BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 3 wrestlers vying for the 1 seed. Wrestler A: 25-5 has a loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 28-8 has not wrestled A or C Wrestler C: 23-8 has a win over Wrestler A No other common opponents, none are semi state quarterfinalists. Seed these 1, 2, and 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornton Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 B, C, A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbomb Turk Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If you are going winning percentage it would be in order A B C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If you are going winning percentage it would be in order A B C A cannot be seeded higher than C due to the head to head loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 I agree 100% Thornton. It just so happened that this particular weight was seeded C, A, B. This is incorrect according to IHSAA by-laws. The explanation given was that since Trackwrestling pre-seeded A as 1 since he had the highest win percentage, and C beat A, that he was now the 1 seed, which left A 2nd and B 3rd. Oh by the way, C is the host school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Determination of seeded wrestlers is given in order of importance: a. Head to head competition; (The wrestler with the most head to head wins gets the seed. If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed.); b. Record against common opponents; c. Semi‐State quarterfinalist in IHSAA Tournament Series; d. A contestant with the best overall record (winning percentage) who has wrestled at least 10 matches; e. Farthest advancement in previous year IHSAA State Tournament Series; f. Draw by lot. Criteria is reset after determining each seed. Wrestler C has criteria a over Wrestler A Thus, C must be above A. Wrestler B has criteria d over Wrestler C Thus, B must be above C B, C, A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Should have went B,C,A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phscoach Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I agree. Should be B first. A is eliminated by the H2H loss to C. B has no commons with C, so winning percentage says B gets the 1 seed. Start over with 2. C wins a H2H over A. C gets the 2 seed. A gets the 3 seed. All that said, it is up to the folks in the room to agree to it. The tournament director should see to it that it is seeded properly. I will say ours (not the same sectional as the example given) tried to keep us by the book tonight, but at no time did I feel like anyone really disagreed with the way it played out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 C A B guys. The most important criterion is head to head. Reset it, then go win PCT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki27 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 C A B guys. The most important criterion is head to head. Reset it, then go win PCT. so if wrestler C's record was 1-23 with his only win being over wrestler A that he would be the 1 seed? Because that is what you're saying, I agree with Thorton and BTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Initially I said C A B. C is obviously ahead of A because of H2H. A is over B because of win pct. thus C A B. h2h takes precedent over winning pct. - look at the bulletin. Determination of seeded wrestlers is given in order of importance: a. Head to head competition; (The wrestler with the most head to head wins gets the seed. If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed.); b. Record against common opponents; c. Semi‐State quarterfinalist in IHSAA Tournament Series; d. A contestant with the best overall record (winning percentage) who has wrestled at least 10 matches; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tskin Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 C A B guys. The most important criterion is head to head. Reset it, then go win PCT. With B not having any head to head or commons then all the head to head means is that C is over A, doesn't mean you throw out B. So you look at all three and if there is no head to head with B and rest of field you move to next criteria and seems like next criteria met would be D, so B would be one seed then you reset and see that C has win over A and then C two A three. 1. B 2. C 3. A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Depends on which kid is yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 With B not having any head to head or commons then all the head to head means is that C is over A, doesn't mean you throw out B. So you look at all three and if there is no head to head with B and rest of field you move to next criteria and seems like next criteria met would be D, so B would be one seed then you reset and see that C has win over A and then C two A three. 1. B 2. C 3. A not sure where you learned math but if you throw out h2h and go straight to winning pct., A has the best winning pct, not B! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tskin Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 not sure where you learned math but if you throw out h2h and go straight to winning pct., A has the best winning pct, not B! I should of been more clear. A loss to C takes them out of mix going by Winning % So you know C is above A. so then is C above B? They have no head to head so then you drop to criteria D and B has greater % than C So it goes 1. B, 2. C, 3. A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I should of been more clear. A loss to C takes them out of mix going by Winning % So you know C is above A. so then is C above B? They have no head to head so then you drop to criteria D and B has greater % than C So it goes 1. B, 2. C, 3. A i can live with that. With no dog in this fight, I would still go with C A B. However, if my kid was B, I'd be fighting for B C A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tskin Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 yea no dog in fight either. Got to get my mind in seeding mode for tonights sectional seeding meeting at jennings lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 so if wrestler C's record was 1-23 with his only win being over wrestler A that he would be the 1 seed? Because that is what you're saying, I agree with Thorton and BTR. If you can't find a common with a kid with 23 losses, you should hire another assistant coach. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Just received word from Robert Faulkens. the answer is C A B. I presented my interpretation, to which he responded: Your argument is correct, and supported by the rules presented in the Winter Bulletin. Here is my interpretation, word for word from the email: My interpretation: C-A-B If all three coaches claim the 1 seed, then the 1 seed goes to the person with the most important criteria, which is head to head. This gives the 1 seed to wrestler C. Because he is the only wrestler that can claim criteria A, he takes the 1 seed. The seeding then resets and without a head to head, or any common opponents, Wrestler A has the 2 seed by virtue of his win percentage. Wrestler B then takes the 3 seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The head to head puts C over A, but C has no claim over B or via versa based on that argument so you should have to continue down the criteria to solve their seeding. I'm guessing Mr. faulklen hasn't been involved in too many seeding discussions, so his simplification of the process worked as an answer in this case. If you seed based on this explanation a Wrestler D with a 1-27 record could be the 1 seed by beating wrestler E who is 12-12 who may get the 2, while wrestler F who is 30-0 may not get seeded if he has no head to heads against several sectional guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The head to head puts C over A, but C has no claim over B or via versa based on that argument so you should have to continue down the criteria to solve their seeding. I'm guessing Mr. faulklen hasn't been involved in too many seeding discussions, so his simplification of the process worked as an answer in this case. I completely disagree with you. You seed all three at once, against the same criteria until you have the one seed. The only wrestler w a head to head win gets the 1 seed, because it is the most important criterion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki27 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I completely disagree with you. You seed all three at once, against the same criteria until you have the one seed. The only wrestler w a head to head win gets the 1 seed, because it is the most important criterion. like I said before, you are saying that kid could be 1- 20 and will be seeded over wrestler B just because he beat A. Silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The head to head puts C over A, but C has no claim over B or via versa based on that argument so you should have to continue down the criteria to solve their seeding. I'm guessing Mr. faulklen hasn't been involved in too many seeding discussions, so his simplification of the process worked as an answer in this case. If you seed based on this explanation a Wrestler D with a 1-27 record could be the 1 seed by beating wrestler E who is 12-12 who may get the 2, while wrestler F who is 30-0 may not get seeded if he has no head to heads against several sectional guys. There is a reason the criteria are in that order. Head to head carries more weight than Win PCT A ticket rounder has earned the right to a seed. Win % is the weakest criterion because it is so meaningless. Through your interpretation , way too much importance is placed on win percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki27 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So by that logic even if kid B were undefeated he still wouldn't be the 1 seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 like I said before, you are saying that kid could be 1- 20 and will be seeded over wrestler B just because he beat A. Silly Once again, common opponents is the second criterion. If you can't beat any of the 20 kids that he lost to, then you have no claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts