New State Boundaries
#242143
09/14/16 06:37 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 270
Daniel DRW
OP
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 270 |
There has been some conversation about the new districts lines and also a “survey question" that asked if you are in favor of equal numbers. There is a small independent "group" working outside the State board members (no elected officials on it, and more than 1 district represented) to decide if the new lines should be challenged with either new ideas or reverting back to what was in place the last couple years. Anything established under the bylaws, including the district boundaries, can be changed by the state body on a two-third vote of the voting members. Any voting member club can make a motion at the state body meeting under this provision.
New lines D1 decreased by 11 participants (730) D2 Increased by 15 participants (725) D3 decreased by 17 participants (723) D4 increased by 13 participants (729)
The new lines created extremely minimal changes in numbers and largely increased travel time for some (which may be unavoidable at times, I get it) while significantly shortened travel time for others that could potentially share in the travel pain and off-set it for everyone.
All the statistical data that I could find on reliable sites shows that JOCO, Wyandotte and Douglas account for 84% of the state’s growth. Riley and Sedgwick are the other top 2 in growth.
Considerations:
As for the equal number of participants what do you consider close enough to equal to be fair?
Do you weigh travel time for qualifying tournaments heavier than “equal” numbers?
If the trending growth is primarily in D1, would you want to ensure they are the smallest district currently to account for the growth avoiding re-districting again in a couple years? Currently they are still the largest district.
My intent is not to stir the pot or head-hunt a certain county, I want to find a solution that would be good for years to come and I don’t feel that was done here. Feel free to agree or disagree, in the end there may be no action taken but wanted to get a feel from some I don’t talk to.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Daniel DRW]
#242146
09/14/16 09:03 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 673
Teamroper
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 673 |
I still don't understand why the District that has the most travel refuses to just have a district tournament?
If you aren't willing to travel in wrestling you might as well go play basketball.
My state series total mileage last year was around 1700 miles. I know I now fall into D2 which will help keep more kids out in 2 ways. Only District and it will be hour or so away. Our club was moved but yet now there are probably 2-3 clubs that were in our boat the last 2 years with travel.
The intent for a state series is to try to get the top 16 in the state to compete for #1. It isn't ever going to be fair or even. That goes from a talent perspective or a travel perspective.
I still feel it is a good system.
Hell I am good with a 4 day state tournament, lets all show up and get after it.
that way everyone can be consider a state qualifier.
Tracy Peterson Buhler, KS
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Teamroper]
#242147
09/14/16 09:06 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 933
Brent Lane
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 933 |
One point of comparison to the high school/KSHSAA philosophy...for the most part a regional meet is just that, a regional meet. Some years there are oddities, however, just because a regional is tough doesn't mean it should be broken up. It may not seem fair or equitable, but that is what some have to deal with. In the end, if you want to be the best you have to beat the best. I think evening out the numbers for the sake of equity while increasing travel time is not in the best interest of all. But it is what it is...
"If it is to be, it is up to me!"
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Brent Lane]
#242160
09/16/16 02:08 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 4
Jason Garrett
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 4 |
Has anyone that made this decision weighed in on the change? With that small of a change there has to be some explanation to why the small number changes were made.
The only people that I see stuck with more travel is those that are on the east side of district 4, which is really also the only place I see people benefiting from less travel. It appears Cloud and Ottawa got stuck while Reno, Harper and Harvey were saved.
I agree if district 1 is growing why is it still the biggest? Probably should be some room for growth.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Jason Garrett]
#242164
09/17/16 07:44 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,153
Mike Juby
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,153 |
Jason,
One of the reasons for the changes was specifically addressing the southern section of District 4 (the area of the state that you referred to). In looking at a county-by-county breakdown of the numbers of participants, the board recognized that the south side of the District had several counties with very few participants, and a few that had none. In looking at travel commitments, it was recognized that the current boundaries left a large gap between the areas where the wrestlers were located, making for an inefficient allocation.
Since one of the goals of the district boundaries (among others) is to try and group the state in as contiguous a manner as possible, the boundaries were shifted to avoid leaving this dead zone (as far as wrestling participants are concerned) in the middle of a district.
Regarding District 1, I think that the board members came to the same observation as you did and recognized that future changes are probably going to be required. I believe that there was a general consensus that the board needs to continue to review boundaries on a routine basis, rather that let imbalances grow unabated as in prior years.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Mike Juby]
#242165
09/18/16 02:07 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 4
Jason Garrett
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 4 |
Thanks for answering Mr. Juby.
I'm sorry but I just don't get it then, if everyone knows district 1 is growing why wasn't that addressed NOW? Are we going to do this again next year?
If I understand the real intentions then why remove the big bordering counties of 4? Those are the ones that are going to keep the numbers equal without causing a bunch of continuing shifting for everyone else east of 4. Reno and or Saline would probably be could candidates for 4.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Jason Garrett]
#242166
09/18/16 04:07 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 42
Tungjaroenkul
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 42 |
Would making 8 districts instead of 4 be an option, but only take the top 2 from each district but allow them to wrestle for a true 2nd place.... No sub districts, just district. It would be like having sub districts as districts which would cut out 1 tournament for everyone who was opposed to having both subs and districts it would shorten our season by 1 week, we would see less travel distance for anyone to qualify for state, you would definitely get the top kids competing at state..... Anybody thoughts?
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Tungjaroenkul]
#242169
09/19/16 11:27 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84
jeremy sekavec
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84 |
I am in agreement with Brent Lane. We are using a terrible model now that does not work!!!! Set a boundry line and leave it!! Using population will never work in the state because the state is not populated evening. Also, I firmly believe that the change should be up to the all the representatives not just the state board. If it is left up to the state board, I firmly believe we should hold elections every four years and limit each rep to a 2 term limit. Otherwise, just like in congress, they feel like they can do anything. Set a district and leave it!!! People are getting more than just upset at this constant bull of changing the lines
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: jeremy sekavec]
#242170
09/19/16 12:08 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916
sportsfan02
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916 |
You CAN'T set district boundaries and leave it! That would be ridiculous. There are advantages and disadvantages to where each of us lives. Like it or not, the population of western Kansas is shrinking and that should and will be be effecting all facets of the lives of those that live there. The reason the decision on boundaries was left to the executive board was because the state body couldn't ever pass a map that was acceptable to the majority. As to the idea of term limits for the board, we routinely have no other candidates to run against any sitting member. I take that as a sign that nobody really wants the duties and that the current board is doing an acceptable job. In this case, I believe the board got it right.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: sportsfan02]
#242172
09/19/16 02:34 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 270
Daniel DRW
OP
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 270 |
You CAN'T set district boundaries and leave it! That would be ridiculous. There are advantages and disadvantages to where each of us lives. Like it or not, the population of western Kansas is shrinking and that should and will be be effecting all facets of the lives of those that live there. The reason the decision on boundaries was left to the executive board was because the state body couldn't ever pass a map that was acceptable to the majority. As to the idea of term limits for the board, we routinely have no other candidates to run against any sitting member. I take that as a sign that nobody really wants the duties and that the current board is doing an acceptable job. In this case, I believe the board got it right. I agree with everything you said BUT "they got it right" this go. There was such a minimal change made that I can't see where we accomplished much, if we plan to stay "equal" as can be D1 will need to loose more and D4 gain more again next year which implies yet another change.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Daniel DRW]
#242173
09/19/16 03:15 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84
jeremy sekavec
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84 |
well then sportsfan02 I am assuming you live outside of District 4 because that is a typical answer from someone that lives in eastern kansas. Nothing exists past salina and wichita. I am more than willing to serve on the board. But getting on the board is almost impossible. Why pull reno out? Shouldnt they stay in District 4? What happens when we get to the bigger clubs such as salina or wichita clubs? Are they going to join district 4? What happens if clubs get tired of it and say enough is enough and decide to break away and bring AAU? Want will happen then? Where is the limit? Almost any issue should be brought to a vote not decide by a handful of people. I believe that if there is a 2/3 majority the decision of the state board can be overriden maybe not. You will never get the numbers to equal out of be even wont happen. By increasing the travel all that the board is achieving is pushing more people away because of cost and travel. Hard liners will say well that is just the nature of the beast. To a limit it is. But there are ways around it.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Daniel DRW]
#242174
09/19/16 03:17 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916
sportsfan02
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916 |
You CAN'T set district boundaries and leave it! That would be ridiculous. There are advantages and disadvantages to where each of us lives. Like it or not, the population of western Kansas is shrinking and that should and will be be effecting all facets of the lives of those that live there. The reason the decision on boundaries was left to the executive board was because the state body couldn't ever pass a map that was acceptable to the majority. As to the idea of term limits for the board, we routinely have no other candidates to run against any sitting member. I take that as a sign that nobody really wants the duties and that the current board is doing an acceptable job. In this case, I believe the board got it right. I agree with everything you said BUT "they got it right" this go. There was such a minimal change made that I can't see where we accomplished much, if we plan to stay "equal" as can be D1 will need to loose more and D4 gain more again next year which implies yet another change. Remember, any issue that comes before the board has politics involved in it's passing. Each board member is looking out for their club and district first. So in order to get something passed, compromise is involved.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: jeremy sekavec]
#242175
09/19/16 03:26 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916
sportsfan02
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916 |
well then sportsfan02 I am assuming you live outside of District 4 because that is a typical answer from someone that lives in eastern kansas. Nothing exists past salina and wichita. I am more than willing to serve on the board. But getting on the board is almost impossible. Why pull reno out? Shouldnt they stay in District 4? What happens when we get to the bigger clubs such as salina or wichita clubs? Are they going to join district 4? What happens if clubs get tired of it and say enough is enough and decide to break away and bring AAU? Want will happen then? Where is the limit? Almost any issue should be brought to a vote not decide by a handful of people. I believe that if there is a 2/3 majority the decision of the state board can be overriden maybe not. You will never get the numbers to equal out of be even wont happen. By increasing the travel all that the board is achieving is pushing more people away because of cost and travel. Hard liners will say well that is just the nature of the beast. To a limit it is. But there are ways around it. If you want to get on the board, get elected to a district director or assistant position. You are then on the board. I agree that travel is a troubling cost to ALL of us. We have way too many kids traveling out of state for tournaments. This has the effect of making the neighborhood tournament less and less profitable and more expendable. The strength of Kansas Kids wrestling is first and foremost the clubs. The less strong functioning clubs we have, the more our sport is going to hurt.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: sportsfan02]
#242176
09/19/16 03:43 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84
jeremy sekavec
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84 |
Lets break down the numbers per age group to see where the difference is (numbers from district tournament last year)
8 and under 1=157 2=166 3=134 4= 124
10 and under 1= 131 2=167 3=126 4=125
12 and under 1=167 2= 149 3= 136 4= 125
14 and under 1= 165 2= 144 3= 136 4= 111
High School 1= 125 2= 94 3= 97 4= 77
Now that those numbers are out there lets analyze them.
