ISWA Youth State Seeding?

[DLane]

Are they using past champions as a seeding separation?

 

If so they missed Intmed 50lb Tyson Lane vs Reed Egli (both past state champions) wrestle in the second round

[Sig40]

They should also use USA Nationals in the last 2 years since it is this events nationals.  I can not figure out how they seeded this.  Either way goodluck to everyone tomorrow.

[Infolady]

Separation Criteria

ISWA Folkstyle State Champions, Freestyle State Champions and Greco State Champions, within the past 2 years,  will be separated.  Please Note: Wrestlers must indicate their championship, in the space provided, when they pre-register at trackwrestling.com    (IHSWCA Middle School State Championship is not an ISWA State Final event)

 

[Toe the Line]

Indiana wrestling is so behind in all aspects of wrestling and everyone complains about the ihsaa but the iswa is almost as bad!!!  they don't even seperate kids on the same team!!!  I have never understood how hard it would be to seed based off of past preformances but they are not interested!!!  atleast they have added their own criteria finally but it has taken years of asking and finally someone kid was affected by this so they finally made the discision to seperate past iswa state champs....finally a small step in the right direction now if we could add national accomplishments as well!!!

[Mattyb]

Indiana wrestling is so behind in all aspects of wrestling and everyone complains about the ihsaa but the iswa is almost as bad!!!  they don't even seperate kids on the same team!!!  I have never understood how hard it would be to seed based off of past preformances but they are not interested!!!  atleast they have added their own criteria finally but it has taken years of asking and finally someone kid was affected by this so they finally made the discision to seperate past iswa state champs....finally a small step in the right direction now if we could add national accomplishments as well!!!

How about showing up at a monthly meeting and try to be a part of the solution, instead of sitting on a message board saying how bad everything is. If someone feels so strongly about something that they choose to tell hundreds of people on a message board, then surely they can go to a meeting and share their vast knowledge and opinions. It is not like the ISWA board is made up of a bunch of people that have been around the sport for hundreds of years (combined), that do not get paid a dime, and support and love the great sport of wrestling. Oooooops...... yes it is!

 

Bottom line, we can chose to be a part of a solution and promote our great sport or we can be a cancer that keeps us down. Trust me, each of us can make a difference. Lets all just stop complaining and give of ourselves! Complaining on this forum does nothing for anyone. If you have an idea, bring it to the board, your voice will be heard, and taken into consideration. We all have the forum... but how many show up and try to make things better?

[throw45]

Info Lady, what happens when a wrestler who should have indicated earning separation criteria, but they clearly didn't?

[MattM]

After thinking about it this weekend at states, for separation criteria the slight suggestions I would think are worth considering are (I know it would take a little more time to accomplish these but feel they are valid ideas):

 

Those returning to the same age group be separated first then separate those moving up from a the younger age group.  Example: previous years Junior state champs get separated evenly on both sides of the bracket and then the previous years Cadet state champs who moves up to Junior then are separate.  This allows separation to take place, but gives the returning age group wrestlers some credit for their accomplishments in that age group already, where the younger wrestlers may be good but are untested in that older age group.

 

I feel it would be better served to allow separation criteria for the previous years State Champ and Runner-Up rather than the current practice of anyone who was state champ in last two years.  Example: In the Junior weight class the 2012 Junior State Runner-Up does not get separation but someone who was a Cadet state champ back in 2011 (two years ago) would be separated in the Junior age group.  Seems the more recent accomplishment is worth more recognition than one that occurred two years ago and in most cases at a younger age division. (If it is felt state champs from two years prior are important to separate compromise with and say state champ from last two years and previous years state runner up or even just include the state champ from two years ago in that particular style not any of them).  With then, as mentioned above, separation first going to those who remain in the same age group and then after being placed those who are moving up from a younger division.

 

Another option may be to separate wrestlers who won state in that particular style first, and then separate those from other styles after.  Example: At Greco-State the Greco state champs are first separated and then state champs in Freestyle or Folkstyle then are separated next.  This still allows the separation, but gives credit to those who were the best at that particular style, since all three are  different enough in nature. Though this would create a slight complication with developing a separation formula if mixed in with some of the above suggestions I also have.

 

 

Just some random thoughts while looking at how some of the brackets fell into place.    I understand that involves a little more adjustments and I'm sure those who volunteer their time only have some much time to ensure the separation occurs so I get the need for a quick/simple approach too.

[ytownmom]

After thinking about it this weekend at states, for separation criteria the slight suggestions I would think are worth considering are (I know it would take a little more time to accomplish these but feel they are valid ideas):

 

Those returning to the same age group be separated first then separate those moving up from a the younger age group.  Example: previous years Junior state champs get separated evenly on both sides of the bracket and then the previous years Cadet state champs who moves up to Junior then are separate.  This allows separation to take place, but gives the returning age group wrestlers some credit for their accomplishments in that age group already, where the younger wrestlers may be good but are untested in that older age group.

 

I feel it would be better served to allow separation criteria for the previous years State Champ and Runner-Up rather than the current practice of anyone who was state champ in last two years.  Example: In the Junior weight class the 2012 Junior State Runner-Up does not get separation but someone who was a Cadet state champ back in 2011 (two years ago) would be separated in the Junior age group.  Seems the more recent accomplishment is worth more recognition than one that occurred two years ago and in most cases at a younger age division. (If it is felt state champs from two years prior are important to separate compromise with and say state champ from last two years and previous years state runner up).  With then, as mentioned above, separation first going to those who remain in the same age group and then after being placed those who are moving up from a younger division.

 

Another option may be to separate wrestlers who won state in that particular style first, and then separate those from other styles after.  Example: At Greco-State the Greco state champs are first separated and then state champs in Freestyle or Folkstyle then are separated next.  This still allows the separation, but gives credit to those who were the best at that particular style, since all three are  different enough in nature. Though this would create a slight complication with developing a separation formula if mixed in with some of the above suggestions I also have.

 

 

Just some random thoughts while looking at how some of the brackets fell into place.    I understand that involves a little more adjustments and I'm sure those who volunteer their time only have some much time to ensure the separation occurs so I get the need for a quick/simple approach too.

 

I happened to have had a similar idea to this.  I have presented some ideas to the Pairings Development Director for consideration.  I will add this suggestion as well.

[dadofa149#er]

From what I saw there was very little seperation at all. You have 2 returning state champions and 3 IHSAA state placers on one side of the bracket and 1 Simi state wualifer on the other side. Now how is this fair.  Seems better not to put the placements in at all.

[MattM]

The ISWA only recognizes the state champs from their events and does not take into account IHSAA state or ISWCA Middle School State data.  While it may not sounds like the best approach when high school studs end up being drawn into a weight, since those are separate organizations it is somewhat understandable the ISWA has a hard time determining how to decide where to place them.  Though it will not fix everything, this is where I believe something like including previous year ISWA state runner-ups into the separation criteria over state champs from two years ago and giving priority to those from the same age group over those moving up will help with these issues some.  This wouldn't fix all of the issues with separate organization success stories, but I would think it would help a little more.

[TripleB]

I don't know how specific trackwrestling can go. But do you all realize that the ISWA has about 10-12 hours to get brackets out?

 

I couldn't imagine these volunteers being able to seed a 20-30 brackets in that amount of time.

 

 

[MattM]

I don't know how specific trackwrestling can go. But do you all realize that the ISWA has about 10-12 hours to get brackets out?

 

I couldn't imagine these volunteers being able to seed a 20-30 brackets in that amount of time.

 

As I mentioned in my first post it definitely need to be within the constraints of what they can handle in the few hours they have to organized things.  That is why for my alternate criteria suggestions I attempted to think of way to leave things as uncomplicated and simple as possible.  These people deserve tons of credit for their volunteer work.  I encourage others to take time to thank them at each event as I try to do.  I do know they have different levels of separation criteria for the major national events, so their may be something on track that will help with different levels of separation (I also am not sure about this either). 

 

I also am guessing that of the groups time is spent verify those that claim separation criteria and then moving them to opposite ends of the brackets.  In that case, looking at the lists to find out what age group and/or what year would be the same as the current process.  I do not believe my suggestions for alternate separation criteria would involve any real change in time or protocol from their current methods (though in some cases it may add a minute or so per-bracket I'm not sure).

 

Obviously, anyone who has spent time observing or helping with a tournament knows that their isn't the man power or time to create a largely elaborate separation matrix (unless trackwrestling has got or with is planning on becoming more fancy), and that adding in outside event results add some additional issues that they probably don't want to deal with (or by some USA Wrestling rule aren't allowed to accept).

[Y2CJ41]

The biggest issue would then be if a kid's registration is not linked correctly to their past results.  I have seen this many times with kids using different first names or another wrestler with the same name has results tied to them.