littlevito Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No, you're ignoring the criteria and the ruling by the head of our sport lol Most important criteria, head to head. Use it You are looking at it wrong. There is only one head to head. It doesn't apply to all three. This should have been seeded B,C,A just like BTR, Thornton, and I stated earlier. This is why some seeding meetings are ridiculous. This is still being argued when it is plain as day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. I believe the wrestler has shown "proven ability" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. This gives C the nod over A, but what criteria gives C the nod over B since they never wrestled each other. I don't think you should be able to claim criteria A unless you have it over everyone else up for the seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Why would wrestler A be under consideration in the first place? Why in your original analysis would wrestler A be considered for a #1 seed if he had already lost to C? Thus, in your example A is also out of the discussion and that just leaves B and C just follow criteria to determine the #1 seed. With no head to head to does down the list of the other criteria. 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...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Why in your original analysis would wrestler A be considered for a #1 seed if he had already lost to C? Thus, in your example A is also out of the discussion and that just leaves B and C just follow criteria to determine the #1 seed. With no head to head to does down the list of the other criteria. Very simple, he has a better win percentage than B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Very simple, he has a better win percentage than B But that is not the first criteria, which would eliminate A from the discussion but still leave C and B that need hashed out. Please tell me this is just one awful version of devils advocate you have created due to being locked inside the house due to extreme weather conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Explain 145 at Jay County to me then Liter beat Neher, Neher beat Marbach, Marbach and Liter didn't wrestle. Marbach has the best record but can't be ahead of Neher, and Neher can't be ahead of Liter. So Liter gets the 1, Neher gets the 2, and Marbach gets the 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Liter beat Neher, Neher beat Marbach, Marbach and Liter didn't wrestle. Marbach has the best record but can't be ahead of Neher, and Neher can't be ahead of Liter. So Liter gets the 1, Neher gets the 2, and Marbach gets the 3. What was TC Perry's record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What was TC Perry's record? That coach didn't try to seed him, and I'm not sure if he had a loss to Liter or Marbach. Some coaches know which kids are actually deserving of a seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That coach didn't try to seed him, and I'm not sure if he had a loss to Liter or Marbach. Some coaches know which kids are actually deserving of a seed. How would you seed Baumgartner, Anguiano and luginbill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Team1Goal Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 B, C, A is best answer with the information provided. Decbell1 you and Mr. Fauklen are off on how the criteria progresses based on multiple wrestlers being up for the same seed. However, with a more thorough talk with Mr. Faulklen about how the process works, rather than him just reading a quick e-mail example, I'm sure he would see where he went wrong on his decision on the seeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 How would you seed Baumgartner, Anguiano and luginbill? Personally...Baumgartner 1, Luginbill 2, Anguiano 3 But it would have went Anguiano 1, Baumgartner 2, Luginbill 3 It would have been quite a debate to get the Union City coach to give up the one seed. Even though we all know that the two best wrestlers would have been Baumgartner and Luginbill and the goal is to put them on opposite sides of the brackets, but most coaches don't see their own weak schedules. But we didn't have to worry about that battle since Luginbill moved up to 170. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Personally...Baumgartner 1, Luginbill 2, Anguiano 3 But it would have went Anguiano 1, Baumgartner 2, Luginbill 3 It would have been quite a debate to get the Union City coach to give up the one seed. Even though we all know that the two best wrestlers would have been Baumgartner and Luginbill and the goal is to put them on opposite sides of the brackets, but most coaches don't see their own weak schedules. But we didn't have to worry about that battle since Luginbill moved up to 170. Love ya to death man, and I don't want to argue with you anymore, so I'll let it go. I do think that the rules are written so that you can give Baumgartner the 1 seed, Luginbill the 2 and Anguiano the 3. I just think a win on the mat is better than any winning PCT. Loving the discussion on here though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Peck 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. It is too bad an Assistant Comissioner for the IHSAA cannot get it right. His interpretation is neither correct nor logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreparetoWin Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Surely he is kidding...right???!! :o I am glad to see that only one person through this thread thinks C gets the number one. I would have still been in the seeding meeting if someone tried to put C over B for a number 1 seed. Maybe the reason they have no commons is he wrestled a different weight class all season?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I don't understand the logic behind these replies and the results of the poll are astounding. This situation happens all the time in seeding meetings so let's revisit. 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 So as we begin seeding, whatever program we have to auto seed these kids will automatically sort these kids by an entered in criteria. Almost always winning percent. What you would be looking at on the screen would be 1. A at (83.3333%) 2. B at (77.777777%) 3. C at (74.1935483870968%) So now you go down the criteria list. Have these kids wrestled? Yes, C beat A. Ok now the order is C A (83.3) B (77.7) How can you logically justify B jumping A?. No head to head, no common opponents, and no semi state quarterfinalist. The next criteria is winning %. A has a 5.6% advantage on wrestler B in that category. A sets the mark with win% C jumps because of a qualifying advantageous criteria, B cannot. The correct seed for this trio is C,A,B. There is no argument against this. If you argue winning %, B can never be placed in front of A. I find it fascinating coaches cannot see this. But then again, I've never claimed to be anything other than a brain surgeon. Donald Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Finally someone is backing me up I've talked to five other head or assistant coaches today, and they agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Surely he is kidding...right???!! :o I am glad to see that only one person through this thread thinks C gets the number one. I would have still been in the seeding meeting if someone tried to put C over B for a number 1 seed. Maybe the reason they have no commons is he wrestled a different weight class all season?? Nothing strengthens an argument quite as well as a nice ad populum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 How can you logically justify B jumping A?. No head to head, no common opponents, and no semi state quarterfinalist. The next criteria is winning %. But by your same argument, how can you argue C jumps B? No head to head, no common opponent, and no semi-state quarterfinalist. The next criteria is winning %, which B has the advantage in. After A has dropped out of the argument due to a head to head lose, the other two wrestlers are still viable candidates for the #1 seed and criteria must still be followed to determine things. The first criteria which determines that is winning % which B has and thus would place him ahead of C. Wrestler A can not be ahead of C due to the head to head result which was determined earlier, so C receives the 2nd seed followed by A as the 3rd seed. How can you eliminate B from the discussion, just due to C's head to head win over A. A's lost to C should hurt him and help C (which is does) but it should not hurt or help B in any way. The only thing that can be found to help/hurt B and C is the winning percentage criteria which is why when A must drop out of the discussion it comes down to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bell103 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I don't understand the logic behind these replies and the results of the poll are astounding. This situation happens all the time in seeding meetings so let's revisit. 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 So as we begin seeding, whatever program we have to auto seed these kids will automatically sort these kids by an entered in criteria. Almost always winning percent. What you would be looking at on the screen would be 1. A at (83.3333%) 2. B at (77.777777%) 3. C at (74.1935483870968%) So now you go down the criteria list. Have these kids wrestled? Yes, C beat A. Ok now the order is C A (83.3) B (77.7) How can you logically justify B jumping A?. No head to head, no common opponents, and no semi state quarterfinalist. The next criteria is winning %. A has a 5.6% advantage on wrestler B in that category. A sets the mark with win% C jumps because of a qualifying advantageous criteria, B cannot. The correct seed for this trio is C,A,B. There is no argument against this. If you argue winning %, B can never be placed in front of A. I find it fascinating coaches cannot see this. But then again, I've never claimed to be anything other than a brain surgeon. Donald Roberts I agree with this as well. Just because a is behind c does not give b a seed of a. A has criteria over b which is winning percentage. B can't go ahead of c because he can't beat a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 How can you eliminate B from the seed, just because of C's head to head win over A. I'm loving the talk back and forth, and hope you're not taking it personally MattM. I think that's exactly what you do. C beat A, B didn't. C earned the 1 seed. Is it fool-proof? No. If B didn't see C in the regular season, and couldn't get a common win, then he loses out. Head to head wins NEED to be rewarded or it screws up the whole system. But the Assistant Commissioner of the IHSAA says this is the way it should be interpreted and I think that we can all agree that there should be a final ruling on how this should go so that we have some consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Decbell, you only presented one interpretation in a quick email to the commissioner. You didn't take the time to outline the other argument and let him decide which one made more sense in the spirit of the Winter Bulletin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That is your problem, you never "drop" A out of the discussion. A sets the bar with the highest win %. C can jump him B cannot. It's that simple. No one is eliminated. You can't make an argument for win % over C without having a qualifying seeding criteria advantage over A. Just remember, A sets the mark and is never dropped out of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 But by your same argument, how can you argue C jumps B? No head to head, no common opponent, and no semi-state quarterfinalist. The next criteria is winning %, which B has the advantage in. After A has dropped out of the argument due to a head to head lose, the other two wrestlers are still viable candidates for the #1 seed and criteria must still be followed to determine things. The first criteria which determines that is winning % which B has and thus would place him ahead of C. Wrestler A can not be ahead of C due to the head to head result which was determined earlier, so C receives the 2nd seed followed by A as the 3rd seed. How can you eliminate B from the discussion, just due to C's head to head win over A. A's lost to C should hurt him and help C (which is does) but it should not hurt or help B in any way. The only thing that can be found to help/hurt B and C is the winning percentage criteria which is why when A must drop out of the discussion it comes down to that. This is exactly right. it shoudl be B, C, A. B doesnt get punished for having a better win % cause thats just silly. In your own example of: What you would be looking at on the screen would be 1. A at (83.3333%) 2. B at (77.777777%) 3. C at (74.1935483870968%) So now you go down the criteria list. Have these kids wrestled? Yes, C beat A. Ok now the order is C A (83.3) B (77.7) ...I agree with but the problem is you moved C to the top, punishing B. You need to move A below C where he BELONGS, hence, BCA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'm loving the talk back and forth, and hope you're not taking it personally MattM. I think that's exactly what you do. C beat A, B didn't. C earned the 1 seed. Is it fool-proof? No. If B didn't see C in the regular season, and couldn't get a common win, then he loses out. After you mention their was no head to head between C and B to determine the seed, you again point out the next criteria of common opponent also not applying, then you saying B "loses out." So you did take the next logical step of drop down to the next criteria to find a link between B and C. However, you didn't go any farther past that. Unfortunately it doesn't drop down to just the second criteria and then stop, you most continue to proceed down the rest of the list. In which case win % eventually does apply. Nope nothing personal. And while I agree with you that the system does not always create the best result, it is put in place to ensure documented information (head to head, common opponent, proven ability in last years event, win percentage) rather than subjective arguments (strength of schedule, etc) are not dominating the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts