2012 State Tournament (set weight classes)

[MLee 68]

The recent discussion about using set weight classes for our Youth State Tournament got me thinking. What would our 2012 State Tournament look like if we used Ohio's Tournament of Champions weight classes for our State Tournament? I'm glad I saved the master spreadsheet from this year's tournament!

65 total weight classes (http://www.ohiotofc....tion/AgeWeights)

20 brackets would have 16+ kids

20 brackets would have less than 8

Major problem bracket sizes (31, 36, 34, 35, 33, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 6, 5, 3, 3, 3, 5) That's right, we'd have 14 brackets of 6 or less and 5 with 30+!

Can someone please explain to me how this is a better tournament than what we currently have? How in the world would we logistically pull this off?

Also, I couldn't help notice the dozens of kids within 2 lbs of dropping to the lower class. There would be no doubt in my mind that we'd open the flood gates for our 1000+ youth wrestlers to at least consider dropping weight.

[marriedtothemat 13]

Even using the the current format, there are still some brackets with less than 6 kids. How many brackets had less than 6 kids at last years state tournament?

[Ranger123 43]

Great start Matt. Exactly what we need to see. And maybe the USA age/weights. Along with the number from our state the last couple of years. But I still think we (NO I DON'T MEAN ME) have the right to make up our own. Just like we do in middle school. If our state in it's relatively young and growing state has a very different distribution of kids we should create age/weights that reflect the kids we have. I believe the middle school has created a committee in the past to propose weights to be used.

[MLee 68]

Even using the the current format, there are still some brackets with less than 6 kids. How many brackets had less than 6 kids at last years state tournament?

We had 14 brackets that had 6 or less, but only one 2 man. Mostly 5 man brackets. The bigger concern to me is the larger classes. How do we deal with those?

[MLee 68]

Great start Matt. Exactly what we need to see. And maybe the USA age/weights. Along with the number from our state the last couple of years. But I still think we (NO I DON'T MEAN ME) have the right to make up our own. Just like we do in middle school. If our state in it's relatively young and growing state has a very different distribution of kids we should create age/weights that reflect the kids we have. I believe the middle school has created a committee in the past to propose weights to be used.

Ranger, the TOC uses more weight classes than most state tournaments; therefore, if we use other formats that have been suggested, we're going to run into the same problem if not worse.

If we did use this format, we'd almost certainly have to find a way to split the larger brackets into half. Not sure what to do with all those small brackets. No matter what format we'd use, some type of "tweeking" would have to be done every year to adjust.

[plantmanky1 58]

Hey Mlee being you have the data, what about comparing it to the Indiana SWA weight classes they use. (there is a little difference between them and TOC) Just curious to see the data comparison, when you have time, thanks.

[Mike Calhoun 49]

Most likely if you had set weight classes at the state tournament, the next step would be regional qualifiers to avoid having an extravagant number of kids in a single bracket at state.

[J.W. 21]

That is great analysis on this. I think that it is very interesting that there would have been the same number of small sized brackets using both systems. Looking at the number of large brackets, does the spreadsheet have ages / birthdates - would just be interested to see what an age split on the big brackets would cause.

As far as the running of the tournament, if you are using a software program such as trackwrestling - it is not a nightmare with different size brackets. It will auto number the bouts to make it work out. The biggest time saver would have to be to alter the faceoff plan (I know this would be another heated debate on the forum).

Any chance of sharing the spreadsheet. I will play with it against different ages / bracket comparisons - just to see if there is a good solution. I fully agree with you that there will always have to be a weight class combined or the 5 year old that is just very big for his age, but there are some other things to consider:

[MLee 68]

That is great analysis on this. I think that it is very interesting that there would have been the same number of small sized brackets using both systems. Looking at the number of large brackets, does the spreadsheet have ages / birthdates - would just be interested to see what an age split on the big brackets would cause.

As far as the running of the tournament, if you are using a software program such as trackwrestling - it is not a nightmare with different size brackets. It will auto number the bouts to make it work out. The biggest time saver would have to be to alter the faceoff plan (I know this would be another heated debate on the forum).

Any chance of sharing the spreadsheet. I will play with it against different ages / bracket comparisons - just to see if there is a good solution. I fully agree with you that there will always have to be a weight class combined or the 5 year old that is just very big for his age, but there are some other things to consider:

I did sort by age grouping, just like in TOC. Not too difficult to do. I'll be sure to look at other state's (IN) and USA when I get some time.

JW, there are as many "less than 8 brackets" but not as many 2,3,and 4 man. The 10% format allows to consolidate; therefore, we have more 5,6, and 7 man brackets vs 2,3,and 4. Inevitably, there will be fringe weights where there's really nothing you can do. The bigger issue for me is running a tournament w/ such a variance in bracket size. Also, did we solve the issue of making it more competitive? Certainly for some, but not so much for others.

One option is to use the 10% rule w/ 16 man brackets. I'll play around with that as well to see how it looks.

Some type of qualifying tournament is inevitable. I don't believe we are there yet. The Association needs to discuss this at the next meeting. "Regionals" doesn't seem logical considering some clubs are larger than the smaller Regions. I like the idea of designating 4 "quailifying tournaments" where kids need to place in the top 3 or 4 in order to be eligible to compete at state. TOC's uses this format.

I'll gladly send out the master spreadsheet when I get back into my office.

[J.W. 21]

Some type of qualifying tournament is inevitable. I don't believe we are there yet. The Association needs to discuss this at the next meeting. "Regionals" doesn't seem logical considering some clubs are larger than the smaller Regions. I like the idea of designating 4 "quailifying tournaments" where kids need to place in the top 3 or 4 in order to be eligible to compete at state. TOC's uses this format.

Another great option is to utilize a points system for the tournaments that are designated as state tourney qualifiers. This accomplishes 2 x things. Top 4 receive points -so you would have had to place in top 4 at a tourney and builds a points system to utilize as seeding points. Not perfect but gives kids a tracker through the year. Also could give you a best team off of number of points earned by team. May accomplish your team trophy piece throughout the year instead of the single day event. Just some thoughts that are used in other places.

[plantmanky1 58]

Some type of qualifying tournament is inevitable. I don't believe we are there yet. The Association needs to discuss this at the next meeting. "Regionals" doesn't seem logical considering some clubs are larger than the smaller Regions. I like the idea of designating 4 "quailifying tournaments" where kids need to place in the top 3 or 4 in order to be eligible to compete at state. TOC's uses this format.

The issue with qualifying tournaments (which I am for) is that they only work if you have set weight classes. You can not have a qualifying tournament using the 10% system, because 10% brackets at regionals now, are different than 10% brackets at state. (80lbs kid will be in a regional bracket of say 78-84 at regionals, but a state bracket of 79-81)

[Ranger123 43]

Ranger, the TOC uses more weight classes than most state tournaments; therefore, if we use other formats that have been suggested, we're going to run into the same problem if not worse.

If we did use this format, we'd almost certainly have to find a way to split the larger brackets into half. Not sure what to do with all those small brackets. No matter what format we'd use, some type of "tweeking" would have to be done every year to adjust.

Right, but I don't think we need to copy anyone else. Use our data to create our own weight classes. For the 9-10 year olds we may go 66, 68, 70, 72 rather than 4 pound jumps if we always have a ton of kids in that range. We should have a few years of data available and should be able to reasonably determine what makes sense. And as plantman mentions, this is just a precursor to qualifiers. So at some point the 30+ man brackets are not an issue because only so many kids have qualified.

[raidercoach 51]

Another great option is to utilize a points system for the tournaments that are designated as state tourney qualifiers. This accomplishes 2 x things. Top 4 receive points -so you would have had to place in top 4 at a tourney and builds a points system to utilize as seeding points. Not perfect but gives kids a tracker through the year. Also could give you a best team off of number of points earned by team. May accomplish your team trophy piece throughout the year instead of the single day event. Just some thoughts that are used in other places.

I like the team points idea, but it doesn't fix the problem that apparently many have with some teams having more kids than others.

My suggestion before we start considering all of these changes, is that we (as Ranger suggested) redefine our goals as an association and for the state tournament. To me, I think a lot of the frustration on these boards is that some of us may have different goals as an association and/or with the state tournament. Lets agree to ian dea of where we want to go and make changes accordingly. That should help unite us into doing whats ultimately best for the whole versus individual self interests.

As an association, here are some questions I think we should be able to answer:

1. What is our mission as an association?

2. Are we satisfied with our numbers? Do we want to grow or are we satisfied with our current participation?

3. What can we do to help grow the other areas of the state or is this not a responsibilty of the association?

For the state tournament:

1. What is the goal of the state tournament? (is it to help drive growth, prestige for the winners, fund raiser....all of the above?)

2. Do we want it bigger, smaller, more competitive or are things good the way they are?

[raidercoach 51]

Right, but I don't think we need to copy anyone else. Use our data to create our own weight classes. For the 9-10 year olds we may go 66, 68, 70, 72 rather than 4 pound jumps if we always have a ton of kids in that range. We should have a few years of data available and should be able to reasonably determine what makes sense. And as plantman mentions, this is just a precursor to qualifiers. So at some point the 30+ man brackets are not an issue because only so many kids have qualified.

Right, but I don't think we need to copy anyone else. Use our data to create our own weight classes. For the 9-10 year olds we may go 66, 68, 70, 72 rather than 4 pound jumps if we always have a ton of kids in that range. We should have a few years of data available and should be able to reasonably determine what makes sense. And as plantman mentions, this is just a precursor to qualifiers. So at some point the 30+ man brackets are not an issue because only so many kids have qualified.

Theoretically, how is this any different than using the 10% rule? You are looking at data and distributing the weight classes based on where the highs and lows are to evenly distribute the participants. This is exactly what the 10% rule does, only the 10% rule gives us much more flexibilty. Furthermore, the 10% rule uses exact data from the exact weights from participants attending that particular tournament. It doesn't get any more accurate than that. The data you are looking at is from previous years and therefore not as accurate relative to the participants of that particular tournament.

Again, lets define what we are trying to do here. Do we want to make these changes just so we can have qualifiers? Are we trying to eliminate the so called "fixing" of brackets? What are we trying to accomplish by moving to weight classes? I'm not trying to start another argument, but I would like to know what the goal/benefit of making a change to weight classes from those of you who want it. And please, no more 10% rule for President sarcasm.

[raidercoach 51]

ooops

[plantmanky1 58]

ooops

lol, mine did that earlier and I had to edit it, the quote button is very touchy today

[MLee 68]

The issue with qualifying tournaments (which I am for) is that they only work if you have set weight classes. You can not have a qualifying tournament using the 10% system, because 10% brackets at regionals now, are different than 10% brackets at state. (80lbs kid will be in a regional bracket of say 78-84 at regionals, but a state bracket of 79-81)

They do for Ohio's Tournament of Champions and that seems to work out fine.

[MLee 68]

Theoretically, how is this any different than using the 10% rule? You are looking at data and distributing the weight classes based on where the highs and lows are to evenly distribute the participants. This is exactly what the 10% rule does, only the 10% rule gives us much more flexibilty. Furthermore, the 10% rule uses exact data from the exact weights from participants attending that particular tournament. It doesn't get any more accurate than that. The data you are looking at is from previous years and therefore not as accurate relative to the participants of that particular tournament.

Again, lets define what we are trying to do here. Do we want to make these changes just so we can have qualifiers? Are we trying to eliminate the so called "fixing" of brackets? What are we trying to accomplish by moving to weight classes? I'm not trying to start another argument, but I would like to know what the goal/benefit of making a change to weight classes from those of you who want it. And please, no more 10% rule for President sarcasm.

I have to admit, that is a great point! We can press the reset button and/or mimic other formats, but in the end I believe we'll be right back where we currently are. There is no way to divide the weight classes using set weights to evenly distribute the classes, if that is a goal. I don't care if we use 1 lb increments. We'll still have many classes much larger than others because of more common weights. The 10% format is the best to do this because we're not boxed in by rigid barriers.

I'd like to see 10%, using 16 man brackets, with a clear, defined protocol for how the brackets get "tweaked". We need to agree on the # of kids from one team per bracket (currently 2) and whether or not to separate Regions (which I like).

[MLee 68]

Great start Matt. Exactly what we need to see. And maybe the USA age/weights. Along with the number from our state the last couple of years. But I still think we (NO I DON'T MEAN ME) have the right to make up our own. Just like we do in middle school. If our state in it's relatively young and growing state has a very different distribution of kids we should create age/weights that reflect the kids we have. I believe the middle school has created a committee in the past to propose weights to be used.

