Logo
Second Half by MHSAA

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.

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.

The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.

Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.

The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.

Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.

If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.