Jump to content

Sectional seeding


Recommended Posts

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?

 

I was in the meeting, his exact words, "Head to Head means number of matches vs the rest of the entered wrestlers at that wt class."  My question to him was how many other sectionals seeding meetings are using this same interpretation of Head to Head tonight.  His response was probably 50%, my guess was our meeting was the only one using this interpretation.  We have 2 coaches of 30years+ and neither had ever heard of something like that.    

 

Anyone else's seeding meetings use his interpretation?

Edited by WL wrestling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think faulkens was saying since Jeff had more wins over the field in Sectional bracket he gets 1 seed. Kidwell had next most, then delphi (only because krintz wasn't at the weight at the time). They used winning percentage after those were in place. I'm not sure, I wasn't there. Just trying to bring light to everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Commissioner Faulken's response was the 45-0 kid had no wins vs the entered wrestlers at the wt class so he could not be the number 1 seed unless the other guys had no wins on the field as well.  

I think faulkens was saying since Jeff had more wins over the field in Sectional bracket he gets 1 seed. Kidwell had next most, then delphi (only because krintz wasn't at the weight at the time). They used winning percentage after those were in place. I'm not sure, I wasn't there. Just trying to bring light to everything.

 

That is correct:  Jeff had 2 wins in the field, WL had 1 win, Delphi had 1 win and Har had 0 wins.  It then went to win percentage for WL vs Delphi for 2 and 3 seeds, Harrison ended up 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a good topic for debate and I think there are valid points being made on both sides. But it's good to know Myles is content with the draw and the rest of us will know who the best 160 is Saturday. I think there's 4 solid kids in this group that can get it done 160 could arguably be one of the tougher weights this year.

Good luck to everyone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think faulkens was saying since Jeff had more wins over the field in Sectional bracket he gets 1 seed. Kidwell had next most, then delphi (only because krintz wasn't at the weight at the time). They used winning percentage after those were in place. I'm not sure, I wasn't there. Just trying to bring light to everything.

Actually  Krintz got down to weight (160) for the Delphi match but Delphi forfeited due to injury,  so that was a decision that affected the seeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Krintz got down to weight (160) for the Delphi match but Delphi forfeited due to injury, so that was a decision that affected the seeds.

Yes, I agree completely. They also forfeited to Lafayette Jeff in their dual meet if I remember correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another complaint -- and I raise this every year -- in the sectionals with > 8 teams several of the wrestlers are put into a "one-and-done" scenario.  If you are lucky enough to have a sectional with only 8 teams, then no matter what your record you are in double-elimination with a chance to wrestle back for 4th and a move to Regionals.

 

So, if you look at the sectionals with > 8 teams they have to seed the top 6 and then the rest are random draw.  However, since only 6 are seeded, that leaves 2 quarterfinal slots that are completely open.  In my opinion, the unseeded wrestlers should go there to battle it out with each other.  Instead, some sectionals do a complete random draw and place an unseeded wrestler against a top seed, while another unseeded wrestler lucks out and gets a bye in that empty quarterfinal slot.

 

Mooresville coaches have done it right -- the unseeded wrestlers are always paired up on those open slots and the #1 and #2 seeds always draw a bye to the quarterfinals.  Meanwhile, as an example in the Crawfordsville sectional at 182 there is unseeded Wrestler with 17-17 record who has drawn into a first round with the #2 seed.  If he loses, then he is done - no chance to wrestle back for 4th.  In the same bracket, a 12-23 wrestler gets a first round bye to the quarterfinals.  If he loses he still has a shot at wrestling back to move on.  I would like to see that 17-17 unseeded matched up against the 12-23 unseeded wrestler and give the #2 guy a bye.  That way at least both of the unseeded have a better shot to battle for that #3 or #4 finish and another weekend.  For some kids, that alone may make their entire season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

According to last year's Semi State brackets, Dylan Hart lost in the first round of Semi State to Lichtenberger of Valpo.....thus he's not considered a "Quarterfinalist" correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another complaint -- and I raise this every year -- in the sectionals with > 8 teams several of the wrestlers are put into a "one-and-done" scenario.  If you are lucky enough to have a sectional with only 8 teams, then no matter what your record you are in double-elimination with a chance to wrestle back for 4th and a move to Regionals.

 

So, if you look at the sectionals with > 8 teams they have to seed the top 6 and then the rest are random draw.  However, since only 6 are seeded, that leaves 2 quarterfinal slots that are completely open.  In my opinion, the unseeded wrestlers should go there to battle it out with each other.  Instead, some sectionals do a complete random draw and place an unseeded wrestler against a top seed, while another unseeded wrestler lucks out and gets a bye in that empty quarterfinal slot.

 

Mooresville coaches have done it right -- the unseeded wrestlers are always paired up on those open slots and the #1 and #2 seeds always draw a bye to the quarterfinals.  Meanwhile, as an example in the Crawfordsville sectional at 182 there is unseeded Wrestler with 17-17 record who has drawn into a first round with the #2 seed.  If he loses, then he is done - no chance to wrestle back for 4th.  In the same bracket, a 12-23 wrestler gets a first round bye to the quarterfinals.  If he loses he still has a shot at wrestling back to move on.  I would like to see that 17-17 unseeded matched up against the 12-23 unseeded wrestler and give the #2 guy a bye.  That way at least both of the unseeded have a better shot to battle for that #3 or #4 finish and another weekend.  For some kids, that alone may make their entire season.

