Eric, Good discussion...made me really think. [yeah, yeah, I know, yes it did hurt too...lol]

Your question appears to be, “What's best for the kids?”

In the end, your proposal would allow more individual athletes to occupy room at the top, limiting each athlete (HS or kids) to ONE title at the "top layer". And yes, Missouri did beat Kansas this summer in some duals.

So “yes”, if you want to create more opportunity for a "State" title, then your proposal is a good one. Your proposal is, in essence, to achieve a more secular division of competitors.

Now ask yourself the state’s (Kansas) real question, “Is the goal (what’s best for the kid/athlete) to “win a State title” or “improve through competition”? And I ask, “Are we pursuing genuine improvement (mind, body, and soul) through the toughest of competition?”

Wrestlingmom makes great sense. It helps kids/athletes get more mat time, while curtailing the need to ‘red shirt’.

Sorry, but, this time I must respectfully disagree with your position.

Missouri improvements are due to the improved training (i.e., Purler Academies, Park Hill Club, Oak Park Club, etc.). The level of competition has risen during practices and transcended into the fabric of their collective teams.

Thanks to Roberson, Akin, Medinas, Erisman, Bunch, etc. etc. Kansas has no less reputation than other states. Where ever Kansas teams go, competitors don’t dismiss us, outside kids trade for our singlet, more tournaments invite us, and we have improved our placing each year…we are just as noticeable as Missouri, and maybe more so. College wrestling may not be here, but recruiting sure is.

The present system is not perfect, nor flawless. But, it does apply to everyone equally, and thus it’s fair. Moreover, it is better than any other we could offer. We must continue to raise (over time) the standard of competition as “high as possible”. To do otherwise would water-down our program, and take away from the competitor’s real accomplishment.

Let our athletes really grow. Only in an elevated scale, where the best are few enough to count, can the “average” be proud (and darn proud) to make the cut at average. We should not set up an artificial world for “many” more.