Weighing Change
September 21, 2011
The national high school wrestling rules committee changed the weight classes for the 1994-95 season; and it changed them back for the 1995-96 season.
This is one of several reasons why Michigan has not adopted the national committee’s changes for the 2011-12 season. At the very least, we’re going to wait to see if the change survives.
The 14 weight classes that will continue in Michigan are as follows: 103, 112, 119, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 152, 160, 171, 189, 215 and 285.
The national rules for 2011-12 are: 106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220 and 285.
In delaying the change for MHSAA member schools, the MHSAA Representative Council listened to the overwhelming sentiments of the state’s high school wrestling coaches. Many have criticized the new weight classes because they eliminate a middle weight where most high school wrestlers are found and they add an upper weight class where many teams already have holes in their lineup.
Standing pat also eliminates the need for new expenditures for printed materials and software programs.
The greatest inconvenience of not changing is when our schools along the borders of Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin compete with schools of those states. This is creating questions related to the weight monitoring program and seeding.
The MHSAA will stay in frequent, close contact with high school wrestling coaches and their administrators as future decisions are made.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #2
June 1, 2018
Seeding of Michigan High School Athletic Association tournaments, especially basketball and ice hockey, is a topic that routinely finds its way to MHSAA Representative Council agendas.
In May of 2017, the Council rejected a comprehensive proposal to seed the District and Regional levels of MHSAA Basketball Tournaments; but the Council instructed MHSAA staff to examine ideas for limited seeding at the District level only, using an MHSAA-controlled system.
In May of 2017, it appeared there was a small number of Council members who supported the proposal submitted for that meeting by the Basketball Coaches Association of Michigan, and that there were two larger groups – one open to seeding on a more limited basis than BCAM proposed and another group opposed to seeding of any scope by any system.
MHSAA staff responded to the Council’s request by presenting in March of this year and again in May a plan for seeding only the top two teams of each District, to which teams would continue to be assigned by geographic proximity, and then placing top seeds on brackets that would assure those two teams could not meet until the District Finals.
The staff provided answers to the many obvious policy and practical questions, including the system to be used, the games to be included and the placement of teams on brackets.
The effort to arm the Council with these answers had the effect of turning some advocates into opponents of seeding. It was as if the more questions staff anticipated with answers, the more people objected to the plan.
This brought defeat to the plan to seed basketball Districts, and the same to plans to seed ice hockey Regionals and Semifinals.
The questions now are: Do we vote on a fully vetted plan, knowing the details before we move forward; or do we buy a pig in a poke, voting in a concept without details, surprising others and ourselves with how seeding would be implemented? And do we vote on anything at all until we have answered the large philosophical questions as well as the dozens of smaller practical questions that seeding requires we address.