8 Under 2= 166 1= -9 3= -32 4= -42
10 Under 2= 167 1= -36 3= -41 4= -50
12 and under
1=167 2= -18 3 and 4= -42
14 and under
1=165 2= -21 3= -29 4= -54
High School 1= 125 3= -28 2= -31 4= -48
District 2 holds the most kids in the 8 and 10 age groups. District 1 holds 12, 14, and high school. If we are worried about the size of district 1, then moving the district lines is not the answer!!! District 4 will never have the 14 and under and high school participation as district 1! EVER!!!! The kids out here in the rural communities are doing nine hundred different activities. Lets look at one. In a small town, any small rural farm town here in western kansas, a student in junior and high are most likely involved in up to ten different activities. Football, wrestling, track, baseball, softball, band, FHA, FFA, work, and any other school activities they are required at just to have those activities. Getting those age groups to think about doing little kids wrestling, especially after high school wrestling is hard. Yes you will have the die hards who will wrestle, every district does. But lets look at Garden City for example. Why do you not see high school kids wrestle kids club? One prime example is the high school baseball coach tells the kids that is they do little kids wrestling at all, they are off the baseball team so they have to decide. Im sure there are other schools like this also. There has to be a better way of figuring this out then jumping the lines every freaking year. I have seen it posted that life is not fair. Yes, Life is not fair. Never has been never will be. But just as they say will travel is part of the beast, well living in District 1, numbers is just part of the beast. Take a moment and look at it that way. Im open for more ideas but really cmon guys. And sportsfan02 yes decisions are political so maybe they should be given to the group to decide instead of the few. Pretty sure the USA was created because the few were making decisions
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: jeremy sekavec]
#242177
09/19/16 03:55 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916
sportsfan02
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916 |
Lets break down the numbers per age group to see where the difference is (numbers from district tournament last year)
8 and under 1=157 2=166 3=134 4= 124
10 and under 1= 131 2=167 3=126 4=125
12 and under 1=167 2= 149 3= 136 4= 125
14 and under 1= 165 2= 144 3= 136 4= 111
High School 1= 125 2= 94 3= 97 4= 77
Now that those numbers are out there lets analyze them.
8 Under 2= 166 1= -9 3= -32 4= -42
10 Under 2= 167 1= -36 3= -41 4= -50
12 and under
1=167 2= -18 3 and 4= -42
14 and under
1=165 2= -21 3= -29 4= -54
High School 1= 125 3= -28 2= -31 4= -48
District 2 holds the most kids in the 8 and 10 age groups. District 1 holds 12, 14, and high school. If we are worried about the size of district 1, then moving the district lines is not the answer!!! District 4 will never have the 14 and under and high school participation as district 1! EVER!!!! The kids out here in the rural communities are doing nine hundred different activities. Lets look at one. In a small town, any small rural farm town here in western kansas, a student in junior and high are most likely involved in up to ten different activities. Football, wrestling, track, baseball, softball, band, FHA, FFA, work, and any other school activities they are required at just to have those activities. Getting those age groups to think about doing little kids wrestling, especially after high school wrestling is hard. Yes you will have the die hards who will wrestle, every district does. But lets look at Garden City for example. Why do you not see high school kids wrestle kids club? One prime example is the high school baseball coach tells the kids that is they do little kids wrestling at all, they are off the baseball team so they have to decide. Im sure there are other schools like this also. There has to be a better way of figuring this out then jumping the lines every freaking year. I have seen it posted that life is not fair. Yes, Life is not fair. Never has been never will be. But just as they say will travel is part of the beast, well living in District 1, numbers is just part of the beast. Take a moment and look at it that way. Im open for more ideas but really cmon guys. And sportsfan02 yes decisions are political so maybe they should be given to the group to decide instead of the few. Pretty sure the USA was created because the few were making decisions The numbers at any one age group has nothing to do with boundaries. It is the overall numbers that determine who needs to go where. And the reason we have a board to decide some of these issues is the same reason the U.S.A. has a representative form of democracy.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: sportsfan02]
#242178
09/19/16 04:07 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84
jeremy sekavec
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 84 |
ok we will paint the problem with a wide brush instead of looking into the bottleneck? Yes i know the districts are decided by the overall numbers. But to find the problem, do you not need to break it out to get a true good look at something? Or are you to just say or well here lets move this countries and hopefully the numbers will balance out. To truly see the bottleneck you have to look at the whole picture any good businessman or woman will know that. Looking with a broad point might work for a year but what happens when the numbers dont turn out like you hoped? Are you still going to use the wide brush approach? What if people in cloud county are not happy with the move and lets say go to wrestling for a club in republic county. Would this not just defeated the whole point of this move? That is just a hypothetical situation there.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: jeremy sekavec]
#242179
09/19/16 04:24 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916
sportsfan02
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916 |
I don't know what a bottleneck is, at it relates to this issue. If we tried to decide boundaries based upon one age group or another it would be endless. The last boundary change lasted two years. I would expect this change to last four to five years if not longer. If anything, in the past, the changes did not come often enough.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: sportsfan02]
#242180
09/19/16 04:55 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 270
Daniel DRW
OP
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 270 |
You CAN'T set district boundaries and leave it! That would be ridiculous. There are advantages and disadvantages to where each of us lives. Like it or not, the population of western Kansas is shrinking and that should and will be be effecting all facets of the lives of those that live there. The reason the decision on boundaries was left to the executive board was because the state body couldn't ever pass a map that was acceptable to the majority. As to the idea of term limits for the board, we routinely have no other candidates to run against any sitting member. I take that as a sign that nobody really wants the duties and that the current board is doing an acceptable job. In this case, I believe the board got it right. I agree with everything you said BUT "they got it right" this go. There was such a minimal change made that I can't see where we accomplished much, if we plan to stay "equal" as can be D1 will need to loose more and D4 gain more again next year which implies yet another change. Remember, any issue that comes before the board has politics involved in it's passing. Each board member is looking out for their club and district first. So in order to get something passed, compromise is involved. I have been told there were no politics involved in this decsion. Of course there was one member that slipped up and made a statement that proved there was! As I agreed with you before the majority has never been able to agree at the State meeting so I get a decsion being made. My issue is that this decsion didn't accomplish much of anything and didn't leave room for growth in D1. I feel that we are just setting ourselves up to throw everyone around again next year. I was in D1, didn't want to leave it, but a honest study of the numbers and running several different scenarios tells me it's highly possible that Shawnee county isn't in D1 for state success. The frustrating part is it also tells me that our current change is not setting us up for success either, unless there are more of those "slip-up" comments out there than what I have been told, then it makes sense.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Daniel DRW]
#242184
09/19/16 05:09 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916
sportsfan02
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,916 |
Shawnee County has been the fly in the ointment for years. The proper balance has never been reached due to their remaining in D1. Now that they have moved to D3, I hope it will make less changes necessary in the future.
|
|
|
Re: New State Boundaries
[Re: Mike Juby]
#242194
09/20/16 01:33 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17
B.Mannel
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17 |
They probably need reviewed every two to four years (on the basis of wrestlers attending) but guess I fail to see how placing Ottawa and Cloud county in D4 avoids the "dead zone...in the MIDDLE of the district." Reno is more "western" than those two counties and should be in D4 instead of Ottawa and Cloud. Guess Saline county is next up for D4 target, instead of Reno, as club growth head counts continue in the far NE?
I've done an exhaustive review of the change as Daniel DRW's change numbers weren't adding up in total head counts. Using Track's team head counts for District tournaments for D1 and D2 and the sub head counts for D3 and D4 (assuming those at subs would attend a single district match) OR one would need to make some assumptions for thinning of the herd in D1&D2 if they held a sub. Before/After/Net change/Reno,Kingman,Harper->D4 / L&C D1->D2 D1 745 / 726 / -19 / 726 / 699 D2 719 / 723 / 4 / 675 / 702 D3 685 / 700 / 15 / 700 / 700 D4 644 / 644 / 0 / 692 / 692
It would appear to me further adjustment needs to be made to bring head counts in line....or should I say less adjustment. Keep Reno, Kingman, and Harper counties in D4 instead of shifting into D2 makes a head count shift of +48 to D4 and -48 to D2. D2 is then 675 and D4 is 692 and now we reduce what was passed from D2 into D1 with Labette and Cherokee remaining in D2 instead. I don't think you level the field with a contiguous map better than that. If D1 continues growth then Neosho and Crawford get sucked back into D2.
End of story, if the state board is going to drag Cloud and Ottawa into D4, then Reno, Kingman and Harper need to be in D4 for the same reasons as well. Otherwise, Cloud and Ottawa should remain in D3. What's good for the goose is good for the gander they say.
Respectfully, An unaffected party out in BFE (*unless someone new in D4 like Beloit hosts a district) armed with a detailed excel spreadsheet...
|
|
|
|
2 registered members (ccasteel, 1 invisible),
398
guests, and 3
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics35,990
Posts250,453
Members12,302
|
Most Online709 Nov 21st, 2011
|
|
|