BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 What is the most extreme scenario on the other end of the spectrum? Just for the sake of a side by side comparison.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Unfortunately, strength of schedule is harder to place into an concrete form, unlike the other criteria listed. Thus, why it is not provided as part of the seeding criteria. I agree how does strength of schedule apply to a single wrestler not every team is strong top to bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 By the BCA logic, most extreme example is Wrestler A: 29-1, loss to C Wrestler B: 15-15, no common opponents, no head to heads Wrestler C: 1-29, win over A In the BCA argument, the number 1 seed must have a .500 or better record, and a higher win percentage than someone in the group with a head to head win. In the CAB argument, the number 1 seed can have a losing record, and as few as 1 win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 You tell me which one is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think the real problem lies with someone offering wrestler A for consideration for the 1 seed even though he has a head to head lose to C. The coach and others at the meeting should know by criteria A can not lay claim to a seed until C is placed in the bracket, based on that loss. Any other wrestler may still lay claim to a 1 seed but A by virtue of the loss at least has to wait on C. This then allows the B against C argument to take place for the 1 seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bell103 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 In the end seed meetings need to be run the same way and obviously they are not. So the head of the ihsaa for wrestling gave the way it should be interpreted. If we want to do brokentowelrack way, fine. If we want to do it ihsaa's way, fine (I agree with decbell). Our seed meeting last night was not consistent at all and I hate guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If I were given the responsibility to seed this, I would choose CAB because head-to-head is more concrete than win%; but I think the IHSAA descriptions have to lay this out more clearly somehow. One more way to think about it is this: it's an unbreakable chain with A over B over C over A. Now, which "link" is strongest? Answer: C over A, because it's a head-to-head link. If we place this link first, we have CAB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 If I were given the responsibility to seed this, I would choose CAB because head-to-head is more concrete than win%; but I think the IHSAA descriptions have to lay this out more clearly somehow. One more way to think about it is this: it's an unbreakable chain with A over B over C over A. Now, which "link" is strongest? Answer: C over A, because it's a head-to-head link. If we place this link first, we have CAB. So you're fine seeding a wrestler with a record of 1-29 over wrestlers with records of 29-1 and 28-2 in the extreme example above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If I were given the responsibility to seed this, I would choose CAB because head-to-head is more concrete than win%; but I think the IHSAA descriptions have to lay this out more clearly somehow. One more way to think about it is this: it's an unbreakable chain with A over B over C over A. Now, which "link" is strongest? Answer: C over A, because it's a head-to-head link. If we place this link first, we have CAB. Yes! Maligned is now in our corner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If he doesn't have a win over a common opponent or a head to head win over other remaining candidates, a wrestler with a losing record cannot be seeded ok..i didn't see that but its definitely common sense....thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So you're fine seeding a wrestler with a record of 1-29 over wrestlers with records of 29-1 and 28-2 in the extreme example above? makes no sense...one of those guys he did NOT beat because he didnt wrestle him. there is no way he gets a seed over that guy with the much better winning %. it actually proves to me more, the case for B,C,A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 I never thought I'd find myself in company with bigmak and MattM, but I'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So you're fine seeding a wrestler with a record of 1-29 over wrestlers with records of 29-1 and 28-2 in the extreme example above? I'm not fine with it but ....1. i think this is unrealistic and 2. I think common sense should prevail. I think in the very first example most people could live with either CAB or BCA. another example. wrestler A: 18-3, .857 lost to wrestler C Wrestler B: 9-8, .529 and didn't wrestle either A or C Wrestler C: 11-10, .524 and beat wrestler A by ihsaa it should be CAB but by the other way its BCA - personally I don't know if I like either option but C has to be ahead of A. should C have an argument that he has more wins than B and beat one of the wrestlers vying for a top seed even though his winning pct. is lower than B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No, C,A, B can't be seeded. This happens all the time?? At 113 at central it was like this Win % order as follows. 1. Matherly (NO) 2. Pellacer (GS) 3. Luigs (MD) Luigs beat Matherly, Matherly and Pellacer never wrestled nor have any common opponents. Luigs seeded 1 Matherly seeded 2 Pellacer seeded 3 so according to IHSAA this was seeded correctly but according to the majority ( BTR, MattM, and bigMak ) they would favor: 1. Pellacer 2. Luigs 3. Matherly am i correct in saying this BTR, MattM, and bigMak ???/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I never thought I'd find myself in company with bigmak and MattM, but I'll take it. You still have my company!! That is why we coach instead of wearing a suit for an organization that doesn't give a crap about our sport. We know how it should be seeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'm not fine with it but ....1. i think this is unrealistic and 2. I think common sense should prevail. I think in the very first example most people could live with either CAB or BCA. another example. wrestler A: 18-3, .857 lost to wrestler C Wrestler B: 9-8, .529 and didn't wrestle either A or C Wrestler C: 11-10, .524 and beat wrestler A by ihsaa it should be CAB but by the other way its BCA - personally I don't know if I like either option but C has to be ahead of A. should C have an argument that he has more wins than B and beat one of the wrestlers vying for a top seed even though his winning pct. is lower than B? yes C has to be ahead of A because he beat him head to head...at that point i think of them as being one (paired). now look at whats left and B has the higher win% over C so therefore, B, C, A. there is no argument about more wins, its not about wins, its about win% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I always thought the guys the other coaches did not want to wrestle the most should get the 1. IE. If the coach says fine we will take the 2 seed and the 3 seeds coach starts freaking out. Then that wrestler probably deserves the 1. If not he should be the 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 yes C has to be ahead of A because he beat him head to head...at that point i think of them as being one (paired). now look at whats left and B has the higher win% over C so therefore, B, C, A. there is no argument about more wins, its not about wins, its about win% i understand its about win pct. but B didn't wrestle either so maybe he shouldn't be in the argument. I think A has every right to be ahead of B since they didn't wrestle H2H and has a higher win pct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So you're fine seeding a wrestler with a record of 1-29 over wrestlers with records of 29-1 and 28-2 in the extreme example above? 1-29 with no losses to anyone else in the Sectional.........pretty much an impossible example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 1-29 with no losses to anyone else in the Sectional.........pretty much an impossible example i think he is just making a point. i got it and im not smart. but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 i think he is just making a point. i got it and im not smart. but i did stay as a holiday inn express last night But you didn't get that it's unrealistic? It must have been a budget inn disguised at a holiday inn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alduflux Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think the proper order should be B, C, A. I follow the logic that A has no claim for the one seed. This is not a three person case. It is a two person case. B is ahead of C because of win percentage. People act as though B is the one who wrestled a weak schedule. The opposite is just as likely to have happened. B is the 3x defending state champ and undisputed number one. A and C both forfeited to him during the season but wrestled each other. According to the C, A, B logic the best wrestler in the entire state would get the 2 seed. Of course in that circumstance wrestler B probably doesn't care and wins anyway but the point is he should be the one. The C, A, B crowd would put him second Once again the problem is this is not a three wrestler case, it is a two wrestler case. Wrestler B vs. C. Wrestler A should not be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 1-29 with no losses to anyone else in the Sectional.........pretty much an impossible example Not impossible. What if the wrestler was at a different weight all year? Or what if your team wrestled a schedule full of non-IHSAA sanctioned Baptist schools like another team in this sectional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
base Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Look, can we ALL AGREE that IHSWCA needs to include another class in their team championship next year for non-sanctioned Baptist wrestling schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think the proper order should be B, C, A. I follow the logic that A has no claim for the one seed. This is not a three person case. It is a two person case. B is ahead of C because of win percentage. People act as though B is the one who wrestled a weak schedule. The opposite is just as likely to have happened. B is the 3x defending state champ and undisputed number one. A and C both forfeited to him during the season but wrestled each other. According to the C, A, B logic the best wrestler in the entire state would get the 3 seed. Of course in that circumstance wrestler B probably doesn't care and wins anyway but the point is he should be the one. The C, A, B crowd would put him third. Once again the problem is this is not a three wrestler case, it is a two wrestler case. Wrestler B vs. C. Wrestler A should not be considered. boom!!! thank you...thats the words out of my mouth. its a 2 wrestler case...people need to stop looking at wresler A once you know he falls after C. done. move on to the next two wrestler. B gets the seed over C. you already deterrmined A is after C wherever C ends up. i know someone said you shouldnt say earlier in this post, but, it is quite simple...just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts