Dear Will,
That's rich, you are killing me.
First you basically double dog dare me to throw out a name and when I do you say I "might find a few needles in a haystack but..."
I must tell you Will that if you keep this up I will not play with you for much longer because you do not play fair.

Once again it appears you did not get what I was trying to say from my post, you just tried to find something that you could contradict me on. What is the deal. Most of the comments you are making are not necessary.

I wish you would just focus on my main point which is it is inaccurate to say "that it is easier to get to state in 5A/6A". Very inaccurate and I have explained why. At best you could say "it is easier to get to state in 5A/6A if you get in one of the two weak regionals in 6A or one of the weaker regionals in 5A". At best you could say that. But I could just as easily say "that it is easier to get to state in 4A/3A if you are in one of the weaker regionals" because they exist there too. The bottom line is that it is easier to get to state in a "weak" regional than it is in a "tough" regional because they exist in every class. More appropriately it would be to say "the weak weight and/or weak regional".
Can we let that go?

Now to your comments.

I am glad to hear comment one. So the focus is on 4A which I agree, with my humble opinion, is much "tougher" overall than 3A.

Comment two is your best comment because you used the word overall and I maybe could agree with that.

Pertaining to comment three I never said that I was educated, just very experienced because I am a head coach by profession, not by hobby. And certainly not just a wrestler's dad.

Comment four, I am glad that you agree that the regionals are imbalanced but you do not see how that proves my point.

Comment five, the needle thing, what the.....?

Comment six, I know you already said that. Of course you told me, how could I forget? I am a science teacher so nothing really gets by me and I am very observant, that's what we do in science, remember. I am saying of the 8 3A/4A regionals at 135 they didn't even all have 15. They were 10, 13, 15, 13, 12, 15, 12, 11 respectively. So once again the whole monster 4A/3A bracket thing is overrated. And once again, that is not even the point as it is the quality that counts, not the quantity.

And comment seven, the Heights kid at 119 would definitely qualify in 4A if he was in the right bracket. I will admit that there are a couple that would/could have been too tough. Heights has a tough schedule though. I could find more but I have already spent too much time on this.


For Ricky and anyone else, all of the results/data/history lessons pertaining to "well back in...so and so from 3A/4A beat so and so from 5A/6A".... I already admitted that could be done and I could say the same thing vice versa and I did and could even more. In my career as a Kansas head coach, I could find some for every year.


For the last time, hopefully, what I am saying is it is very inaccurate to say "it is easier to get to state in 5A/6A". At best you could say "overall" or "in certain weights".

Let it go.