Smooth34 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Go back to only the top three advancing. You should have to win 2 matches to make it to SS but I forgot for a moment that the IHSAA only cares about money and not the best interests of the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoberlin Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I added wrestle backs to the topic since this is what it has turned into. I will wait to chime in when the semi-state draws screw some kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 In Theory... Sectionals is seeded with wrestlebacks so the top 4 should advance based on proven ability (seeding) and with actual ability (actual placement). Regionals is 2 Sectionals coming together with a 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 model. This is basically seeding. So the top 4 should advance based on proven ability (sectional results) and actual ability (actual placement). Semi State is 4 regionals coming togthere where you need to win 2 matches to advance. Since 4 regionals come together the random draw becomes a factor. At the Regional it is not random. Before the Sectional you pretty much know what you need to do to avoid a certain wrestler. How many times is it better to be 3rd at Sectional then the 2nd or even 1st?? But at Semi State it happens all the time where a kid who finished worse at the Regional qualifies for State because he got a good draw. So the top 4 often advance based off luck (random draw) and actual ability (actual placement). Semi State is where you need to focus your energy on Wrestlebacks not Regional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 In Theory... Sectionals is seeded with wrestlebacks so the top 4 should advance based on proven ability (seeding) and with actual ability (actual placement). Regionals is 2 Sectionals coming together with a 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 model. This is basically seeding. So the top 4 should advance based on proven ability (sectional results) and actual ability (actual placement). Semi State is 4 regionals coming togthere where you need to win 2 matches to advance. Since 4 regionals come together the random draw becomes a factor. At the Regional it is not random. Before the Sectional you pretty much know what you need to do to avoid a certain wrestler. How many times is it better to be 3rd at Sectional then the 2nd or even 1st?? But at Semi State it happens all the time where a kid who finished worse at the Regional qualifies for State because he got a good draw. So the top 4 often advance based off luck (random draw) and actual ability (actual placement). Semi State is where you need to focus your energy on Wrestlebacks not Regional. True ONLY when both sectionals are equal which in most all cases that is not. Therefore, wrestlebacks are needed. So while I disagree with you on that one, I agree they also need to be added to semistate. For the same "excuse" "reason" "argument" that they are eneded at sectional and at semi state, the same goes for regional...simply put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Dad Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Somewhat agree. If we institute wrestle-backs at regionals and Semi-State, then the argument is why not State? It would do more if we kept the current system and added wrestle-backs at the State level. Then, #2 is the true #2. Cost is an issue. No other sport (to my knowledge) has ANY sort of double elimination. (Not sure about other states) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Dad Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Then, we have to ask ourselves what is the best for the sport? Hate to end up like the IOC just cause we HAVE to have wrestle-backs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 True ONLY when both sectionals are equal which in most all cases that is not. Therefore, wrestlebacks are needed. So while I disagree with you on that one, I agree they also need to be added to semistate. For the same "excuse" "reason" "argument" that they are eneded at sectional and at semi state, the same goes for regional...simply put. Im not trying to say that the current format gets the 4 best from Regional to Semi State and there are occasions when a Semi State Level kid loses first round of Regional. I am simply saying that the draw is not random since only 2 sectionals feed into 1 regional. Your draw is based on how you performed in the Sectional not based on a random draw. At the Semi State, who you draw is based on the same 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 but since 4 regionals feed into 1 semi state there randomness factor. There is way more justification for wrestlebacks at Semi State then Regionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galagore Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastMode#31 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 True ONLY when both sectionals are equal which in most all cases that is not. Therefore, wrestlebacks are needed. So while I disagree with you on that one, I agree they also need to be added to semistate. For the same "excuse" "reason" "argument" that they are eneded at sectional and at semi state, the same goes for regional...simply put. Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 True ONLY when both sectionals are equal which in most all cases that is not. Therefore, wrestlebacks are needed. So while I disagree with you on that one, I agree they also need to be added to semistate. For the same "excuse" "reason" "argument" that they are eneded at sectional and at semi state, the same goes for regional...simply put. I know you like to "stir the pot", and I have no problem with that, but I think in this case you're simply not understanding the logic puzzle we're trying to explain to you. It doesn't matter AT ALL which sectional is harder for determining whether the top 4 have every mathematical chance to advance through regional. If the best 4 are at one sectional, they'll all win in the first round of regional and advance. If only the champ from one sectional is top 4 quality, only he will win and the top 3 from the other sectional will win because they won't face him. ...and so on... In the case of the upcoming Johnson/Smiley match: Denton beat Johnson and will thus face the #4 who finished below Smiley. Pruitt and Smith finished 1/2 and will thus face the 4/3 who finished below Johnson. Next in line are Johnson (loser to Denton) and Smiley (loser to Smith who lost to Pruitt). It stinks for Johnson/Smiley that there are 5 possible state qualifiers at their weight at regional, but they are NOT misseeded or mismatched--in the same way that no other pairing at regional is unfairly matched. It's set up perfectly to allow the real top 4 (as proved on the mat) to advance, no matter which sectional they are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvansvilleSpectator Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Only one that should have wrestle backs is Semi-State. The reason being is because you have to be a regional champ, or beat a regional champ. If #1 and #2 in the state are in the same regional. That means a regional champ is gonna get beat by #2, even if that wrestler might be #3 in the state! Does that mean the guy that is thought of as the possible 3rd place finisher at state doesn't deserve to go? He did everything he could besides beat a Guy he wasn't "supposed" to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Only one that should have wrestle backs is Semi-State. The reason being is because you have to be a regional champ, or beat a regional champ. If #1 and #2 in the state are in the same regional. That means a regional champ is gonna get beat by #2, even if that wrestler might be #3 in the state! Does that mean the guy that is thought of as the possible 3rd place finisher at state doesn't deserve to go? He did everything he could besides beat a Guy he wasn't "supposed" to beat. Bingo! If a Regional champ is "unlucky" to draw into a top 2 kid or for that matter a #2 at a Regional draws into the #1 ranked kid in state it was more about the "luck" of the draw. If a Sectional runner up draws into a stud first round well he was only given that draw based on how he wrestled at sectional and his sectional seed is based on how he wrestled all season. Then only luck involved is which school district you live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrestlingislife101 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 David Roth will beat Hawkins of perry at 106 in the first round of regionals even tho hawkin has the 1 seed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 David Roth will beat Hawkins of perry at 106 in the first round of regionals even tho hawkin has the 1 seed But again, even if you're right, the seeding system works beautifully. All the top 4 are from one sectional and they'll all win and advance. Nobody can complain that they lost due to randomness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 That being said, I agree there should be wrestle backs in regionals. One bad match should not end a kids season. So what happens if a kid has 1 bad match in wrestlebacks? Should he get a do over? I am just not seeing your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 David Roth will beat Hawkins of perry at 106 in the first round of regionals even tho hawkin has the 1 seed i liked david roth better when he went on his own than when he was singing in van halen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 But again, even if you're right, the seeding system works beautifully. All the top 4 are from one sectional and they'll all win and advance. Nobody can complain that they lost due to randomness. Maligned, How about at state. You obviosly cant say that the best guys always place and that there is a measurable deviation due to the randomness of the four semi-states coming together. I think this topic was talked about last year. I know you love you're statistics. Another guy and I took a data sample from a few other 16man bracket state tournaments that had wrestlebacks. I don't know of any other states that don't have wrestle backs. The results were that of all the wrestlers that lost in the first round, these wrestlers were able to come back and place 8th or higher within a range of 15 -20% of the time. So my hypothetical statement that there is inaccuracy of state placers at the Indiana state tournament, there is a inaccuracy of placing of the true best wrestler up to 15 to 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RASSLER4LIFE Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 FYI, wrestlebacks have nothing to do with best 2 out of 3. It's a process for placement and, in the case of all other states, for the advancement of the correct group of participants rather than a random group. We're not discussing the best way to determine a champion. We're discussing the best way to slot wrestlers in their appropriate ranking below the champion. Maybe not but the best team doesn't always make it thru! How many times does the number one team get knocked of in a given year! It's who shows up on that given day and any given match! That's how you rise to the occasion! Someone or somehow these UPSETS happen! That is why I was being sarcastic on doing a best of 3 series! The best team, wrestler, tennis player, bowler doesn't always win! It's who shows up that day and performs at a high level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 blah blah blah. this has been and will be argued for life. people will have their own opinions and I will have my own facts and thosee who dont agree with me will just have to be wrong. anywho, i have bigger fish to fry. im taking broncos in the best 2 of 3 against seahawks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number9 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 It doesn't matter AT ALL which sectional is harder for determining whether the top 4 have every mathematical chance to advance through regional. If the best 4 are at one sectional, they'll all win in the first round of regional and advance. If only the champ from one sectional is top 4 quality, only he will win and the top 3 from the other sectional will win because they won't face him. ...and so on... That makes perfect sense. But you're assuming that each sectional has the top 4 in the correct order. And that isn't true because sectionals don't have "true" 2nd's. Say a #3 in sectional A didn't get a chance to beat sectional A's #2, then he has to face B's #2 who he has a 50-50 chance of beating. And say he could easily beat B's #3 as well as A's #2. But he didn't get a chance to face either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fartfry18 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 That makes perfect sense. But you're assuming that each sectional has the top 4 in the correct order. And that isn't true because sectionals don't have "true" 2nd's. Say a #3 in sectional A didn't get a chance to beat sectional A's #2, then he has to face B's #2 who he has a 50-50 chance of beating. And say he could easily beat B's #3 as well as A's #2. But he didn't get a chance to face either one. Then that's life, what makes ticket round matches beautiful is it's all on the line and who gets to make that trip to Bankers. It comes down to who wants it more, and sometimes you might have to beat a wrestler better than you. That is the card that you drew. You can make excuses, or you can toughen up and go out and make a statement for yourself that you deserve to be there. The anticipation and the fact that your season is riding on that one match to go to Banker's get's so much adrenaline pumping that it makes the wrestling more exciting. There always are exceptions to the rule, but the way things are are the way things are, the wrestlers just need to bring it and show who they are. End of story and debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 That makes perfect sense. But you're assuming that each sectional has the top 4 in the correct order. And that isn't true because sectionals don't have "true" 2nd's. Say a #3 in sectional A didn't get a chance to beat sectional A's #2, then he has to face B's #2 who he has a 50-50 chance of beating. And say he could easily beat B's #3 as well as A's #2. But he didn't get a chance to face either one. True 2nds should not be an issue at the Sectional because the wrestlers are seeded. Yes we all know that some seeds arent correct but they are seeded based off of actual data and not a random draw. The idea for wrestlebacks is to eliminate the luck of the draw not to give a kid another chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Then that's life, what makes ticket round matches beautiful is it's all on the line and who gets to make that trip to Bankers. It comes down to who wants it more, and sometimes you might have to beat a wrestler better than you. That is the card that you drew. You can make excuses, or you can toughen up and go out and make a statement for yourself that you deserve to be there. The anticipation and the fact that your season is riding on that one match to go to Banker's get's so much adrenaline pumping that it makes the wrestling more exciting. There always are exceptions to the rule, but the way things are are the way things are, the wrestlers just need to bring it and show who they are. End of story and debate. by the way, its not the end of story and debate cause you said so...it is because i did earlier. all you guys are doing is just making a bunch of ruckus. its my way or no way. just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fartfry18 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 by the way, its not the end of story and debate cause you said so...it is because i did earlier. all you guys are doing is just making a bunch of ruckus. its my way or no way. just sayin ya, you the man bigmak.... not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Maligned, How about at state. You obviosly cant say that the best guys always place and that there is a measurable deviation due to the randomness of the four semi-states coming together. I think this topic was talked about last year. I know you love you're statistics. Another guy and I took a data sample from a few other 16man bracket state tournaments that had wrestlebacks. I don't know of any other states that don't have wrestle backs. The results were that of all the wrestlers that lost in the first round, these wrestlers were able to come back and place 8th or higher within a range of 15 -20% of the time. So my hypothetical statement that there is inaccuracy of state placers at the Indiana state tournament, there is a inaccuracy of placing of the true best wrestler up to 15 to 20%. Yeah, obviously state doesn't slot people anywhere nearly accurately. I guess my point has always been that we have to focus our attention somewhere, and I just don't care about 3rd-16th at state as much as I care about how atrocious we are at getting the right people there through semi-state. Once we know the right people are there, I would definitely be far more interested in fighting to get them slotted correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts