Folks,

I want to provide you an update to what the committee has been doing on this idea of defining Novice. I am pasting the info below as it is the report that I sent Matt Treaster. He will provide this report to the state board this weekend at their meeting.

If you read it closely you will see the "Way ahead" for the committee. This is based on a discussion I had with Matt as we were trying to get an idea of where the state board wanted us to go with the committee. Please look at the options and their descriptions. Most of these were derived from the great feedback you all gave on this forum. We tried to capture the variety of ideas that you all submitted.

As I see it, the crux of the problem is that Novice is ability based and therefore that is subjective criteria. It is hard to give prescriptive, set in stone rules in this case and end up doing what is best for the kids (this is my opinion). Therefore we tried to give a wide variety of options.

The bottomline is that you get to have a direct say in what we as the state do on this issue. We will discuss the options at the District meetings this winter/early spring, provide the state board feedback, and then if warranted present the options and vote on them at the state body meeting in Oct 2010.

Please look this over and provide your thoughts and feedback to myself, your district reps, or discuss ideas on here.

Thank you for your help.

What we have done......

1. Stood up the committee.
2. Reviewed the Georgia rules.
3. Started a topic on the USAWKS talk forum to solicit thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc.
4. Developed 4 Options (will explain in more detail later) 5. Received feedback from about have the committee.
6. Committee members have talked with other members of their district.

Explanation of Options......

1. Option 1: Do Nothing
Currently Kansas has not rules, guidelines, etc for defining Novice. The determination of Novice wrestlers is left to club directors, coaches, and tournament directors.

Discussion: A fair amount of people on the talk forum support this idea, however, just as many dislike this idea and would prefer to have some sort of criteria established by the state. So far, none of the committee members have came on line to support this idea.

Option 2: Georgia Model
Develop a Rookie category for first year wrestlers only. Define Novice as first or second year wrestlers that have never placed at state.

Discussion: This is the most prescriptive option. It give clear rules but doesn't allow for those kids that take longer than 2 years to develop. Another disadvantage is that this idea adds more divisions. A few on the committee think this would hurt clubs that try to host tournaments in that you would not get enough kids for each of the divisions in order to hold a tournament and cover your expenses.

Option 3: Guidelines
USAWKS officially defines Novice as wrestlers with 3 years of experience or less; who have never won an open tournament; placed in 4 open tournaments and/or has not won more than 4 Novice tournaments. These are general guidelines to help provide a framework for tournament directors, club directors, and coaches. The ultimate decision of determining if a wrestler is a Novice is defined by the respective tournament director and respective club directors/coaches in accordance with these guidelines.

Discussion: The intent of this option is for the state to provide general guidelines to assist tournament directors, coaches and club directors. It is not intended to be prescriptive and seen as a set of hard criteria. Many on the talk forum and on the committee of being too prescriptive so that coaches don't have the flexibility to all kids to wrestle based on their ability. This is the unanimous choice from 4 of the committee members that have communicated their preferences.

Option 4: Hybrid
Establish a Rookie category strictly for first year wrestlers. Define Novice using the same definitions as Option 3.

Discussion: This option provides some flexibility but is very prescriptive on the Rookie division. The reason most of us dislike this idea is that it adds another category and numbers for tournaments can become an issue (see Option 2 discussion). None of the committee members have recommended this option.

Where do we go from here......

1. I am going to put the 4 options with their descriptions on the talk forum and illicit feedback and ideas.

2. The district reps will present these options at the district meetings before the seeding meetings. The idea is that each district discusses these options so the district reps can get an idea of which option their district prefers.

3. The committee will discuss the preferences from the different districts and make a recommendation to the state board at the state tournament. The recommendation will only consider looking at whether the districts prefer Option 1 or if they prefer one of the other 3 options. If the recommendation is Option 1 then this issue will not move forward after the state body meeting. If the majority of the districts prefer having some sort of definition (ie, Options 2-4) then the state board will take these options forward to the state body meeting in Oct 2010 and the state body will vote and decide which option to implement.