New State Boundaries

There has been some conversation about the new districts lines and also a “survey question" that asked if you are in favor of equal numbers. There is a small independent "group" working outside the State board members (no elected officials on it, and more than 1 district represented) to decide if the new lines should be challenged with either new ideas or reverting back to what was in place the last couple years. Anything established under the bylaws, including the district boundaries, can be changed by the state body on a two-third vote of the voting members. Any voting member club can make a motion at the state body meeting under this provision.

New lines
D1 decreased by 11 participants (730)
D2 Increased by 15 participants (725)
D3 decreased by 17 participants (723)
D4 increased by 13 participants (729)

The new lines created extremely minimal changes in numbers and largely increased travel time for some (which may be unavoidable at times, I get it) while significantly shortened travel time for others that could potentially share in the travel pain and off-set it for everyone.

All the statistical data that I could find on reliable sites shows that JOCO, Wyandotte and Douglas account for 84% of the state’s growth. Riley and Sedgwick are the other top 2 in growth.

Considerations:

As for the equal number of participants what do you consider close enough to equal to be fair?

Do you weigh travel time for qualifying tournaments heavier than “equal” numbers?

If the trending growth is primarily in D1, would you want to ensure they are the smallest district currently to account for the growth avoiding re-districting again in a couple years? Currently they are still the largest district.

My intent is not to stir the pot or head-hunt a certain county, I want to find a solution that would be good for years to come and I don’t feel that was done here. Feel free to agree or disagree, in the end there may be no action taken but wanted to get a feel from some I don’t talk to.

I still don't understand why the District that has the most travel refuses to just have a district tournament?

If you aren't willing to travel in wrestling you might as well go play basketball.

My state series total mileage last year was around 1700 miles. I know I now fall into D2 which will help keep more kids out in 2 ways. Only District and it will be hour or so away. Our club was moved but yet now there are probably 2-3 clubs that were in our boat the last 2 years with travel.

The intent for a state series is to try to get the top 16 in the state to compete for #1. It isn't ever going to be fair or even. That goes from a talent perspective or a travel perspective.

I still feel it is a good system.

Hell I am good with a 4 day state tournament, lets all show up and get after it.

that way everyone can be consider a state qualifier.

One point of comparison to the high school/KSHSAA philosophy...for the most part a regional meet is just that, a regional meet. Some years there are oddities, however, just because a regional is tough doesn't mean it should be broken up. It may not seem fair or equitable, but that is what some have to deal with. In the end, if you want to be the best you have to beat the best. I think evening out the numbers for the sake of equity while increasing travel time is not in the best interest of all. But it is what it is...

Has anyone that made this decision weighed in on the change? With that small of a change there has to be some explanation to why the small number changes were made.

The only people that I see stuck with more travel is those that are on the east side of district 4, which is really also the only place I see people benefiting from less travel. It appears Cloud and Ottawa got stuck while Reno, Harper and Harvey were saved.

I agree if district 1 is growing why is it still the biggest? Probably should be some room for growth.

Jason,

One of the reasons for the changes was specifically addressing the southern section of District 4 (the area of the state that you referred to). In looking at a county-by-county breakdown of the numbers of participants, the board recognized that the south side of the District had several counties with very few participants, and a few that had none. In looking at travel commitments, it was recognized that the current boundaries left a large gap between the areas where the wrestlers were located, making for an inefficient allocation.

Since one of the goals of the district boundaries (among others) is to try and group the state in as contiguous a manner as possible, the boundaries were shifted to avoid leaving this dead zone (as far as wrestling participants are concerned) in the middle of a district.

Regarding District 1, I think that the board members came to the same observation as you did and recognized that future changes are probably going to be required. I believe that there was a general consensus that the board needs to continue to review boundaries on a routine basis, rather that let imbalances grow unabated as in prior years.

Thanks for answering Mr. Juby.

I'm sorry but I just don't get it then, if everyone knows district 1 is growing why wasn't that addressed NOW? Are we going to do this again next year?

If I understand the real intentions then why remove the big bordering counties of 4? Those are the ones that are going to keep the numbers equal without causing a bunch of continuing shifting for everyone else east of 4. Reno and or Saline would probably be could candidates for 4.

Would making 8 districts instead of 4 be an option, but only take the top 2 from each district but allow them to wrestle for a true 2nd place.... No sub districts, just district. It would be like having sub districts as districts which would cut out 1 tournament for everyone who was opposed to having both subs and districts it would shorten our season by 1 week, we would see less travel distance for anyone to qualify for state, you would definitely get the top kids competing at state..... Anybody thoughts?

I am in agreement with Brent Lane. We are using a terrible model now that does not work!!!! Set a boundry line and leave it!! Using population will never work in the state because the state is not populated evening. Also, I firmly believe that the change should be up to the all the representatives not just the state board. If it is left up to the state board, I firmly believe we should hold elections every four years and limit each rep to a 2 term limit. Otherwise, just like in congress, they feel like they can do anything. Set a district and leave it!!! People are getting more than just upset at this constant bull of changing the lines

You CAN'T set district boundaries and leave it! That would be ridiculous. There are advantages and disadvantages to where each of us lives. Like it or not, the population of western Kansas is shrinking and that should and will be be effecting all facets of the lives of those that live there.
The reason the decision on boundaries was left to the executive board was because the state body couldn't ever pass a map that was acceptable to the majority. As to the idea of term limits for the board, we routinely have no other candidates to run against any sitting member. I take that as a sign that nobody really wants the duties and that the current board is doing an acceptable job. In this case, I believe the board got it right.

I agree with everything you said BUT "they got it right" this go. There was such a minimal change made that I can't see where we accomplished much, if we plan to stay "equal" as can be D1 will need to loose more and D4 gain more again next year which implies yet another change.

well then sportsfan02 I am assuming you live outside of District 4 because that is a typical answer from someone that lives in eastern kansas. Nothing exists past salina and wichita. I am more than willing to serve on the board. But getting on the board is almost impossible. Why pull reno out? Shouldnt they stay in District 4? What happens when we get to the bigger clubs such as salina or wichita clubs? Are they going to join district 4? What happens if clubs get tired of it and say enough is enough and decide to break away and bring AAU? Want will happen then? Where is the limit? Almost any issue should be brought to a vote not decide by a handful of people. I believe that if there is a 2/3 majority the decision of the state board can be overriden maybe not. You will never get the numbers to equal out of be even wont happen. By increasing the travel all that the board is achieving is pushing more people away because of cost and travel. Hard liners will say well that is just the nature of the beast. To a limit it is. But there are ways around it.

Remember, any issue that comes before the board has politics involved in it's passing. Each board member is looking out for their club and district first. So in order to get something passed, compromise is involved.

If you want to get on the board, get elected to a district director or assistant position. You are then on the board. I agree that travel is a troubling cost to ALL of us. We have way too many kids traveling out of state for tournaments. This has the effect of making the neighborhood tournament less and less profitable and more expendable. The strength of Kansas Kids wrestling is first and foremost the clubs. The less strong functioning clubs we have, the more our sport is going to hurt.

Lets break down the numbers per age group to see where the difference is (numbers from district tournament last year)

8 and under
1=157
2=166
3=134
4= 124

10 and under
1= 131
2=167
3=126
4=125

12 and under
1=167
2= 149
3= 136
4= 125

14 and under
1= 165
2= 144
3= 136
4= 111

High School
1= 125
2= 94
3= 97
4= 77

Now that those numbers are out there lets analyze them.

8 Under
2= 166
1= -9
3= -32
4= -42

10 Under
2= 167
1= -36
3= -41
4= -50

12 and under

1=167
2= -18
3 and 4= -42

14 and under

1=165
2= -21
3= -29
4= -54

High School
1= 125
3= -28
2= -31
4= -48

District 2 holds the most kids in the 8 and 10 age groups. District 1 holds 12, 14, and high school. If we are worried about the size of district 1, then moving the district lines is not the answer!!! District 4 will never have the 14 and under and high school participation as district 1! EVER!!!! The kids out here in the rural communities are doing nine hundred different activities. Lets look at one. In a small town, any small rural farm town here in western kansas, a student in junior and high are most likely involved in up to ten different activities. Football, wrestling, track, baseball, softball, band, FHA, FFA, work, and any other school activities they are required at just to have those activities. Getting those age groups to think about doing little kids wrestling, especially after high school wrestling is hard. Yes you will have the die hards who will wrestle, every district does. But lets look at Garden City for example. Why do you not see high school kids wrestle kids club? One prime example is the high school baseball coach tells the kids that is they do little kids wrestling at all, they are off the baseball team so they have to decide. Im sure there are other schools like this also. There has to be a better way of figuring this out then jumping the lines every freaking year. I have seen it posted that life is not fair. Yes, Life is not fair. Never has been never will be. But just as they say will travel is part of the beast, well living in District 1, numbers is just part of the beast. Take a moment and look at it that way. Im open for more ideas but really cmon guys.
And sportsfan02 yes decisions are political so maybe they should be given to the group to decide instead of the few. Pretty sure the USA was created because the few were making decisions

The numbers at any one age group has nothing to do with boundaries. It is the overall numbers that determine who needs to go where. And the reason we have a board to decide some of these issues is the same reason the U.S.A. has a representative form of democracy.

ok we will paint the problem with a wide brush instead of looking into the bottleneck? Yes i know the districts are decided by the overall numbers. But to find the problem, do you not need to break it out to get a true good look at something? Or are you to just say or well here lets move this countries and hopefully the numbers will balance out. To truly see the bottleneck you have to look at the whole picture any good businessman or woman will know that. Looking with a broad point might work for a year but what happens when the numbers dont turn out like you hoped? Are you still going to use the wide brush approach? What if people in cloud county are not happy with the move and lets say go to wrestling for a club in republic county. Would this not just defeated the whole point of this move? That is just a hypothetical situation there.

I don't know what a bottleneck is, at it relates to this issue. If we tried to decide boundaries based upon one age group or another it would be endless. The last boundary change lasted two years. I would expect this change to last four to five years if not longer. If anything, in the past, the changes did not come often enough.

I have been told there were no politics involved in this decsion. Of course there was one member that slipped up and made a statement that proved there was!

As I agreed with you before the majority has never been able to agree at the State meeting so I get a decsion being made. My issue is that this decsion didn't accomplish much of anything and didn't leave room for growth in D1. I feel that we are just setting ourselves up to throw everyone around again next year.

I was in D1, didn't want to leave it, but a honest study of the numbers and running several different scenarios tells me it's highly possible that Shawnee county isn't in D1 for state success. The frustrating part is it also tells me that our current change is not setting us up for success either, unless there are more of those "slip-up" comments out there than what I have been told, then it makes sense.

Shawnee County has been the fly in the ointment for years. The proper balance has never been reached due to their remaining in D1. Now that they have moved to D3, I hope it will make less changes necessary in the future.

They probably need reviewed every two to four years (on the basis of wrestlers attending) but guess I fail to see how placing Ottawa and Cloud county in D4 avoids the "dead zone...in the MIDDLE of the district." Reno is more "western" than those two counties and should be in D4 instead of Ottawa and Cloud. Guess Saline county is next up for D4 target, instead of Reno, as club growth head counts continue in the far NE?

I've done an exhaustive review of the change as Daniel DRW's change numbers weren't adding up in total head counts. Using Track's team head counts for District tournaments for D1 and D2 and the sub head counts for D3 and D4 (assuming those at subs would attend a single district match) OR one would need to make some assumptions for thinning of the herd in D1&D2 if they held a sub.

Before/After/Net change/Reno,Kingman,Harper->D4 / L&C D1->D2
D1 745 / 726 / -19 / 726 / 699
D2 719 / 723 / 4 / 675 / 702
D3 685 / 700 / 15 / 700 / 700
D4 644 / 644 / 0 / 692 / 692

It would appear to me further adjustment needs to be made to bring head counts in line....or should I say less adjustment. Keep Reno, Kingman, and Harper counties in D4 instead of shifting into D2 makes a head count shift of +48 to D4 and -48 to D2. D2 is then 675 and D4 is 692 and now we reduce what was passed from D2 into D1 with Labette and Cherokee remaining in D2 instead. I don't think you level the field with a contiguous map better than that. If D1 continues growth then Neosho and Crawford get sucked back into D2.

End of story, if the state board is going to drag Cloud and Ottawa into D4, then Reno, Kingman and Harper need to be in D4 for the same reasons as well. Otherwise, Cloud and Ottawa should remain in D3. What's good for the goose is good for the gander they say.

Respectfully,
An unaffected party out in BFE (*unless someone new in D4 like Beloit hosts a district) armed with a detailed excel spreadsheet...

Best of luck to figuring out this jigsaw puzzle!!! I don't think there is a "one solution fixes all" unfortunately, and no matter how you cut it will probably leave someone out in the cold so to speak. I do know we are here to wrestle whoever, whenever, and wherever. The tougher they are, the better we get!! DISTRICT 5 FOREVER!!!!!

The numbers that I used came from the board and they can be confusing but they are correct. If memory serves me correct (slept a lot since I moved past that portion of the formula) you had to take into account the HS division and that they only wrestled Districts, not Subs. If you want a copy of the maps they used with numbers by county I can email them to you or you can contact a board member.

The point made by Daniel DRW has been that the realignment did little to nothing for any numbers shifting and leaves one to ask why the change then.

Daniel, I know the state board just emailed clubs and asked what county they were HQ'd in too.... I actually looked up the zip codes and counties they were in. A few were goofy like the Lawrence club with a Johnson county mailing address or the one K.C. club that had a Missouri side mailing address. It would be of my opinion that any formula not using the totals for 14 and under SUB numbers for D3 and D4 would be inappropriate as they make for a thinning of the herd in those districts. If we throw in the high school figures from district for D3 and D4 then D3 is too big at 782 and D4 is 721.

Would appear Saline County will be next on the bubble for being moved into D4?....or Reno/Kingman/Harper remain D4 and McPherson shifts into D2. I guess we can assume the same logic people have posted will be followed by posters themselves that if they don't like being in D4 travel times then they will have to move into Wichita or KC itself. I understand the board can't make everybody happy but it is interesting Reno is ducking out of D4 while shoving Cloud and Ottawa in.... Good luck Daniel as Trackwrestling head count figures for what you posted the state used don't quite match up with each other even for D1 and D2. I've burned enough time on this subject for a message board that will have no impact on our particular club or what the state does anyway so I'm not going any further.

Just like others organizations, the big groups get what they want and the little fish have to pay. Why else wouldn't Reno and saline county be moved to district 4 and leave Ottawa and Cloud in district 3. Because they have people on the board or in the ears of people on the board. They don't want to travel, so make someone else do it.

I don't believe it has anything to do with big groups but there are advantages to having people on the board of any organization. Every county has an opportunity to have people on the board if they have people willing to give of their time.

I'm from district 4 are boys and girls have no problems with traveling.we have no problems hunting or looking for competition. Just makes the road to state easier for us. But then again not everyone is willing to travel

Traveling for some of us is not a big deal in the south west corner

Traveling is not the for most of us. The problem is the method in which this is done.

This issue will never be solved correctly.I went back and looked at a few clubs that switched districts for the 2015 season and compared numbers of kids that signed up for qualifying series in 2014(before the move) and 2016(districts held in Goodland).

team 2014 entries 2016 entries
Hutch 41 29
Team Lightning 20 11
Smith County 21 14
Chapparal 10 8
Osborne 10 6
Russell 16 13
Jr. Panthers 19 0

From these 7 teams, there were 137 wrestlers who were moved into district 4, of those 137 wrestlers, it only accounted for 81 additional wrestlers in district 4. What is worse about this, is that the move of the district lines cost 56 wrestlers the opportunity to attend the qualifying series. Any team that is moved to district 4 will most likely see the same results in their wrestler count for the qualifying series.

One thing that could possibly help with district 4 wrestler count is to lessen the burden on the parents. I think that if we eliminate sub districts, it will help with the wrestler count at districts. A parent may be more likely to sign a kid up for districts knowing they only have to drive 4 hours one weekend rather than 2 weekends to qualify for state.

The districts will never be "fair." District 1 will never have to drive as far as district 4, and district 4 will never have as many wrestlers as district 1. District 1 is growing, and you will never be able to add enough teams to district 4 to be able to get the numbers even in a manor that doesn't hurt the sport. I don't know from experience in the other districts, but how often do kids not sign up for districts because there is 5 more wrestlers in their brackets than in the same bracket in district 4?

We need to quit worrying about "fair" and do what is best to grow the numbers involved in the sport.

It would seem to me that having one less qualifier in D4 is more important than any other district. Not sure why they chose to keep Subs.

As listed before, there really is not a good facility to host a single tournament. We have three real good places. Dodge City at the casino, Hays at Gross Memorial, and Garden City High School. Hays is the most central except getting into Gross Memorial at this time is almost impossible because of the college basketball schedule. Garden and Dodge would not be central. So that is the main reason

What about Barton County CC? They have started a wrestling program and might be glad to get kids on campus. Last year's 4 hour and then 4 1/2 hour trips back to back weekends was tough.

Depending on the ability to get the second gym at barton, districts can be held there. It has been there in the past. Great Bend High School has the space for enough mats and seats. The downside at the high school is the football field seperates the gyms.

First things first you can not go by numbers out of dist 4 districts because those teams already went through subdistrics so of course the numbers are going to be less in district. I also think that the jr Panther club doesn't exist any more. The other thing is that there really isn't any place in district 4 to hold a tournament of that size without breaking the bank. We don't have any big venue to hold a huge tournament except for dodge and hays. I don't understand why all the other districts want to end subs anyway. If you do away with subs there is going to be another tournament anyway. When you live in district 4 you just get use to driving. This is basically every weekend that you want to wrestle. That is just what we do out here. I don't no the answer about getting numbers out but I don't think eliminating subs is the answer either.

There is only seats in one gym at bcc and the seating in that gym is very small it doesn't hold very many people. Great bend holds a great tournament but I still think that it is to small

The only problem with the second gym at Barton is that there is no seating on the gym floor. There is an walkway at the top though.

When you live in district 4 you just get use to driving. This is basically every weekend that you want to wrestle. That is just what we do out here. [/quote]

Here is the problem. Some of us didn't want to be in district 4. You might be used to the travel and like it, but others don't. Even those that have been in district 4 for a while don't like to travel. I guarantee that making district 4 bigger only hurts the state numbers at district time.

I've never seen the second gym at BCCC, but the main one holds 2-3 times more people than Goodland does. There was about 8 rows of stadium seats around the mats there last year. They were way undersized for the district tourney.

IF your going that rout Garden City Juco has twice the seating as Barton and the Second gym has 1100 seats in it. The only problem is getting access to these gyms. With state budget cuts, they are getting very hard to get into because they are worried about damage to the gym floors.

Love how possible district venues (with no subs) are put on the table without considerations for capacity let alone the likes of scheduling difficulty and dollar costs of getting into the likes of a Gross (Hays) or United (Dodge) facility. However, since he brought it up. I think Sekavec should check into GCCC for a district hosting and D4 could actually consider cutting out subs. Sounds like it might be a great venue if it could be arranged on the cheap...and I'm sure Greater Gold is just chomping at the bit ready to host. Those proposing venues also means someone has to step up and host which I think a couple might be forgetting on this board that some don't want the headache that comes with hosting. One thing I haven't seen thrown out (and I'm green here) is forcing a co-host of say the top six clubs attending? Each club runs a mat... Takes some weight off the local club's resources and sharing the burden may help some clubs be more willing to bring the tournament to the likes of BCCC or GCCC. Maybe that's too much to ask...

Still think GCHS wouldn't quite have enough seating capacity to host a single district (no subs) head count because of your lower bleachers being pulled back to make room for score tables and foot traffic. It was a great venue for the subs though and well ran. Liberal is in the same boat as Pratt. A third gym that is a separated facility (only about 50 yards) that could easily host the head counts and yet at an extreme geographical location in the district. For those unfamiliar with D4, the story for D4 to have a single district qualifier is about SEATING capacity in a halfway centralized location that is necessary to eliminate having a sub qualifier.

Those clubs in the extremes like an Atwood traveling to Pratt or a Beloit/Concordia going to Liberal might actually prefer a single district qualifier but you will still have some unhappy campers from the opposite ends having to travel five hours each way. Thinking Sekavec should work on that GCCC idea for a single district event...

I don't have a dog in the fight. This is just an idea. If you don't have a place big enough for a one day tournament. What about using a split format for the tournament. The tournament could start earlier around 0800. First half be done around noon. Start the second half at 1300 and be done around 1700. Just an idea to help take some pressure of families.

Josh Parker

Make top 4 in subs make top 4 in districts and be in the top 16 at state is how D4 rolls our kids earn their spots if they have to travel to do it I see no nothing wrong with subs I take my kids an other kids with me to so they can battle it out

These new districts boundaries are stupid, there is no reason for the 2 clubs along 81 hiway to have to drive clear out to garden city for a district tournament which is 4 hours away and a total of 8 hours on the road.

Why don't we add a couple of districts and take the top 2 instead of the top 4 to the state meet. less driving for everyone and save money, just a thought

If you did this all jock straps would have to be tightened up.

Not necessarily if you were in southwest Kansas.

What they do not understand republic county is 12 miles from Concordia. So the bad part about this is there has been talk in joining republic county due to the fact of the drive clear out to garden city. And just wrestle with them and stay in district 3. Or we can just sign up under salina and stay in district 3. There is more than one way to skin a cat. It would be to ur best interest to find a more neutral location for the district tournament because I for see joining another group and then your so called numbers are going to be high for dist 3 and numbers will drop in dist 4.
It is not that we do not want to wrestle in district 4 it is the fact that there needs to be a closer district tournament instead of garden city, 4 hours is to long especially for 8 under and some 10 under kids.

welcome to district 4 reddog2853. It is driving everywhere you go. As discussed before there is no good location to have a central tournament. Not that time of year anyways

For starters reddog, the state did NOTHING to balance district head count variances of which the significant majority of the straw survey conducted desires a balanced district. Using Trackwrestling team views for 3 & 4 subs plus the high school entries for those districts (less a couple scratch) and the 1 & 2 district tournaments:

2016 D1 745 2016 D2 719 2016 D3 780 2016 D4 720
New Count 732 New Count 734 New Count 779 New Count 719

Greatest variance between districts = 60 for no change. NOTHING CHANGED for balance. What got accomplished was Reno, Kingman and Harper county took themselves out of the drives into D4 (a/k/a Garden 3h and Goodland 4h) and your couple of counties that are further to the east than Reno got thrown to the travel wolves. That bunch threw you under the bus but you already know such. To do a proper balance needed in reducing D3 head count and getting a lower variance between districts:

D1 leave as newly drawn 732
D2 Add McPherson +69, less Reno-Kingman-Harper -56, = 747
D3 Add Cloud, Ottawa +34, less McPherson -69, = 744
D4 Add Reno-Kingman-Harper +56, less Cloud, Ottawa -34 = 741

Greatest variance between districts = 15 AND D1 has room to grow!

Sorry about your predicament reddog. I would prefer an extra couple hours to Garden City than driving the 40 minute round trip to Belleville couple times a week for practice to skirt the district boundaries that have been drawn. Quite simply put, you got thrown under the bus by you know who.....after long drives to GC and Goodland this past season. Like Sekavec said, "welcome to district 4". Other than a regime change, which isn't likely, your next best effort might be getting a capable venue there or Beloit winning district hosting bids to avoid the drives into the D4 wild west. I hope not for us in the far SW corner don't want 4.5-5 hour drives either as the three hour standards are plenty enough. Looks like the odds are stacking up that D3 and D4 get pushed away from having subs in the future so, IF that happens, then it will only be one trip into the wild west for you. Issue will return to only a few select venues capable of hosting a D4 of over 700 kids IF the board also balances the districts. About five facilities are of adequate seating capacity and only one is reasonably centralized but ONLY IF Gross Memorial doesn't have a scheduling conflict (let alone expensive). Are you Cloud county people ready for a five hour drive to Liberal or four to Garden City? Pratt will be a short drive for you when they host. Which I'm sure the Reno folks wouldn't have minded that kind of drive........just not clear to Goodland for an overcrowded venue.

Welcome to District 4 but how does Reno keeps themselves out of D4 with any attempt to balance the numbers? Saline county thrown under the bus next? That would be an interesting dog fight to watch!

I wish everyone would stop with the "room to grow" nonsense. None of us can predict when and where growth will take place. At the state body meeting it was stated that one of the reasons for the redistricting was due to growth in D2. That is not accurate. District 2 numbers had been in decline for years, until the redistricting of three years ago. In fact, that is one of the reasons that brought about the idea of doing away with subs in D2, that being the lack of competitor numbers to host a sub and make money on it. That is the reason D2 had been an advocate for redistricting for years, in order to increase our competitor numbers.
When the counties from far eastern Kansas were added to D2 three years ago, of course our numbers increased.

Reddog even better...Take the top six from each district (give a first round bye to Top 2 from each district)in a 32 man bracket. Do away with HS and add 6U; Minnesota does this.

Or as one coach from District 3 said...just run them all blind draw. Do it Montana style.

B.Mannel actually your plan does make sense.
Keep in mind these numbers were based on "district entries" this past season.

I understand it is based on "district entries" from this past season. Sekavec brought up the issue of head count on high school wrestlers skewing the numbers for district entries that was largely dismissed. D4 just doesn't have the numbers in that category. You remove the H.S. factor and it will paint a different picture on district numbers. Question for the new straw poll coming might touch on if respondents care if that balancing act should include high school head counts. If one cuts out the HS head count considerations then D1 is weaker and D4 is stronger than appears. All it would take to throw the numbers in a district in a given year is one or two large HS program coaches pounding the table and demanding their wrestlers to go wrestle USA. ...Sekavec had a valid point that was dismissed.

Does the majority care if the HS district divisions are included in balancing district numbers? I think there is little reason to be including those HS figures in the balancing act between districts but just my two cents. This perspective would create different district lines needed to balance the districts than what I suggested just prior. D1 might even need Shawnee county back but that would take another intensive numbers crunch.

where can I find the district boundaries for year?

On the home page menu, click on "Clubs"

Thanks....I didn't think that was updated