former130 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 But in the grand scheme of things does it really warrent wrestlebacks for an alternate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnobbe Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 former130, No, it does not necessarily. However, the other two solutions that have come up as options by MattM and goul149 are at least things we can look at as solutions. I still do not see the harm in allowing these matches to happen though. I am all about getting our kids mat time. Although it may only be one or two more matches, it is still mat time in a meet which, as many coaches know, just cannot be simulated in practice (except maybe in wrestleoffs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinedad Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 former130, No, it does not necessarily. However, the other two solutions that have come up as options by MattM and goul149 are at least things we can look at as solutions. I still do not see the harm in allowing these matches to happen though. I am all about getting our kids mat time. Although it may only be one or two more matches, it is still mat time in a meet which, as many coaches know, just cannot be simulated in practice (except maybe in wrestleoffs). While I agree it is mat time for the kids, and who can argue about getting more mat time. It is not one or two matches, it is 56 matches total. There is no way this will ever get past the IHSAA, we cant get them to agree to wrestlebacks for true placement, no way that they allow this for an alternate. I do like the idea of the highest placing kid from a sectional getting the nod, as I know there were a few sectional champs that were beat in the 1st round saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnobbe Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 I certainly understand the IHSAA would probably not go for it. I would envision it to be only 42 matches (there truly is no reason to wrestle the 7/8 match), and I don't think it would add that much time. Fourteen of these matches could be wrestled on a third mat during the last round-two officials on the finals and one on each of the other mats. The only addition would be 28 matches on three mats at some other point in the day. That would only add maybe about an hour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Wrestling is a tough sport to keep kids in. I see many wrestlers finding success by advancing to the next level---perhaps that is going further than they did the year before. Many wrestlers are proud just to make it to semi-state. The more opportunities we allow for more wrestlers to be successful ----the more popular our sport will be. Wrestling is about progression from year to year----goal setting---advancing 4 vs 3 allows more wrestlers to feel successful. We had a sectional alternate at Zionsville knock off the number one from the other sectional and place third at regional---you just never know. Wrestlebacks allow this same opportunity----especially at the semi state and state level. It also assures that at the end of the day we have the best qualifiers and the best placers. As I look at the brackets for semi-state-----there are many cases where a wrestler is the victim of the draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think MattM is on to something. ff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naco228 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 any comment on my idea? Wrestlebacks of the top 8, just like at sectionals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think the only only plausible idea I've seen so far is to go with the highest "seeded" wrestler who didn't make it out of the first round and in the event of a tie (two thirds losing in first round, for example) go with the kid from the sectional that produced the weight class champ. This won't cost anything, take any longer or be difficult to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts Dave Cloud I think this is the most feasible and efficient way of determining alternates. How often do alternates get a shot at the next round? Not often enough to warrant having these types of wrestlebacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Whats the chances of getting something like that or similar put in place by next year. I think it will at least be acceptable to most people as a good way (though never 100% perfect) to picking the alternate without wrestlebacks. Now if we could just get it called the MattM rule amendment we would be set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Truthfully I don't need the name recognition but thanks just the same. I just would like to see something a little more fair than the current setup be put in place to help get the best quality alternate in event he is actually needed. I will give you a wahoo for the complementary bown nosing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnobbe Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Thanks. Just like politicians, we have to get that recognition when we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually daveclouds is a little different, note each tiebreaker solution. Could go either way but overall both suggestions are better than current alternate decider. ff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnobbe Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Point well made fearless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I would assume that this rule would be instituted at the semi-state level as well correct? I'd think the 1st alternate for state should be the highest regional placer that was eliminated at semi-state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually daveclouds is a little different, note each tiebreaker solution. Could go either way but overall both suggestions are better than current alternate decider. ff I thoughts thats what I said though I gave two different solutions for the alternate. If two eliminated wrestlers started with the same high "seed" in regional or semi-state I suggested they either: 1. advance the person eliminated by the highest placer or 2. advance the person from the winners sectional. Heck call it the Dave Cloud rule or the indianamat.com ammendment, but either way it would be nice to get something similar to this in palce by next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Can't be sure who said it first MattM as yours was edited after davecloud posted.(just skidding, I edited my post to give you the credit) ff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually the first time I wrote it I did say the part about the alternate being from the same sectional as the winner. Then I re-evaluated it (my edit which as you see happens often on here as I get more thoughts going through my head) and thought another workable and maybe more fair solution in the event of a "seed tie" could be to take the person eliminated by the highest placer. I felt that may reward the wrestler who had the toughest competition on that day over the person who happened to just be from the same sectional. I'm not sure which one I really like more or at least which one would end up having the best wrestlers advance. It's really probably 50/50 for each weightclass. No big deal FF. Like I said I'm more concern about someone taking this to the IHSAA as a workable solution for both regional and semi-state than I am finding out who should get credit for it. Odd are someone came up with the same or similar idea several years back and it just had no reason to get implemented until the recent advancement change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts