Slappy White Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Could someone explain to me how the #1 and #2 ranked kids in the state at 125, are a #2 and #3 seed in their sectional. Does that make sense to anyone? If so, please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebels8 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Could someone explain to me how the #1 and #2 ranked kids in the state at 125, are a #2 and #3 seed in their sectional. Does that make sense to anyone? If so, please explain. the way i understand it is that the shelbyville kid was runner up in sectionals at 130 last year so he gets the 1seed, i guess if runner up or champ of same weight the previous year gets the one over any wrestler despite records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 From what I've read thus far on it. (Can't verify any of this) No head to head matches between them No common opponents between them Shelbyville kids was previous champion or runner-up at same weight Thus the next criteria Win% does not come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdwn2 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 So..if I have this right...you would probably be better off coming out of the DC sectional at a 3 seed than a 2. Both Kiefer and Wright will still be in the same side of the bracket at Regionals? Wonder if there will be any laying down or inj. defaulting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLD TIMER Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 This will also put them in the same regional bracket also taking 1st and 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaMATstadon Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Wow. . . This could be an intersting rivalry this season. Should be fun to watch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCWrestling Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 From what I've read thus far on it. (Can't verify any of this) No head to head matches between them No common opponents between them Shelbyville kids was previous champion or runner-up at same weight Thus the next criteria Win% does not come into play. You have it correct MattM. Williams was runner up at 125 last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy White Posted January 26, 2010 Author Share Posted January 26, 2010 From what I've read thus far on it. (Can't verify any of this) No head to head matches between them No common opponents between them Shelbyville kids was previous champion or runner-up at same weight Thus the next criteria Win% does not come into play. IMHO...this is flawed. Why would you take all common sense out of the equation? Was there really one coach at that seeding meeting that thought Wright should be#2 or Kieffer should be #3? We're talking about kids that have never not placed at the state finals versus a kid that's never been to the state finals. Wright has never not been in the final match!! Seems a little silly to me to have no flexibility with the seeding criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blane Culp Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Could there be an * put on the bottom of the criteria that it comes down to a coaches vote if needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 The purpose of seeding is to separate the two best wrestlers so that they meet in the finals. That is stated in the winter bulletin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCWrestling Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 IMHO...this is flawed. Why would you take all common sense out of the equation? Was there really one coach at that seeding meeting that thought Wright should be#2 or Kieffer should be #3? We're talking about kids that have never not placed at the state finals versus a kid that's never been to the state finals. Wright has never not been in the final match!! Seems a little silly to me to have no flexibility with the seeding criteria. I agree completely, but I think with the way the criteria is stated, the seeding was done correctly.....I completely disagree with it and this it should have been Wright, Kieffer, and Williams, but thats not how it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edb41 Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 I'm guessing that if Wiliams makes it to the finals he better be at his best, it might not be pretty otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts