Darn. I had just recently memorized the existing 14 weight classes. Now someone wants to change them. Give an ol man a break

The rationale for Option A in the first post states the NFHS committee thought they needed a set distribution of 7.14% of wrestlers in each weight. WHY???

7.14% is nothing more than 100% divided the number (14) of weight classes. That seems like an awfully weak rationale. I think you would need to bell curve the wrestlers across all weights and determine a rationale distribution based on the total population. Surely the middle weights, say 135 to 160, have the most wrestlers. Even Option A indicates that with retention of the 145, 152, and 160 weights (probably need to include the 171/170 bracket in the middle weights). In the old scheme there were 7 weights below 140 (103 to and including 140). Option A cuts that range to 6 weights (106 thru 138). Also, the weight differiential below 145 are in the 4+% to 5% range. The differientals above 170 are 7+%, 7+%, 13%, and 29+%.

I think we need at least one more weight class (at the top end). Lowest weight should be 105--a good number--should not eliminate any smaller guys.