CIF State Wrestling Proposal
click for pdf copy
Guaranteed Minimum Berth Addendum
Strength of Competition Addendum
Take a survey on the 64 man proposal
Threads of Common Interest
64 Man State Proposal
sick of the dogma?
A formal proposal
2011 Central Section Divisional and Masters
Survey Comments
Multiple divisions. (at least two and possibly three) Should be based on size of the schools. Also, private schools should have their own tournament since they operate under their own rules and economics (tuition, recruiting, outside funding, scholarships, coaches pay, etc)
This is my 1st year in Wrestling. The way I find out about what's going on is through web sites like the California Wrestler as far as guiding me where to go, and to tournaments to go to The only I can think about more exposure would be through advertising / sponsorship opportunities. maybe trade sponsorship naming rights to local tournaments with local newspapers for advertising? Just a thought
Leave it the way it is!
Keep the number of placers, don't base the number of qualifiers on population, use the same formula we have now except with 64 qualifiers, just double the amount of qualifiers from each section.
I like the proposal's population-based allocations. I think that it is wrong for two years of great performances in one tournament to reward other kids who may or may not perform to the same standards, while sometimes punishing other kids who may or may not achieve those higher standards. Criteria based on population numbers and number of participating schools makes the most sense to me. I think that the number of placers should remain at 8 because it is in line with most other events.
I believe the proposal to increase the number of participants is an excellent idea that is long overdue. I do feel that the section participants, based upon
go back to only allowing no more than 8 qualifiers from any section as oppose to the 25% rule. If go you go to 12 medalist make it 48 in the tournament and not allow more than 12 qual. from any section
There are kids with in 1pt of a state champion and never place. I think it helps them in the college recruiting if they place.
I think the proposal adequately addresses many issues. I wrestled in Colorado which has 4 divisions, which gives athletes the opportunity to excel and gain publicity. This in turn will help interest and overall help the sport of wrestling in CA which stills needs more support, both by participants and fans.
I think the formula should be decreased to 24 qualifiers.
Give more berths to the Southern Section , because we have the most Schools in our Section
This proposal does not actually address more kids wrestling it just shifts what weekend 24 kids at each weight end their season, to really address the growth of the sport ideally another weight class or two would give plenty more wrestlers an opportunity to wrestle in the postseason without watering down the tournament. Adding 24 berths does not address more wrestlers because we still have the same number of kids start the postseason at the league tournament level. There will always be the same number of varsity spots open on a team and we will relatively have the same number of wrestlers wrestling in the postseason due to this fact, regardless of adding or taking away berths, so adding more berths is completely independent from the concerns you think the proposal is addressing. The proposal as well as your argument in favor of it is flawed.
Sport expansion and popularity. If we always do what we've always done we will always get what we've gotten.
Not broke. Don't fix it.
I like the proposal some. but, I do not like how the berths are proposal, the sections should be awarded for there strength not there population
I think expanding the state tournament will be better for everyone while not taking any of the integrity away.
This will give kids more of an opportunity to see what it is like to wrestle at a very high level. It will also bring in more money to a cif venue, and the town it is held in.
I do not believe this is the best way to grow the sport. Adding more people that are already wrestling into a tournament is not going help get people in to wrestling. The ones that would go, are already wrestling.
Team Dual State Tournament
Don't think population expansion is an important consideration - in other words, wrestling participation may be increasing but not to the extent that warrants additional state qualifiers. Increase exposure with concerted efforts to bolster media attention (TV, print) - there is usually a disconnect between wrestling coaches and those who cover the sport for respective local newspapers. Both coaches and journalists must share the responsibility and accountability to increase coverage/publicity.
POPULATION EXPANSION AND MORE EXPOSURE FOR HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING
I do not want to water down the state tournament. I do think it would be beneficial if we placed up to twelve. Also get rid of the pig tail matches to where everyone has the same chance.
The proposal is a good starting point. But I think that 8 berths is generally to many for most sections, and that there should be more strength of schedule berths to spread around out of the total 64
Leave the tournament as it is presently.
good proposal let's adopt it
Qualifiers based on strength of Section
Strength of Competition determines number of qualifiers.
don't change!!!
I think more wrestlers involved is better. Leave the awards at 8 placers, does not dilute the prestige. The southern section should have more qualifiers based on population. As proposed they get 1 for every 25 schools, and all other section get about 1 for every 10 schools.
berths to the state meet should be based on how well your section does. This proposal is a JOKE!
Someone said it best on the forum that all season long we send teams to 64 man tournaments that we don't fell are watered down. With a state our size, we can easily find 64 worthy wrestlers per weight to compete at the state meet. Section allocation is the only problem I foresee as a few of the section are not very deep. I would not mind the use of a few wildcard berths to fill the weaker sections. Perhaps kids who missed qualifying tournaments due to injuries, sickness, weight or other. Tucker Armstrong last season would have made a great wild card pick.
More community based programs, especially youth wrestling. Badly needed in the cities to regain competitiveness with the rural/suburban areas.
1)Buy ownership in some newspapers and get the existing wrestling coverage in the paper. 2) Get all coaches to take part in their local media. 3) Adjust Title 9 so we don't continue to lose college programs - especially DI's. 4} Vote and write to voice concerns to colleges thinking of cutting wrestling - and if they do cut wrestling = boy cott anything that college does - including not hiring their students. and let it be known!!! Bottom line - if their is no college opportunity the sport will dry up.
Initially each section should get a number of qualifiers based on their population. It can always be adjusted based on how they actually do in the tournament in future years.
I would like to see a 2 or 3 class system. We finished 6th in our section with a student pop. of ~600. The 5 teams in front of us all had >2000. There is no way a
I know it is crazy but I prefer the divisions better than expanding the tournament participants
Population Expansion
The proposal is extremely flawed. It gives qualifiers based on number of schools in a section as opposed to anything merit-based. Not something the wrestling community will EVER support.
Section Power ought to be determined by top 12 finish, not placers...too often sections knock their own kids out.
What ever way is chosen, it must be able to let the BEST wrestlers in the state participate as the ultimate criteria.
The proposal allows the Southern section to split into 2 masters Tournaments. Gives opportunity to another group of wrestlers. would increase gate for Cif
Re-align the sections (e.g., split the southern section into two sections)
expanding the state meet to a 64 man brackets will allow more participates to the meet and bring more athletes and fans and thus expose our sport to the
We need to divide into section. We are the largest state with only one division...ask college coaches what they feel we should be doing and you will find that they suggest we go to divisions to increase opportunity and quality. It is criminal what we do to our sport for the purity of one state champion. It is selfish and self serving. It is time for change but adding more qualifiers is not the answer.
The sections with less qualifiers need to practice more to place at State, to increase their qualifiers.
If Oakland section sent their 14 qualifiers and everyone of them placed year after year, than they would earn more than the one qualifier. How would Oakland ever do this---LOTS OF PRACTICE and developing the program.
As a State runner up @145lbs in 2003, I do not want to see more qualifiers added just because the population grew in that section. Look at the central section, They have more qualifiers than the San Diego section and they also have a lot more State place winners because the central section has better wrestlers, even though the San Diego section has more population.
If you want more exposure than go out and wrestle in USA wrestling events. I personally did not like Freestyle or Greco and did not go to many events at all but for only wrestling for four years did ok in placing 2nd in the California State tournament in High School.
expand the San Diego section north
Increasing the number of qualifiers is logical in light of the increase in the state's population since the 40 man bracket was first used. It is good for the sport because it increases participation.
Create an email for us to send to local papers demanding coverage, and let's try to add an additional weight class in the upper weights for FB kids who are afraid to lose weight to go 215s...
It's all about the kids and you know that. In order for Wrestling to become more relevant on high school campuses is by doing just what you are proposing. If more kids are qualifying that means more local stories and more interest locally, more names potentially up on team records boards at their schools and just plain more exposure. It only takes a few events for kids to start paying more attention to the sport. Good luck to you and thanks for putting the time and effort into this.
Let existing forces sort out the increase in population.
Regarding exposure contact church groups and provide low cost admission to youth wrestling tournaments. This will lead (feed) to high school wrestlers and greater exposure.
Yes
I think it is good how it is, the sections with more qualifiers show why they have more at the state tournament
Just increase berths and medalists.
Increase berths in the state tournament and somehow, someway, get more coverage in the local newspapers
Help advocate junior high wrestling in all areas. Many places don't, which would increase popularity and number of athletes participating. It would also help many areas stay more competitive.
AS is on the proposal
If you want to do anything have two divisions like other states.....otherwise leave the tournament as is......Pennsylvania is the toughest state for high school wrestling and they have more than one division
Population and exposure starts with Better Youth programs and feeding the high schools with kids already into the sport. Making youth tourneys, cost effective and FUN will get more involved and is a great source of fund raising towards the HS program... How to get all the men on the same page about the HS brackets and berths?? I'm clueless!!!
The best way to address it is to tell athletes that "It's tough to win a state championship in California so you had better work hard". Trash this proposal.
Go to 2 state championships like other states...Cali is too big !
I am for going to more divisions 2 to 3 divisions. This has not hurt other large wrestling states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania or Iowa. And it will not hurt California.
The state tournament is strictly for the elite high school wrestler. Adding more students will just reduce the tournaments clout.
Leave it. The best are there for a reason. More wrestlers doesn't mean more quality wrestlers.
I don't agree with capping the best sections at 12. The logic of "tying it to the number of medalists" doesn't make any sense to me. I think you should push your "64" idea, but go with a performance-based medal distribution (subject to a minimum for each section would be fine, but it needs to be 4 or 5, not 8. Speaking of my observations of the CCS, the 7th and 8th place wrestlers really do not belong with the competition at State. Not even close.).
1-Merit placing not population. 2-Don't count league duels toward match count.
Add another weight class, or maybe nothing because the state tournament is not broken moron.
Leave it the same...
Have better wrestlers. Undefeated wrestlers attract attention of local newspapers, even when wrestling is not as popular as basketball.
The other way is to move out of state so we have less people. With Obama as president we will have a lot less jobs, thus a reduction in population will be following soon.
split the southern section into 2 and give each part of that section 6 qualifiers
The NS used to have only one qualifier. They "worked hard" to get two. That was tough though because the section wrested off for a "true 2nd" which means you could be 2nd in the North section but you get beat after the tournament by the 3rd place finisher and thus DO NOT qualify for the state meet.
We now have 3 qualifiers because we worked hard for it. We do not have , Nor WANT, the population you have in Marin county--maybe the $$$ but not the people. What I want to say is that if we place anywhere near the same number as the NCS does at the state meet, than there is NO WAY that the NCS should have twice the qualifiers the NS has.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION__EVEN IF IT IS WRONG!!!
Don't changes the current system-leave it be
emailll
Dual Meet State Championship, decrease season by one week to accomodate.
Keep looking for new solutions. Good job
Hard copy of survey and info to all school sites; e-mail distribution of survey and info and same for the feedback.
if u let too many ppl in state its not as special
It is already a two day tournament. don't change
More youth programs
Increase participants due to increased participation, but not by letting weak sections send a disproportionate share of athletes. Split SSCIF since it is too big and combine SF and Oakland
California has always been one of the toughest state tournaments keep it that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Media contact. Wonder if there is any way to prove my theory that wrestlers get better grades, stay out trouble more than other teens.
Increase the size of the leagues, CIFs, and Masters to reduce the amount of the tournaments. Then these tournaments can have more quality placers that move on to the next tournament.
The state championships should provide a competition for the best in California, not a guaranteed participation tournament. The NWCA tournament has shown that California is not nearly as tough as a lot of our California coaches believe. Now, bracket draw determines the outcome for the team title. Teams that receive favorable draws, have a greater chance to win the team championship. Coaches/sections want to reward sections excluding past state tournament performance by adding additional qualifiers. Your section performance SHOULD ALWAYS determine qualifiers to the state championship. A three year period, tracking top twelve and medalist should determine section qualifiers. After each state competition, add the current year and drop the last year results. This would help eliminate bracket draws affecting the final team scoring and finish. I do believe each section should be awarded a minimum of three qualifiers per section accept for SF, O and LA sections, who will follow the current format (one with a qualifying format).
We need to address the current wrestle-back format of 1-2-2 minutes per period in consolation. We need to add one minute to the first period and run 2-2-2 minutes per period in all consolation matches. The Central section runs all postseason qualifying tournaments at 2-2-2 minutes per period for consolation.
