 and also believe there needs to be a change, it is about what is in the best interest of all the wrestlers (who are kids), it should not ever be about what district has the most power. I agree here and if it as simple as Will says then that is exactly what should be done.
So how do we make it a reality?

Send in a proposal to Matt Treaster between now and July 31st. Copy all of the directors in an email and mail it to Matt. I will make sure it is proposed! Promise.

Can someone do up a draft for Matt and post it here so those of us that choose to send it on can do a quick cut and paste to echo the same thoughts?

Bret Stouder

John,

After doing the proposal and submitting it, the other key (and much harder part) is ensure that the district one clubs show up to the state body meeting and stick around to vote.

That issue right there is another reason why we still cannot buy our USAW cards online.

Will’s idea does not fix our problem. It only shifts the problem to another area of the state that actually has population growth and will put D3 in the same position that D1 is in right now. In D1, we at least have the facilities to handle the larger tournaments. D3 has a few but very few. To fix this problem would require growing the geographical size of D4 (which is already ½ the state and causes its own problems). The part of D4 that needs numbers is the North…so moving Smith, Osborne, and Russell from D3 to D4 would make since. Fixing the problem, would also require 4-6 counties in SEK to shift from D1 to D2. The problem is with a big shake ups like this there so many moving parts it is nearly impossible to get the membership to agree.

Moving Shawnee County to D3 might make some feel good in the short run…but it does not fix the problem….if it did I would agree. As long as it is a move to make some feel better without fixing the overall problem…I will never vote for it.

Sometimes you have to take baby steps before you run. Why not start somewhere and continue working on making it better.

Doing nothing is not going to fix the problem!!

"As long as it is a move to make some feel better without fixing the overall problem…I will never vote for it."

You might find this an interesting piece of material that discusses leadership in wrestling. Bottom line is that our leadership in Kansas has a doggone job to do. Report back to the community what the options are and let the community have some input in this. Watching 4 kids from D4 walk into the state tournament without ever having to win a match is an embarrassment.

Terry Brands on the future of wrestling

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29583110

“If the IOC talks, you listen,” Brands said. “You open your ears and you follow the protocol. Whether you think it’s right or wrong, you have got to do that job. It’s not sucking up to them, it’s not playing the game. It’s doing your doggone job.”

Brands said this about Rich Bender, the executive director of USA Wrestling:

“This is something that’s beyond him. I don’t say that to attack him. I’m friends with him. But if we want to do the right thing there has to be a leadership change domestically, and that’s the bad news. There hasn’t been. He’s hanging on, he’s going through the motions, kind of doing what they tell him to do. And there needs to be a change.

Bret Stouder
913-485-3195

Brett,

I cannot say that I disagree with your statement. There is work to do. Over the past many years proposals have been submitted and put up for vote at the State Body meeting. The point of my post…taking the perspective as a club representative with only one vote…is to point out that the problem is bigger than moving one county; and quite possibly moving just one county will only make the problem we have bigger or will at the very least just relocate the problem from where it currently is. I stuck my neck out and also told you an idea that could fix the “larger” problem we have and pointed out where others may attack it from. “WE” are USAWKS…almost everything requires a majority vote from our member clubs to get passed. There is nothing that our leadership can do about this issue without a grass roots effort. Again speaking only as a club representative with a single vote…I will not support a halfhearted effort. If we want to fix the problem then WE need to pull the band aid off in one big yank and not try to cover it up.

Mark Stanley
Jr. Viking Wrestling Club

14U-160---DIST-1-N--7 WRESTLERS SEPERATION CRITERIA 3-A 1-B 2-C

DIST-1-S--5 WRESTLERS SEP CRITERIA 2-B 3-C

DIST 4-N 3-WRESTLERS
SEPARAION CRITERIA 1-A 1-B 1-C

DIST-4S 0 WRESTLERS

wrestlers in dist 1 are unfairly eleminated from the state series

Here are 2 ideas that do not require any boundary changes or re-districting....

My biggest assumption with these ideas is that the state wants to stay at a max of 16 wrestlers per weight class for the state tournament.

Having said that, here are my 2 potential Courses of Action....

COA 1: If a district has a weight class with less than 4 wrestlers then those slots should be given to another district that has more than 4 wrestlers. Example: If U10 125 only has 2 kids in it at the District 4 meet and District 1 has 5 kids and District 2 has 5 kids then those 2 districts would each get to take 5 kids to state. If only 1 slot is available then you prioritize to the District with the most participants.

COA2: Distribute the number of kids that qualify from a district based on district population. Similar to the way automatic NCAA births are given to conferences at the D1 level. Now the college methodology is a lot more complicated and we don't need to make it that hard. You could do a percentage by age group based on population. For example....
1. Every district gets at least 2 automatic births per weight class (unless there is only 1 kids in the weight class in that district).
2. The remaining 8 slots are given to districts based on the population size for that age group. If Dist. 1 had 200 10U, Dist 2 had 150 10U, Dist 3 had 100 10U, and Dist 4 had 50 10U then Dist 1 would get to take 5-6 kids per weight, Dist 2 would take 4-5 kids per weight, Dist 3 would take 3-4 kids per weight and Dist 4 would take 2-3 kids per weight. (I realize if I use the max numbers for each district that is greater than 16) I am just trying to show that we could have some flexibility in allocating the numbers based on populations. The actual numbers could be based on the popultions of age groups.

The advantage to these ideas is that they both maximize the ability to create 16 man brackets at state. They also do not disavantage kids just because they live in a large district.

I think COA 1 would be the easiest to implement but I don't think it really gets at the idea of fairness based on population. My personal preference is COA 2 because I think it breaks out the number of slots allocated more equitably based on population.

Just something to think about.

Shawn Budke

COA2, sounds like the best course of action. I am not from Kansas and i know where i grew up they did something very similiar to this every year. One other thing they did was allocate spots for districts based on state results from the year before. The more kids you get that place the more slots you open for your district. COA2 sounds simple and like the easiset way to even things out! Great ideas Shawn

Brett attacking D4 the way you made your statement is not how to get us to vote for a change. Is there a change needed, perhaps. It's no secret that our population is not as big as yours but geographically we are handicaped at times. These next three weekends we drive 2hrs for subs, 3hrs for dist. and 4.5 to state not everyone can afford that. Someone mentioned putting Smith, Osborne, Russell to the North, but what do you to D4 south. In some weights on given years ages and weights will vary. Would probably have to do a 3 year average and see what works. Dist. 4 always seems to get hammered on, but we have had some pretty darn good kids come out of this end of the state and they didn't take the easy route. Blake Arnberger

I believe one way to sell any district re-allignment is to couple it with remote weigh-ins for subs and district tournaments.

We don't even need subs for 14U and HS. I have done the data for the past six years.

In D2 we don't need subs for any age group. Eliminating subs would serve to provide another precious date for clubs to host invitationals.

Totally agree with last 2 posts. Man does this make so much sense. Such a waste of time and money putting on Subs when the numbers just don't justify it. Also maybe make season that much shorter and have an Easter free weekend.

Amen brother, nice hair Will.

quote=Cokeley]We don't even need subs for 14U and HS. I have done the data for the past six years. [/quote]

Hey Blake - I really was not trying to attack D4. Just stating that some of those kids walk into the state tournament while the bigger districts see good talent go to the wayside. I say we take the 5th place finishers from the other districts and have them travel to any district that does not have a full district bracket and have a tournament to qualify the kids into districts. We could do this on the Wednesday before Districts.......This way the 5th place guys at least get a shot of making the big show. And while we wait for Western Kansas to populate, we at least create full tough brackets in Topeka for state.

Again - not an assault on D-4. Just trying to level the playing field.

Bret

Stoudman,

Don't hold your breath waiting for western Kansas to populate. LOL

Hossus

You are right, we don't need subs for heavyweight. I would ask you to take a look at some of those smaller weights. Subs are definitely needed. Besides I am surprised you have your son wrestling with us local hicks and not taking him out of. State for the tough competition.....( your words from an earlier post)

Will
Check out my post on the 14U/HS thread. I think a laid out the strategy you explained as to how to end the kids season earlier and not have the high schoolers involved.

Shawn Budke

I think the COA1 plan would work the best stated by Shawn Budke. The kids wrestling in D4 and D3 which has the smaller populations should not be punished because of where they live. The same goes for the kids who wrestle in D1 and D2. The kids do not have a choice in where they live. As the system is set up now all kids suffer. The low population (D4 and D3) kids suffer because they do not get to wrestle full brackets and experience if you lose you are done for the year. The high population (D1 and D2) kids suffer because some good wrestlers get left at home. State tournament in theory is the best wrestlers against the best wrestlers. How can this be if there are open spots in the brackets? My son and daughter wrestle in D3. I think filling the open spots would be a step in the right direction.

Josh Parker

You can also hand pick wieghts in every dist. every year that has less talent then others. It happens at the high school level ever year someone didn't make the state tournament because of there regional is tougher then another. The state tournament is not the end of the season if you don't want it to be. There are other wrestling avenue's one can pick to continue on if one so chooses. Like I said there can be some tweaks to fix some loop holes but a different problem will arise the next year because somebodys son or daughter didn't make state. Blake

THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE YEAR BY YEAR [NUMBER WISE]. IT IS JUST SOME WILL BE LUCKIER THAN MOST. IT IS WHAT IT IS. AS THE ECONOMY GOING IN THE TOILET AND MONEY GETIING TIGHTER YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE THE NUMBERS DROP EVEN MORE, OR MAYBE NEXT YEAR NUMBERS IN DISTRICTS WILL FLIP FLOP AND THEN WE WILL BE HAVING THIS ARGUMENT AND OR DISCUSSION AGAIN.


GOOD LUCK AND WRESTLE HARD

TONY MILLER

Looking at some numbers there are 14 brackets that have 16 or less wrestlers. Out of those 14, 7 will not have to wrestle a match to make it to state.

8U
125 9 wrestlers

10U
52 14 wrestlers 12 will make it to state
150 16 wrestlers 14 will make it to state
170 8 wrestlers

12U
64 14 wrestlers 11 will make it to state
215 9 wrestlers
240 4 wrestlers

14U
75 4 wrestlers
80 8 wrestlers
85 15 wrestlers 12 will make it to state
265 16 wrestlers 14 will make it to state

HS
100 9 wrestlers
106 16 wrestlers 12 will make it to state
250 13 wrestlers 9 will make it to state

So there will be a total of 20 wrestlers staying at home that could be used to help fill brackets.
If you include the rest of the brackets it breaks down like this.

8U
110-4

10U
52-2
55-4
130-4
150-2

12U
64-3
190-2

14U
85-3
90-1
160-1
235-1
265-2

HS
106-4
113-4
132-1
250-1

Grand total of 39 who could help fill brackets.

Copying from Budke:

Do we think there is any possibility of implementing COA2?

Great ideas Shawn! Gives us something to discuss at the seeding meeting!

COA2: Distribute the number of kids that qualify from a district based on district population. Similar to the way automatic NCAA births are given to conferences at the D1 level. Now the college methodology is a lot more complicated and we don't need to make it that hard. You could do a percentage by age group based on population. For example....
1. Every district gets at least 2 automatic births per weight class (unless there is only 1 kids in the weight class in that district).
2. The remaining 8 slots are given to districts based on the population size for that age group. If Dist. 1 had 200 10U, Dist 2 had 150 10U, Dist 3 had 100 10U, and Dist 4 had 50 10U then Dist 1 would get to take 5-6 kids per weight, Dist 2 would take 4-5 kids per weight, Dist 3 would take 3-4 kids per weight and Dist 4 would take 2-3 kids per weight. (I realize if I use the max numbers for each district that is greater than 16) I am just trying to show that we could have some flexibility in allocating the numbers based on populations. The actual numbers could be based on the popultions of age groups.

The advantage to these ideas is that they both maximize the ability to create 16 man brackets at state. They also do not disavantage kids just because they live in a large district.

It seems to me that all the districts would have to be changed to solve this problem. Someone has to sit down & do the math. I am willing to help. Am I wrong in saying that this will take no more than 3 hours max? Is the problem getting people to vote for it? Has any one created a plan & offered it up for a vote?

Will there be a strength of schedule component? - Just kidding

I have not done any research on those ideas I put out there. They were just a couple of ideas as I was reading the thread. It seems that the long pole in the tent the past few years is the idea of changing district boundaries. There are a lot of legitimate concerns with those ideas as well Asa lot of ideas on how to do it. I was trying to think of ways to maximize participation as well as not disadvantage the kids.
There are a variety of options within the COAs I presented and there is some tweaking that could be done. I am willing to work with anyone who wants to participate to put together a proposal. Just let me know.
Here is the only promise I can make. And guarantee....it doesn't matter what anyone comes up with, it won't please everyone.

Shawn,

Would you believe that there isn't much competition outside of the state either. We wanted to go to Preseason Nationals nobody signed up. Same with CO tournaments. Son wanted to do a Boy Scout event so we didn't go to USJOC which we prob would have won again. The numbers are down for HWTs this year at National Meets. We did kick-off, we had one match total against HS kid & lost 1-0, we did a dbl forfeit there with another kid that was 120lbs lighter than him. We wrestled a few other OK meets with HS fr/soph boys in them, then MS happened and we were basically begged to do that by the MS coach so he did it to be a part of the team. That cut us out of a lot of stuff for a month or so. We were able to do a grand total of 5 matches in MS of which none of them lasted more than 30 seconds. Would love to go back to do School Boy MS Duals as we were 7-0 there last year as 7th grader. But the weight is too low for us right now. Money has been a factor lately, but we still plan to do USAW Nationals and FR/GR season. Hoping that the state meet will give us some tough matches w/ HS kids. Looking forward to next year so we can do the whole "Rite of Passage" for the upcoming 8th graders in 14U.


Really don't matter for us about subs we pretty much walk to state. But really some districts could easily bypass the subs and be just fine. So what if there is 32 in the bracket you only get to take 4 in the end to state. It would just make seeding actually mean something.

Why not just divide the districts laterally across the state rather than in quadrants, then everyone gets to drive, you get equal districts numbers wise (or as close as you can get) and then everything is fair....

Ok, let me get this right. On your idea you call COA2. We don't want to disadvantage the kids from the bigger districts number wise. If I read this right we do want to disadvantage the kids who live in the biggest district area wise but have lower numbers? They get to take fewer kids because of where they live. Now how is that fair? Kids don't choose where they live.

Here is another idea, keep the districts supplying their top 4 wrestlers, and if the districts can't supply 4, then take the 5th and 6th place wrestlers out of the other districts and have another tournament to fill what is vacant. Yes that would mean another tournament, but you talk about getting the best kids to state, this would give them more of a chance. And it would give the State tournament 16 kids.

I don't believe it is fair to restrict the numbers based on population, because I have seen all the districts are short in one group or the other, where the others have more. If you look at the high school regionals, is it all the good wrestlers that go or is it the top 4 out of each regional.

My suggestion has flaws, but from what I have read, everyone wants to fill the state brackets to get the best wrestling. I've seen kids that are good from all over, and I feel that the current way of doing districts is also good, but maybe there should an option to fill the state brackets to get as many kids the oppurtunity to go as possible. Since 16 is the limit, why not fill it with the disticts that have more, but do it by having the 5th and 6th placers wrestle for it.

Don Walker
Glasco, Ks

1220 wrestlers in D1; 973 in D3; 850 in D2 and 797 in D4

So you think it is fair and balanced that 1220 wrestlers have to compete for the same amount of spots in the state tourney as 794 kids compete for? It makes no difference where they live, to me if you have 426 more kids competing they should have more spots available. It is called balance. It is not being unfair to anyone, a percentage of the state births, by the percentage of kids competing is by far more fair than the way it sits currently.

Kansas District 2,744,687
.Allen County 1 13,787
.Anderson County 1 8,182
.Atchison County 1 16,804
.Bourbon County 1 14,997
.Brown County 1 10,239
.Cherokee County 1 21,555
.Coffey County 1 8,683
.Crawford County 1 38,222
.Doniphan County 1 7,816
.Douglas County 1 102,914
.Franklin County 1 26,247
.Jackson County 1 13,535
.Jefferson County 1 19,106
.Johnson County 1 506,562
.Labette County 1 22,169
.Leavenworth County 1 73,113
.Linn County 1 9,914
.Miami County 1 30,496
.Neosho County 1 16,529
.Osage County 1 17,150
.Shawnee County 1 172,365
.Woodson County 1 3,572
.Wyandotte County 1 155,750
.Butler County 2 62,354
.Chautauqua County 2 4,109
.Cowley County 2 35,298
.Elk County 2 3,075
.Greenwood County 2 7,338
.Harper County 2 6,081
.Kingman County 2 8,165
.Montgomery County 2 34,570
.Sedgwick County 2 466,061
.Sumner County 2 24,797
.Wilson County 2 9,834
.Chase County 3 3,081
.Clay County 3 8,629
.Cloud County 3 9,759
.Dickinson County 3 19,209
.Ellsworth County 3 6,343
.Geary County 3 24,585
.Harvey County 3 33,843
.Jewell County 3 3,352
.Lincoln County 3 3,411
.Lyon County 3 35,609
.McPherson County 3 29,523
.Marion County 3 12,952
.Marshall County 3 10,405
.Mitchell County 3 6,420
.Morris County 3 6,049
.Nemaha County 3 10,443
.Osborne County 3 4,050
.Ottawa County 3 6,123
.Pottawatomie County 3 19,129
.Reno County 3 63,558
.Republic County 3 5,164
.Rice County 3 10,452
.Riley County 3 62,826
.Russell County 3 6,845
.Saline County 3 53,919
.Smith County 3 4,121
.Wabaunsee County 3 6,919
.Washington County 3 6,009
.Barber County 4 4,958
.Barton County 4 28,105
.Cheyenne County 4 2,946
.Clark County 4 2,283
.Comanche County 4 1,935
.Decatur County 4 3,191
.Edwards County 4 3,292
.Ellis County 4 26,767
.Finney County 4 38,988
.Ford County 4 33,751
.Graham County 4 2,721
.Grant County 4 7,530
.Gray County 4 5,861
.Gove County 4 2,763
.Greeley County 4 1,349
.Hamilton County 4 2,604
.Haskell County 4 4,232
.Hodgeman County 4 2,110
.Kearny County 4 4,516
.Kiowa County 4 2,984
.Lane County 4 1,894
.Logan County 4 2,794
.Meade County 4 4,625
.Morton County 4 3,196
.Ness County 4 3,009
.Norton County 4 5,664
.Pawnee County 4 6,739
.Phillips County 4 5,504
.Pratt County 4 9,496
.Rawlins County 4 2,672
.Rooks County 4 5,351
.Rush County 4 3,406
.Scott County 4 4,600
.Seward County 4 23,274
.Sheridan County 4 2,591
.Sherman County 4 6,153
.Stafford County 4 4,488
.Stanton County 4 2,245
.Stevens County 4 5,412
.Thomas County 4 7,639
.Trego County 4 3,050
.Wallace County 4 1,573
.Wichita County 4 2,309

It gets even more skewed when you look at population. District 1 may be losing even more wrestlers because of the enormity of our numbers. We should be looking to have 700,000 inhabitants in each district.

Mike Juby, can you provide us the card buyer numbers by District? It could be that we could get MORE kids to participate in subs if we make some changes.


1,309,707 District 1 (More than 4 times that of Dist 4!)
661,682 District 2
472,728 District 3
300,570 District 4

I can provide this data by HS enrollment as well.

NOOOOO, it's not! But the answer isn't to give more spots on the bracket to one district or another. And the idea of filling brackets at state via extra kids from one district or another, is pure NONSENSE! What we have to do is re-district. And as soon as District 1 and to a lesser extent District 3 decide re-districting is needed, it will happen.

District 2 and D4 need to get bigger - numbers wise. D1, and to an extent D3, need to shrink based on this year's numbers. D2 takes the four counties in SE Kansas and Woodson from D1. D4 absorbs Russell, Osborn, Smith, Jewell, Mitchell and Lincoln from D3. Reno or Harvey to D2? Osage and Coffey to D3? It's a start to number equality. As someone in D1 I'd hate to see Pittsburg go as they are a great sub site, but if it evens the playing field, I'm all for it.

WOW...But how much tougher can D2 really get?

