wvmat.com

This was copied from the Mat Forum. Florida may be allowing backups to wrestle and score. I also pasted some member comments. See below.


"This topic led to a huge debate on the Florida forums. In order to fill up district tournaments, the FHSAA will allow teams to enter a full roster plus four alternates into the post-season. All wrestlers will score team points. The top four wrestlers in each district advance to the region and the top four wrestlers in each region advance to state.

Hypothetically, a team could send multiple wrestlers to state in the same weight class and even have two guys wrestling each other in the state finals.

What other states do this (Montana, Michigan, New York,...)? How has it affected competition? How has it affected participation? "



"Sounds like a pretty good idea. All the kids get a chance to participate and as long as they qualify legitimately for State, who cares if a backup faces the starter in the finals? If the goal is to identify the top 8, or top 4 in the state, sounds like a great idea.

I remember losing to a pretty good backup in HS, 4-2, and I placed at state a couple times. Some of those kids riding the bench behind state champs are pretty damned salty (my JR High coach was a career backup to a 3 time state champ). Got to figure practicing against the best in the state will be pretty good for a kid's skills (although it might crush his confidence losing all the time)."

Posted 31 May 2018 - 03:32 AM

I didn't know they did this until I got there, and personally was not a big fan of it. You could tell that the kids really knew each other, and usually made for much lower scoring matches with a lot less action...That, and it seemed like those teams' fans did not know who to cheer for.


I do not mean to hate on their state tournament, but what irked me more than anything is that they have 6 different classes with 20-25ish schools per statewide. Of those, 16 kids are making the state tournament.....made for a watered down level of competition with losing/.500 records all over the brackets.

So Bearhugger is moving to Florida?

Based on the provided information, it is obvious that Florida has the same problem has West Virginia in regard to empty brackets. Florida has decided to do something about it. The alternates are entered but they have to win to continue. I see this as participation and not a "participation trophy". Generally thinking, I do not recall seeing Florida LAST in any state by state survey I have read in the past 30 years.

On another subject, if you plan to host an 8 team tournament next season, invite 16 teams. For 16 team brackets, invite 32.........and so on.

From Mat Forum


In Idaho each team brings their #1 and #2 to district. Either or both can qualify for state. 32 man brackets at district. 16 man brackets at state. You do see finals match ups of teammates. I am personally all for this. Why shouldn't a back up be allowed to compete if they are good enough to beat everyone else starter? It's called depth.

From Mat forum

Oregon allows 2 entries per weight, and we have since at least the 1980's. Our team has had teammate state finals matches twice.



Disadvantage:

Like mentioned previously, rich get richer (or stay rich, in our case). We have long dynasties partially due to this. It has definitely kept our team from winning a few more team titles. But, every school has the same opportunity to field 2 competitors per weight, so I would never complain about that with a clear conscience. During the season, most of our tournaments allow 2 or more entries per weight, but we have to designate a scorer. That simple change could keep that problem to a minimum. The other version of rich get richer is that schools will get transfers even if there is a tough kid at the weight already. But, kids want to wrestle there because the team is good / coaching is good. So, I have a hard time complaining about that as well, provided all the rules are followed.



Advantages:

Lowers incidents of extreme weight cutting. For example, I might be a state podium guy at my weight of 170, but the number one guy in the state at 170 is my teammate. I also have tough teammates at 160 and 182. This is common, since tough kids often come in weight clusters. So, if I even want to be able to participate in the post season, I might kill myself to get to 152. I know: what about bodyfat certification? Well, the kid would just cut himself down in the off season to be able to certify down there (or cheat the certification). Less weight cutting would be the easiest sell to allow for more than one representative per team. Health and safety arguments are much easier for non-wrestling administrators to understand.

russling wrote:From Mat Forum


In Idaho each team brings their #1 and #2 to district. Either or both can qualify for state. 32 man brackets at district. 16 man brackets at state. You do see finals match ups of teammates. I am personally all for this. Why shouldn't a back up be allowed to compete if they are good enough to beat everyone else starter? It's called depth.

I do not recall seeing Idaho last in anything either.

russling wrote:From Mat forum

Oregon allows 2 entries per weight, and we have since at least the 1980's. Our team has had teammate state finals matches twice.



Disadvantage:

Like mentioned previously, rich get richer (or stay rich, in our case). We have long dynasties partially due to this. It has definitely kept our team from winning a few more team titles. But, every school has the same opportunity to field 2 competitors per weight, so I would never complain about that with a clear conscience. During the season, most of our tournaments allow 2 or more entries per weight, but we have to designate a scorer. That simple change could keep that problem to a minimum. The other version of rich get richer is that schools will get transfers even if there is a tough kid at the weight already. But, kids want to wrestle there because the team is good / coaching is good. So, I have a hard time complaining about that as well, provided all the rules are followed.



Advantages:

Lowers incidents of extreme weight cutting. For example, I might be a state podium guy at my weight of 170, but the number one guy in the state at 170 is my teammate. I also have tough teammates at 160 and 182. This is common, since tough kids often come in weight clusters. So, if I even want to be able to participate in the post season, I might kill myself to get to 152. I know: what about bodyfat certification? Well, the kid would just cut himself down in the off season to be able to certify down there (or cheat the certification). Less weight cutting would be the easiest sell to allow for more than one representative per team. Health and safety arguments are much easier for non-wrestling administrators to understand.

Dynasty such as Parkersburg South???? We are worried about South getting richer so we keep some good JV kids on the bench in other counties besides Wood???

In 62 years, it will be the 80s again.

russling wrote:Health and safety arguments are much easier for non-wrestling administrators to understand.

Also easier for them to misunderstand and have a panic attack over. Arguments like that can easily demonize the sport as a whole, in their eyes, or lead to overly restrictive rules surrounding weight cutting. Next thing you know, kids are wrestling up a weight of they're under 20% (probably an exaggeration) body fat.
Perhaps it doesn't go that way, but you lose the support from the administration in regards to having a wrestling program at all.
Point being, be careful how you frame things. You may not get the reaction you were hoping for. Don't cry wolf and expect not to face consequences.