Teams taking 12-14 kids that are average or below average and teams leaving home 7 good kids b/c of a tough regional has to stop. I propose we look at it like this.

1) Seed the regionals according to team state placing the previous year.
2) State Champions with 32 place teams, second place teams with 31 place team and so on.

Region A would look like this
1,32,5,28,9,24,13,20 place teams

Region B would look like this
2,31,6,27,10,23,14,19 place teams

Region C would look like this
3,30,7,26,11,22,15,18 place teams

Region D would look like this
4,29,8,25,12,21,16,17 place teams

In 6A, Regional pairings would have looked like this based on 2004 state standing.

Region A
Manhattan,Blue Valley NW, Junction City, Topeka, Shawnee Mission NOrth, Blue Valley West, Dodge City, Wichita North

Region B
Emporia, Hutchison, Olathe South, Derby, Shawnee Mission East, Washburn Rural, Wichita Southeast, Olathe North

Region C
Goddard, Maize, Wichita Heights, Wichita South, Olathe East, Wichita East, Lawrence Free State, Blue Valley North

Region D
St. Thomas Aquainus, Garden City, Leavenworth, Shawnee Mission Northwest, Wichita Northwest, Shawnee Mission South, Lawrence, Shawnee Mission West.

Lets do another year.
2004 6A regional pairings would have looked like this based on 2003 team results.

Region A
Hutchison, Emporia, Derby, Blue Valley North, Shawnee Mission West, Olathe East, Washburn Rural, Blue Valley West

Region B
Garden City, Maize, Wichita Heights, Blue Valley Northwest, Topeka, Lawrence, Wichita Southeast, KC Wyndotte

Region C
Manhattan, Olathe South, Dodge City, St. Thomas Aquainus, Lawrence Free State, Shawnee Mission Northwest, Wichita East, Wichita North

Region D
Junction City, Wichita South, SM South, Wichita Northwest, Shawnee Mission East, Shawnee Mission North, Olathe North, Leavenworth.

It's time to split up these regionals with 7 not so good teams and one above average team. I would gladly travel to a couple other regionals and take 10-12 to state instead of 5 out of the tough region we are in. I believe most coaches would do the same. I may have made a mistake or two, but this is pretty close.
Coaches, if you want, using the above formula, post what your regionals would have looked like in other classes and see if would make more sense.

Michael Church
P.S. Jilka, I am coming to you with this proposal for the state meeting after state.

Wow, I think you spent just a little too much time thinking that up when KSHSAA will never even bother to listen to it, but if you think that is bad take a stroll down the 4A lane, when the top 3 teams in the state all end up at the same regional

will never happen

plus how can you justify seeding regionals based on the prior year's state place?

totally different wrestlers and team make-up due to grads/transfers, etc.

you are stating aquinas should be seeded as they placed last year???????

just deal with it. 4a and lower have to be top 4 out of 16. now there is some complaining

I like it because some teams lose state at regionals. Look at 6a 189 last year in the Emporia, Manhattan, JC, etc. regional. The four that qualified for state placed 1-2-3-4 at state and one or two of the guys that didn't make it to state would have placed at state. Oh, and quit complaining about 4a and lower having 16 man brackets. More than half of the wrestlers in those brackets are pansies anyways.

Are we really going to have a conversation about something that won't happen?

It should happen. State is supposed to be an assembly of the best wrestlers in the state. The current system does not allow for this. Teams are sending almost complete teams to state, because they were in a poor regional.

Maybe they need just 2 regionals for 5 and 6a so there aren't a slew of byes either.

Back in the early 80's, they used to divide the state up into two halves. And only the top four went. Didn't they call that sub-state.

You're right about too many byes. Something doesn't seem right when you win one match and you're at state.

The idea is a great concept in theory, but with the struggling financial budgets it cannot become a reality. Travel expenses alone for what you have created would cause some teams to extend their travel budget, and the state is fully aware of this. If nothing else, please note that the Wichita area school district is considering dropping wrestling from it's budget. Attempting to create another travelling tournament beyond what teams/school districts have already budgeted would cause some school districts to completely pull the plug on their program- especially if the program has not had a strong tradition of winning.

I agree that it would be wonderful to have more parity in the regional tournaments, but that is going to have to come from coaches and kids from their schools putting in the extra time and work needed to build their program. Afterall, it is called a "Regional tournament", and no, this isn't the NCAA basketball definition of "regions".

Accept that not just the state of Kansas, but Nationwide, education funding is struggling. The first places to be hit hard and/or cut are going to be extracurricular activities... and yes, unfortunate as it is, wrestling may be one of the first to go.

I strongly suggest that when you are electing representatives during election years, that if you are concerned with the opportunities and programs the children in your school districts have available (for this forum- mainly wrestling), that you elect representatives who have a platform which will allow more state funding towards education. Then, maybe one day, we could begin talks on how to create some sort of State qualifying tournament that evens out the playing fields based on State tournament finishes.

I am not opposed to the ideas that you came up with, but understand that it cannot and will not become a reality under the current economic structure of the U.S. Education system.

Heck with 1 win, there was a guy make it to state with 0 wins on the year! That's sad!

I agree that the gerrymandering process that the state uses isn’t always conducive to our regional tournaments, but as stated in one of the above posts, we have take into consideration school budgets. It is real easy for us to say go stay overnight somewhere when we are not paying the bill, and schools are pretty tight on their budgeting. Don’t get mad at KSHSAA because they do a pretty good job (not perfect) with what they have to work with.


You can’t pattern a regional according to rankings and previous finishes at state. It would be absurd to do this when these two factors really mean nothing year-in-and-year-out.
Case in point: When I was an assistant at Santa Fe Trail we were ranked #1 all year and we finished #10.

Wrestling20, your crazy calling half the guys in 4a and 321a regionals pansies. How many guys with losing records are there going to state in the upper classes compared to the lower classes. It appears that some of those you called pansies would have a chance at qualifying for state if they were in 5a or 6a.

I've just come to a startling realization...

You all whine too much! Get over it! Most kids who cannot place (I said "Most," not "all") in the top 4 in a regional probably won't place at state.

Take this for example. My senior year, the El Dorado 4a regional was considered one of the weakest (I think, I really do not know, as I was not as aware as I am now). However, in 103, 3 out of the top 4 from that bracket were 3 out of the top 4 at state!

The fact of the matter is, the only way to do this fairly would be to seperate teams at regionals or have a 64-man state tournament. In fact, we do have a 64-man state bracket, we just divide it into two weeks...

No, there is not going to be any changes. Yes, schools are struggling with money and to add another long trip may hurt some programs. Regionals are not fair. There is no doubt that some poor kids from a weak regional get to wrestle at the state tournament while some better kids must stay home. Although this year things were more even the 321A NW Regional is always the toughest (for 321A). The KSHSAA will make no bones about it- their goal is NOT to snd the best wrestlers in the state to the state tournament. Their goal is to send the best wrestlers from the four regions of the state to the state tournament. There is a big difference between the two.

Pups4Ever - isn't THIS your senior year? I thought I saw you wrestle last weekend, but maybe not....

Nigel, we spend days listening to your opinion about anything and everything that passes through this forum. It's o.k. for some of us to have a conversation. We don't need you telling us what we should and should not talk about.

About St. Thomas Aquainus, well, I believe they are a really good team. However, I do not believe that they would be sending the same numbers they are sending if they came out of the same region as we did. Goddard, Maize, Hutchison, Garden City, Wichita South, Dodge City, and Wichita North would probably knock off some of those kids coming out of that regional.

About the travel budget, that would not change that much at all. Hell, last year we went and did an over night trip to Dodge City, and next year it's possible to we could be in Garden City. That is why you rotate where the regional is from year to year to accomodate each other.

About seeding according to the last years record, well, it would spread the good teams out. Yes, from year to year teams change, and that would effect them the following year. I do think if you place high at state it's o.k. to reward you the next year. If you are bad that next year, you will be stuck with the better teams the next year. It will rotate. It just evens it out. And yes, 4A can do the same thing so I don't want to hear th 4A yada yada yada!

I think we should have break-dancing state! Anyone in?

No way, we'd qualify 0 and you guys would win hands down... how about coolest stupid human tricks? we've got quite a few on our team

In Goddard break-dancing is a drill in the wrestling room. :-)

Goddard is 5 or 6A so they don't apply to the totally awesome 4A Break Dancing competition, so they may win their class Buhler has ours I think