I'll be honest, I'd like to see the National rules in place.

Will they be cumbersome on coaches? I tend to believe they will, but not to the extent that coaches are just quitting because of it.

The problems I see with the pilot program:

1. As you've pointed out, there will be two tests, one at the beginning of the season (the same time as setting the baseline for the 10% weight reduction) and the other at certification.

2. The current proposal does nothing to stop the "yo-yo" weight issues. An athlete can cut his weight at the beginning of the season, wrestle up, and then get it back down (with the understanding he still meet the criteria proposed) and then go back to unhealthy practices. The intent of the rule (as I understand it) is to stop such unhealthy practices. This proposal from KSHSAA does not meet such standard. To hide under the guise of protection from litigation is wrong. True protection would be better suited by adopting the National rules. To believe that something is better than nothing because in this case, if a wrestler were to die (granted we have no deaths in Kansas ever) a easy case for the prosecution would be that there was a better method and the state decided to not follow it.

Quote from the NCAA article I posted.

"So what does all this mean? If a student-athlete's actual percent body fat was 15%, the methods used to estimate percent body fat could produce results ranging from 12% to 18% body fat for UWW; 8% to 22% for skinfold thickness; and 7% to 23% for BIA."

BIA is the electronic scale that measures body fat. Not many schools can do underwater testing , but it has a +/- of 3%. The tests we could use: skinfold with a +/- of 7%, and the cool electronic scale is at +/- 8%.

By my calling the states number an arbitrary number, that's exactly what I meant. It's a consensus by the medical profession, not a scientific fact.

Why is it arbitrary? Because it's so difficult to measure accurately (as shown by the large variances). The NCAA has adopted 5%. So the number is arbitrary.

Now of course you're looking at the post and saying, what does this all have to do with the two weigh-in checks. Quite a bit - as you know the smaller the sample, the higher the degree of variance, especially with such a high variance in the tools we will adopt.

The weekly check would smooth out the peaks/valleys of the inaccuracies and provide us a better description of the athlete's weight management.

With the Kansas model, we check twice, leaving a huge variance and if it's off, an opportunity to send the kids to the doctor to get a medical waver. That is not the intent of the National Federation and KSHSAA knows it. The intent is to better equip the coaches with tools to promote a healthy weight management program and rules to follow to help promote such management. KSHSAA's rule does not follow that program in the least.

This is not to say that our coaches are bad, in fact, I think they are supurb.

To throw out fear tactics, like LITIGATION, is a political hot button issue. Danger for kids = bad. What they fail to do is show how inferior their program is versus the program adopted by the institution they are a part of, but can't vote on the measure.