MattM 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. That eliminates A from the argument due to C's win over A, but I'm still not understanding how you are eliminated B from the discussion. C has no head to head with B just as B has no head to head with C. So how can you eliminate one wrestler from the other. In my vies, the answer should be continuing through the rest of the criteria. Then after the seed it determined start over from the beginning for the next seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. But the answer you provided completely skilled common opponents and any other criteria after and just went completely off the head to head answer to say C was over A and then somehow threw out B in the process. So I'm still not following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 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. Exactly. Beating quality wrestlers is more important than wrestling a weak schedule and going 27-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. Winning percentage is used only if none of the previous criteria were meet, which in the case of B and C (after A was eliminated from discussion) seems to not have been meet. If any of the other previous criteria shows how to separate B and C then that criteria is used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That eliminates A from the argument due to C's win over A, but I'm still not understanding how you are eliminated B from the discussion. C has no head to head with B just as B has no head to head with C. So how can you eliminate one wrestler from the other. In my vies, the answer should be continuing through the rest of the criteria. Then after the seed it determined start over from the beginning for the next seed. Seeding three wrestlers at once, you give the one seed to the person w highest criterion. Just because not everyone has a h2h doesn't mean you can just skip it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Exactly. Beating quality wrestlers is more important than wrestling a weak schedule and going 27-0 How can you determine is a weak schedule though based on just the record. And none of the criteria references strength of schedule to make that determination. It's only after all the other criteria have been used and as I said in your example B and C have yet to be clearly separated by the earlier criteria so if it falls to win percentage then that is what is needed to determine the seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegionRoyalty Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This logic is so flawed. Decbell, by your logic, Wrestler C in the below example would be the 1 seed. Wrestler A: 15-15 loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 31-0 has not wrestled A or C or anyone who beat A or C Wrestler C: 1-30 win over Wrestler A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Winning percentage is used only if none of the previous criteria were meet, which in the case of B and C (after A was eliminated from discussion) seems to not have been meet. If any of the other previous criteria shows how to separate B and C then that criteria is used. You are eliminating someone before the 1 seed is given. You consider all three wrestlers at once, giving the 1 seed to wrestlers who has most important criteria. You have to reward head to head victories over often inflated, easily manipulated win percentages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki27 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Exactly. Beating quality wrestlers is more important than wrestling a weak schedule and going 27-0 i agree but why is B being tossed aside. They have no common opponents other than the 1h2h. What if B did have the toughest schedule and was 27-0 and it was A & C that had the cupcake schedules and that's why they had no common opponents yet since A & C had a head 2 head old B gets the shaft. Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyt Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'm going with my boy Coach Thornton. Not only because he is the smartest guy I know but also because this is the way we have been doing it for years. BCA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Seeding three wrestlers at once, you give the one seed to the person w highest criterion. Just because not everyone has a h2h doesn't mean you can just skip it. It's not skipped. It is used first which eliminated A. But has no effect on B and C. So after eliminating one wrestler you are down to seeding just two wrestlers. The first criteria does not fit so you must continue on with the rest of the criteria in order after that to determine their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This logic is so flawed. Decbell, by your logic, Wrestler C in the below example would be the 1 seed. Wrestler A: 30-1 loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 31-0 has not wrestled A or C or anyone who beat A or C Wrestler C: 1-30 win over Wrestler A You are ignoring the common opponent criterion which will assuredly come into play in geographically based sectionals. If Wrestler C has 30 losses to good wrestlers, and wrestler B has 15 forfeits wins and 15 wins over 15 wins over sub .500 wrestlers, does C not deserve what he earned? You are obviously using an extreme example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's not skipped. It is used first which eliminated A. But has no effect on B and C. So after eliminating one wrestler you are down to seeding just two wrestlers. The first criteria does not fit so you must continue on with the rest of the criteria in order after that to determine their position. 3 wrestlers for one seed. Whoever has the 1st criteria listed, if he's the only one, gets the 1 seed. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 There was no common opponent criterion in this example or the real life example. There was a team at this sectional who had wrestled nobody in the sectional and had a schedule filled with non-IHSAA sanctioned Baptist schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tskin Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You are ignoring the common opponent criterion which will assuredly come into play in geographically based sectionals. If Wrestler C has 30 losses to good wrestlers, and wrestler B has 15 forfeits wins and 15 wins over 15 wins over sub .500 wrestlers, does C not deserve what he earned? You are obviously using an extreme example You stated he said if all three were going for the one seed H2H dictates C as #1 but if you have a loss to another team in your sectionals you would not be in the hunt for the #1 seed so then it comes down to who is the #1 seed between B and C? So in determining that then B has edge and then C over A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What do you have against the Baptists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You stated he said if all three were going for the one seed H2H dictates C as #1 but if you have a loss to another team in your sectionals you would not be in the hunt for the #1 seed so then it comes down to who is the #1 seed between B and C? So in determining that then B has edge and then C over A. The situation in the original post states that three wrestlers are up for a number one seed. If you only have two wrestlers up for a one, then thr situation simplifies. As BTR stated, the problem lies with schools who wrestle weak schedules with no commons or even no head to heads in their own sectionals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 if it's truly that unknown as to which is actually # 1 then all coaches flip a coin.......odd man is # 1......the remaining two flip, one calls, winner gets 2, loser is 3......friday night lights......it was something like that......lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjayroza Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You are ignoring the common opponent criterion which will assuredly come into play in geographically based sectionals. If Wrestler C has 30 losses to good wrestlers, and wrestler B has 15 forfeits wins and 15 wins over 15 wins over sub .500 wrestlers, does C not deserve what he earned? You are obviously using an extreme example This may be an extreme example, but I think this makes the situation clearer. It has to be B, C, A - just by using the the criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tskin Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yes I agree and find it hard to believe not one common opponent is there. The way I came up with seeds is the way our sectionals and conference and any other tourney i have ever been involved in that seeded have done it. If all three had arguments for a 1 seed then yes I would go to % but with a loss to another team I think that takes them out of argument unless all three had losses to someone in a H2H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This may be an extreme example, but I think this makes the situation clearer. It has to be B, C, A - just by using the the criteria. No, you're ignoring the criteria and the ruling by the head of our sport lol Most important criteria, head to head. Use it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The situation in the original post states that three wrestlers are up for a number one seed. If you only have two wrestlers up for a one, then thr situation simplifies. As BTR stated, the problem lies with schools who wrestle weak schedules with no commons or even no head to heads in their own sectionals But, again despite what we may want to happen the criteria does not specify determining strength of schedule. And in the case of no head to head or common opponents additional criteria are provided. Wrestlers should not be eliminated just because they don't fit into the first criteria. The wording of seeding criteria also explains "Coaches should strive to keep open minds when seedings are being decided. The main objective of seeding is to have outstanding wrestlers separated in the brackets so that they will not meet each other until the finals. Seeding shall be based upon the wrestler's proven ability and not upon the desire for unwarranted advantage." If you have an issue with a weak schedule or dodging head to head matchups to gain an advantage in the seeding then that is the part of the criteria that would be the only thing you could use to address that issue. And if the majority of the voting coaches in the meeting agree with this determination then something must be determined to solve the dispute between C or B receiving the #1 spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 So just for clarification Decbell: Wrestler A: 15-15, loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 30-0, has not wrestled Wrestler A or C, or anyone who beat A or C. Wrestler C: 1-29, win over Wrestler A Wrestler C is the 1 seed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yes I agree and find it hard to believe not one common opponent is there. The way I came up with seeds is the way our sectionals and conference and any other tourney i have ever been involved in that seeded have done it. If all three had arguments for a 1 seed then yes I would go to % but with a loss to another team I think that takes them out of argument unless all three had losses to someone in a H2H. It might be interesting to find out why a wrestler w a loss to a fellow sectional entry was being considered for the 1 seed in the first place.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So just for clarification Decbell: Wrestler A: 15-15, loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 30-0, has not wrestled Wrestler A or C, or anyone who beat A or C. Wrestler C: 1-29, win over Wrestler A Wrestler C is the 1 seed? Why would wrestler A be under consideration in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts