• Announcements

    • Y2CJ41

      Board Rules and Regulations

      If you find TheIndianaMat.com Message Boards helpful or interesting, then you know how important it is to keep the boards clean and accurate. Please only post messages that are genuine questions or attempts to share knowledge.   In order to ensure that the boards are as helpful and enjoyable as possible to as many people as possible, we have established the following rules for the boards. No message may   1. Contain, promote, or link to sexually explicit or violent material. 2. Promote, depict, or link to material that promotes or depicts discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, or age; 3. Contain unlawful material, including but not limited to materials that may violate another's intellectual property rights, or links to a site that contains such material; 4. Contain information regarding or promoting illegal activity, or linking to a site that provides such information; Contains spam, pyramid schemes, or other unrelated advertising material; or 5. Is considered by us to be obscene, excessively violent, threatening, harassing or otherwise objectionable; or Is deemed by us to be unsuitable for any other reason. 6. If we decide that a post is unacceptable, we will remove the post. Depending on the severity of the post or the past history of the user who made the post, we may rescind that user's membership. 7. Advertising for goods and services will only be allowed by our paid sponsors. 8. Topics and discussions need to be in their proper forum. Repeated failure to follow this could result in permanent restriction on posting on this forum. Since we can't have a rule to cover everything, this is the rule to, well, cover everything. This is a public board, so act like you would if you were in a public place.These issues are left to the discretion of individual moderators, but may include any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, discussion of alleged felonies and misdemeanors, misleading, spammy, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, sexist, obscene, racist, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense. Asking for or offering any of the material listed above is also out not permitted. Thank you for helping to maintain the quality of our boards.   -- The IndianaMat.com Team
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
unknown wrestler

Sectional seeding

101 posts in this topic

??????

 

The IHSAA has one goal when they use the words 'wrestling state tournament'... 14 championship metals on Saturday night at Bankers Life!

 

Football - you gotta beat the team you draw. No play your way back in.

Basketball - same.

Baseball - same.

Track & Swimming - lineup and go faster than everyone in the field at that moment.

 

In wrestling the IHSAA wants to crown the last man standing and that's all; and I agree.

 

I don't (have never) understand why we make wrestling so complicated. Tournament means we are looking for someone to rise to the top. Life doesn't always give you a fair path or an equal start to your dreams. In most cases, you fail.

 

Quit whining. Let's weigh them, line them up, and let them wrestle.

 

Saturday's should be about ONE THING - IF YOU AIN'T FIRST, YOUR LAST!@#$%^

Why do we even seed then? Why take more than one wrestler from any level? Why wrestle for placement?

 

Let's have a total of 4 wrestlers in each weight class at state and be done with it Friday night.

awood2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to be able to see the seeding criteria now, locked out on track, and just see what the seeds would be if used total head to head wins of kids in bracket. Does not change anything now, but be curious and be interesting to look at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt this the last year year of the 8-12 team sectionals?  I thought I saw a post a while back talking about the change in sectionals starting next year.

 

The head to head against the field is easy when you only have 4-6 teams in a sectional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the Coach's Association needs to bring this up with the IHSAA, and make the wording and clarification like the majority of the state had always done it. Again we are letting someone with no knowledge of our sport lay down how our sport should be ran.

unknown wrestler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the Coach's Association needs to bring this up with the IHSAA, and make the wording and clarification like the majority of the state had always done it. Again we are letting someone with no knowledge of our sport lay down how our sport should be ran.

Sounds a lot like the IHSAA, with  a bunch of former basketball coach ADs.  But who is the person or board with no knowledge of the sport that came up with this ruling or interpretation?  

awood2 and unknown wrestler like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to be able to see the seeding criteria now, locked out on track, and just see what the seeds would be if used total head to head wins of kids in bracket. Does not change anything now, but be curious and be interesting to look at. 

I posted it earlier in this post, other than changing a typo of then to and then, it is identical to the information that was on the criteria of the in question sectional site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously preaching to the choir here, but here’s what the seeding criteria says in the 2016-2017 IHSAA Winter Bulletin (listed on page 83 of the linked pdf).

 

http://www.ihsaa.org/Portals/0/ihsaa/documents/quick%20resources/Winter%20Bulletin.pdf

 

5. Coaches should strive to keep open minds when seeding assignments are being decided. The main objective of seeding is to have outstanding wrestlers separated in the brackets so that they will not meet each other until the finals. Seeding shall be based upon the wrestler's proven ability and not upon the desire for unwarranted advantage.   

 

6. Determination of seeded wrestlers is given in order of importance: a. Head to head competition; (The wrestler with the most head to head wins gets the seed. If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed.); b. Record against common opponents; c. Semi‐State quarterfinalist in IHSAA Tournament Series; d. A contestant with the best overall record (winning percentage) who has wrestled at least 10 matches; e. Farthest advancement in previous year IHSAA State Tournament Series; f. Draw by lot. Criteria is reset after determining each seed.

 

As has already been demonstrated in this thread, a strict following of Mr. Faulkens’ directions to give the #1 seed to the person with the most wins against the field can lead to results that are counter to the principle outlined in item 5. above.  

 

Hypothetically, you could have the following:

 

Wrestler A – Returning State Champ. Undefeated this year. No wins against the field.

Wrestler B – Returning State Runner-up. Undefeated this year. No wins against the field.

Wrestler C – Wasn’t on varsity last year. Has 3 wins against the field. Has a .500 record.

 

Wrestler C gets the #1 seed and Wrestlers A and B duke it out for #2 and #3, and will therefore be on the same side of the bracket.

 

I think the results would be the same even if A and B each had a win (or even 2 wins) over C, since C still would have more wins over the field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously preaching to the choir here, but here’s what the seeding criteria says in the 2016-2017 IHSAA Winter Bulletin (listed on page 83 of the linked pdf).

 

http://www.ihsaa.org/Portals/0/ihsaa/documents/quick%20resources/Winter%20Bulletin.pdf

 

5. Coaches should strive to keep open minds when seeding assignments are being decided. The main objective of seeding is to have outstanding wrestlers separated in the brackets so that they will not meet each other until the finals. Seeding shall be based upon the wrestler's proven ability and not upon the desire for unwarranted advantage.   

 

6. Determination of seeded wrestlers is given in order of importance: a. Head to head competition; (The wrestler with the most head to head wins gets the seed. If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed.); b. Record against common opponents; c. Semi‐State quarterfinalist in IHSAA Tournament Series; d. A contestant with the best overall record (winning percentage) who has wrestled at least 10 matches; e. Farthest advancement in previous year IHSAA State Tournament Series; f. Draw by lot. Criteria is reset after determining each seed.

 

As has already been demonstrated in this thread, a strict following of Mr. Faulkens’ directions to give the #1 seed to the person with the most wins against the field can lead to results that are counter to the principle outlined in item 5. above.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rule of most head to head wins vs teams in bracket makes sense if everybody played each opponent in the bracket an equal amount of times.   But in wrestling, with  so much variation in   scheduling,  lineup and weight changes,  you really don't come close to having an equivalent amount of matches.   This would make a lot of sense in a team format where you would likely have each team play each other.   Ironically,  In the team sport sectionals, they randomly draw in the teams and don't use this seeding method which they probably should.

Edited by Wrestling Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faulkens said at our meeting that the reason they don't have seeding for football, basketball, etc was "look at what happens in wrestling." 

It really is embarrassing. Why is it so hard for everyone to have verifiable data in Track or something similar? It would be so much easier to then just have automatic sectional entry forms filled out and automatic seeding done based on specific criteria without all the haggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faulkens said at our meeting that the reason they don't have seeding for football, basketball, etc was "look at what happens in wrestling." 

Oh you mean those passionate coaches that stand up and fight for the best seed for their kid? It is just horrible.  One day out of the year.  This stuff pisses me off. If we had true wrestle backs this would not be as big of a deal. But no we can't have that because the people in power like to show their power.  So if a kid gets a 4th seed when they should have been 2nd or 3rd his season can be over if the other sectional has 2 studs.  Ridiculous! But hey it is all about the kids.

Coach Masters likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faulkens said at our meeting that the reason they don't have seeding for football, basketball, etc was "look at what happens in wrestling." 

 

I'd say in wrestling that 12-13 of the 14 brackets in every sectional (sometimes all 14) generally separate the best kids.  Of course there is an occasional bracket in which this doesn't happen, but this is not the norm.  There are 448 sectional brackets and of those there are usually only a few that don't have the best kids separated.  

 

A random draw is just awful (I know most other sports always talk about seeding).  With a random draw with 8-10 teams you might be lucky to separate the best kids in 2-3 of the 14 weights.  

 

No matter what criteria is put in place, you are not going to get 100% of the brackets correct.  

 

It seems like addressing specific situations/coaches that try to take advantage of the criteria seems like a better option than abandoning seeding all together.

regionrumbler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawrence Central Sectional 120 pounds.

 

There are 5 participants among 8 teams.

 

 

Why is the 5th seed matched up in first round vs #2 seed?  It should be #4 vs #5 for a chance to move on in championship round

 

Currently #1, #3, #4 all get a forfeit.  #2 has to face a tough #5 seed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these problems discussed are symptoms of a broken system. Doesn't take a genius to see that. So instead of wrestle backs the conversation heads towards no seeding. This is a flipping joke. The Napolean syndrome in me is starting to come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say in wrestling that 12-13 of the 14 brackets in every sectional (sometimes all 14) generally separate the best kids.  Of course there is an occasional bracket in which this doesn't happen, but this is not the norm.  There are 448 sectional brackets and of those there are usually only a few that don't have the best kids separated.  

 

A random draw is just awful (I know most other sports always talk about seeding).  With a random draw with 8-10 teams you might be lucky to separate the best kids in 2-3 of the 14 weights.  

 

No matter what criteria is put in place, you are not going to get 100% of the brackets correct.  

 

It seems like addressing specific situations/coaches that try to take advantage of the criteria seems like a better option than abandoning seeding all together.

I did some numbers for the Carroll sectional last year. Of the top 4 seeds 49 of 56 qualified for regional. The others were 4- 5th seeds, and 3- 6th seeds. The seeds that did not place top 4 were 6- 4th seeds and 1- 3rd seed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who remembers this....

 

http://indianamat.com/index.php/topic/43859-seed-this/

 

#TeamBCA

#BaptistBeaters

Just like Brandon Wright getting seeded 2nd in Sectionals due to the fact that the criteria said returning Sectional Champ at the same weight trumping a lot of the criteria.  Since some of the other criteria didn't work Wright lost the seed due to being at a different weight class than the previous year.  At least that was just a rule that needed an update rather than a complete misinterpretation.  I'm glad they have since modified the criteria to consider overall state tournament advancement.  

Edited by MattM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if the entire state did them wrong....shouldnt they all need to be redone?    B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I was wondering how this turned out. I will list the seeds how they finished......

 

106 - 1,3,2,4  Minor

113 - 2,1,3,4  Minor

120 - 1,2,3,4  perfect

126 - 1,2,ns,3 Minor

132 - 3,1,4,2  Minor

138 - 1,2,3,ns  Minor

145 - 2,4,3,ns  miss

152 - 1,3,2,4  Minor

160 - 3,1,2,4  Minor

170 - 1,3,ns,2  Minor

182 - 3,1,2,4  Minor

195 - 1,2,3,4  perfect

220 - 1,ns,4,ns miss

HWT - 2,4,1,3  Minor

 

I was wondering how this compared to other sectionals so I did a small sampling. I judge them on perfect, missed, or minor. Perfect, obviously meant the seeds were all correct. Missed meant that either the 1 or 2 seed didn't place and/or there were to non-seeded wrestlers that placed. I used 4 sectionals Lafayette Jefferson, Twin Lakes, Plymouth, and Penn just because they Lafayette Jeff/Twin Lakes & Plymouth/Penn meet at Regionals.

 

            Lafayette Jefferson                   Twin Lakes                    Plymouth                     Penn                        Average            Without LJ

 

            Perfect  2                                  Perfect  3                       Perfect  2                    Perfect  5                      3                         3.3

 

            Missed  2                                  Missed  2                       Missed  1                    Missed  1                      1.5                      1.3

 

            Minor  10                                  Minor  9                          Minor  11                     Minor  8                        9.5                      9.3

 

1 (1st)       8                                              8                                      10                               11                             9.25                    9.7

2  (1st)      3                                              6                                       2                                 3                              3.5                      3.7

3 (1st)       3                                              0                                       1                                 0                              1                         0.3

4 (1st)       0                                              0                                       1                                 0                              0.25                    0.3

 

1 (2nd)     4                                              4                                        2                                 3                              3.25                    3

2 (2nd)     4                                              7                                        9                                 9                              7.25                    8.3

3 (2nd)     3                                              1                                        2                                 2                              2                         1.7

4 (2nd)     2                                              2                                        1                                 0                              1.25                    1

NS (2nd)  1                                              0                                        0                                 0                              0.25                    0

 

1 (3rd)      1                                              0                                        2                                 0                              0.75                    0.7

2 (3rd)      4                                              1                                        2                                 0                              1.75                    1

3 (3rd)      5                                              8                                        7                                 9                              7.25                    8

4 (3rd)      2                                              4                                        1                                 2                              2.25                    2.3

NS (3rd)   2                                              1                                        2                                 3                              2                         2

 

1 (4th)      0                                              0                                        0                                 0                              0                         0

2 (4th)      2                                              0                                        1                                 1                              1                         0.7

3 (4th)      2                                              1                                        3                                 1                              1.75                    1.7

4 (4th)      7                                              5                                        5                                 7                              6                         5.7

NS (4th)   3                                              8                                        5                                 5                              5.25                    6

 

Didn't place

2 - 1 seeds (1 LJ, 1 TL) 56 (1 seeds)/2 = 3.5% didn't move on

2 - 2 seeds (1 LJ, 1 PN) 56 (2 seeds)/2 = 3.5% didn't move on

8 - 3 seeds (1 LJ, 4 TL, 1 PL, 2 PN) 56 (3 seeds)/8 = 14% didn't move on

18 - 4 seeds (3 LJ, 4 TL, 6 PL, 5 PN) 56 (4 seeds)/ 18 = 32% didn't move on

 

Total seeds not placing

LJ - 6 (10.7% didn't move on)

TL - 9 (16.0% didn't move on)

PL - 7 (12.5% didn't move on)

PN - 8 (14.3% didn't move on)

Average 7.5 Without LJ average is 8

 

So, I guess at the end of the day it really didn't make much of a difference. Biggest difference was LJ had more seeded wrestlers move on, but their seeding was not as correct (mostly in 2nd/3rd seeds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0