Jump to content

Seeding Scenario: A over B, B over C, C over A


Y2CJ41

Seeding Scenario  

81 members have voted

  1. 1. A beats B once, B beats C twice, C beats A once, who gets the seed

    • A
      0
    • B
      26
    • C
      4
    • Move on to other criteria(commons or winning percentage)
      51


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, swain358 said:

B,C,A in that order. B has most wins amongst the 3. Then to figure the two seed, C has head to head criteria over A 

Why does the number of wins matter? 

This lends me to believe that teams that are not in a conference and teams that try to keep away from scheduling the same teams over and over would then be at a disadvantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going by one sectional seeding interpretetion that says most wins over sectional opponents gets the seed then swain358’s version would be correct.  Though there are flaws in that seeding interpretation which could lead to poor seeding.

If you go by a different seed interpretation a 1 win lead give you advantage over the other wrestler, but additional wins over that same opponent has not added seeding benefit.  In that case go to the next criteria to determine the seeds.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TripleB said:

B knocks out C, A over B, therefore A, B, C. Criminees I should get paid by IHSAA to seed the whole tourney. 

1 seed was already established at this weight..  This was 2, 3, and 4. .. Listen, you may be right, so I'll listen, but I think you're wrong.   AAAAndy beat BBBBBarney...CCCCarl beat AAAAndy...BBBBarney beat CCCarl twice...so WE SHOULD have looked at alllll common opponents to see that record...as is, BBBBarney has most wins amongst commons.  BBBarney 2 seed.  Seeding criteria resets.  CCCarl beat AAAAndy.  CCCarl 3 seed.  AAAAndy 4 seed.   Explain how I am wrong, because I might be!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wrestling Shoe said:

I'd say because B beat C not once, but twice, it shows that it most likely means that B is the more dominant wrestler than A because if C can beat A, and B beat C twice, B trumps them all with the final order being

1 B

2 C

3 A

JMO

How does it show more dominance?

A beat B by pin
B beat C by pin and 3-1 decision
C beat A by pin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, nkraus said:

1 seed was already established at this weight..  This was 2, 3, and 4. .. Listen, you may be right, so I'll listen, but I think you're wrong.   AAAAndy beat BBBBBarney...CCCCarl beat AAAAndy...BBBBarney beat CCCarl twice...so WE SHOULD have looked at alllll common opponents to see that record...as is, BBBBarney has most wins amongst commons.  BBBarney 2 seed.  Seeding criteria resets.  CCCarl beat AAAAndy.  CCCarl 3 seed.  AAAAndy 4 seed.   Explain how I am wrong, because I might be!  

 

9 minutes ago, TripleB said:

Kraus Yes with that information you are correct.....I think.

Common opponents is done with RECORD against common opponents, not with number of wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nkraus said:

So...we didn't go through common opponents...MISTAKE...because we have a head to head round robin...I guess the question is...In a round robin of head to head, does the most wins prevail?  Is that in our IHSAA bylaws?  

Most wins I guess is a new rule, so it punished teams that seek to not wrestle teams over and over and over and over and over again along with a few teams that are not in conferences so they don't get to beat up on the same guys multiple times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

How does it show more dominance?

A beat B by pin
B beat C by pin and 3-1 decision
C beat A by pin

This newfound information is helpful. Going off of what I said earlier and based off of what other people said, because B beat C twice, it not only makes him better in criteria due to common opponents, him beating C twice shows that he is a better wrestler than C, and even though he lost to A, C beat A which shows that B was able to clearly beat an opponent that is capable of beating the guy that beat him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with seeding B first, I feel that it should move to the next criteria.  A is at a disadvantage because he has not wrestled an extra match against either B or C.  Also, if we are talking record against common opponents, then we should add up ALL common opponents that each of the three have wrestled.  Of course this could take some time to compute, making for longer meetings.  I think the fact that we all have different opinions on this is even more reason to move on to the next criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.