Is it an honor or a priveledge to be able to move on to districts if you did not qualify in the top 4 at subs? Apparently, if there are not 4 qualifiers coming from the other side for districts, the 5th-8th place people from subs "get a second chance to qualify for state!" For instance if there are only two wrestlers coming from one side and 4 from the other, they let the 5th and 6th place wrestlers go on to districts to make an eight man bracket. Just wondering what the opinion is on this topic. It's my understanding that only DISTRICT 1 and 3 allow this. And the question is, is this fair?

Second Chance at Districts????? single choice
	FAIR
	UNFAIR
Votes accepted starting: 01/01/70 12:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I would suggest that if you do not agree with this you bring it up to your Club director and have him/her present it at the State Meeting and see about adding a rule provision that puts it in as a requirement.

I think it's unfair. If you don't make the top 4 your season should be over. I know some weights and age groups some kids slide all the way through to state. And in some instances those kids have been wrestling up two weights over their weight all year.(most of the kids my son has wrestled this year have been two weights up, but at state he going to see some good competition) What if a top seed had a bad weekend at subs and placed 5th. I don't think that wrestler should have a chance to make to state. He/she was eliminated. Also, I don't think that average wrestler that took 5th or 6th should get a chance to knock off any wrestlers at District. If that's the case, let's just skip subs. Each district seed every kid within that district. Get our top 4 and move on to state. Do this in two weeks instead of two. Or just take every wrestler that wants to wrestle at the state level. Seed the top 8 and draw in everyone else. Those would be some nice big brackets. The seeding meeting would be fun. Now we're down to 1 week of wrestling. That's just how I feel about it.

It is not necessary to bring the matter to the state body for a vote.

If an individual in a particular District is unhappy with the situation it needs to be addressed at the District meeting held prior to the State Body meeting.

I disagree with that Richard, every District should be doing it the same way. In my opinion if they are gonna let kids that get 5th or 6th at subs go to District's and fill the bracket then why do we even have subs.

I voted that it was fair but after reading through these posts, I can see the other point of view. If you have two wrestlers that are evenly matched and one places at subs and the other is eleminated. The eliminated wrestler should not have the opportunity to place the next week thus knocking one of the other qualifiers out.

I think the real reason this is done is because of money. An empty slot in the bracket, is money lost.

I personally would love to see just one qualifier.

I voted unfair mostly because its not that way in all 4 districts. Why should a kid in district 1 have more chances at going to state then a kid in dist 2.I think they need to vote on this either all of the districts do it or none of them do it

It gives the other districts a better chance to win some medals at state, which most desperately need. I don't think it is necessary for every district to do things exactly the same when it comes to qualifiers.

Which District wins the most medals, District II, enough said. And yes, every District should be doing it the same way.

District 1 had 170 medal winners last year. That is 24.2% of the total. You do the math on D2, but I don't think it's a big difference. Each district should put their best 8 wrestlers in their qualifying bracket for state. If one sub-district only has 3 kids and the other has 8, what if that 3rd place wrestler has lost every time to the 5th place kid from the 8 man bracket? Would you rather have a bye at district or have the best 8 wrestlers there? The rule states that it is up to each district to qualify their best 4 wrestlers. It is "fair" and "right" to advance the best 8 to district.

Eric Johnson

I like the idea of giving a kid a second chance because they work hard all season and if they are just off that day then they lose out on everything. I understand that they might take someone else ouot that worked hard the next week but you are trying to get the best 16 wrestlers at state. I really like it. I would think not many kids will make it to State that finshed 5th or 6th and I will want to hear how many did if that is posiible. Giving people a second chance isn't a bad thing- it is a good thing.

If you dont need to place top 4 why bother having a sub district qualifier? Qualifing for districts is suppose to be an honor not a consolation prize. If there is a big enough facility to handle it one qulifier would be great. One less week and $15 or $30 or more dollars still in a parents pocket. In lots of instances the 5th or 6th place kid will only fill in a spot on the bracket not raise the level of competition. Districts in my opion is the most intense tournement of the year because its the top kids fighting to get to state. Throwing a 5th or 6th placer in there dosent improve competiton it just gives a number one seed in most cases a wrestling bye. A full bracket isnt always a
better bracket.
Jon Murray
Parsons wrestling Club

It is when you consider the geographic and participant number differences between D-2 and all others. D-1 needs about a two to one advantage to take home roughly the same number of medals as D-2. I say let the other districts have the edge because it only then makes it a horse race.

What is wrong with giving a kid another chance at Districts? The likelihood of a 5th or 6th placer placing in the top 4 to move onto State is unlikely so why not let a kid have a few more matches.

Do we remember the Olympics? When Michelle Kwan couldn't compete they called in the alternate! Was that fair? How about if she performed well enough to win the Gold? Would the competitors be screaming that it was unfair because she was an alternate and didn't qualify? No!

Subs, Districts and State is nowhere near the level of Olympic competition - if the Olympians can handle it I'm sure our young wrestlers can as well!

First question I have is why do we even have sub-district. Is it to help support freestyle? If so what is the percentage of the kids at subs that freestyle in the summer? Another point, why not give them the chance to go to one more tournament and then have one big district? If district were a 2 day event then some of the jitters and shell shock of a 2 day tournament and hype would be minimized for the ones that do advance to state. I see alot of kids that are great one day wrestlers, put them in a two day tournament and the challenge of getting mentally ready 2 days in a row just drains them. Would it help our youth by giving them the challange and magnitude of 2 2 day tournaments not just one in our own home state to help them grow. Are we giving our youth a false sense that you only have to go hard one day a week? We as parents have to go hard everyday and the values that wrestling gives to the kids is "never give up and enjoy what you are doing". Do they understand that this has to happen everyday when they are on their own, not just once a week. It is all mental now for them and it will be mental for them when they become young adults. Do we worry about "no child left behind" to much and forget about "no child held back"?

Actually, I see both sides of this. We all have our good and bad days, including our kids. Who's to say that a kid didn't just have a bad day at Subs? But, what if a kid placed top 4 at subs and has a bad day at districts? Is this fair? What is the incentive or purpose for subs? This actually happened to my son last year. He had a great day at Subs, placed 2nd! Districts come the following week and my son had a bad day, to say the least! Not only did he not qualify for state, he lost to kids, he had not lost to all year. I am a bit biased when it comes to this but, I can see both sides. My opinion: All four districts should be the same. If all four districts are not going to go off the same rules, then what is the purpose of having subs?

Like Stackem I to see both sides of this situation but when I really think about it, I don't see the problem of adding the kids that get 5th or 6th from one Sub if the other sub doesn't have 4 qualifiers. My thoughts follow...

1. What is the real purpose? Is it to win or is it to provide kids another opportunity to compete and yet still have the importance of having to qualify for something? Personally, I think giving the kids another opportunity isn't such a bad thing.

2. If you really look at this, you are really only looking at a relatively small number of weight classes where this occurs. So is this really that big of an issue?

3. Agree that all districts should do it the same. The other factor to consider is that if you have one sub that has 3 kids in a weight and another that has 8 and you don't allow the top 5 from the 8-man sub you are really penalizing some of those kids based on where they live.

BLUF: Anytime kids get a chance to continue to wrestle, get more mat time, etc. is a good thing. At this age, it's not as much about winning as it is about learning work ethic, discipline, sportsmanship, and love of the sport. In my opinion that comes from getting a chance to compete.

There is another issue with this but I'm not exactly sure how it works. I'll use District 3 for this example. When district 3 west has seven entries in a weight bracket and east has one, then 5, 6 and 7 fill in the east side. It would seem to me that this practice would seed the kids who placed 5th and 6th from the west higher than the kid who placed 4th at subs. That is to say 5th in the west moves to the East 2 seed and 6th moves to the East 3 seed. This doesn't seem fair, if in fact this is the way it is handled.

Okay gotta put my 2 cents in on this issue, At subs last weekend in D2 south there was a bracket (8U 61lbs) that was stacked full in a 32 man bracket not exactly sure on the total number of wrestlers in that bracket but still a 32 man bracket at Subs is a very large bracket. The same bracket in D3 may or may not have had near the entries in it but how is it fair for the top 4 that made it through that 32 man bracket to qualify for Districts when another district may have only had a total of 8 wrestlers in both subs combined? 2 in one and 6 in the other for instance. again im just using this as an example and the numbers may not match the actual numbers.

I think some other states like California do not have any qualifiers. You just have a state tournament. Sign up and show up.