Our Athletic Director asked the IHSAA about that and said we could NOT do it unless the IHSWCA made a proposal to do it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

According to last year's Semi State brackets, Dylan Hart lost in the first round of Semi State to Lichtenberger of Valpo.....thus he's not considered a "Quarterfinalist" correct?

 

Actually Hart lost in the first round of SS.  Also, Krintz and Kidwell both lost in the first round of Semi-state.    So they're all even in that sense except Adkins.   Someone mentioned Adkins beat Kidwell in the dual, so factor that in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The head-to-head confuses me a little, too.

 

Here's a situation I noticed, that benefited my son by I'm not sure why.

 

Wrestler A - 2nd best winning percentage, had not lost to a sectional opponent and had beaten wrestler B head-to-head

 

Wrestler B - 3rd best winning percentage, lost to wrestler A but beat Wrestler C

 

Wrestler C - best winning percentage, lost to wrestler B but did not wrestle Wrestler A

 

It appears that head-to-head trumped everything because Wrestler A was No. 1 seed and Wrestler B was No. 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

1 Adkins Lafayette Jefferson 30-6 Beat Kidwell from West Lafayette

 

2 Kidwell West Lafayette26-3 Lost 1st round Semi-State

 

3. HartDelphi 8-3 Lost 2nd round Semi-State

 

4. Krintz West Lafayette45-0 Lost 1st round Semi-State

 

 

I do not think it is seeded correctly, but if it is not and Krintz should be #1 then he will win the Sectional. If it is mis-seeded and Krintz wins the Sectional the guy that got the raw deal is Adkins of Jeff because he will go into the Regional as a third placer instead of a 2nd placer. Just my thoughts

I was in the meeting, his exact words, "Head to Head means number of matches vs the rest of the entered wrestlers at that wt class."  My question to him was how many other sectionals seeding meetings are using this same interpretation of Head to Head tonight.  His response was probably 50%, my guess was our meeting was the only one using this interpretation.  We have 2 coaches of 30years+ and neither had ever heard of something like that.    

 

Anyone else's seeding meetings use his interpretation?

No....I have done this for quite awhile and I have never heard that...not ever.

 

Before they threw the Semi-State one in there things went much more smoothly, and normally fairly.  The Semi-State criteria was put in to deal with a situation that had already happened, and happens very rarely.  Johnny makes Semi-State at 106 one year and then is a 126 pounder the next year.  How is that even relevant?

Edited by Coach Peck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Before they threw the Semi-State one in there things went much more smoothly, and normally fairly.  The Semi-State criteria was put in to deal with a situation that had already happened, and happens very rarely.  Johnny makes Semi-State at 106 one year and then is a 126 pounder the next year.  How is that even relevant?

It's relevant when a kid comes in with no head to heads, no common opponents, and a slightly better record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice at 220 that a kid that is 8-28 got seeded above someone that is 27-10? And on top of that the two best are on the same side now.

 

There will be a few #2's out of the other sectional that do not like what they see Saturday afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did anyone notice at 220 that a kid that is 8-28 got seeded above someone that is 27-10? And on top of that the two best are on the same side now.

 

There will be a few #2's out of the other sectional that do not like what they see Saturday afternoon.

 

 

This is why every year there are stories of kids who are clearly 2nd best in a sectional injury defaulting in the semifinals to "correct" the mistake in seeding at the other feeder sectional.  They would then finish 3rd instead of 2nd because the 2 best guys at the other sectional were not separated like they should have been.

Edited by RegionRoyalty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
 

 

This is why every year there are stories of kids who are clearly 2nd best in a sectional injury defaulting in the semifinals to "correct" the mistake in seeding at the other feeder sectional.  They would then finish 3rd instead of 2nd because the 2 best guys at the other sectional were not separated like they should have been.

 

I know this is common practice - but this is something I can't stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked up the IHSAA "Seeding Criteria Tutorial"  ( I think one coach in this sectional had done their homework and thoroughly reviewed this).  Here's the criteria below and this makes sense as to why the seed came out:

 

A) Head to Head( The Wrestler with the most head to head wins gets the seed).  If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the wrestler of the last match gets the seeded.  In the tutorial,  the narrator says wins between wreslers in that bracket.

B    Record vs Common Opponents

C)Semi- State Qualifier in IHSAA tournament

D)Best Overall Record with minimum of 10 matches

E)Furthest Advancement in the IHSAA tournament

F) Draw by lot

 

 

A) Only Head to Head is Adkins over Kidwell.  So out of the four,  Adkins has the only head to head win and has two wins in the Bracket = #1 Seed.   So Hart has one and Kidwell has one win.   I would go to the next criteria of best overall record and Kidwell should have been 2 and Hart 3.   Krintz has no wins so should be #4.   All other criteria is irrelevant.

 

b  Do we know any common opponents, so non-applicable.

 

C) None are semi state quarterfinalists even though in the track wrestling wrestler info had Hart as one which is wrong.

 

D) Best overall record-  NA

 

E) Highest advancement in the IHSAA- NA

 

F) Not done here- NA

 

 

My evaluation:   Due to injuries and 2 wrestlers changing weight classes,  this was tough to seed.  But by the time Regional is over, this will be straightened and wont have that much affect.

Edited by Wrestling Scholar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.