fan of the sport,
Your input on this forum is appreciated and you share many of the views of others on this forum on some specific changes.
As far as your Aquinas example of agreeing that Aquinas would probably had about 12 wrestlers qualify in 2007 since they did so well at the 20 team Johnson County Classic, but that they would reduce to only 5 or 6 placers in the proposed combined 5A & 6A class of 64 teams, I have to disagree with you on that too I believe about 8 would have placed in such a class that year. I say that because I know how many placers we had at the Bobcat and how some of our placers in 5A did that year against champions and higher placers in some weight classes in 6A. And when you call our second team guys JV wrestlers I guess I wince at that a little because I know that wrestling skill wise that many of them that year would have definitely been varsity wrestlers at 75% of the schools in Johnson and Wyandotte County some of them were former state qualifiers in previous years. I am pretty sure that at least one of our second team wrestlers could have placed at a combined 5A & 6A state. We were pretty loaded talent wise for about a three to four year period.
I actually saw that article that you sited from flow wrestling. Your example of the Indiana tournament is good. It doesn't mean though that their wrestlers are better than our state placers just because we have more classes. Actually my son beat an Indiana finalist in the USAW Pre-Season Nationals this Fall 9-5. The best my son has placed is 3rd in 5A.
Here is another former wrestler's view of how many classes are best for a state. This is from Jeremy Hart a former Penn State University wrestler who wrestled both in Indiana (one class) and Pennsylvania (multiple class system). You can find the entire interview with Jeremy Hart in the below site. You will need to scroll down to the bottom half of page to read it.
http://www.indianamat.com/category/where-are-they-now/Views on Class Wrestling (A big debate within the State of Indiana, I just want to get your perspective since you were a part of both sides):
I think this debate must be analyzed according to the purposes of high school wrestling. At the end of the day, the purpose of high school wrestling is to develop character, hard work, and discipline in the boys who participate. The existence of a class structure has no bearing on the accomplishment of this aim. However, a secondary purpose of high school wrestling is to give the largest number of young men the opportunity to wrestle at a collegiate level, possibly with financial assistance for the fruits of their labor on the mat. This objective cuts toward a class system. The placement of a wrestler at the state tournament is a quality indicator for college coaches. It’s not the only quality indicator, but it is an important one nonetheless. A state with a single class is doing an incredibly inefficient job at exposing the spectrum of quality of its wrestlers because, by definition, only eight wrestlers can place. Thus, a wrestler who may have placed in a smaller school division, or in a bigger school division, but failed to place in a single class structure may be denied exposure to college coaches which he would have had if he had competed in a class system. If the high schools in a state really wish to maximize the opportunities for their athlete’s to compete at the collegiate level, they will ensure them maximum exposure. Sure, a single class system results in one state champion. That may give that individual something to brag about, but it does little for the overall good of wrestling in the state. When more wrestlers are exposed to colleges due to placement in the state tournament, more wrestlers wrestle in college. When more wrestlers wrestle in college, more college wrestlers populate the state from which they came. These wrestlers then become the coaches of the youth clubs and high schools sowing the knowledge gleaned from collegiate wrestling into younger wresters, and thus the entire level of wrestling in the state is raised. In short, classes are a good thing. Instead of eight placers per weight, you now have 16 or 24 depending on the number of classes. More exposure means more college wrestlers, more college wrestlers means better wrestling in the state.
I’ve gotten somewhat long-winded above, but that argument doesn’t even take into account the non-wrestling benefits of class wrestling: increased revenue potential from the state tournaments, increased educational opportunities for those wrestlers who do get financial assistance to go to college, etc…For the record I think some consideration should be given to reducing Kansas from four to three classes in the manner that Contrarian has proposed previously on this topic.