How much tougher? It can't get much easier in some weights. Picked a random weight - 12u 110. 19 in D1; 5 in D2. 12u 110 is a very common weight. In D2 south 11 of the subs brackets at 12u are round robins - less than 5 guys. Four of the classes have 1 wrestler or less, leaving 6 brackets in the sub. D1 North 12u - 11 are brackets, 9 round robins and just 1 weight (240) does not have a wrestler.

I think Beeson is talking about the quality of kids not the quantity.

Well, since we have many people who like to look up stats, in lieu of Beeson's comment. What are the medal counts from last years state tourney by district?

We're talking numbers and opportunity here, right? Lots of good wrestlers in D3 and D1 won't move on to districts to even have a chance at state. Here's another: D4 North 12u - every wrestler in the sub will move on to districts except 1. At 14u only 5 wrestlers will not move on to districts.

Since you just randomly pullled a weight, the 12U 110 State Champion will be from D2. I would Love to see a medal count. How about the top 10 teams?

Rank
Club Points
1 East Kansas EKWC 197
2 KS Young Guns KYG 185
3 Maize Mze 156
4 Brawlers Btw 124
5 Manhattan Optimist MOKW 111
6 Greater Gold 5428 98
7 Derby Derb 95
8 Ark City AC 91
9 Boos` School Boo 89
10 Salina SAL 80
11 Andover Jaguar Jag 78


6 of the Top 10 were from D2, 2 from D3, 1 from D4 and 1 from D1.
I threw in Andover Jags at 11 just for grunts and giggles.

5 out of the last 8 years the team champion has come from District 1.

NOW for the Rest of the Story. Going Back to 2000 District 2 has won the Kids State Championship 7 times and placed 2nd a majority of the time. District 1 has won 5 State Championships, Paola 3 times and East Kansas has won it 2 times. I don' think D1 has had two teams in the top 10 at the same time. District 4 has won the Kids State Championships once in this time frame. District 2 has dominated the Top 10 each and every year with at least 5 of the top 10 teams coming from D2. I would say that is pretty tough competition for an easy walk to state.

Anybody come up with a Medal Count from last year yet?

Medal count by district would give you a lot better measurement than any team top tens. Anyone have the medal counts by district for the last couple of years?

GOLD MEDAL COUNT ONLY

D1 21

D2 43

D3 23

D4 10

I think this is fairly accurate. It was only a quick count of the Champions.

Okay, Beeson we get your point ya'll have them tough ol $2.00 steaks you feed your kids in D2. In D1 we have Hereford House & the likes of Fogo de Chao (Brazilian Steak House's).

The cattle get a little more tastier in D1. lol. Just fooling with you.

But YES do agree with you that kids these days aren't what their mama's and papa's were. Too much technology & not enough PALEO & Crossfit!

Since Luellen was refering to this years district numbers, i was just wanting to reference last years medal count to get a current snapshot. I think there has been some real progression in D1 quality in the past few years, whether its in h.s. or in kids club. Maybe still not to the level of D2 yet but its coming. Many kids clubs in this area I congratulate for what they are doing. Just to name a few that come to mind and i am sure there are many others. Seaman Jr. Vikes, East Kansas, Ogden Outlaws. D1 is coming fast. Thanks clubs.

Break up District 2!

If the 12u 110 champ comes from D2 he will definitely be well rested.

Well after 2 hours I have a medal count.

D1 171 Placers 21 Golds 1116 Participants 29.6%

D2 174 Placers 43 Golds 846 Participants 30.1%

D3 117 Placers 23 Golds 919 Participants 20.2%

D4 115 Placers 11 Golds 821 Participants 19.9%

District 2 has 40 clubs entered at the 2 subs.

District 1 has 73 clubs entered at the 2 subs.

Probably has a big impact on the team race.

Several of the D1 teams have 1-5 kids. East Kansas pulling from most of D1 probably effects the team race also. When Paola won they pulled from most of D1. Now that East Kansas is pulling all of the kids, I think Paola had just a handful of kids last year. Kids come from hours away to wrestle for East Kansas, nothing against them. I love me some Phippen and Akin. That probably effects why only one or two teams from D1 place in the top 10.

R U STILL CRYING OVER THIS BEESON. IT IS WHAT IT IS
WRESTLE HARD AND DONT WORRY ABOUT OTHERS.




TONY MILLER

Not sure where any of this seems like crying, but if so...Yes I am. Your so cute Tony, with your simple answers. This is not a Bud-light or Nike commercial. "Just Do IT" and "I meant Bud-Light" are not solutions. Question were asked, Answers were given, now discussion takes place. If you don't like what is being discussed or the answers that are being given you can always stop reading this topic.

Ironic that you tell me to not worry about others when you are obviously worrying about what I have to say.

Heres a concept to wrap your BVD's around peeps.

No subs, no districts. One 128 man bracket (or whatever would fit) for each age/weight division over a 4 day span at the end of March for all the marbles.

The best will come out...

I LIKE IT!!!!!

Post #63 right here!!!! 37 more and I will get a customary 100 post congratulations paper in the mail signed by Little Orphan Annie along with my decoder ring!!

Beeson, Think they would ever go for that though? It would be fun to watch thats for sure. Could be just me though.

JamyD don't think the challenge is getting the kids. Think the challenge would be the adults getting enough time off work.
Having said that, I like the idea and if it ever came to fruition then I recommend mat side weigh ins foe every match!

Meant for every match

I think we are on to something. State Tournament that last 4 days with Matside weigh-in for every match. I would definately vote for this. Spring Break weekend: Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. We could start at 9:00 AM Thursday Morning. Very good chance Finals could start Sunday at NOON.

Ya, parents and the work thing, it could be a challenge. I was just sitting here thinking instead of subs on a Saturday, district the next Saturday, and state on the following Saturday/Sunday (or in this case Friday/Saturday) would be fun to see a 4 day all inclusive vacation to the biggest venue in Kansas, haha. Beeson's right it could make the finals by Sunday I think since one is taking 4 days spread out and condensing into 4 days stacked together if that makes sense.

Positives/Negatives. Ya, its got both. Good luck boys, Im off to find something green to drink!!!!!
Jamy Dunbar
Osage City Wrestling Club

Place the top 8..........

That's where you would lose me. I think we place too many as it is now. I know the High School Places too many with six. Placing six in High School with four division is basically placing in the top Twenty-four. I personally think six for Kids is plenty, but since it does include all classes and divisions I would not be completely opposed to it.

That would definately be a fun/interesting seeding meeting to watch.

seeding now sucks.let alone try to seed the hole state.

put 'em all in a hat and draw.

Did some checking and I don't think most brackets would be more than a 32 man bracket, just one more match on the front side than we have right now. If it was matside weigh-in we could start Friday morning at 9:00 am, wrestle all day Friday and Saturday, with the Finals on Sunday. Seed the top 4 in every bracket and draw in the rest.

Beeson, I will catch you off line....

Here are the numbers for only the 8U subs.
weight-wrestler count
40-29
43-36
46-40
49-69
52-90
55-89
58-91
61-108
64-76
67-64
70-49
73-51
76-35
80-35
88-38
95-25
110-19
125-9

Most over a 32 man

Jamy and Beeson,
I am not opposed to a single venue, but the numbers are not looking good for such an event. While the individual bracketing doesn't look too bad for most weights, the overall head count is where it becomes epic.
Currently the state has brackets for 98 weight/age classes. All can be 16 man brackets. That number of "possibles" is 1568 wrestlers. There are 3578 signed up for subs this year. I don't think that there is a venue in the state that can host that many competitors, coaches, fans, and hot dogs.
I would go for two qualifying tournaments ( either a n/s or e/w set up ) in place of 8 subs and 4 districts though.


Also curious about the last few years of sub entries. I have this years entries on a spreadsheet. If I could figure out how to import it I would share that work with anyone that wanted it.

Terry

Terry, All I heard was numbers, numbers, numbers, blah, blah, blah.....Turkey Pot Pie, haha. See ya Easter..

Ya that would be one h3ll of a circus tent that is for sure!!!

Lol. Here are the numbers. That was shorthand.
All-state single tournament. ( with 2013 sub entries)
8-man brackets- 6
16-man - 11
32-man - 22
64- man - 53
128- man - 6
Total matches needed for this= 10,176
Current set up possible matches
98 16-man brackets. = 3136 matches