If you want more state participation (qualifiers), follow the format established by other states throughout the nation and add another one or two divisions. That's how the California CIF has provided more participation in other CIF sports.
MORE DIVISIONS
Multiple divisions. (at least two and possibly three) Should be based on size of the schools. Also, private schools should have their own tournament since they operate under their own rules and economics (tuition, recruiting, outside funding, scholarships, coaches pay, etc)
This is my 1st year in Wrestling. The way I find out about what's going on is through web sites like the California Wrestler as far as guiding me where to go, and to tournaments to go to The only I can think about more exposure would be through advertising / sponsorship opportunities. maybe trade sponsorship naming rights to local tournaments with local newspapers for advertising? Just a thought
Leave it the way it is!
Keep the number of placers, don't base the number of qualifiers on population, use the same formula we have now except with 64 qualifiers, just double the amount of qualifiers from each section.
I like the proposal's population-based allocations. I think that it is wrong for two years of great performances in one tournament to reward other kids who may or may not perform to the same standards, while sometimes punishing other kids who may or may not achieve those higher standards. Criteria based on population numbers and number of participating schools makes the most sense to me. I think that the number of placers should remain at 8 because it is in line with most other events.
I believe the proposal to increase the number of participants is an excellent idea that is long overdue. I do feel that the section participants, based upon
go back to only allowing no more than 8 qualifiers from any section as oppose to the 25% rule. If go you go to 12 medalist make it 48 in the tournament and not allow more than 12 qual. from any section
There are kids with in 1pt of a state champion and never place. I think it helps them in the college recruiting if they place.
I think the proposal adequately addresses many issues. I wrestled in Colorado which has 4 divisions, which gives athletes the opportunity to excel and gain publicity. This in turn will help interest and overall help the sport of wrestling in CA which stills needs more support, both by participants and fans.
I think the formula should be decreased to 24 qualifiers.
Give more berths to the Southern Section , because we have the most Schools in our Section
This proposal does not actually address more kids wrestling it just shifts what weekend 24 kids at each weight end their season, to really address the growth of the sport ideally another weight class or two would give plenty more wrestlers an opportunity to wrestle in the postseason without watering down the tournament. Adding 24 berths does not address more wrestlers because we still have the same number of kids start the postseason at the league tournament level. There will always be the same number of varsity spots open on a team and we will relatively have the same number of wrestlers wrestling in the postseason due to this fact, regardless of adding or taking away berths, so adding more berths is completely independent from the concerns you think the proposal is addressing. The proposal as well as your argument in favor of it is flawed.
Sport expansion and popularity. If we always do what we've always done we will always get what we've gotten.
Not broke. Don't fix it.
I like the proposal some. but, I do not like how the berths are proposal, the sections should be awarded for there strength not there population
I think expanding the state tournament will be better for everyone while not taking any of the integrity away.
This will give kids more of an opportunity to see what it is like to wrestle at a very high level. It will also bring in more money to a cif venue, and the town it is held in.
I do not believe this is the best way to grow the sport. Adding more people that are already wrestling into a tournament is not going help get people in to wrestling. The ones that would go, are already wrestling.
Team Dual State Tournament
Don't think population expansion is an important consideration - in other words, wrestling participation may be increasing but not to the extent that warrants additional state qualifiers. Increase exposure with concerted efforts to bolster media attention (TV, print) - there is usually a disconnect between wrestling coaches and those who cover the sport for respective local newspapers. Both coaches and journalists must share the responsibility and accountability to increase coverage/publicity.
POPULATION EXPANSION AND MORE EXPOSURE FOR HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING
I do not want to water down the state tournament. I do think it would be beneficial if we placed up to twelve. Also get rid of the pig tail matches to where everyone has the same chance.
The proposal is a good starting point. But I think that 8 berths is generally to many for most sections, and that there should be more strength of schedule berths to spread around out of the total 64
Leave the tournament as it is presently.
good proposal let's adopt it
Qualifiers based on strength of Section
Strength of Competition determines number of qualifiers.
don't change!!!
I think more wrestlers involved is better. Leave the awards at 8 placers, does not dilute the prestige. The southern section should have more qualifiers based on population. As proposed they get 1 for every 25 schools, and all other section get about 1 for every 10 schools.
berths to the state meet should be based on how well your section does. This proposal is a JOKE!