USA Wrestling classes would give us some troubles. First, their birth years aren't in sync with ours. USA ages 05-98, KY 06-99. I ran the brackets excluding our 04/05 and 00/99 groups and used everyone else (02-03, 00-01) 28 brackets.

28 total weight classes

16 brackets would have 16+ kids

6 brackets would have less than 8 kids

Major problem bracket sizes (41, 38, 31, 37, 31, 35, 35, 3, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5) Of the 28 brackets, 13 would give us problems

Also, USA has a weight limit, which we don't. I added two additional HWT classes to both age groups; otherwise, 9 kids would have been excluded from the tournament.

As one could see, USA Wrestling classes would give us some troubles too. This sample was only 2 of the 4 age groups and I made a modification.

One other point. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but obviously I feel this is an important issue. I looked at the weights of some kids that wrestled both MS and youth. I noticed, in almost every situation, the youth weights are considerably higher than their MS weight class. Now that either means the scales were wrong (doubtful), all the MS kids naturally gained significant weight in just a couple weeks (not a chance), or they were cutting weight (bingo). More importantly, there is something about the Youth State Tournament that deterred them from cutting again. Anyone have an idea what that could be? That's right, the new President of the United States....Mr. 10% rule!

[J.W. 21]

More importantly, there is something about the Youth State Tournament that deterred them from cutting again. Anyone have an idea what that could be? That's right, the new President of the United States....Mr. 10% rule!

I don't believe it was the 10% rule, I believe it is the perception that dropping from wrestling 8th graders to 5th graders makes them believe less competition and no need to hold off the weight. I think a kid going to a scrimmage match goes heavier than he does a tournament. It has to do with competition levels.

Some kids wrestled up all year during MS and dropped for Districts. So their actual weight would have been heavier throughout the year.

[Mike Calhoun 49]

Regardless of the 10% rule cutting weight should be regulated by parents and coaches. Most parents should be able to see what is going on under their own roof. Educating our kids about proper diet is key at an early age, no one taught my fat self, but my son prides himself on being healthy and requests foods that I may have not bought on my own. I've also brought up before that I'd like to see healthier alternatives at concession stands (practicing what we preach).

[MLee 68]

I don't believe it was the 10% rule, I believe it is the perception that dropping from wrestling 8th graders to 5th graders makes them believe less competition and no need to hold off the weight. I think a kid going to a scrimmage match goes heavier than he does a tournament. It has to do with competition levels.

Some kids wrestled up all year during MS and dropped for Districts. So their actual weight would have been heavier throughout the year.

OK, so you're conceding kids cut weight at MS (w/ set weight classes) because of competition, am I following you? If so, then by the same logic, wouldn't youth kids (who aren't super stud MS kids) have the same urge to drop w/ set weight classes because of competition?

[MLee 68]

Regardless of the 10% rule cutting weight should be regulated by parents and coaches. Most parents should be able to see what is going on under their own roof. Educating our kids about proper diet is key at an early age, no one taught my fat self, but my son prides himself on being healthy and requests foods that I may have not bought on my own. I've also brought up before that I'd like to see healthier alternatives at concession stands (practicing what we preach).

Mike, w/ all due respect, can we really trust ALL parents and ALL coaches? If we cannot, we should implement rules to regulate and protect the kids. Isn't this precisely why it's now being done at the HS and College levels? We tried letting parents and coaches regulate, and they failed miserably.

[Mike Calhoun 49]

Mike, w/ all due respect, can we really trust ALL parents and ALL coaches? If we cannot, we should implement rules to regulate and protect the kids. Isn't this precisely why it's now being done at the HS and College levels now? We tried letting parents and coaches regulate, and they failed miserably.

Heck, sometimes I cant trust myself, lol. I know we cant trust ALL parents, coaches, or athletes, but the same ones who are'nt willing to help regulate the cutting of weight are probably the same ones still doing it even with the 10% rule in place. Maybe we should weigh them all in at the beginning of the season and let them know that will have some sort of bearing on where they will be allowed to wrestle at the end of the season.

[MLee 68]

I was asked by Plantman to do the brackets using Indiana's format (they use USA's classes). I found myself glancing over their state brackets and recognized a few kids that attended our Raider Rumber tournament, which I have saved. I noticed 3 kids that had dropped over 4 lbs for their Youth State Tournament vs our 10% rule Raider Rumble. Weight cutting possibly?