D1N-632 D4N-326
Is this the best we can do to make it as fair as possible for kansas wrestlers?


D1N-632
D1S-588
D2N-445
D2S-405
D3E-510
D3W-444
D4N-326
D4S-471

We cannot re-allign the districts until D1 decides it is needed. To date, they have said it wasn't necessary as a group and they carry the weight of any vote.

I did some quick analysis and with a little creativity it could look something like this...

Of course it was a quick analysis of current team sizes and trying to map the geographical locations...

This creates a Standard Deviation of about 20 per district... The current Standard Deviation is about 188

Just playing with numbers

Of course this would require change and as we all know too well... change is a difficult thing

Dist Wrestlers
1 984
2 970
3 948
4 938

I'm in D1 and I'm for change. 1220 wrestlers in D1; 973 in D3; 850 in D2 and 797 in D4. My guess is the guys in SE Kansas would prefer the drive to Wichita for District tourney rather than 3.5 hour haul they have to Holton this year. Sorry Western Kansas folks, I know you drive for hours for tourneys, but the numbers speak for themselves. D2 needs to expand, too.

Redistricting will not happen for one main reason, D1 does not want it to happen. Right now D1 has enough votes that they, for the most part, can dictate what happens for the rest of the state. D1 will vote on a subject at their District Meeting, if the vote passes 51% to 49% then the entire Distirct will vote that way at the State Meeting. If the power(number of wrestlers) is more evenenly distributed then D1 loses their power. This is why redistricting will NOT happen.

Previous redistricting was ~~20 years ago. The Southeastern KS communities were happy they were able to stay with D1 vs Coffeyville & Independence going to D 2. But then again, tournament entries were $7-$8.00. And novice tournaments were unheard of..........

So for those of us that are not as educated as some what does D1 stand to loose in regards to power? Less tournaments? Money? I assume they will stay rather close in regards to drives unless you are at the northern or southern most part. I honestly don't know the answer and was curious.

seems to me you would want the kids spread out more evenly to give everyone a more equal chance of making it to state.

It's admirable that you think it's for the kids. If that were true, redistricting would have happened a long time ago.

Shawnee county could easily move to D3 and even things up quite a bit. We've presented this option for three years at the D1 meetings and as Sport0 and Beeson say, there is no interest. I'm all in favor of this simple change.

I coach and have a vote in D1 and also believe there needs to be a change, it is about what is in the best interest of all the wrestlers (who are kids), it should not ever be about what district has the most power. I agree here and if it as simple as Will says then that is exactly what should be done.
So how do we make it a reality?

Send in a proposal to Matt Treaster between now and July 31st. Copy all of the directors in an email and mail it to Matt. I will make sure it is proposed! Promise.

Can someone do up a draft for Matt and post it here so those of us that choose to send it on can do a quick cut and paste to echo the same thoughts?

Bret Stouder

John,

After doing the proposal and submitting it, the other key (and much harder part) is ensure that the district one clubs show up to the state body meeting and stick around to vote.

That issue right there is another reason why we still cannot buy our USAW cards online.

Will’s idea does not fix our problem. It only shifts the problem to another area of the state that actually has population growth and will put D3 in the same position that D1 is in right now. In D1, we at least have the facilities to handle the larger tournaments. D3 has a few but very few. To fix this problem would require growing the geographical size of D4 (which is already ½ the state and causes its own problems). The part of D4 that needs numbers is the North…so moving Smith, Osborne, and Russell from D3 to D4 would make since. Fixing the problem, would also require 4-6 counties in SEK to shift from D1 to D2. The problem is with a big shake ups like this there so many moving parts it is nearly impossible to get the membership to agree.

Moving Shawnee County to D3 might make some feel good in the short run…but it does not fix the problem….if it did I would agree. As long as it is a move to make some feel better without fixing the overall problem…I will never vote for it.

Sometimes you have to take baby steps before you run. Why not start somewhere and continue working on making it better.

Doing nothing is not going to fix the problem!!

"As long as it is a move to make some feel better without fixing the overall problem…I will never vote for it."

You might find this an interesting piece of material that discusses leadership in wrestling. Bottom line is that our leadership in Kansas has a doggone job to do. Report back to the community what the options are and let the community have some input in this. Watching 4 kids from D4 walk into the state tournament without ever having to win a match is an embarrassment.

Terry Brands on the future of wrestling

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29583110

“If the IOC talks, you listen,” Brands said. “You open your ears and you follow the protocol. Whether you think it’s right or wrong, you have got to do that job. It’s not sucking up to them, it’s not playing the game. It’s doing your doggone job.”

Brands said this about Rich Bender, the executive director of USA Wrestling:

“This is something that’s beyond him. I don’t say that to attack him. I’m friends with him. But if we want to do the right thing there has to be a leadership change domestically, and that’s the bad news. There hasn’t been. He’s hanging on, he’s going through the motions, kind of doing what they tell him to do. And there needs to be a change.

Bret Stouder
913-485-3195

Brett,

I cannot say that I disagree with your statement. There is work to do. Over the past many years proposals have been submitted and put up for vote at the State Body meeting. The point of my post…taking the perspective as a club representative with only one vote…is to point out that the problem is bigger than moving one county; and quite possibly moving just one county will only make the problem we have bigger or will at the very least just relocate the problem from where it currently is. I stuck my neck out and also told you an idea that could fix the “larger” problem we have and pointed out where others may attack it from. “WE” are USAWKS…almost everything requires a majority vote from our member clubs to get passed. There is nothing that our leadership can do about this issue without a grass roots effort. Again speaking only as a club representative with a single vote…I will not support a halfhearted effort. If we want to fix the problem then WE need to pull the band aid off in one big yank and not try to cover it up.

Mark Stanley
Jr. Viking Wrestling Club

14U-160---DIST-1-N--7 WRESTLERS SEPERATION CRITERIA 3-A 1-B 2-C

DIST-1-S--5 WRESTLERS SEP CRITERIA 2-B 3-C

DIST 4-N 3-WRESTLERS
SEPARAION CRITERIA 1-A 1-B 1-C

DIST-4S 0 WRESTLERS

wrestlers in dist 1 are unfairly eleminated from the state series

Here are 2 ideas that do not require any boundary changes or re-districting....

My biggest assumption with these ideas is that the state wants to stay at a max of 16 wrestlers per weight class for the state tournament.

Having said that, here are my 2 potential Courses of Action....

COA 1: If a district has a weight class with less than 4 wrestlers then those slots should be given to another district that has more than 4 wrestlers. Example: If U10 125 only has 2 kids in it at the District 4 meet and District 1 has 5 kids and District 2 has 5 kids then those 2 districts would each get to take 5 kids to state. If only 1 slot is available then you prioritize to the District with the most participants.

COA2: Distribute the number of kids that qualify from a district based on district population. Similar to the way automatic NCAA births are given to conferences at the D1 level. Now the college methodology is a lot more complicated and we don't need to make it that hard. You could do a percentage by age group based on population. For example....
1. Every district gets at least 2 automatic births per weight class (unless there is only 1 kids in the weight class in that district).
2. The remaining 8 slots are given to districts based on the population size for that age group. If Dist. 1 had 200 10U, Dist 2 had 150 10U, Dist 3 had 100 10U, and Dist 4 had 50 10U then Dist 1 would get to take 5-6 kids per weight, Dist 2 would take 4-5 kids per weight, Dist 3 would take 3-4 kids per weight and Dist 4 would take 2-3 kids per weight. (I realize if I use the max numbers for each district that is greater than 16) I am just trying to show that we could have some flexibility in allocating the numbers based on populations. The actual numbers could be based on the popultions of age groups.

The advantage to these ideas is that they both maximize the ability to create 16 man brackets at state. They also do not disavantage kids just because they live in a large district.

I think COA 1 would be the easiest to implement but I don't think it really gets at the idea of fairness based on population. My personal preference is COA 2 because I think it breaks out the number of slots allocated more equitably based on population.

Just something to think about.

Shawn Budke