Someone said it best on the forum that all season long we send teams to 64 man tournaments that we don't fell are watered down. With a state our size, we can easily find 64 worthy wrestlers per weight to compete at the state meet. Section allocation is the only problem I foresee as a few of the section are not very deep. I would not mind the use of a few wildcard berths to fill the weaker sections. Perhaps kids who missed qualifying tournaments due to injuries, sickness, weight or other. Tucker Armstrong last season would have made a great wild card pick.
More community based programs, especially youth wrestling. Badly needed in the cities to regain competitiveness with the rural/suburban areas.
1)Buy ownership in some newspapers and get the existing wrestling coverage in the paper. 2) Get all coaches to take part in their local media. 3) Adjust Title 9 so we don't continue to lose college programs - especially DI's. 4} Vote and write to voice concerns to colleges thinking of cutting wrestling - and if they do cut wrestling = boy cott anything that college does - including not hiring their students. and let it be known!!! Bottom line - if their is no college opportunity the sport will dry up.
Initially each section should get a number of qualifiers based on their population. It can always be adjusted based on how they actually do in the tournament in future years.
I would like to see a 2 or 3 class system. We finished 6th in our section with a student pop. of ~600. The 5 teams in front of us all had >2000. There is no way a
I know it is crazy but I prefer the divisions better than expanding the tournament participants
Population Expansion
The proposal is extremely flawed. It gives qualifiers based on number of schools in a section as opposed to anything merit-based. Not something the wrestling community will EVER support.
Section Power ought to be determined by top 12 finish, not placers...too often sections knock their own kids out.
What ever way is chosen, it must be able to let the BEST wrestlers in the state participate as the ultimate criteria.
The proposal allows the Southern section to split into 2 masters Tournaments. Gives opportunity to another group of wrestlers. would increase gate for Cif
Re-align the sections (e.g., split the southern section into two sections)
expanding the state meet to a 64 man brackets will allow more participates to the meet and bring more athletes and fans and thus expose our sport to the
We need to divide into section. We are the largest state with only one division...ask college coaches what they feel we should be doing and you will find that they suggest we go to divisions to increase opportunity and quality. It is criminal what we do to our sport for the purity of one state champion. It is selfish and self serving. It is time for change but adding more qualifiers is not the answer.
The sections with less qualifiers need to practice more to place at State, to increase their qualifiers.
If Oakland section sent their 14 qualifiers and everyone of them placed year after year, than they would earn more than the one qualifier. How would Oakland ever do this---LOTS OF PRACTICE and developing the program.
As a State runner up @145lbs in 2003, I do not want to see more qualifiers added just because the population grew in that section. Look at the central section, They have more qualifiers than the San Diego section and they also have a lot more State place winners because the central section has better wrestlers, even though the San Diego section has more population.
If you want more exposure than go out and wrestle in USA wrestling events. I personally did not like Freestyle or Greco and did not go to many events at all but for only wrestling for four years did ok in placing 2nd in the California State tournament in High School.
expand the San Diego section north
Increasing the number of qualifiers is logical in light of the increase in the state's population since the 40 man bracket was first used. It is good for the sport because it increases participation.
Create an email for us to send to local papers demanding coverage, and let's try to add an additional weight class in the upper weights for FB kids who are afraid to lose weight to go 215s...
It's all about the kids and you know that. In order for Wrestling to become more relevant on high school campuses is by doing just what you are proposing. If more kids are qualifying that means more local stories and more interest locally, more names potentially up on team records boards at their schools and just plain more exposure. It only takes a few events for kids to start paying more attention to the sport. Good luck to you and thanks for putting the time and effort into this.
Let existing forces sort out the increase in population.
Regarding exposure contact church groups and provide low cost admission to youth wrestling tournaments. This will lead (feed) to high school wrestlers and greater exposure.
Yes
I think it is good how it is, the sections with more qualifiers show why they have more at the state tournament
Just increase berths and medalists.
Increase berths in the state tournament and somehow, someway, get more coverage in the local newspapers
Help advocate junior high wrestling in all areas. Many places don't, which would increase popularity and number of athletes participating. It would also help many areas stay more competitive.
AS is on the proposal
If you want to do anything have two divisions like other states.....otherwise leave the tournament as is......Pennsylvania is the toughest state for high school wrestling and they have more than one division
Population and exposure starts with Better Youth programs and feeding the high schools with kids already into the sport. Making youth tourneys, cost effective and FUN will get more involved and is a great source of fund raising towards the HS program... How to get all the men on the same page about the HS brackets and berths?? I'm clueless!!!
The best way to address it is to tell athletes that "It's tough to win a state championship in California so you had better work hard". Trash this proposal.
Go to 2 state championships like other states...Cali is too big !
I am for going to more divisions 2 to 3 divisions. This has not hurt other large wrestling states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania or Iowa. And it will not hurt California.
The state tournament is strictly for the elite high school wrestler. Adding more students will just reduce the tournaments clout.
Leave it. The best are there for a reason. More wrestlers doesn't mean more quality wrestlers.
I don't agree with capping the best sections at 12. The logic of "tying it to the number of medalists" doesn't make any sense to me. I think you should push your "64" idea, but go with a performance-based medal distribution (subject to a minimum for each section would be fine, but it needs to be 4 or 5, not 8. Speaking of my observations of the CCS, the 7th and 8th place wrestlers really do not belong with the competition at State. Not even close.).
1-Merit placing not population. 2-Don't count league duels toward match count.
Add another weight class, or maybe nothing because the state tournament is not broken moron.
Leave it the same...
Have better wrestlers. Undefeated wrestlers attract attention of local newspapers, even when wrestling is not as popular as basketball.
The other way is to move out of state so we have less people. With Obama as president we will have a lot less jobs, thus a reduction in population will be following soon.
split the southern section into 2 and give each part of that section 6 qualifiers
The NS used to have only one qualifier. They "worked hard" to get two. That was tough though because the section wrested off for a "true 2nd" which means you could be 2nd in the North section but you get beat after the tournament by the 3rd place finisher and thus DO NOT qualify for the state meet.
We now have 3 qualifiers because we worked hard for it. We do not have , Nor WANT, the population you have in Marin county--maybe the $$$ but not the people. What I want to say is that if we place anywhere near the same number as the NCS does at the state meet, than there is NO WAY that the NCS should have twice the qualifiers the NS has.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION__EVEN IF IT IS WRONG!!!
Don't changes the current system-leave it be
emailll
Dual Meet State Championship, decrease season by one week to accomodate.
Keep looking for new solutions. Good job
Hard copy of survey and info to all school sites; e-mail distribution of survey and info and same for the feedback.
if u let too many ppl in state its not as special
It is already a two day tournament. don't change
More youth programs
Increase participants due to increased participation, but not by letting weak sections send a disproportionate share of athletes. Split SSCIF since it is too big and combine SF and Oakland
California has always been one of the toughest state tournaments keep it that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Media contact. Wonder if there is any way to prove my theory that wrestlers get better grades, stay out trouble more than other teens.
Increase the size of the leagues, CIFs, and Masters to reduce the amount of the tournaments. Then these tournaments can have more quality placers that move on to the next tournament.
The state championships should provide a competition for the best in California, not a guaranteed participation tournament. The NWCA tournament has shown that California is not nearly as tough as a lot of our California coaches believe. Now, bracket draw determines the outcome for the team title. Teams that receive favorable draws, have a greater chance to win the team championship. Coaches/sections want to reward sections excluding past state tournament performance by adding additional qualifiers. Your section performance SHOULD ALWAYS determine qualifiers to the state championship. A three year period, tracking top twelve and medalist should determine section qualifiers. After each state competition, add the current year and drop the last year results. This would help eliminate bracket draws affecting the final team scoring and finish. I do believe each section should be awarded a minimum of three qualifiers per section accept for SF, O and LA sections, who will follow the current format (one with a qualifying format).
We need to address the current wrestle-back format of 1-2-2 minutes per period in consolation. We need to add one minute to the first period and run 2-2-2 minutes per period in all consolation matches. The Central section runs all postseason qualifying tournaments at 2-2-2 minutes per period for consolation.
If you want more state participation (qualifiers), follow the format established by other states throughout the nation and add another one or two divisions. That's how the California CIF has provided more participation in other CIF sports.
MORE DIVISIONS