Dang Ricky, what the heck?
You totally twisted it again.

And now you're the one being a d..k.
The sarcasm is junk and the whole Talladega Nights thing is ridiculous and sounds like something a little kid would say when he doesn't have anything intelligent to say. Although I must admit when I first read it, I laughed.
I don't know about no wrasslin' though so if you're looking for instruction on that you will have to get that elsewhere.

As far as the two regionals thing goes, yes that is an idea with tremendous merit and yes that's old news. The coaches have been talking about that for several years now so I know you're not "just blowing hot air". Oeser and I have actually talked about it along with others. Not likely to change though anytime soon because of course the association is set in their ways. The best thing about it is it would eliminate the ridiculous totally unfair "blind draw" at state that is the direct result of 4 regionals. That is exactly why some states only have 2 regionals.
But hey, life is not fair right, so why should regional balancing or state draws be.

As far as an "immaculate" memory bank, far from it. My wife would certainly disagree with you on that as she thinks that I can't remember anything, well at least not the important stuff. But I can certainly remember how all the teams and kids I have coached in the past have been "adversely" affected by all this stuff we have been fighting about.

I don't know why you keep bringing up that all-class as a measure thing, and why you keep misrepresenting me. I never said that the way that you said that I did. You can spin it however you want but you can clearly see what I said. The first comment was pertaining to the level of competition which is what I was emphasizing and the second was regarding their ranking in their own class. I just threw out the all-class at the end and asked if they were anywhere close to that as in "how do they stack up with quality wrestlers from other classes". And if you will look back you will see that I was refering to the 3/2/1A brackets, not all 7, although that is really irrelevant.

Yes, you are right as HEADUP supported about the 20 win thing maybe not being the best indicator of worth, but 20 wins is still decent and better than 10. Yes some kids like DD could be hurt and wouldn't have 20. Of course they might still be very good. Of course DD is. When I first made that comment I wasn't really thinking about or talking about a "not so good" kid with a weak schedule with 20 wins. I was thinking about the kids in the bracket originally referenced and I knew they were quality wins because I knew the level of competition of their teams. And I agree with Brent Lane that there are some really good kids that don't have 20 wins or not so good of records because of their strength of schedule.

When I think that all this crap came up just because I made one misinterpreted, or should I say one misrepresented, comment about one Ark City regional bracket, it is kind of foolish. This is why I said in a previous post that I shouldn't even respond to your reply because it would just make things worse. I should have went with my gut. Plus my Momma always told me not to get in the mud and wrestle with a pig because you can't win and you will get dirty and I should have listened. But I did make the comment so I guess it's my bad. Oh well, live and learn. I probably won't as this is too fun.

Sorry for the belated response though Ricky but with the other comments I have made recently I was falling behind with my work and I needed to get caught up.

And up4wrestling thanks for correcting me. So it was 50% and not 60% but seems like the last time I looked at that it was about 30% each for 4A, 5A and 6A. So some of the 6A and 5A fell out and some 3/2/1A jumped in so good for them. It really doesn't detract from most of my points. I think that there is more to "class strength" then just that one variable anyway so that doesn't change my opinion that 4A, 5A, and 6A are close in strength. And remember, I never said that 5A and 6A were tougher than 4A. I just said that 4A was not tougher than 5A and 6A. I guess it depends on which variable you look at. The reason that I combined 5A and 6A is because that is what everyone that is in 4A and 3/2/1A are always saying should be done. The current 50% only validates my comment that I have no problem with combining 5A and 6A but only if you combine 4A and 3/2/1A. That would be 50-50 and that would be fair and equitable but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

And while I am in such a writing mood I might as well go ahead and thank Quagmire for validating up4wrestling's correction of my numbers and also HEADUP for their work and comments. The comments seem reasonable for the most part. Quagmire was probably right on point when he stated it probably just evens out.