The case for "wins against the field" seeding

[Clint Gard]

8 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said:

Leave it how it is and quit complaining about stupid seeds. No matter what magical system you devise there will always be seeds that are not perfect and just need to be wrestled out. That's life and seeding is just for separation and separation only. Too many people are putting stock into seeds like you can't wrestle above your seed for some odd reason.

I don’t disagree but I think it’s a little more important than “don’t worry about it” when you have kids working their tails off and have goals.  It’s important that we do what’s right by kids.

[Y2CJ41]

1 minute ago, Clint Gard said:

I don’t disagree but I think it’s a little more important than “don’t worry about it” when you have kids working their tails off and have goals.  It’s important that we do what’s right by kids.

There is no perfect seeding formula, you'll always have athletes that get over/under seeded due to circumstances outside their control. That is the nature of seeding as it is solely for separation and not to determine the winner. 

[hook and half]

7 hours ago, Nate Spangle said:

When I first saw the thread talking about seeding according to "wins against the field" I instantly thought that it was terrible. 

It seems fitting that it would come full circle to bite us at Sectional. 

 

Below is the 152 bracket at Arsenal Tech. 

 

The School of the Deaf is the 1 seed based on winning percentage. No common opponents and 0-0 against the field. 

 

Lawrence North is the 2 seed based on winning percentage. (No common opponents with Bragg.) 2-0 at least against the field. 

Cathedral is the 3 seed based on winning percentage. Also 2-0 against the field. 
 

Rushenberg is the 4 seed with 2 loses to Bragg and 1 to Phillips. But is 2-3 against the field. 

 

Mt. Vernon is the #5 seed based on winning percentage. (not positive his record against the field but i know they wrestle North Central) 

 

The #1 seed with no common opponents and a great record goes 0-2 on the day. 

 

Seeding with wins against the field would have been: 

1/2 Cathedral & LN
3/4 BC & MTV

5/6 NC & Brebeuf 

 

I immediately thought that wins against the field were a bad way to seed... but this is the first time I am seeing a case where they could make sense in some situations. 

Calvin “Hobbs & Solo” Cuppy is on my all-state all-names list

[ontherise219]

Can we have a representative from Crown point weigh in to see when they are looking to schedule the Iliana Christian dual for sectional seeding criteria? 
 

or 

 

Brownsburg when they want to schedule speedway in a dual to make sure they lock in 1 seeds 

 

 

[Jcjcjc]

A lot of the sectional seeding arguments begin because we have only two sectionals going into our regionals, making sectional results definitive in their impact on regionals since there is no draw factor.
2/3 at regionals/semistate is pretty similar in next stage, but 2/3 at sectionals is drastically different at regionals due to the weird 1/3 semi match up. 

[Silence Dogood]

20 minutes ago, Jcjcjc said:

A lot of the sectional seeding arguments begin because we have only two sectionals going into our regionals, making sectional results definitive in their impact on regionals since there is no draw factor.
2/3 at regionals/semistate is pretty similar in next stage, but 2/3 at sectionals is drastically different at regionals due to the weird 1/3 semi match up. 

That and no wrestlebacks at regional. 

 

[Jstephenson1356]

22 minutes ago, Jcjcjc said:

A lot of the sectional seeding arguments begin because we have only two sectionals going into our regionals, making sectional results definitive in their impact on regionals since there is no draw factor.
2/3 at regionals/semistate is pretty similar in next stage, but 2/3 at sectionals is drastically different at regionals due to the weird 1/3 semi match up. 

I agree. we ran into it at a few weights last year. We came in with 5 or 6 losses and had beat the 2 seed but got caught and lost a head to head with the 4 seed so head to head was basically thrown out and went off win percentage. Some of these teams wrestle a significantly weaker schedule than us and the kid that beat us out for the 2 seed had like a .04 better win percentage than us and we beat him the last 3 yrs. We had 3-4 weights where our kid was a semi state level guy but ended up on the same side as the champ at sectionals so we took 3rd and drew into a tough match. I’m in no way advocating for using the proposed method of seeding but for some of these deeper weight classes the seeding matters. For the record one of our kids was ranked 5th in the semi state and was the 5 seed and placed third. Never got to wrestle the 2 seed. The other I’m thinking of was the 4 seed and got third. Both were capable of getting second and having a much better draw at regionals but wrestled the champ in semis but both did outwrestle their seed.

[maligned]

Even requiring having wrestled 2 of the sectional field's teams (with no requirement on which kid from that school you faced), would mostly eliminate the rare case like this one.

 

I fall in the middle. Especially with teams scratching and clawing for team state qualification nowadays, those 4ths, 5ths, 6ths at sectional matter more than ever.

 

But MOST of the time, it all really does come out in the wash as long as we're reasonably close on seeds. Ironically, even in the case that started this discussion, the #4 seed kid that should have gotten 4th place got beat by the 5-seed that I'm guessing he didn't see during the year and was improperly seeded above.