RegionRoyalty Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I know this is common practice - but this is something I can't stand. This isn't the only place where ethical dilemmas can arise based on the current construction of our tournament. Here's another I've witnessed: Top 3 kids in the Regional are all in the same Sectional. #1 is State Champion caliber #2 and #3 are fringe State Qualifier caliber. Nobody else in the Sectional or the other feeder Sectional are anywhere near the level of these 3. They are seeded 1, 2, 3 at Sectional A. #2 beats #3 in overtime in the semifinals and #1 beats #2 soundly in the finals. #3 and his coach now have an ethical dilemma. Do they finish 3rd and end up on the same side of the bracket as their sectional champion the following week at the Regional (and likely another 3rd place finish)? Or do they injury default and take 4th, thereby placing them back on the same side as the #2 that they lost to in overtime, giving them another chance to win that match and make the regional finals, and in the process ending the season of the Sectional Champion from the other feeder sectional? The names have been changed to protect the innocent, but this situation is another common one. Edited January 24, 2017 by RegionRoyalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleB Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 UTB for seeding is Paper, Rock, Scissors. That would solve a lot of these issues. awood2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clint Gard Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Guys...I know there is an issue with kids and getting a raw deal. BUT...the bigger picture and question is WHY WAS THE COMMISIONER RUNNING IT AND WHY DOESNT HE KNOW THE RULES?? awood2, Coach Masters, WL wrestling and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Guys...I know there is an issue with kids and getting a raw deal. BUT...the bigger picture and question is WHY WAS THE COMMISIONER RUNNING IT AND WHY DOESNT HE KNOW THE RULES?? I don't think they've proven he doesn't know the rules. Maybe he was brought in to ensure the real rules were followed. Did they not follow the rules? Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandit1990 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Comissioner did it correct. (Basically no one else did) no idea why he was there though. awood2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grappleapple Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 This isn't the only place where ethical dilemmas can arise based on the current construction of our tournament. Here's another I've witnessed: Top 3 kids in the Regional are all in the same Sectional. #1 is State Champion caliber #2 and #3 are fringe State Qualifier caliber. Nobody else in the Sectional or the other feeder Sectional are anywhere near the level of these 3. They are seeded 1, 2, 3 at Sectional A. #2 beats #3 in overtime in the semifinals and #1 beats #2 soundly in the finals. #3 and his coach now have an ethical dilemma. Do they finish 3rd and end up on the same side of the bracket as their sectional champion the following week at the Regional (and likely another 3rd place finish)? Or do they injury default and take 4th, thereby placing them back on the same side as the #2 that they lost to in overtime, giving them another chance to win that match and make the regional finals, and in the process ending the season of the Sectional Champion from the other feeder sectional? The names have been changed to protect the innocent, but this situation is another common one. If it was my decision - the wrestler places as high as he can, always. Injury defaulting when not injured is unethical. So what if the kid gets a bad draw - it is what it is. So he loses to a better wrestler because of the draw. That stinks, for sure - but in my opinion there is a lot more reason to hold your head high and take some losses the right way, then there are to gain a victory the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegionRoyalty Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) If it was my decision - the wrestler places as high as he can, always. Injury defaulting when not injured is unethical. So what if the kid gets a bad draw - it is what it is. So he loses to a better wrestler because of the draw. That stinks, for sure - but in my opinion there is a lot more reason to hold your head high and take some losses the right way, then there are to gain a victory the wrong way. Maybe so, but explain that to the 17 or 18 year old kid who has to watch the other guy walk in the parade at Bankers Life, and get the notoriety of being a State Qualifier from his classmates and school, and get an extra weekend of visibility in front of college coaches who may be there watching the State Finals. Edited January 24, 2017 by RegionRoyalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIREPROOF Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I believe this may be the real reason, Wrestling Scholar. Edited January 24, 2017 by FIREPROOF Wrestling Scholar and FIREPROOF 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grappleapple Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Maybe so, but explain that to the 17 or 18 year old kid who has to watch the other guy walk in the parade at Bankers Life, and get the notoriety of being a State Qualifier from his classmates and school, and get an extra weekend of visibility in front of college coaches who may be there watching the State Finals. It would be tough, for sure - but I'd hope if put in that situation I'd be able to tell the kid he did the right thing by giving his best and not faking an injury to get to his goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I believe this may be the real reason, Wrestling Scholar. To clarify, you agree he was brought in to ensure the rules were followed correctly? Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIREPROOF Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) To clarify, you agree he was brought in to ensure the rules were followed correctly?l Yes Edited January 24, 2017 by FIREPROOF WL wrestling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown wrestler Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 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 I noticed! Complete garbage! There will be a few #2's out of the other sectional that do not like what they see Saturday afternoon. I believe fualkens was brought in because of stuff that has occurred in the past. Maybe this sectional title is a little closer now. WL wrestling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I believe fualkens was brought in because of stuff that has occurred in the past. Maybe this sectional title is a little closer now. Maybe those titles would of been further away if rules followed in the past. unknown wrestler and FIREPROOF 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoottowin Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So...has this topic determined that only one sectional in the whole state, seeded according to the IHSAA rules and their tutorial!?!? Is this a new tutorial and rules, regarding the head to heads against the field? It seems this had nothing to do with the new SS advancement criteria. So how many years has everybody been seeding wrong? (according to the IHSAA rules) I think most people reading this thread would put their trust in Y2,Coach Peck and other veteran coaches knowledge, but now that's being proven wrong, IF Scholar is correct. So...did this one coach, who Scholar said was the only one who knew the rules, invite Commissioner Faulkens because he knew the tutorial was against all history and conventional wisdom, and he wanted to make sure it was followed?? It sounds like the Laf Jeff kid is the only one who this may affect negatively, so it prob wasn't his coach. Wrestling Scholar and UncleJimmy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clint Gard Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) So for 21 years, our sectional has been doing it wrong and I'm guessing many others? I'm not talking about the 160 kids, I'm looking at the 182 class. The way they used head to head to seed that is not what we have ever used. I'd Sectionals are being seeded wrong and we have the rules wrong, then they need to be reseeded ASAP. Below is NOT the way I have ever seen it done in ANY tournament. 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. Edited January 24, 2017 by Clint Gard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) So...has this topic determined that only one sectional in the whole state, seeded according to the IHSAA rules and their tutorial!?!? Is this a new tutorial and rules, regarding the head to heads against the field? It seems this had nothing to do with the new SS advancement criteria. So how many years has everybody been seeding wrong? (according to the IHSAA rules) I think most people reading this thread would put their trust in Y2,Coach Peck and other veteran coaches knowledge, but now that's being proven wrong, IF Scholar is correct. So...did this one coach, who Scholar said was the only one who knew the rules, invite Commissioner Faulkens because he knew the tutorial was against all history and conventional wisdom, and he wanted to make sure it was followed?? It sounds like the Laf Jeff kid is the only one who this may affect negatively, so it prob wasn't his coach. http://www.ihsaa.net/seedingmeetingtutorial/story.html Im just speculating what happened. But read and listen to the tutorial. The link Is posted above. I didn't understand it until I read and listened to it. It does say that these criteria should not be deviated from. The tutorial is dated to 2014. At least take a look and make an opinion. Maybe I interpreted it wrong. But the 1st criteria is direct wins against wrestlers in the bracket. So for 21 years, our sectional has been doing it wrong and I'm guessing many others? I'm not talking about the 160 kids, I'm looking at the 182 class. The way they used head to head to seed that is not what we have ever used. I'd Sectionals are being seeded wrong and we have the rules wrong, then they need to be reseeded ASAP. Below is NOT the way I have ever seen it done in ANY tournament. According to the tutorial, it changed in 2014. Maybe you've been doing it wrong since then. Did you listen to the tutorial? Also, It does say once the sectionals are seeded its final, so I don't see a reseeding meeting happening. Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clint Gard Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I did listen to it. I listened on Monday before the meeting. I do not interpret it that way at all. Coach McCormick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I did listen to it. I listened on Monday before the meeting. I do not interpret it that way at all. Maybe next year they will add some clarification as a result of the confusion. I listened to it 3 times and I changed my opinion on the interpretation. But the narration is a little different than the writing. "But the narrator explicitly says the " Wrestler with the most head to head wins against wrestlers in that bracket gets the number #1 seed." Not to offend anybody, but is that the intention? Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clint Gard Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 On the paper they handed out "Head to Head Competition: (the wrestler with most head to head wins gets the seed. If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed). I believe this is different than stated above from the video. Wrestling Scholar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indysportsfan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Maybe next year they will add some clarification as a result of the confusion. I listened to it 3 times and I changed my opinion on the interpretation. But the narration is a little different than the writing. "But the narrator explicitly says the " Wrestler with the most head to head wins against wrestlers in that bracket gets the number #1 seed." Not to offend anybody, but is that the intention? In the rare case a wrestler is 3-0 vs the field (vs bottom 3 kids) but has an YTD record of 10-14 and never made beyond Sectionals would get the #1 seed instead of a wrestler that is 0-0 vs the field with an overall record of 32-2 with 2 semi-state appearances on their resume? WL wrestling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) On the paper they handed out "Head to Head Competition: (the wrestler with most head to head wins gets the seed. If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed). I believe this is different than stated above from the video. I agree the statement is confusing. Does that mean head to head wins against wrestlers applying for the seed, or does it mean head to head wins against wrestlers in the bracket. The audio says against wrestlers in the bracket. I do hope the lawyers add a little clarification in the future. In the rare case a wrestler is 3-0 vs the field (vs bottom 3 kids) but has an YTD record of 10-14 and never made beyond Sectionals would get the #1 seed instead of a wrestler that is 0-0 vs the field with an overall record of 32-2 with 2 semi-state appearances on their resume? Look at some of the state level wrestlers that just changed weight at the end of the season and have no head to head matches. According to the criteria, they probably should have been seeded lower. I bet there are some real examples out there. Maybe the intention of the rule is to discourage wrestlers from making last minute changes and to encourage teams to wrestle other teams in your sectional. You would be at an advantage in seeding to have more matches in your sectional and at a disadvantage when you change weights. Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 This isn't the only place where ethical dilemmas can arise based on the current construction of our tournament. Here's another I've witnessed: Top 3 kids in the Regional are all in the same Sectional. #1 is State Champion caliber #2 and #3 are fringe State Qualifier caliber. Nobody else in the Sectional or the other feeder Sectional are anywhere near the level of these 3. They are seeded 1, 2, 3 at Sectional A. #2 beats #3 in overtime in the semifinals and #1 beats #2 soundly in the finals. #3 and his coach now have an ethical dilemma. Do they finish 3rd and end up on the same side of the bracket as their sectional champion the following week at the Regional (and likely another 3rd place finish)? Or do they injury default and take 4th, thereby placing them back on the same side as the #2 that they lost to in overtime, giving them another chance to win that match and make the regional finals, and in the process ending the season of the Sectional Champion from the other feeder sectional? The names have been changed to protect the innocent, but this situation is another common one. With our current system there is no guarantee that placing 2nd will get you a better chance at going to state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegionRoyalty Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 With our current system there is no guarantee that placing 2nd will get you a better chance at going to state. Also true, which brings me to my 3rd ethical dilemma in the tournament series: When coaches from the Eastern time zone regionals send the semi-state formula to the Central time zone regionals that are still competing. I've seen a kid injury default, knowing that his draw would be better at the semi-state because his coach had the formula already. I believe last year the IHSAA prevented this from happening by holding the draws until the next day. unknown wrestler and awood2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awood2 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Maybe so, but explain that to the 17 or 18 year old kid who has to watch the other guy walk in the parade at Bankers Life, and get the notoriety of being a State Qualifier from his classmates and school, and get an extra weekend of visibility in front of college coaches who may be there watching the State Finals. ?????? The IHSAA has one goal when they use the words 'wrestling state tournament'... 14 championship metals on Saturday night at Bankers Life! Football - you gotta beat the team you draw. No play your way back in. Basketball - same. Baseball - same. Track & Swimming - lineup and go faster than everyone in the field at that moment. In wrestling the IHSAA wants to crown the last man standing and that's all; and I agree. I don't (have never) understand why we make wrestling so complicated. Tournament means we are looking for someone to rise to the top. Life doesn't always give you a fair path or an equal start to your dreams. In most cases, you fail. Quit whining. Let's weigh them, line them up, and let them wrestle. Saturday's should be about ONE THING - IF YOU AIN'T FIRST, YOUR LAST!@#$%^ Edited January 25, 2017 by awood2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsawwrestling Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Officials meeting at beginning of season Faulkens stated....1. Less matches (the number 25 before sectionals was thrown out) 2. More weekday duals. Warsaw's season has around 35 matches at this point. With the rough possibility of 15-20 of those against conference opponents. Rough breakdown 8 duals, 3-4 conference tournament, and usually can count on 4-5 matches ups in tournaments. We have 3 of our 8 schools go to the same sectional that has 10 teams (so we get 3 matches ups and maybe 1 more in tournaments with another school). Seeding criteria listed on sectional sites don't aline with true IHSAA sectional listed criteria on their site or tutorial! If head to head is going to be top criteria (or should say lack of head to head) I see a few issues. 1. This doesn't promote or encourage proper weight management program. 2. Encourages wrestling more matches to meet up with more sectional opponents. 3. Wrestling with injuries because of importance of sectional match-ups during season. 4. Encourages dodging better kids, if they don't have the wins it decreases their seeding chances. No point to this but wrapping up facts from the season. In the end you want to see the best, at least top 2 seperated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts