unknown wrestler Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 How can a kid who is 40some and zero be a 4 seed? Well if a kid wrestles up all year and has no matches with anyone in his new weight he is now a four seed. I understand this logic but isn't someone getting screwed? Isnt seeding so the best wrestler gets through or atleast seperated? Lot's of crazy seeds in the Jeff sectional. At some point there has to be a rational thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesster125 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 How can a kid who is 40some and zero be a 4 seed? Well if a kid wrestles up all year and has no matches with anyone in his new weight he is now a four seed. I understand this logic but isn't someone getting screwed? Isnt seeding so the best wrestler gets through or atleast seperated? Lot's of crazy seeds in the Jeff sectional. At some point there has to be a rational thought process. I would say his coaches should of argued a little more. Sometimes that is what it takes. Jdhomes and Coach Masters 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsawwrestling Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 looks like 160 will be fine. I would say 3 seed should be 1st and 4 seed should be 2, but seperates the better 2 by my opinion. shoottowin and regionrumbler 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesster125 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I only saw 1 kid undefeated in the Jeff sectional at that was Jaden Sonner and he is the number one seed?? jsomerville 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsawwrestling Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I only saw 1 kid undefeated in the Jeff sectional at that was Jaden Sonner and he is the number one seed?? he meant Lafayette Jefferson. I looked there first also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown wrestler Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 The arguing was done by faulkens as he lead the discussion. I just think it hurts wrestling because now 1vs 2 is really 1vs 4. I think it hurts little johney work alot who should have got a 3. The young man is krinz. He has no doubt earned a #1seed. Hard work looks like it's gonna pay off with a trip to the bank. Some of the weights I looked at are off because of head to head with no similar opponents. It almost seems like its discouraged against going out and seeking the better competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsawwrestling Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Sectional Seeding Criteria1. Has had 10 match (es) towards Record 2. Was the wrestler a Semi-State Quarterfinalist last year?3. Record winning percentage4. Record wins 5. Indicate Highest Advancement in IHSAA Tournament Series last yearThis tournament will also be using head to head competition to seed wrestlers. Coaches will have from 01/21/2017 at 07:01 p.m. until 01/23/2017 at 03:00 p.m. to login and indicate the other wrestlers in the bracket that their wrestler has beaten. The wrestlers will first be placed in order using the seeding criteria above, and then any wrestler that has beaten a wrestler within 5 slot(s) above him and has not lost to any wrestler below the wrestler will get moved ahead of the wrestler he/she beat. If a wrestler has beaten a wrestler but lost to another wrestler below the wrestler he/she beat, that wrestler will not be moved. 1 Adkins Lafayette Jefferson 30-6 Beat Kidwell from West Lafayette 2 Kidwell West Lafayette 26-3 Lost 1st round Semi-State 3. Hart Delphi 8-3 Lost 2nd round Semi-State 4. Krintz West Lafayette 45-0 Lost 1st round Semi-State Current seeding has Adkins and Krintz meeting in semi’s and Kidwell and Hart. By the criteria I see……1. Hart (by second criteria, made 2nd round semi-state)2. Krintz (by second criteria and then winning percentage over Kidwell)3. Adkins (by head to head criteria over Kidwell)4. Kidwell (by second criteria, no other semi-state placers) Criteria seeding would have Hart and Kedwell wrestling and again Krintz and Adkins wrestling in semi’s. So, like I said there still meeting where they would meet if they don’t lose. regionrumbler, XCard and shoottowin 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleM Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Seeding criteria only applies to certain coaches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pops Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I was not impressed with a 4 seed either but my son believes it's not where you start it's where you finish 160 should be a competitive weight I guess in the end the favorites seem to be separated. Edited January 24, 2017 by Pops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 It probably had something to do that Krintz wrestled all season at 170 then got to the sectional at 160. Also looking at the draw, the head coach knew what he was doing and likes the way the bracket came out. Sometimes a 4 is better than a 2 or 3. Also saw at 195, the Faith Christian wrestler had a 25-0 record and got the 4 seed. Based on Strenght of schedule, its probably seeded correct. But Im surprised to see them take SOS into account, as I didn't think that mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattyb Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Really the ones that get seeded lower isn't the biggest thing. If a kid is the best then they are going to win anyway. What really stinks is when a kid that is actually the 2nd or 3rd best wrestler gets the 4th or 5th seed (due to wrestling a tough schedule). Those wrestlers get hosed at regionals. jsomerville 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 It probably had something to do that Krintz wrestled all season at 170 then got to the sectional at 160. Also looking at the draw, the head coach knew what he was doing and likes the way the bracket came out. Sometimes a 4 is better than a 2 or 3. Also saw at 195, the Faith Christian wrestler had a 25-0 record and got the 4 seed. Based on Strenght of schedule, its probably seeded correct. But Im surprised to see them take SOS into account, as I didn't think that mattered. Kidwell was a ticket rounder last year, I will assume that Ford beat him possibly this year or had a common over him. Not sure on the #3 seed, but that tells you the story on the top two seeds at 195. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WL wrestling Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Seeding criteria last night was explained like this: 1. Head to head wins: This meant the number of head to head wins in the weight class vs the other kids that are currently in that bracket. Ex. Wrestler A has 2 wins in the bracket, Wrestler B only has 1 win vs the rest of the field--Wrestler A automatically gets the higher seed even if wrestler B beat wrestler A and even if B has a better win percentage than A. Perfect example was at 182: Stallings (3 Seed) had one win vs the field, Powell (2 Seed) had 2. Stallings beat Powell and had a higher win percentage overall but still got the lower seed. Head to head as we know it is out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 That is wrong, head to head win should get the seed. Stallings won head to head he should get the seed no question. That is what head to head means, not versus the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Seeding criteria last night was explained like this: 1. Head to head wins: This meant the number of head to head wins in the weight class vs the other kids that are currently in that bracket. Ex. Wrestler A has 2 wins in the bracket, Wrestler B only has 1 win vs the rest of the field--Wrestler A automatically gets the higher seed even if wrestler B beat wrestler A and even if B has a better win percentage than A. Perfect example was at 182: Stallings (3 Seed) had one win vs the field, Powell (2 Seed) had 2. Stallings beat Powell and had a higher win percentage overall but still got the lower seed. Head to head as we know it is out the window. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCard Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Seeding criteria last night was explained like this: 1. Head to head wins: This meant the number of head to head wins in the weight class vs the other kids that are currently in that bracket. Ex. Wrestler A has 2 wins in the bracket, Wrestler B only has 1 win vs the rest of the field--Wrestler A automatically gets the higher seed even if wrestler B beat wrestler A and even if B has a better win percentage than A. Perfect example was at 182: Stallings (3 Seed) had one win vs the field, Powell (2 Seed) had 2. Stallings beat Powell and had a higher win percentage overall but still got the lower seed. Head to head as we know it is out the window. I feel like they have misinterpreted the criteria. I thought head to head as the first criteria was pretty black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I feel like they have misinterpreted the criteria. I thought head to head as the first criteria was pretty black and white. There you go thinking again! Dyoung 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WL wrestling Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I was in the seeding meeting with Comissioner Faulkens last night, he was the one who laid it out that way. Trust me I was just as confused. Essentially the head to head component only applies to the number of wins vs others in the field. straight from his mouth. Give him a call and clarify it for yourselves. Edited January 24, 2017 by WL wrestling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WL wrestling Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I feel like they have misinterpreted the criteria. I thought head to head as the first criteria was pretty black and white. All 11 coaches in the meeting thought so too! XCard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Kidwell was a ticket rounder last year, I will assume that Ford beat him possibly this year or had a common over him. Not sure on the #3 seed, but that tells you the story on the top two seeds at 195. I think that was the older Kidwell that made the ticket round, and this is his younger brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clint Gard Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I honestly hope that what you say about Mr. Faulkens' interpretation of Head to Head is not true. This guy oversees our sport and he doesn't know the basics of a seeding meeting? Can anyone confirm this? Why was he even running the meeting? Coach McCormick and Russian 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleB Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Why was Faulkens in the meeting to start with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreparetoWin Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 What coach would say...I beat everyone in this field and I am taking a lower seed to someone who did not beat everyone in this field. There was something more to this story. If you beat everyone, you are higher seed. Plain and simple. I am not even sure how there was an argument made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIREPROOF Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) What coach would say...I beat everyone in this field and I am taking a lower seed to someone who did not beat everyone in this field. There was something more to this story. If you beat everyone, you are higher seed. Plain and simple. I am not even sure how there was an argument made. I think the problem lies in the fact that the kid with the 45-0 record dropped down from 170 to 160 so he has no matchups against the #1,2 or 3 seeds at 160. Edited January 24, 2017 by FIREPROOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russian Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I think the problem lies in the fact that the kid with the 45-0 record dropped down from 170 to 160 so he has no matchups against the #1,2 or 3 seeds at 160. This is not an issue though. This is the reason why the next criteria is winning percentage. Perfect record takes the 1 seed then you start over for the 2 seed. Edited January 24, 2017 by Russian FIREPROOF 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts