infowrestling Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. Hahaha...........if you find me an instance where a 1-20+losses guy beat a 25+wins-1 guy and I will become a believer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Let's add D to the mix. D has a record of 28-9. D beat C. D never wrestled B or A. What do the head to head people do with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 The fact is that it COULD happen this way under the IHSAA interpretation. All I'm saying is the 'BCA' logic is exactly that, more logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjayroza 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. Perfectly stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Let's add D to the mix. D has a record of 28-9. D beat C. D never wrestled B or A. What do the head to head people do with that? I would go B, D, C, A. IHSAA interpretation is D, C, A, B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alduflux Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I would go B, D, C, A. IHSAA interpretation is D, C, A, B. Yes, and if wrestler B were Jason Tsirtsis his senior year the C, A, B, crowd would seed them D, A, B, C giving the best wrestler in the state the 3 seed since everybody forfeited to him during the year and he had no head to head wins. The B, C, A crowd would not view the above scenario as a four person case but a two person case. B vs. D. Looking at it that way wrestler b (Tsirtsis) gets the one seed as he should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s 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. This is a ridiculous argument. You are applying skill to whatever record you choose. Why can't you just say c is the 3x defending champion and his losses came at the Ironman, Dvorak,Beast, and powerade? It is a fallacy in your argument. There is no way to know what skill is possessed by an arbitrary letter assigned to a wrestler. You shouldn't think about strength of schedule or any other intangible factor that might play a role. The seeding criteria is simply a WORDED ALGORITHM! Why don't we ask Mark Durham to run this simulated scenario with the seeding criteria and see what he comes up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yes, and if wrestler B were Jason Tsirtsis his senior year the C, A, B, crowd would seed them D, A, B, C giving the best wrestler in the state the 3 seed since everybody forfeited to him during the year and he had no head to head wins. The B, C, A crowd would not view the above scenario as a four person case but a two person case. B vs. D. Looking at it that way wrestler b (Tsirtsis) gets the one seed as he should. NO!!!!!! If B was Jason Tsirtsis he would meet criteria C and be the number one seed as he is a returning semi state quarterfinalist! In the scenario presented no kid was a semi state quarterfinalist so anyone talking about B being a state champ is not looking at the same scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alduflux Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This is a ridiculous argument. You are applying skill to whatever record you choose. Why can't you just say c is the 3x defending champion and his losses came at the Ironman, Dvorak,Beast, and powerade? It is a fallacy in your argument. There is no way to know what skill is possessed by an arbitrary letter assigned to a wrestler. You shouldn't think about strength of schedule or any other intangible factor that might play a role. The seeding criteria is simply a WORDED ALGORITHM! Why don't we ask Mark Durham to run this simulated scenario with the seeding criteria and see what he comes up with. I agree with you entirely. You can't assign skill. However, that is exactly what the C, A, B crowd says when they say the baptist league champ should not be the one seed. I was pointing out that it can work both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alduflux Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 NO!!!!!! If B was Jason Tsirtsis he would meet criteria C and be the number one seed as he is a returning semi state quarterfinalist! In the scenario presented no kid was a semi state quarterfinalist so anyone talking about B being a state champ is not looking at the same scenario. That is the logic I use. Not the logic the C, A, B crowd uses. According to them Tsirtsis would not get past criteria A because wrestler C had more head to head wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCard Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I will admit, my first instance was to seed it C-A-B. I have read through some good arguments as to why it should be B-C-A as well. My stance is when it comes down to it all, it really is a matter of interpetation. A VERY good point was made that the criteria is really set up for a 2 person argument. Adding a thrid or fourth really complicates the argument. In the C-A-B argument, criteria (a) is used first and takes B completely out. C defeated A so C is #1. Now you are left with A & B, and criteria resets, so logically now you go down to criteria (d) and A gets the #2. Wrester B's coaches though argue that why was there wrestler penalized because he had no head to head matches. A very good point. So we go back and try it again...... In the B-C-A argument, criteria (a) is again used first, only this time takes A out of the argument. Now you are left with C & B, which the seed goes to B using the (d) criteria. Criteria resets and C is ahead of A based on the (a) criteria that originally eliminated him from the argument. However, wrestler A's coaches contest this logic, because they say how can we be penalized becasue we had no head to head with B to use as criteria (a). A good point. So we go back and try it again...... In the A-B-C argument, criteria (a) is looked at, C beat A, but there are no mathces between A/B or B/C. So because this criteria can not be use for all three, we move to cirteria (. Nobody has any common opponents so on to criteria ©, which is also solves nothing for all three. On to criteria (d), which all three can use and thus ultimately pct. sets the seed. However, Wrestler C coaches argue that how can we be penalized for not having any head to head with Wrestler B, we beat A! A very good point, so we go back and try it again...... This can go on for quite some time, as I am sure it did during this meeting. Everyone is going to have a reason why there kid should get the #1 seed. My final stance is that I am leaning toward the B-C-A argument on the matter, however I do see how the C-A-B can be interperted as well. Ultimately we can come back here on Sunday and see which argument I guess "got it right" based on the placement of the wrestelrs involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That is the logic I use. Not the logic the C, A, B crowd uses. According to them Tsirtsis would not get past criteria A because wrestler C had more head to head wins. No, I am the C,A,B crowd along with maligned and decbell. You are adding in a factor that would change either scenario. Tsirtsis would be first in both categories because he qualifies for criteria C. Being a semi state quarterfinalist is ahead of win percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This must be what it feels like to be in Congress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This must be what it feels like to be in Congress Unfortunately for America its not even close to how Congress decides things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alduflux Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 No, I am the C,A,B crowd along with maligned and decbell. You are adding in a factor that would change either scenario. Tsirtsis would be first in both categories because he qualifies for criteria C. Being a semi state quarterfinalist is ahead of win percentage. According to the C, A, B crowd the head to head matchups would be as follows. A = 0-1 B = 0-0 C = 1-0 This is the logic they use for seeding C ahead of B based on better head to head criteria (A). If Tsirtsis were wrestler B he would lose criteria A to wrestler C and never get to criteria C. The B, C, A crowd views the head to head as follows. B = 0-0 C = 0-0 The next criteria that would apply is C and wrestler B (Tsirtsis) gets the one seed. In the OP it would go to the next criteria (D) and wrestler B gets the one seed. Everyone agrees head to head is the first criteria. It is the application of that criteria (A) that is in dispute. I am of the belief that head to head (criteria A) only applies when wrestlers actually wrestle head to head. The C, A, B crowd think you can apply head to head when wrestlers don't wrestle each other. (Wrestler B's record 0-0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I will admit, my first instance was to seed it C-A-B. I have read through some good arguments as to why it should be B-C-A as well. My stance is when it comes down to it all, it really is a matter of interpetation. A VERY good point was made that the criteria is really set up for a 2 person argument. Adding a thrid or fourth really complicates the argument. In the C-A-B argument, criteria (a) is used first and takes B completely out. C defeated A so C is #1. Now you are left with A & B, and criteria resets, so logically now you go down to criteria (d) and A gets the #2. Wrester B's coaches though argue that why was there wrestler penalized because he had no head to head matches. A very good point. So we go back and try it again...... In the B-C-A argument, criteria (a) is again used first, only this time takes A out of the argument. Now you are left with C & B, which the seed goes to B using the (d) criteria. Criteria resets and C is ahead of A based on the (a) criteria that originally eliminated him from the argument. However, wrestler A's coaches contest this logic, because they say how can we be penalized becasue we had no head to head with B to use as criteria (a). A good point. So we go back and try it again...... In the A-B-C argument, criteria (a) is looked at, C beat A, but there are no mathces between A/B or B/C. So because this criteria can not be use for all three, we move to cirteria (. Nobody has any common opponents so on to criteria ©, which is also solves nothing for all three. On to criteria (d), which all three can use and thus ultimately pct. sets the seed. However, Wrestler C coaches argue that how can we be penalized for not having any head to head with Wrestler B, we beat A! A very good point, so we go back and try it again...... This can go on for quite some time, as I am sure it did during this meeting. Everyone is going to have a reason why there kid should get the #1 seed. My final stance is that I am leaning toward the B-C-A argument on the matter, however I do see how the C-A-B can be interperted as well. Ultimately we can come back here on Sunday and see which argument I guess "got it right" based on the placement of the wrestelrs involved. this is exactly the way i feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The C, A, B crowd think you can apply head to head when wrestlers don't wrestle each other. (Wrestler B's record 0-0) How about CBA? We're in a rock-paper-scissors situation (A over B over C over A, etc.) where each person has a 1-1 record in terms of claiming superiority over another. But C's superiority "victory" is head-to-head criteria, while his "loss" is only win% criteria (kind of like a win by pin and a loss by decision). B then has both a win and a loss by the less authoritative win% criteria and A has a weak "victory" (win%) and a stronger "loss" (head-to-head). Thus, C's 1-1 resume is the strongest, followed by B, followed by A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCard Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 stronger "loss" is called a "quality" loss in our Sectional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrecoCoach Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 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 This really depends on how wrestlers shift as you go through the criteria... If wrestlers who earn criteria move up, CAB If wrestlers who lose on criteria move down, BCA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julio Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I am going to reply to this forum, because it seems that my team and I are being attacked and questioned. First let me start by saying that most Indiana teams wrestle out of state competition who are not members of the IHSAA, so why my team is being attacked on this point by BTR makes no sense to me as they wrestle Illinois schools. Secondly, the IHSAA has told my school that it is OK for us to wrestle Fairhaven Baptist out of Chesterton and Hammond Baptist out of Schereville, which we only wrestle once each all year. Thirdly, BTR is getting 2 weight classes confused on this forum. I did not argue about this weight class but spoke up in a different weight class that they were arguing for a seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 To clarify, nobody and no team was being "attacked", hence why no names were used in any examples given. The Baptist Beaters, to clarify, were not involved in this 3-way round robin, nor was the team that I represent for that matter. I posted this simply because it was a unique situation which could be interpreted a multitude of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 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 ???/ I'll ask again BTR, MattM and BigMak ----- how would you seed these 3 wrestlers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Please Seed these wrestlers. Sectional seeding criteria,six are seeded. Record. Win% A: 30-2 (93.75) B:15-7 (68.18) C: 14-7 (66.66) D: 12-7 (63.15) E: 17-10 (62.96) F: 13-10 (56.52) G: 11-11 (50.00) Only one head to head or common opponent criteria is met. WRESTLER G BEAT WRESTLER A Please seed 1-6 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I'll ask again BTR, MattM and BigMak ----- how would you seed these 3 wrestlers? If we are using the criteria laid out and I have no records, head to heads, common opponents, etc. information on them I'd decline to answer that questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If we are using the criteria laid out and I have no records, head to heads, common opponents, etc. information on them I'd decline to answer that questions. i second that...based on the info provided, i would have to seed them alphabetically lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts