Author Topic: The Lucky Duck Award (Read 4681 times)

Oscar · « **on:** February 10, 2009, 10:27:12 AM »

This is not really a new subject, but could someone please explain to me why they do not seed the team state at the finals level. Handing out runner-up trophies and offering runner-up rings is really a fallacy. We should call it the Lucky Duck Runners-Up Award. Am I missing something? I just can't understand why they do not change something that is so incorrect and so easy to change. I am looking for serious clarification on this issue. If we keep it the way it is there is no sense handing out runner-up awards. Unless you just want some Lucky Duck to feel good.

littlevito · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:29:22 AM »

They don't seed any of the other sports.

Fabio Jr. · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:31:29 AM »

so my senior year we just got lucky?

Please tell me all the work i put forth was to just " get lucky"

AC Computer · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2009, 11:03:33 AM »

Fabio - All the work you put in was just to "get lucky". I wouldn't have typed that, but you asked someone to tell you and you even said please.

Other than that - How would they decide the seeding? It's not individuals with common opponents. Teams could use different line-ups common opponent results are meaningless. Ans everyone complains about the polls so they wouldn't want those used. There isn't a good way to seed teams.

Oscar · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2009, 12:08:53 PM »

Part of my post refers to the fact the lucky draw has determined who ends up in the finals on one side of the bracket more often than not. What you refer to Fabio is the odds(probability) a lucky draw will seed the teams by chance alone in the proper ranking order. The 8 teams that advance are "team state qualifiers" with one Champion. There is no runner-up. To be a qualifier is worth the effort and deserves recognition.

I really do not have a big problem with not seeding, but to award runner-up trophies to the lucky duck makes no sense.

I think Team State will be very exciting as always but I still believe Seeding would give Team State Wrestling more legitimacy.

decbell1 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2009, 12:31:07 PM »

Why don't we just go ahead and give every team that was eliminated by the champ at Sectionals and Regionals and give them a runner-up trophy too? It's a stupid idea. You give the trophy to the team who lost in the finals, no matter who it is. They were better than half the teams in the state, and you get rewarded for it. Simple as that.

wrestlingguy · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2009, 12:35:39 PM »

That's just how it works out sometimes. What about last year in 4A football when Reitz had to beat Columbus East and then Cathedral. Lowell was the runner-up when theres no way in the world they would've beaten CE or Cathedral. Who do you think would rank the teams? There's no possible way to do it.

Bash513 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2009, 12:45:58 PM »

You can't compare this to football because of the geographic restrictions. There are a lot more participants to travel and they are limited by these restrictions. If you are going to bring 8 teams to the finals (not just 2 like in football) then you can definatly seed them based on record, common opponents, last year's results, etc. Its not like this would be terribly difficult. I see no drawback to doing it.

wrestlingguy · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2009, 12:54:27 PM »

Why would you base it on last year's results when teams have different kids at different weight classes? That makes no sense at all. The question remians...who is going to seed them? And why can't I compare it to football? The complaint was that a "true" runner-up can't be established this way. A "true" runner-up can't be established the way the football post-season is set up. Why not change that? Take the 8 Sectional champions in each class and seed them. More travel is required but pretty close to the same if you ask me.

AJ · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2009, 12:54:35 PM »

Solution:

Run it like Calumet Duals. When you get to top four, then have tem all wrestle each other.

If they tie, then lets come back and do it all over again!

Oscar · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2009, 01:04:45 PM »

Quote from: decbell1 on February 10, 2009, 12:31:07 PM

Why don't we just go ahead and give every team that was eliminated by the champ at Sectionals and Regionals and give them a runner-up trophy too? It's a stupid idea. You give the trophy to the team who lost in the finals, no matter who it is. They were better than half the teams in the state, and you get rewarded for it. Simple as that.

You seem to be making my point. Are you saying that half the teams in the state deserve runner-up honors. So do you think runner-up is a feel good trophy? We do seeding at Individual Sectionals. Why is Team State seeding so IM---- Possible. I am not questioning State Champ honors, if we are going to keep it this way then the true honor is Team State Qualifier for the 7 remaining teams. I agree with the format up to the final 8 at team state. There are plenty of examples of how it could be done. I am just puzzled as to why we don' t make a more true runner-up or just call it what it is.... Team State Qualifier.

decbell1 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2009, 01:50:46 PM »

Because runner-up does not equate to #2. Anyone that believes that is stupid.

The runner-up is the team that loses to the Champ in the Finals, that is it. It does not imply that they are the 2nd best team, nor has it in any sport in the country, professional, college, or high school.

former130 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:03:38 PM »

People are getting so crazy about this true stuff. True team runner-up, true wrestlebacks, true alternate. It's crazy!

midget5589 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:08:09 PM »

we should just cut sectionals and regionals and semistate and have one big 7 day tourney and have full wrestlebacks to determine the "true" 64 best in each weight

XCard · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:37:33 PM »

"If you ain't first, your last." - Reese Bobby

Bash513 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:42:08 PM »

Quote from: midget5589 on February 10, 2009, 02:08:09 PM

we should just cut sectionals and regionals and semistate and have one big 7 day tourney and have full wrestlebacks to determine the "true" 64 best in each weight

Could you imagine the seeding meeting???

Quote from: XCard on February 10, 2009, 02:37:33 PM

"If you ain't first, your last." - Reese Bobby

That's hilarious

awood1 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2009, 04:27:49 PM »

Quote from: midget5589 on February 10, 2009, 02:08:09 PM

we should just cut sectionals and regionals and semistate and have one big 7 day tourney and have full wrestlebacks to determine the "true" 64 best in each weight

This is the California individual format...except they do it in 2 days!! (single class)

Blane Culp · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2009, 05:03:45 PM »

We should consider ourselves lucky that our team state gets redrawn every year, and the realignment is every few years. Other sports dont get it that nice. Northern teams are always playing each other, while Southern teams do the same. And well Indy schools... they go both ways

spiralride1 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2009, 05:53:30 PM »

Agreed....there is NO WAY to seed the thing (look at the BCS)...don't think that was a personal attack at Mishawaka Fabio, so WOOSAH man.

Oscar · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2009, 06:03:11 PM »

Quote from: decbell1 on February 10, 2009, 01:50:46 PM

Because runner-up does not equate to #2. Anyone that believes that is stupid.

The runner-up is the team that loses to the Champ in the Finals, that is it. It does not imply that they are the 2nd best team, nor has it in any sport in the country, professional, college, or high school.

This is even less valid an arguement than your first statement. In the NBA teams are seeded by thier records not only for placing #1 Against #8 but also home court advantage. They do expect #1 and #2 ranked teams to meet int the division finals. College basketball is seeded and the two best teams have the best chance of getting to the finals. In college football #1 and #2 are just matched up in a Bowl Game. The attempt is always to get the two most competitive teams in the finals. I believe some schools have claimed to be the #2 team and that is in fact implied. (not meaning your team Fabio) You are right and that is my point. They are just the lucky duck award winner who got a more favorable chance draw.

decbell1 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2009, 07:20:33 PM »

The only examples you use that disprove my theory are one's that use wild cards.

The NBA does not "seed" it's playoffs by anything but overall record. They also have common opponents.

What if the top 2 teams are both in the West?

When the Yankees and Red Sox are the two best teams in MLB, does Bud Selig decide that they should play each other in the World Series?

The NCAA Tournament does not designate an overall #1 seed or rank it's top 4 teams. They simply put them in a bracket based on.....................................................

GEOGRAPHY!

They don't really care if 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 in the semis, or if #1 plays #2 in the semis. They simply look for a winner.

They have to do this because of a lack of common opponents.

AJ · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2009, 08:16:03 PM »

Actually the NCAA basketball tournament does rank the top 4 teams and puts them in brackets were #1 would face#4 in the semifinals amd #2 would face #3 in the other semifinal if all 4 ! sedds made it to the final four.

After the top 4, everything else is geography.

schaeferboy06 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2009, 08:52:03 PM »

I just think it's funny y'all are comparing this to a basketball tournament

Oscar · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:11:35 AM »

Quote from: decbell1 on February 10, 2009, 07:20:33 PM

The only examples you use that disprove my theory are one's that use wild cards.

The NBA does not "seed" it's playoffs by anything but overall record. They also have common opponents.

What if the top 2 teams are both in the West?

When the Yankees and Red Sox are the two best teams in MLB, does Bud Selig decide that they should play each other in the World Series?

The NCAA Tournament does not designate an overall #1 seed or rank it's top 4 teams. They simply put them in a bracket based on.....................................................

GEOGRAPHY!

They don't really care if 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 in the semis, or if #1 plays #2 in the semis. They simply look for a winner.

They have to do this because of a lack of common opponents. You keep making my point while argueing against my request for a simple request for clarification as to why, if we are going to imply by handing out second place trophies, they do not seed the finals of this tournament. Your answer "They do not care" implies there is a way to seed this tournament, they just prefer to keep it a lucky duck runner-up award. As I said "You are right" and my point is either keep the format the way it is and stop handing out bogus 2nd place trophies or seed the tournament based on criteria and coaches voting and give the award to the team based on a complete seasons hard work instead of a favorable chance draw. By the way Who is "they".

decbell1 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:55:02 AM »

Quote from: AJ on February 10, 2009, 08:16:03 PM

Actually the NCAA basketball tournament does rank the top 4 teams and puts them in brackets were #1 would face#4 in the semifinals amd #2 would face #3 in the other semifinal if all 4 ! sedds made it to the final four.

After the top 4, everything else is geography.

I disagree.

News:

Author Topic: The Lucky Duck Award (Read 4681 times)