One State. More Than 27,000 Wrestlers. Is One Division Enough?

For decades, I defended California’s single-class state wrestling tournament. I believed that crowning one champion in each weight class was the ultimate measure of competitive excellence. In a state known for its wrestling tradition, depth, and nationally recognized athletes, the single-class format represented something special.

I still believe in the prestige of a California state championship. What I no longer believe is that preserving that prestige requires maintaining the existing format without question.

After observing Idaho’s four-division system, examining California’s participation and championship statistics, and considering how other wrestling power states structure their tournaments, I believe it is time to evaluate whether two or three divisions could provide more meaningful opportunities without compromising elite competition.

The question is straightforward: Does California’s current system recognize the full depth of its wrestling talent, or does a narrow qualification process leave too many deserving athletes without meaningful statewide recognition?

I am not advocating for California to move away from its longstanding single-class tradition or adopt a divisional format without thorough consideration. Rather, the available statistical data suggest that the time is right for the CIF to begin an objective, data-driven review of the current system. Such an evaluation would provide an opportunity to determine whether the single-class format continues to best serve California’s unique size, competitive depth, and diverse wrestling landscape, while ensuring that any future decisions are guided by evidence, thoughtful discussion, and the best interests of the sport.

THE NUMBERS TELL A COMPELLING STORY

According to CIF participation census figures, California had 883 high school wrestling programs and 26,327 participants in 2024. By the 2025–26 season, those figures had grown to 909 programs and 27,452 participants—an increase of about 2.9% in programs and 4.3% in wrestlers.

The Southern Section alone accounted for 299 programs and 10,476 participants in 2025–26, approximately 38% of the statewide total. The Sac-Joaquin Section contributed 142 programs and 4,166 wrestlers, while the Central Section reported 108 programs and 3,276 participants.

California’s wrestling population is large, geographically diverse, and spread across schools with different enrollments, resources, coaching environments, and levels of program development. Yet the path to the CIF State Championships remains exceptionally narrow.

At the 2024 state tournament, 560 wrestlers competed across 14 weight classes, with 40 competitors in each bracket. Compared with the 26,327 participants reported in the 2024 CIF census, those state qualifiers represented approximately 2.13% of the statewide participation total. The 112 medalists represented approximately 0.43%.

These are approximate comparisons, not exact individual qualification or medal rates, because the census and championship results have different reporting definitions. Still, they illustrate the scale of California wrestling and how few athletes reach its most visible postseason stage.

The field narrows further as the tournament progresses. Of approximately 699 schools represented at the 2024 Masters Meets, 235 advanced at least one wrestler to state. Wrestlers from approximately 50 schools reached the quarterfinals, 24 schools had semifinalists, and 14 schools were represented in the championship finals.

These figures demonstrate the extraordinary competitiveness of California wrestling. Qualifying for state is a significant accomplishment. But they also raise a legitimate question: Could a different championship structure recognize more of California’s talent while maintaining the standard that makes a state title meaningful?

CALIFORNIA’S HIDDEN TALENT: THE WRESTLERS BEYOND THE PODIUM

California’s single-class tournament brings many of the nation’s best high school wrestlers together to determine one champion at each weight. In 2026, nearly 60 California wrestlers were nationally ranked by wrestling ranking expert Billy Buckheit. The state’s elite talent is not in question.

The more difficult question is whether the qualification process and championship structure adequately recognize the broader range of talent across the state.

The 2024 CIF State Championships offer one perspective. According to the final state rankings compiled by Michael Cho, all 112 medalists were ranked among California’s top 15. Of those medalists, 96—or 85.7%—were ranked in the top eight. Another 13 were ranked ninth through 12th, bringing the total to 109 medalists, or 97.3%, from the top 12. Only three medalists were ranked 13th through 15th.

The Southern and Central Sections led with 33 medals apiece, accounting for 58.9% of all medals. The Sac-Joaquin Section contributed 18, San Diego 14, and the Central Coast Section 10. The North Coast Section earned two, while Los Angeles City and the Northern Section earned one each.

The results show how closely the final rankings aligned with podium outcomes. California’s top-tier wrestlers generally qualify for state and account for most of its medalists. The concern is not whether the system identifies elite athletes; it is what happens to the wrestlers just outside that elite group.

Tier 2 wrestlers, traditionally ranked No. 13–20, and Tier 3 wrestlers, ranked No. 21–30 in Cho’s state rankings, represent a potentially important segment of the collegiate recruiting pool. Some qualify for state but finish outside the medal standings. Others fail to reach Bakersfield despite strong records and the ability to challenge accomplished opponents.

Advancement depends not only on ability but also on sectional and weight-class depth. A wrestler in a particularly competitive sectional bracket may face a more difficult route to state than a similarly ranked athlete elsewhere. In the Central and Southern Sections, wrestlers ranked among the state’s top 25 sometimes fail to qualify. Some have competed successfully against—and occasionally defeated—wrestlers who later earn state medals.

This is not an indictment of any section, athlete, or the existing system. It is a reminder that a state medal is only one measure of ability.

College coaches must consider records, strength of schedule, match results, improvement, academic qualifications, recommendations, and performances against accomplished opponents. Rankings cannot guarantee advancement, and a strong high school résumé does not guarantee collegiate success. But wrestlers ranked in the top 25 or 30 who fail to qualify—or qualify and leave without a medal—deserve to have their full competitive records considered.

The issue is not whether California produces college-caliber wrestlers. It is whether the existing system consistently helps coaches discover them.

112 MEDALS. APPROXIMATELY 50 SCHOOLS.

At the 2024 CIF State Championships, eight wrestlers earned medals in each of 14 weight classes, producing 112 individual medalists. According to the supplied school-by-school results, those athletes represented approximately 50 high schools.

Compared with the 883 programs reported in the 2024 CIF census, the medal-producing schools accounted for approximately 5.7% of programs. Using the 2025–26 total of 909 programs produces a similar comparison of approximately 5.5%. These figures describe the share of programs represented among medalists, not the share of schools eligible to qualify for state.

A small group of schools accounted for a substantial share of the podium. Poway and Buchanan led with 12 medals apiece, or 24 of the 112 medals combined. Gilroy and St. John Bosco earned seven each, while Clovis and Bakersfield collected six apiece.

The nine leading schools accounted for 62 medals, or 55.4% of the total. Eighteen schools produced multiple medalists, earning 80 medals combined, or 71.4%. The other 32 medal-producing schools contributed one medal apiece.

These results should be celebrated, not diminished. Producing a dozen state medalists is extraordinary; so is a school earning its first state medal after years of trying. But the concentration of podium success deserves consideration when evaluating whether California’s championship structure serves the full range of its programs.

Enrollment figures further illustrate the diversity of successful schools. Using the supplied enrollment estimates, the approximately 50 medal-producing schools averaged about 2,017 students, with a median of approximately 2,052. Estimated enrollment ranged from about 394 at Central Catholic to 4,417 at Eleanor Roosevelt.

Buchanan earned 12 medals with an estimated enrollment of 2,500, while St. John Bosco earned seven with approximately 825 students. Central Catholic, Palma, Calaveras, and Exeter Union also produced medalists despite relatively small enrollments. Meanwhile, several of the largest schools produced only one medalist.

Enrollment alone does not determine wrestling success. Coaching, participation, athlete development, resources, experience, and program culture all matter. Any proposed divisional system must therefore evaluate more than school size. It should consider enrollment alongside wrestling participation, competitive results, geographic representation, and program strength.

The central question remains: Can California recognize a broader range of successful programs without diminishing the competition at the top?

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: 1973 AND 1993

California has changed its state championship format before. Comparing the inaugural CIF State Wrestling Championships in 1973 with the 1993 tournament shows how medal opportunities expanded while the single-class format remained in place.

1973: The inaugural championship

The first CIF State Wrestling Championships featured 13 weight classes, with the top six finishers in each class earning medals—a total of 78 medalists. Each weight class used a 24-man bracket.

The tournament used a “carry tournament” format. A wrestler who lost early could return through the consolation bracket only if the opponent who defeated them advanced to the semifinals. If that opponent failed to reach the semifinals, the defeated wrestler was eliminated. An early loss could therefore end a wrestler’s tournament without a chance to wrestle back.

The Southern Section led with 22 medalists and five individual state champions. Central Coast and San Diego followed with 13 medalists each; Central and Sac-Joaquin each produced 11. Northern had five and North Coast three, while Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco had no medalists or champions.

Southern’s 22 medalists represented approximately 28.2% of the 78 available medal positions. Its five champions accounted for 38.5% of the 13 individual titles.

Monte Vista of the San Diego Section won the team championship with 41 points, followed by Clovis of the Central Section with 38 and Miraleste of the Southern Section with 33.5. Miraleste produced two individual champions but finished third as a team, while Monte Vista won the team title without an individual champion. In total, 64 schools produced at least one medalist.

1993: More bracket positions, more medalists

By 1993, each weight class featured a 32-man bracket, up from 24 in 1973—a 33.3% increase in bracket positions per weight class. The tournament also awarded medals to the top eight finishers in each of 13 weight classes, increasing the total to 104 medalists, up from 78.

Beginning in 1990, CIF had also replaced the carry format with a true third consolation bracket, changing the paths wrestlers could take after a loss and influencing placement and team scoring.

The Southern Section again led, with 38 medalists and eight individual champions. Sac-Joaquin followed with 18 medalists; San Diego and Central produced 14 each; Central Coast had 10, North Coast nine, and Northern one. Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco again had no medalists or individual champions.

Southern’s 38 medalists represented approximately 36.5% of the 104 available medal positions, while its eight champions accounted for 61.5% of the 13 titles. Calvary Chapel of the Southern Section won the team championship with 79 points, followed by Ponderosa of the Sac-Joaquin Section with 72 and Clovis with 65. A total of 78 schools produced at least one medalist.

What changed in 20 years?

Measure	1973	1993
Weight classes	13	13
Placers per weight class	6	8
Total medalists	78	104
Medal-producing schools	64	78
Southern Section medalists	22	38
Southern Section champions	5	8

The number of medal-producing schools rose from 64 to 78, an increase of approximately 21.9%. Available medal positions increased by 33.3%. The average number of medalists per medal-producing school rose from approximately 1.22 to 1.33.

Southern’s share of all medalists increased from 28.2% to 36.5%, while its share of individual champions rose from 38.5% to 61.5%. Other sections experienced different outcomes: Sac-Joaquin increased from 11 medals to 18, North Coast from three to nine, and Central from 11 to 14. San Diego moved from 13 to 14, while Central Coast declined from 13 to 10 and Northern from five to one.

These results show that the distribution of state recognition changed, but they do not explain why. Participation, coaching, program development, school representation, competitive depth, and tournament rules may all have contributed. The comparison spans different competitive eras and multiple format changes, so the results cannot be attributed solely to the increase from six to eight medalists.

The historical lesson is not that multiple divisions would automatically distribute recognition more evenly. It is that California has adjusted its championship structure before—and that the effects of further changes deserve careful evaluation.

SECTION MEDAL HISTORY: FIVE DECADES OF CHANGE

The supplied historical data record approximately 5,306 CIF State Wrestling Championship medals across the ten sections from 1973 through 2026. Cumulative totals show the Southern Section’s long-term lead, while decade-by-decade results reveal a shift in competitive strength.

CIF State Wrestling Championships: Cumulative Section Medal Summary, 1973–2026

RANK	CIF SECTIONS	CUMULATIVE MEDALS
1	Southern	1,594 [30%]
2	Central	1,214 [23%]
3	Sac-Joaquin	881 [17%]
4	Central Coast	526 [10%]
5	San Diego	513 [10%]
6	North Coast	376 [7%]
7	Northern	161 [3%]
8	Los Angeles City	27 [<1%]
9	Oakland City	12 [<1%]
10	San Francisco City	2 [<1%]
	Total	5,306

Totals are based on the supplied historical data and are approximate. TRAC’s 505 medals are included in the Central Section total, not counted separately. Six wrestlers per weight class earned medals from 1973 through 1989; beginning in 1990, eight did. The 2021 championships were canceled because of COVID-19, so the 2020–2026 period includes fewer championships than a normal seven-year span. These differences should be considered when comparing eras.

The Southern Section remains the cumulative leader, with its strongest supplied decade in the 1990s, when it earned 339 medals. Its totals declined to 310 in the 2000s and 299 in the 2010s.

The Central Section’s trajectory moved in the opposite direction. Its medal production grew from 82 in 1973–1979 and 123 in the 1980s to 264 in the 2000s and a peak of 344 in the 2010s. During that decade, Central outproduced Southern, 344 medals to 299—a significant shift in the state’s competitive balance.

Sac-Joaquin peaked at 244 medals in the 2000s before falling to 180 in the 2010s and a reported 87 in 2020–2026. Central Coast peaked at 119 in the 1990s and declined to 77 in the 2010s. North Coast peaked at 92 in the 2000s before dropping to 74 in the 2010s. San Diego remained comparatively steady from the 1990s through the 2010s, recording between 95 and 106 medals per decade. Northern rose from 14 medals in 1973–1979 to a peak of 47 in the 2000s, then fell to 40 in the 2010s.

Section totals can also conceal the influence of a small number of powerhouse programs. The Tri-Rivers Athletic Conference—Buchanan, Clovis, Clovis East, Clovis North, and Clovis West—accounts for a reported 505 medals since 1973, including 166 in the 2010s. Gilroy’s 108 medals represent approximately 21% of the Central Coast Section’s cumulative total, while Poway’s 197 account for about 38% of San Diego’s total.

The city sections have had far less representation on the state podium. Los Angeles City has 27 cumulative medals, Oakland City 12, and San Francisco City two recorded medals: Mike Delgado in 1979 and Terrance Carter in 1998. Those totals reflect historical podium representation, not the full quality or potential of individual wrestlers. Participation, resources, program continuity, and athlete development would need further examination to explain the differences.

The figures reinforce two points: competitive strength changes over time, and state recognition has been concentrated unevenly across sections and, within some sections, among a small number of schools. That does not prove that multiple divisions would be fairer. It does support modeling alternative formats to examine their potential effects on competitive balance, geographic representation, and postseason opportunity.

THE 448 WHO LEAVE WITHOUT A MEDAL

Of the 560 wrestlers who competed at the 2024 state tournament, 112 earned medals. The other 448 finished outside the top eight. In other words, 80% of state qualifiers left without a medal.

I believe this group includes a substantial number of athletes capable of competing successfully in college. My personal estimate is that potentially close to half could merit serious recruiting consideration, but that estimate has not been established through a systematic evaluation and should not be treated as a verified statistic. Recruiting consideration also does not guarantee an offer or collegiate success.

These wrestlers have already survived a demanding qualification process. Many have strong records, have defeated accomplished opponents, and have competed in some of the nation’s deepest weight classes. Yet a state medal can become a disproportionately influential credential when college coaches evaluate prospects.

A wrestler may miss the podium by one match, face a returning state placer early, or be eliminated in a deep sectional bracket despite a strong statewide ranking. None of these circumstances guarantees collegiate potential, but they demonstrate why tournament placement alone should not define an athlete’s prospects.

The concern extends beyond the 448 non-medaling qualifiers. Wrestlers who fail to qualify for state but have performed well against highly ranked opponents may also deserve greater visibility.

California should encourage college coaches to evaluate the complete competitive record of each prospect. It should also examine whether another championship structure could provide more athletes with a meaningful statewide platform on which to demonstrate their abilities.

OTHER WRESTLING POWER STATES OFFER A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

One argument against reform is that a single-class tournament identifies the best wrestler in the state. Supporters worry that multiple divisions could dilute the championship or diminish the value of a state title. Those concerns deserve consideration, but they should not end the discussion.

Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, Illinois, and Oklahoma have maintained strong wrestling traditions while using multiple classifications or divisions. Their experiences challenge the assumption that a single classification is necessary to preserve elite competition.

A divisional champion does not automatically possess the same ability as a champion from another division. But divisions are not designed to establish that every champion is equal. They provide additional postseason pathways while athletes continue to test themselves through dual meets, invitationals, national tournaments, head-to-head competition, and college wrestling.

I have seen California wrestlers defeat state medalists from states using multiple divisions. In some instances, those out-of-state medalists appeared to attract more recruiting attention than the California wrestlers who defeated them. These observations do not establish that tournament structure caused the difference; recruiting depends on exposure, academic qualifications, coaching relationships, schedules, and roster needs.

Still, they raise a legitimate question: Could California’s single-class qualification system leave some deserving athletes with fewer visible credentials than comparable wrestlers elsewhere?

The supplied 2025–26 National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) participation data and comparison of state championship structures offer additional context. Among the 33 state and district jurisdictions examined, 28—or 87.5%—were identified as using multiple classes or divisions, while four used a single-class system. Four-class formats were the most common, used by 11 states. Eight used three classes, four used two, three used five, and two used six.

This comparison does not establish which system would be best for California. State populations, school classifications, participation levels, and tournament procedures differ, and the underlying definitions must be consistent for the comparison to be meaningful. Nevertheless, the prevalence of multiple classifications is a reason to examine why these systems are widely used and whether their advantages could apply to California.

IDAHO HAS CHANGED MY PERSPECTIVE

Observing Idaho’s four-division state tournament, which includes a girls’ championship, has significantly influenced my perspective. According to the supplied 2025–26 NFHS estimates, Idaho had 111 wrestling programs and 2,846 participants. Its smaller wrestling population is divided among four competitive classifications, giving athletes opportunities to pursue state championships and medals within their respective divisions.

Some Idaho champions and medalists have demonstrated the ability to challenge accomplished California wrestlers. I have also observed Idaho wrestlers receive college offers after earning state medals and establishing themselves through competition.

Just as striking is the enthusiasm with which schools across Idaho’s divisions celebrate their wrestlers. Those celebrations reflect what a state title or medal means to athletes, families, coaches, and communities—not simply a school’s enrollment or whether a wrestler could place at California’s premier championship.

Would every Idaho division champion or medalist place at the CIF State Championships? Certainly not. But that misses the point. Additional classifications are not intended to suggest that all wrestlers are equally skilled. They recognize achievement within an appropriate competitive environment and allow more athletes to experience the rewards of championship competition.

A state medal does not guarantee a scholarship or college roster spot. It can, however, be a meaningful milestone in an athlete’s development and provide a tangible accomplishment to build upon.

Idaho has not proved that California should adopt the same system. It has shown me that a multi-division championship can create pride, recognition, and competitive opportunity without eliminating the pursuit of excellence.

COLLEGE COMMITMENTS: A CLOSER LOOK

The 2026 college commitment figures I compiled provide another perspective on California and Idaho.

According to Cal Grappler, California reported 85 high school wrestlers with verbal or signed college commitments for 2026. Of those, 45—approximately 53%—committed to out-of-state colleges. The reported commitments included 40 NCAA Division I, 24 Division II, four Division III, 13 NAIA, two NJCAA, and two 3C2A wrestlers. The 3C2A figure is underreported, and additional commitments may emerge.

Idaho reported 45 commitments across six collegiate categories: five NCAA Division I, four Division II, one Division III, 16 NAIA, 11 NJCAA, and eight NCWA. Idaho also produced 22 NCAA Division I commitments during the 2023 and 2024 seasons combined.

California’s 85 reported commitments equal approximately 0.3% of its estimated 27,452 high school participants. Idaho’s 45 equal approximately 1.6% of its estimated 2,846 participants. Based on those figures, Idaho’s commitment-to-participation ratio is roughly five times California’s.

These are descriptive comparisons, not true college-placement rates. Participation figures include wrestlers across multiple grade levels, while commitments reflect a particular recruiting cohort. The totals are approximate, were compiled from available sources, and may not capture every athlete. The states also differ in program availability, recruiting opportunities, competition structures, and reporting completeness.

Most importantly, these figures do not establish that Idaho’s four-division system causes a higher commitment rate.

California’s 40 NCAA Division I commitments demonstrate that the state continues to produce significant elite talent. But Division I represents only one segment of collegiate wrestling. Division II, Division III, NAIA, NJCAA, NCWA, and California’s community college system also provide opportunities for athletes to continue competing.

The broader question is whether California can combine its elite championship tradition with additional pathways to statewide recognition—and whether those pathways might help coaches identify talent that otherwise receives less attention.

WHAT ABOUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF WRESTLERS?

California should continue developing elite wrestlers capable of winning CIF State titles, earning national recognition, and competing at the highest levels of college wrestling. But what about the much larger majority who will never compete at the NCAA Division I level—or who may not pursue college wrestling at all?

Their experiences matter, too. They invest countless hours in practice, compete through demanding seasons, contribute to their teams, and represent their schools and communities. They deserve meaningful goals, opportunities for postseason success, and reasons to take pride in their accomplishments.

No format can guarantee that every athlete will become a state medalist. But the championship structure determines how many athletes have a realistic opportunity to compete for that distinction.

High school wrestling offers far more than a pathway to college. It develops discipline, resilience, confidence, sportsmanship, and lifelong connections. Recognizing achievement at multiple competitive levels could give more athletes meaningful goals and reasons to remain engaged in the sport.

The objective should not be to award more medals simply for the sake of doing so. It should be to determine whether California can broaden championship opportunities while preserving rigorous competition and the significance of its premier state title.

ATTENDANCE AND THE CHAMPIONSHIP EXPERIENCE

Attendance and fan engagement also deserve consideration. In my observations, the stands at the CIF State Wrestling Championships have not always been particularly full on the opening day. By contrast, I have observed strong attendance throughout Idaho’s four-division tournament.

These are personal observations, not verified attendance comparisons. Venue capacity, scheduling, ticketing, geography, and tournament logistics may influence the differences. Still, the contrast raises a reasonable question: Could California create a more engaging championship experience by giving more athletes, families, and communities a direct stake in the event?

A two- or three-division format could bring additional athletes and communities into the state championship experience. That could affect ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, parking, and sponsorship interest. It could also increase operating costs and create new demands for venue capacity, staffing, officiating, travel, and scheduling.

These are potential outcomes rather than assured financial benefits. A comprehensive CIF review of attendance by session, ticket revenue, operating expenses, and projected participation under alternative championship formats would provide a clearer basis for evaluating their respective financial and practical implications.

The quality of the finalists matters. So does the event’s ability to engage the broader wrestling community.

A REFORM PROPOSAL: COMPARE REALISTIC OPTIONS

I am not advocating that California automatically adopt Idaho’s four-division format. California’s participation base, geography, and competitive structure are different. Nor am I arguing that multiple divisions are inherently superior to a single-class championship.

I encourage consideration that the CIF conduct a comprehensive, objective study comparing three realistic approaches:

1. Retain the current single-class format. Evaluate whether the existing qualification process and 40-wrestler brackets remain the best way to identify the state’s elite wrestlers and provide fair access across all sections.

2. Expand the single-class bracket. Study a 64-wrestler bracket at each weight, including how additional qualification places would be allocated, how sectional disparities would be addressed, and what the expansion would mean for scheduling, venue capacity, cost, and tournament duration.

3. Model two- and three-division state championships. Develop classification scenarios that consider enrollment, wrestling participation, competitive results, program strength, and geography. Use results from prior seasons to examine how each model would distribute highly ranked wrestlers, returning state placers, established programs, and postseason opportunities.

The study should not assume that enrollment alone determines competitive strength. Some smaller schools have outstanding programs, while some larger schools are still developing. Classification criteria must reflect the realities of wrestling, remain understandable to schools and families, and include a fair process for movement between divisions.

The evaluation should answer specific questions:

• Competitive balance: How would each format distribute top-ranked wrestlers, returning state placers, and established programs?
• Access and qualification: How many additional athletes and schools would gain a meaningful opportunity to compete at the state level? Would sectional qualification disparities be reduced?
• Recognition and recruiting: Would additional championship pathways help deserving athletes demonstrate their abilities, without overstating any connection between medals and college placement?
• Geographic representation: How would each model affect California’s sections and regions?
• Prestige and elite competition: Could California preserve a premier championship pathway and provide additional opportunities without undermining the value of its top title?
• Logistics and economics: What would each option require in venue capacity, staffing, officiating, travel, scheduling, ticket revenue, and operating costs?
• Long-term participation: Could a different structure strengthen school programs, community engagement, and athletes’ continued involvement in wrestling?

The study should also compare the models against clearly stated criteria, publish its assumptions and findings, and invite input from coaches, athletic directors, athletes, officials, families, and wrestling organizations throughout the state.

A 64-wrestler bracket and multiple divisions are not mutually exclusive. The CIF should evaluate whether a larger single-class bracket, a two-division model, a three-division model, or another carefully designed approach offers the strongest overall balance of competitive quality, access, cost, and practicality.

If a single-class championship remains the best option after that analysis, the conclusion will carry greater credibility. If an alternative offers meaningful advantages, CIF should be prepared to consider it.

PRESERVING PRESTIGE REQUIRES OPEN-MINDEDNESS

I understand why many coaches, former wrestlers, and supporters are reluctant to change. Winning a CIF state title is one of the most difficult accomplishments in high school wrestling. The single-class tournament has a distinguished tradition, and its champions have earned their recognition.

But reevaluating a tradition does not disrespect it.

The prestige of a championship comes from the quality of the competition, the preparation required to succeed, the commitment of the athletes, and the significance of the achievement—not solely from the number of divisions. California’s premier wrestlers could continue to establish themselves nationally through major invitationals, national tournaments, rankings, and competition against accomplished opponents.

No championship structure guarantees more college placements, and a medal alone does not establish collegiate potential. Restructuring CIF would not restore the more than 100 college wrestling programs California has lost across NCAA Division I, Division II, Division III, NAIA, and 3C2A levels since the 1970s, nor would it create additional college roster positions.

The reinstatement of wrestling at Imperial Valley College and College of the Redwoods, along with the new program at Mission College, represents encouraging progress. But those developments do not reverse decades of program closures or restore the collegiate opportunities available to previous generations.

A thoughtfully designed high school championship structure cannot solve every challenge facing the sport. It can, however, be evaluated for its potential to recognize more athletes, create meaningful postseason goals, and help the wrestling community see beyond the familiar names and podium finishes.

California does not need to abandon its tradition to ask whether it can do better. It needs to be willing to examine the evidence.

THE FIRST STEP: AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF CALIFORNIA’S FORMAT

California has approximately 27,452 high school wrestlers across 909 programs. At the 2024 CIF State Championships, 560 wrestlers competed and 112 earned medals, representing approximately 50 schools. Historical comparisons of the 1973 and 1993 tournaments demonstrate that California has expanded bracket sizes and medal opportunities before, while cumulative section results reveal significant changes in the distribution of state-level success.

These figures do not establish that two or three divisions would be the best solution for California. Neither do Idaho’s experience, other states’ classification systems, nor college commitment data prove that multiple divisions would produce better outcomes. Rather, they provide a compelling basis for further examination.

For years, I believed a single-class tournament was the only appropriate way to crown a California state champion. My perspective has evolved—not because I value that tradition any less, but because I believe a strong tradition should be confident enough to withstand an honest examination. California should not have to choose between competitive excellence and meaningful opportunity without first determining whether that trade-off is necessary.

I encourage the CIF to commission an independent, comprehensive, evidence-based study comparing three realistic approaches: retaining the current single-class championship, expanding to a 64-wrestler bracket, and implementing two- or three-division formats. The study should evaluate competitive balance, qualification opportunities, geographic representation, recruiting visibility, financial implications, and logistical feasibility. It should also consider how each option might affect participation, program development, and the long-term growth of wrestling. Its methodology, assumptions, and findings should be made publicly available, with meaningful input from coaches, athletic directors, athletes, officials, families, and wrestling organizations throughout California.

This should not be a study designed to justify a predetermined change or defend the status quo. Each option deserves a fair and impartial evaluation. If the evidence supports retaining the single-class format, the findings would provide a stronger foundation for preserving that tradition. If an expanded bracket or multiple divisions offer meaningful advantages, those alternatives should receive thoughtful consideration.

Equally important is the broader responsibility to grow high school wrestling. Because only a small percentage of high school wrestlers continue competing at the collegiate level and beyond, the sport’s long-term success depends on creating meaningful experiences that encourage more students to participate, remain involved, and develop a lifelong connection to wrestling. It also depends on cultivating the next generation of coaches, mentors, officials, and advocates who will help sustain and strengthen the sport for years to come.

After more than five decades, California has an opportunity to examine its championship structure, explore potential improvements, and ensure that future decisions reflect the best interests of its student-athletes and the sport itself. The time has come to move beyond assumptions, evaluate the evidence, and give every realistic option a fair hearing.

One state. More than 27,000 wrestlers. A tradition worth honoring. A future worth investing in.

THE INAUGURAL 1973 CIF STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS: BY THE NUMBERS

TOP 6 TEAM SCORES

1. Monte Vista (SD): 41.0 pts. [5 medalists/2 finalists/no champions]
2. Clovis (CS): 38.0 [3 medalists/1 finalist/no champions]
3. Miraleste (S) 33.5 [2 medalists/2 State Champions]
4. Oak Grove (CC): 29.0 [2 medalists/2 finalists/1 state Champion]
5. Bolsa Grande (S): 26.5 [2 medalists/1 Champion]
6. Mt. Miguel (SD): 26.0 [1 medalist/1 finalist]

STATE MEDALISTS BY CIF SECTIONS [13 weights/Top 6 = 78 Placers total]

1. Southern (S): 22 [28.2%]
2. Central Coast (CC): 13 [16.6%]
3. San Diego (SD): 13 [16.6%]
4. Central (CS): 11 [14%]
5. Sac-Joaquin (SJ): 11 [14%]
6. Northern (N): 5 [6.4%]
7. North Coast (NC): 3 [3.8%]
8. Los Angeles (LA): 0 [0%]
9. Oakland (O): 0 [0%]
10. San Francisco (SF): 0 [0%]

NOTE: 64 Schools produced 1 or more medals at the 1973 CIF State Championships.

INDIVIDUAL CIF STATE CHAMPIONS BY CIF SECTIONS [13 total]

1. Southern (S): 5 [38.5%]
2. Central (CS): 3 [23.1%]
3. San Diego (SD): 2 [15.4%
4. Central Coast (CC): 1 [7.7%]
5. Sac-Joaquin (SJ): 1 [7.7%]
6. Northern (N): 1 [7.7%]
7. North Coast (NC): 0 [0%]
8. Los Angeles (LA): 0 [0%]
9. Oakland (O): 0 [0%]
10. San Francisco (SF): 0 [0%]

1993 CIF STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS BY THE NUMBERS

TOP 8 TEAM SCORES

1. Calvary Chapel (S): 79.0 [4 medalists/2 finalists/1 State Champion]
2. Ponderosa (SJ): 72.0 [4 medalists/No State Champions]
3. Clovis (CS): 65.0 [3 medalists/1 State Champion]
4. College Park (NC): 56.0 [2 medalists/1 State Champion]
5. Schurr (S): 55.0 [2 state champions]
6. Madera (CS): 52.0 [2 medalists/1 finalist]
7. Gilroy (CC): 47.0 [3 medalists]
8. Hughson (SJ): 45.0 [2 medalists]

CIF STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS – MEDALS BY CIF SECTIONS [13 weight groups / top 8 = 104 medalists]

1. Southern (S): 38 [36.5%]
2. Sac-Joaquin (SJ): 18 [17.3%]
3. San Diego (SD): 14 [13.5%]
4. Central (CS): 14 [13.5%]
5. Central Coast (CC): 10 [9.6%]
6. North Coast (NC): 9 [8.7%]
7. Northern (N): 1 [~1%]
8. Los Angeles (LA): 0 [0%]
9. Oakland (O): 0 [0%]
10. San Francisco (SF): 0 [0%]

INDIVIDUAL STATE CHAMPIONS BY CIF SECTIONS [13 total]

1. Southern (S): 8 [61.5%]
2. Central Coast (CC): 2 [15.4%]
3. Central (CS): 2 [15.4%]
4. North Coast (NC): 1 [7.7%]
5. San Diego (SD): 0 [0%]
6. Sac-Joaquin (SJ): 0 [0%]
7. Northern (N): 0 [0%]
8. Los Angeles (LA): 0 [0%]
9. Oakland (O): 0 [0%]
10. San Francisco (SF): 0 [0%]

NOTE: At the 1993 CIF State Wrestling Championships, 78 schools produced one or more state medalists [Top 8].

2024 CIF STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS: THE NUMBERS TELL THE STORY

CIF STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS BY THE NUMBERS

• 909 Schools represented according to CIF Census [League Tournaments]
• 699 Schools represented at CIF Masters Meets – 10 CIF Sections [77%]
• 235 Schools represented at CIF State [26%]

TOP 8 TEAM SCORES

1. Poway [SD]: 290.5 pts. [12 Placers | 3 Champions]*
2. Buchanan[CS]: 255.0 [12 Placers | 1 Champion]
3. Gilroy [CC] 206.0 [7 Placers | 3 Champions]
4. St. John Bosco [S]: 186.0 [7 Placers | 1 Champion]
5. Clovis [CS]: 144.0 [6 Placers | 1 Champion]
6. Bakersfield [CS]: 124.0 [6 Placers | 0 Champions]
7. Palm Desert [S]: 112.5 [5 Placers | 1 Champion]
8. Granite Hills [SD]: 100.5 [2 Placers | 1 Champion]

*STATE SCORING RECORD.

NUMBER OF WRESTLERS REPRESENTED PER CIF SECTIONS IN QUARTERS [50 Schools | 5.5%]

• Central (CS): 35 [Clovis North, Frontier, Buchanan, Clovis, Central, Clovis West, Monache, Bakersfield, Kingsburg, Exeter, El Diamante, Tulare Union]
• Southern (S): 35 [Camarillo, Fountain Valley, Chino, SJB, Canyon Springs, Walnut, Valencia, El Dorado, Camarillo, Etiwanda, Palm Desert, Chaminade, E. Roosevelt, Calvary Chapel, JW North, Temecula Valley]
• Sac-Joaquin (SJ): 15 [Merced, Laguna Creek, Folsom, Elk Grove, Los Banos, St. Marys, Central Catholic, Del Oro, Whitney, Pitman, Vacaville, Granite Bay, Oakdale, Armijo]
• San Diego (SD): 13 [Poway, Granite Hills, Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo]
• Central Coast (CC): 10 [Palma, Gilroy, Los Gatos]
• Northern (N): 2 [Anderson, Chico]
• North Coast (NC): 1 [Castro Valley, Liberty]
• Los Angeles City (LA): 1 [Birmingham Charter]

NUMBER OF WRESTLERS REPRESENTED PER CIF SECTIONS IN SEMIS [24 schools | 2.6%]

• Southern: 16 [SJB, Walnut, El Dorado, Palm Desert, Etiwanda, Canyon Springs, JW North, Fountain Valley]
• Central: 15 [Clovis, Clovis West, Clovis North, Buchanan, Bakersfield, El Diamante]
• San Diego: 12 [Poway, Granite Hills]
• Central Coast: 8 [Palma, Gilroy, Los Gatos]
• Sac-Joaquin: 4 [Central Catholic, Pitman, Vacaville, Los Banos]
• Los Angeles City: 1 [Birmingham]

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS REPRESENTED IN CHAMPIONSHIP FINALS [14 schools | 1.5%]

• Central (CS): Buchanan (2) | Clovis (1) | Clovis West (1)
• Southern (S): St. John Bosco (5) | Palm Desert (2) | Canyon Springs (1) | JW North (1) | Walnut (1)
• San Diego (SD): Poway (7) | Granite Hills (1) |
• Central Coast (CC): Gilroy (3)
• Sac-Joaquin (SJ): Los Banos (1) | Pitman (1)
• Los Angeles City: Birmingham [1]

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS REPRESENTED ON STATE MEDAL PODIUM – 14 WEIGHT GROUPS | TOP 8 [50 schools | 5.5%]

1. Poway [SD]: 12 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,000 – 2,200
2. Buchanan [CS]: 12 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,500
3. Gilroy [CC]: 7 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,618
4. St. John Bosco [S]: 7 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 800-850
5. Clovis [CS]: 6 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,750
6. Bakersfield [CS]: 6 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,990 – 3,069
7. Palm Desert [S]: 5 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment 2,107
8. Fountain Valley [S]: 4 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment 3,059
9. Chaminade [S]: 3 [previous medal(s) earned in 2022] | Enrollment – 1,246 – 1,272
10. Canyon Springs [S]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] Enrollment – 2,213
11. Clovis West [CS]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2022] | Enrollment – 2,210
12. Del Oro [SJ]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,636
13. Granite Hills [SD]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,412
14. Los Gatos [CC]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment 1,862 – 1,914
15. Merced [SJ]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2009] | Enrollment – 1,975
16. Pitman [SJ]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,968 – 1,986
17. Vacaville [SJ]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,016
18. Walnut [S]: 2 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,138
19. Armijo [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 1984] | Enrollment – 1,747 – 1,844
20. Birmingham [LA]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2019] | Enrollment – 3,259
21. Calaveras [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2020] | Enrollment – 667 – 712
22. Camarillo [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,061
23. Central Catholic [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2022] | Enrollment 366 – 422
24. Chico [N]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2014] | Enrollment – 1,786
25. Chino [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 1999] | Enrollment – 2,224
26. Clovis North [CS]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,360 – 2,380
27. El Diamante [CS]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2008] | Enrollment – 1,822 – 1,890
28. El Dorado-Placentia [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,054
29. Eleanor Roosevelt [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2020] | Enrollment – 4,417
30. Elk Grove [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,684 – 1,781
31. Etiwanda [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 1994] | Enrollment – 3,450
32. Exeter Union [CS]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 916
33. Frontier-Bakersfield [CS]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,098
34. Granite Bay [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2017] | Enrollment – 2,064
35. Hesperia [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,494
36. JW North [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,989
37. Kingsburg [CS]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2020] | Enrollment – 1,109
38. Laguna Creek [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 2,252
39. Liberty-Brentwood [NC]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment 2,836
40. Los Banos [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2000] | Enrollment – 1,568
41. Maria Carillo [NC]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2000] | Enrollment – 1,582 – 1,584
42. Monache [CS]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,855 – 1,862
43. Northview [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,236 – 1,247
44. Oakdale [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,563 – 1574
45. Palma [CC]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2022] | Enrollment – 479 – 547
46. Temecula Valley [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2022] | Enrollment – 2,700 – 2,740
47. Tulare Union [CS]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2023] | Enrollment – 1,626
48. Turlock [SJ]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2020] Enrollment – 2,497
49. Villa Park [S]: 1 [previous medal(s) earned in 2020] | Enrollment 2,049
50. Whitney [SJ]: 1 *FIRST MEDAL EARNED IN SCHOOL’S HISTORY | Enrollment – 2,041 – 2,080

NOTE: The CIF State medal stand reflects both sustained program success and the challenges of returning to the podium. Among the schools represented on the medal stand, the average gap between a school’s most recent state medal and its preceding medal-winning achievement was approximately 5.1 years. Overall, 50 schools earned at least one CIF State medal, representing approximately 6% of California’s high schools. These figures illustrate the limited number of programs that have produced state medalists and the varying frequency with which schools have returned to the state podium.

CIF STATE DECADE-BY-DECADE MEDAL PERFORMANCES BY CIF SECTIONS [TRAC LEAGUE INCLUSIVE]

SOUTHERN (S) Total Medals: 1,594 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 154 (total) | Low medal Count: 20 | High Medal Count: 26 | Average: 22
• 1980-’89: 276 (total) | Low medal Count: 23| High Medal Count: 33 | Average: 27.6
• 1990-’99: 339 (total) | Low medal Count: 28| High Medal Count: 42| Average: 33.9
• 2000-’09: 310 (total) | Low medal Count: 27| High Medal Count: 35 | Average: 31
• 2010-’19: 299 (total) | Low medal Count: 28| High Medal Count: 34 | Average: 29.9
• 2020-’26: 216 (total)* | Low medal Count: 33| High Medal Count: 39 | Average: 21

CENTRAL (CS) Total Medals: 1,214 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 82 (total) | Low medal Count: 10| High Medal Count: 14 | Average: 11.7
• 1980-’89: 123 (total) | Low medal Count: 7| High Medal Count: 21 | Average: 12.3
• 1990-’99: 201 (total) | Low medal Count: 12| High Medal Count: 27 | Average: 20.1
• 2000-’09: 264 (total) | Low medal Count: 20| High Medal Count: 36 | Average: 23.5
• 2010-’19: 344 (total) | Low medal Count: 29| High Medal Count: 40 | Average: 34.4
• 2020-’26: 200 (total)* | Low medal Count: 29| High Medal Count: 40 | Average: 33.3

TRAC LEAGUE (CS) Total Medals: 505 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 18 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 4 | Average: 2.3
• 1980-’89: 35 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 8| Average: 3.5
• 1990-’99: 56 (total) | Low medal Count: 3| High Medal Count: 11 | Average: 5.6
• 2000-’09: 96 (total) | Low medal Count: 6| High Medal Count: 15| Average: 9.6
• 2010-’19: 166 (total) | Low medal Count: 11| High Medal Count: 21 | Average: 16.6
• 2020-’26: 134 (total)* | Low medal Count: 19| High Medal Count: 25 | Average: 13.4

NOTE: TRI-RIVERS ATHLETIC CONFERENCE (TRAC): The Tri-Rivers Athletic Conference (TRAC) includes six high schools: Buchanan, Central (Fresno), Clovis, Clovis East, Clovis North, and Clovis West. These Central California programs represent the conference in interscholastic athletics and contribute to the region’s competitive high school wrestling landscape.

SAC-JOAQUIN (SJ) Total Medals: 881 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 95 (total) | Low medal Count: 11| High Medal Count: 15| Average: 13.6
• 1980-’89: 96 (total) | Low medal Count: 3| High Medal Count: 18 | Average: 9.6
• 1990-’99: 199 (total) | Low medal Count: 11| High Medal Count: 31 | Average: 19.9
• 2000-’09: 244 (total) | Low medal Count: 15| High Medal Count: 27 | Average: 24.4
• 2010-’19: 180 (total) | Low medal Count: 14| High Medal Count: 20 | Average: 18
• 2020-’26: 87 (total)* | Low medal Count: 12| High Medal Count: 20 | Average: 14.5

CENTRAL COAST (CC) Total Medals: 526 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 90 (total) | Low medal Count: 10| High Medal Count: 15 | Average: 12.9
• 1980-’89: 101 (total) | Low medal Count: 7| High Medal Count: 13 | Average: 10.1
• 1990-’99: 119 (total) | Low medal Count: 8| High Medal Count: 16 | Average: 11.9
• 2000-’09: 80 (total) | Low medal Count: 4| High Medal Count: 12 | Average: 8
• 2010-’19: 77 (total) | Low medal Count: 6| High Medal Count: 10 | Average: 7.7
• 2020-’26: 59 (total)* | Low medal Count: 5| High Medal Count: 12 | Average: 9.8

NOTE: GILROY HIGH SCHOOL (CC) — Since the CIF State Wrestling Championships began in 1973, Gilroy High School has earned 108 state medals, accounting for approximately 21% of the Central Coast Section’s (CCS) total medal count. The program’s impact has been particularly significant from 2006 through 2026, when Gilroy captured 83 medals, representing 49% of all CCS medals earned during that period. These figures underscore Gilroy’s sustained excellence and dominant contribution to the section’s state championship success, particularly over the past two decades.

SAN DIEGO (SD) Total Medals: 513 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 51 (total) | Low medal Count: 4| High Medal Count: 13 | Average: 7.3
• 1980-’89: 85 (total) | Low medal Count: 4| High Medal Count: 13 | Average: 8.5
• 1990-’99: 106 (total) | Low medal Count: 7| High Medal Count: 13 | Average: 10.6
• 2000-’09: 100 (total) | Low medal Count: 7| High Medal Count: 14 | Average: 10
• 2010-’19: 95 (total) | Low medal Count: 6| High Medal Count: 13 | Average: 9.5

2020-’26: 76 (total)* | Low medal Count: 10| High Medal Count: 14 | Average: 12.6

NOTE: Since the CIF State Wrestling Championships began in 1973, Poway High School (San Diego Section) has earned 197 state medals, accounting for approximately 38% of the section’s all-time medal total. Poway’s dominance has been even more pronounced in recent years. Since 2015, the program has captured 90 state medals, representing 69% of all medals earned by San Diego Section wrestlers during that period. These figures underscore Poway’s sustained excellence and its substantial contribution to the section’s overall success at the state championships.

NORTH COAST (NC) Total Medals: 376 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 51 (total) | Low medal Count: 3| High Medal Count: 11 | Average: 7.3
• 1980-’89: 71 (total) | Low medal Count: 5| High Medal Count: 10 | Average: 7.1
• 1990-’99: 71 (total) | Low medal Count: 5| High Medal Count: 9 | Average: 7.1
• 2000-’09: 92 (total) | Low medal Count: 7| High Medal Count: 16 | Average: 9.2
• 2010-’19: 74 (total) | Low medal Count: 3| High Medal Count: 13 | Average: 7.4
• 2020-’26: 17 (total)* | Low medal Count: 1| High Medal Count: 5 | Average: 2.8

NORTHERN (N) Total Medals: 161 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 14 (total) | Low medal Count: 1| High Medal Count: 5 | Average: 2
• 1980-’89: 22 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 4 | Average: 2.2
• 1990-’99: 31 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 8 | Average: 3.1
• 2000-’09: 47 (total) | Low medal Count: 2| High Medal Count: 8 | Average: 4.7
• 2010-’19: 40 (total) | Low medal Count: 2| High Medal Count: 8 | Average: 4
• 2020-’26: 7 (total)* | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 2 | Average: 1.2

LOS ANGELES CITY (LA) Total Medals: 27 (Since 1973)

• 1973-‘79: 1 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 1| Average: <1
• 1980-’89: 2 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 2 | Average: <1
• 1990-’99: 1 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 1 | Average: <1
• 2000-’09: 3 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 1 | Average: <1
• 2010-’19: 11 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 4 | Average: 1.1
• 2020-’26: 9 (total)* | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 5 | Average: <1

NOTE: Since 2018, Birmingham Charter High School has captured 11 of the 12 medals earned by the Los Angeles City Section, accounting for approximately 91.7% of the section’s medals during that period. More significantly, since the CIF State Wrestling Championships began in 1973, Birmingham Charter has accounted for nearly half (48%) of all medals earned by Los Angeles City Section wrestlers. These figures underscore the program’s sustained dominance and highlight the extent to which the section’s state-level medal production has been concentrated in a single school.

OAKLAND CITY (O) Total Medals: 12 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 6 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 4 | Average: <1
• 1980-’89: 4 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 2 | Average: <1
• 1990-’99: 2 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 2 | Average: <1
• 2000-’09: 0 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0 | Average: 0
• 2010-’19: 0 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0 | Average: 0
• 2020-’26: 0 (total)* | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0 | Average: 0

NOTE: OAKLAND CITY SECTION — HISTORICAL STATE ACHIEVEMENT: At the 1976 CIF State Wrestling Championships, Oakland High School established a City Section record with three state medalists in a single tournament. Coached by legendary Hall of Fame Coach Bill Grant, Oakland finished 4th in the team standings, the highest finish by a school representing the City Sections (Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles).

The Oakland City Section’s most recent state medalists came in 1990, when two-time medalist Gerry Abas of Oakland Technical High School and Darrell Hill of McClymonds High School reached the podium. Since then, no other Oakland City Section wrestler has earned a state medal. Abas went on to achieve national collegiate success at Fresno State, earning four NCAA Division I All-American honors, including three NCAA finals appearances.

SAN FRANCISCO (SF) Total Medals: 2 (Since 1973)

• 1973-79: 1 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 1 | Average: <1
• 1980-’89: 0 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0 | Average: 0
• 1990-’99: 1 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0 | Average: <1
• 2000-’09: 0 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0 | Average: 0
• 2010-’19: 0 (total) | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0 | Average: 0
• 2020-’26: 0 (total)* | Low medal Count: 0| High Medal Count: 0| Average: 0

NOTE: The San Francisco City Section has only produced two medals at state since the inaugural state tournament in 1973. The first was in 1979 with Mike Delgado (6th at 154s) and the Terrance Carter (5th at 160s) in 1998.

*COVID [CIF State Championships cancelled]

SCHOOL AND PARTICIPATION DATA [NFHS Wrestling Participation Report – 2025-‘26]. These 33 States [District of Columbia inclusive] have less schools and participation numbers than the CIF Southern Section.

1. Alabama [189 Schools | 5,673 Participants] | Pop. 5,193,088 | Classes 1A-3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, Private [A-AA]
2. Alaska [96 Schools | 1,180 Participants] | Pop. 737,270 | Div. I [Large School]/Div. II [Small School]
3. Arizona [280 Schools | 5,764 Participants] | Pop. 7,623,818 | Divisions I, II, III, IV
4. Arkansas [81 Schools | 1,855 Participants] | Pop. 3,114,791 | Classes1A-4A, 5A, 6A
5. Colorado [241 Schools | 5,462 Participants] | Pop. 6,012,561 | Classes 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A
6. Connecticut [115 Schools | 2,775 Participants] | 3,688,496 | Classes LL, L, M, S
7. Delaware [50 Schools | 1,267 Participants] | 1,059,952 | Divisions I, II
8. District of Columbia [18 Schools | 273 Participants] | Pop. 693,645 “SINGLE CLASS”
9. Hawaii [63 Schools | 1,453 Participants] | Pop. 1,432,820 “SINGLE CLASS”
10. Idaho [111 Schools | 2,846 Participants] | Pop. 2,029,733 | Classes 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A
11. Iowa [284 Schools | 7,075 Participants] | Pop. 3,238,387 | Classes 3A, 2A, 1A
12. Kansas [234 Schools |5,116 Participants] |Pop. 2,977,220 | Classes 6A, 5A, 4A, 3-2-1A [small schools]
13. Kentucky [154 Schools | 3,784 Participants] | Pop. 4,606,864 | “SINGLE CLASS”
14. Louisiana [116 Schools | 2,912 Participants] | Pop. 4,618,789 | Divisions I, II, III
15. Maine [69 Schools | 869 Participants] | Pop. 1,414,874 | Coed Class North-A, North-B, South-A, South-B
16. Maryland [184 Schools | 5,363 Participants] | Pop. 6,265,347 | Classes 4A, 3A, 2A, 1A
17. Massachusetts [253 Schools | 4,930 Participants] | Pop. 7,154,084 | Divisions I, II, III
18. Mississippi [31 Schools | 923 Participants] | Pop. 2,954,160 | Regions 1, 2, 3, 4
19. Missouri [269 Schools | 7,970 Participants] | Pop. 6,270,541 | Classes 1, 2, 3, 4
20. Nebraska [272 Schools | 4,812 Participants] | Pop. 2,018,006 | Classes A, B, C, D
21. New Mexico [68 Schools | 1,813 Participants] | Pop. 2,125,498 | Classes A, B, C, D
22. North Dakota [108 Schools | 1,076 Participants] | Pop. 799,358 | Classes A, B
23. Oklahoma [207 Schools | 4,488 Participants] | Pop. 4,123,288 | Class 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A
24. Oregon [205 Schools | 5,428 Part.] | Pop. 4,273,586 | Classes 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A/1A
25. Rhode Island [40 Schools | 1,232 Participants] | Pop. 1,114,521 | Divisions I, II, III
26. So Carolina [165 Schools | 6,856 Participants] | Pop. 5,570,274 | Classes 5A (Div. I)/5A (Div. II), 4A, 3A, 2A/1A
27. South Dakota [115 Schools | 1,338 Participants] | Pop. 935,094 Classes A, B, C
28. Tennessee [199 Schools | 5,116 Participants] | Pop. 7,315,076 | Divisions I, II
29. Utah [120 Schools | 3,964 Participants] | Pop. 3,271,616 | Classes 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A
30. Vermont [25 Schools | 266 Participants] | Pop. 644,663 | “SINGLE CLASS”
31. Virginia [287 Schools | 7,543 Participants] | Pop. 8,880,020 | Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
32. West Virginia [110 Schools | 1,813 Participants] | Pop. 1,766,147 | Classes 4A, 3A, 2A/1A
33. Wyoming [53 Schools | 1,233 Participants] | Pop. 588,753 | Classes 4A, 3A, 2A

NOTES:

• State population figures and high school wrestling divisions/classifications are approximate 2026 estimates compiled from various publicly available internet sources. Figures may vary by source, reporting period, and classification criteria.
• CALIFORNIA POPULATION: 39,355,309 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025). GREATER LOS ANGELES REGION: Approximately 18.3–18.6 million residents, representing an estimated 46.5%–47.2% of California’s total population.
• During the 2025-26 season, the NFHS dataset listed a total of 295,259 participants in the Boys’ Division. The state of California represented 9.3% of the overall wrestler participant population.
• The CIF Southern Section has more wrestling Schools/Participants than 66% of U.S. States – 299 Schools | 10,476 [data from NFHS/2025-’26 CIF Census]. See above!

STATISTICAL DISCLAIMER: This analysis reflects the author’s personal assessment, not an official CIF evaluation or independently verified study. Data spanning the CIF State Wrestling Championships from 1973 through 2026 were compiled from multiple sources, including CIF records, NFHS participation data, published results, enrollment estimates, and publicly available college commitment information. Every effort was made to ensure accuracy and consistency. The author considers the principal statistical comparisons reliable estimates based on the available historical record; however, a formal margin of error has not been calculated. Recruiting, attendance, and other observations represent the author’s interpretations, not verified statewide findings. Figures should be viewed as informed historical comparisons rather than definitive statistical accounting.

Photo image courtesy of Tony Rotundo, Wrestlers Area Warriors.

Follow me on X @Coach_Al_1984 | on Instagram @tier_one_idaho