Wrestling Talk Forums supported
USA Wrestling Kansas KWCA
Wrestling Talk Forums supported & maintained by USA Wrestling-Kansas
USAW USA Wrestling Kansas
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,248
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,248
Any club in any district at any time can host a 6 & under tournament and call it whatever they want. These clubs took some of the initiative for this group of kids.

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,933
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,933
 Originally Posted By: smokeycabin
These clubs took some of the initiative for this group of kids.

Just like several clubs in other districts would have done had a District 1 club not beat us to it! Oh and those would have been clubs in districts that predominantly supported 6U being added to THE state tournament!


Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
 Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
I agree about revisting this issue BUT it is wasted time in an already busy day at the meeting, until we can convince the clubs in District 1 that 6U State is a good idea. You know District 1? They are the district that routinely votes against a 6U State while holding not one but two unofficial 6U state tournaments.


I'm a newbie, but why does Dist. 1 need to be convinced of anything. If Districts 2-4 are all on the same page, shouldn't the votes of 3 districts outweigh the votes of one?

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,933
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,933
District 1 has so many more clubs than the other districts they can practically carry the vote on any issue. I believe the last I looked District 1 had three to four times the number of clubs in District 2.
Because District 1 has voted pretty much down the line against 6U being added to THE state tournament it is a dead issue.


Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,595
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,595
If I recall, the issue has also been voted down in District 3 and 4.


Are you making a POSITIVE difference in the life of kids?

Randy Hinderliter
USAW Kansas
KWCA Rep/Coaches Liaison
Ottawa University Volunteer Assistant
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
 Originally Posted By: usawks1
If I recall, the issue has also been voted down in District 3 and 4.


District 3 and 4 do not directly profit from a NO vote.


Richard D. Salyer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
From my recollection, the only District that voted as a block was D2 in favor of adding the 6U class.

Every other districts votes were split about 50/50. I do not think very many (if any) in D1 voted with their pocket book in mind. There are many thoughts on this issue and to allinate all those who voted against the proposal in the past as "money hungry" is not right. D1 does have a large pool of clubs, but we also represent about 1/2 of the states competitors. D1 had over 1300 kids competing at our sub-district tournaments last year. How many did D2, D3 and D4 have combined? Does our voice not count? I like the debate and think that with all the ideas floated on this site there is a solution to the problem. I would just warn against falling into an "its us against them" mentality.

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,248
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,248
Profit has nothing to do with the voting of a 6 & under state tournament YES or NO.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
Agreed...our event in Topeka will not pay for itself. The only way I can run it in the black is by finding outside donors to help cover some of the expenses. In theory, if the State included this division into the Championship series as a division of their own it would mean more entry fees and overall make the tournament more profitable.

PROFIT has nothing to do with this issue. Framing the issue as such will do nothing for the under six cause. It will only shadow the real issues and problems that exist; and may jeopardize any real resolution.
.

Last edited by Mark J Stanley; 02/05/08 02:32 PM. Reason: spellling
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
 Originally Posted By: Mark J Stanley
PROFIT has nothing to do with this issue. Framing the issue as such will do nothing for the under six cause. It will only shadow the real issues and problems that exist; and may jeopardize any real resolution.
.


Please!


Richard D. Salyer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
Richard,

If you want to jump into this debate with "both" feet go right ahead. I think a lot of quality ideas have surfaced through this debate. But I have not seen you contribute anything to it yet.

Mark

Last edited by Mark J Stanley; 02/05/08 02:33 PM. Reason: grammar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
Richard,

I know that sometimes it is best to let a sleeping dog lie; but I would like you to elaborate on which parts of my statement that you took exception to.

Mark

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 149 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
JTapia, Camden Schroeder, CoachLongSES, Super Admin, HMullin
12,309 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums11
Topics36,119
Posts250,750
Members12,309
Most Online1,305
Mar 12th, 2025
Top Posters
usawks1 8,595
smokeycabin 6,248
Aaron Sweazy 5,262
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0
(Release build 20240826)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 8.3.26 Page Time: 0.081s Queries: 38 (0.069s) Memory: 3.2031 MB (Peak: 3.7136 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2025-10-09 13:44:33 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS