basic13s
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Articles
Coach
Teams
Team History
Wrestlers
Wrestler Accomplishments
Dual Results
Individual Results
Team Rankings
Individual Rankings Master
Individual Ranking Detail
Tournament Results
Brackets
College Signings
Media
State Bracket Year Info
Team Firsts and Lasts
Family History
Schedule-Main
Schedule-Details
Team History Accomplishments
Current Year Dual Results
Current Year Tournament Results
Forums
Events
Store
Downloads
Everything posted by basic13s
-
Yes, as he should be, unless his coaches believe that they are getting an unfair advantage due to a mitigating circumstance in the victory of C over A, and decline the seed
-
If he doesn't have a win over a common opponent or a head to head win over other remaining candidates, a wrestler with a losing record cannot be seeded
-
No, C,A, B can't be seeded. This happens all the time?? At 113 at central it was like this Win % order as follows. 1. Matherly (NO) 2. Pellacer (GS) 3. Luigs (MD) Luigs beat Matherly, Matherly and Pellacer never wrestled nor have any common opponents. Luigs seeded 1 Matherly seeded 2 Pellacer seeded 3
-
Dispute noted, answer NO. 83.3-77.7= 5.6
-
That is your problem, you never "drop" A out of the discussion. A sets the bar with the highest win %. C can jump him B cannot. It's that simple. No one is eliminated. You can't make an argument for win % over C without having a qualifying seeding criteria advantage over A. Just remember, A sets the mark and is never dropped out of the debate.
-
Nothing strengthens an argument quite as well as a nice ad populum.
-
I don't understand the logic behind these replies and the results of the poll are astounding. This situation happens all the time in seeding meetings so let's revisit. Wrestler A: 25-5 has a loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 28-8 has not wrestled A or C Wrestler C: 23-8 has a win over Wrestler A So as we begin seeding, whatever program we have to auto seed these kids will automatically sort these kids by an entered in criteria. Almost always winning percent. What you would be looking at on the screen would be 1. A at (83.3333%) 2. B at (77.777777%) 3. C at (74.1935483870968%) So now you go down the criteria list. Have these kids wrestled? Yes, C beat A. Ok now the order is C A (83.3) B (77.7) How can you logically justify B jumping A?. No head to head, no common opponents, and no semi state quarterfinalist. The next criteria is winning %. A has a 5.6% advantage on wrestler B in that category. A sets the mark with win% C jumps because of a qualifying advantageous criteria, B cannot. The correct seed for this trio is C,A,B. There is no argument against this. If you argue winning %, B can never be placed in front of A. I find it fascinating coaches cannot see this. But then again, I've never claimed to be anything other than a brain surgeon. Donald Roberts
-
Brandenstein got lucky to beat king let alone warren
-
get out your rosary and pray the hail Mary
-
Gateway Duals St Louis MD and Merrillville
basic13s replied to catmancool's topic in Past Discussions
catman not very cool, how many kids in that room would want to wrestle off Johnny Sims?