Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Bananas

    12,060 [ Donate ]

 Content Type 




Team History


Wrestler Accomplishments

Dual Results

Individual Results

Team Rankings

Individual Rankings Master

Individual Ranking Detail

Tournament Results


College Signings


State Bracket Year Info

Team Firsts

Wrestler Seasons








Everything posted by MattM

  1. Why in your original analysis would wrestler A be considered for a #1 seed if he had already lost to C? Thus, in your example A is also out of the discussion and that just leaves B and C just follow criteria to determine the #1 seed. With no head to head to does down the list of the other criteria.
  2. But, again despite what we may want to happen the criteria does not specify determining strength of schedule. And in the case of no head to head or common opponents additional criteria are provided. Wrestlers should not be eliminated just because they don't fit into the first criteria. The wording of seeding criteria also explains "Coaches should strive to keep open minds when seedings are being decided. The main objective of seeding is to have outstanding wrestlers separated in the brackets so that they will not meet each other until the finals. Seeding shall be based upon the wrestler's proven ability and not upon the desire for unwarranted advantage." If you have an issue with a weak schedule or dodging head to head matchups to gain an advantage in the seeding then that is the part of the criteria that would be the only thing you could use to address that issue. And if the majority of the voting coaches in the meeting agree with this determination then something must be determined to solve the dispute between C or B receiving the #1 spot.
  3. It's not skipped. It is used first which eliminated A. But has no effect on B and C. So after eliminating one wrestler you are down to seeding just two wrestlers. The first criteria does not fit so you must continue on with the rest of the criteria in order after that to determine their position.
  4. How can you determine is a weak schedule though based on just the record. And none of the criteria references strength of schedule to make that determination. It's only after all the other criteria have been used and as I said in your example B and C have yet to be clearly separated by the earlier criteria so if it falls to win percentage then that is what is needed to determine the seed.
  5. Winning percentage is used only if none of the previous criteria were meet, which in the case of B and C (after A was eliminated from discussion) seems to not have been meet. If any of the other previous criteria shows how to separate B and C then that criteria is used.
  6. But the answer you provided completely skilled common opponents and any other criteria after and just went completely off the head to head answer to say C was over A and then somehow threw out B in the process. So I'm still not following.
  7. That eliminates A from the argument due to C's win over A, but I'm still not understanding how you are eliminated B from the discussion. C has no head to head with B just as B has no head to head with C. So how can you eliminate one wrestler from the other. In my vies, the answer should be continuing through the rest of the criteria. Then after the seed it determined start over from the beginning for the next seed.
  8. The head to head puts C over A, but C has no claim over B or via versa based on that argument so you should have to continue down the criteria to solve their seeding. I'm guessing Mr. faulklen hasn't been involved in too many seeding discussions, so his simplification of the process worked as an answer in this case. If you seed based on this explanation a Wrestler D with a 1-27 record could be the 1 seed by beating wrestler E who is 12-12 who may get the 2, while wrestler F who is 30-0 may not get seeded if he has no head to heads against several sectional guys.
  9. Word is the Altons have been getting some mat time in and their match count up in at non-PSU events to get to the exact match number needed to still compete in the NCAA tournament without putting to much added stress on their bodies (like say a Big 10 season grind). Off the top of my head I'm not sure what that criteria entails. As such, they aren't being pushed into wrestling deep into some of these tournament events, and have dropped out of a few of them prior to the finals. If that is indeed the case we should be seeing them back in the PSU line up in the near future.
  10. Just invest in this arsenal of vehicles
  11. This provides some additional details on the decision/offer http://www.defensesoap.com/grapplegnostic/?p=735
  12. A coaches vote for an All-Conference individual team (maybe 1st team, 2nd team, even Honerable Mention if a wrestler received enough votes) could be the best some conferences can do in this situation. Plus, if there was enough head to head duals for comparison a possibly a Conference Team Champion can be decided.
  13. If a school/coach needs to submit someone's information for the list. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1S5EJxmB85gE5UEbvoyBYcQVEabr3kjv9w9m7NJbHUwI/viewform
  14. I think proper clarification and consistency with the rules interpretation is what most of the coaches are looking for with this one.
  15. Here is the IHSWCA's current list Coaching Milestones http://www.ihswca.org/history/milestones I'm guessing some names still need to be added to this list.
  16. Though alternate are not used often, when it used the system place usually does not choose one of the next best wrestlers to be the alternate. Under the current rule the alternate is the last last person eliminated by he champion that did not advance. At the Regional level the champion is usually also the Sectional Champion. Which means the last person they eliminated was the 4th place finisher from the other sectional (in some cases if a sectional alternate is needed the 5th place finisher from the Sectional). That person then becomes the semi-state alternate for that Regional without winning a single match and finishing in the lowest advancing sectional spot. I had suggested before that the alternate go to the highest sectional placer eliminated in the 1st round. In the event of two wrestlers eliminated with the same sectional placement, the spot goes to to the the wrestler from the regional champions sectional. While still not as fair as a wrestle-back it at least gets closer to giving the spot to the proven next best wrestler available. It's a little less of an issue in semi-state as the alternate at least must win an opening semi-state match and often time is actually a 2nd place regional finisher. But the same suggestion I made for Regional would work at Semi-state too, however due to 4 Regional's combining at Semi-State in the event of two eliminated with the same placement it may have to occasionally may need to resort back to the person from the Semi-State runner-ups Regional if neither comes from the champions Regional. I'd rather see full wrestle-backs put in place to determine an alternate, but apparently a better system of tournament organization and time-engagement needs to be implemented in many localizations for that to happen. Until then I would at least promote the idea of finding the most proven wrestler eliminated from the tournament to be the alternate, rather than the current IHSAA system.
  17. Coach I'm not sure you read the Bullitin correctly. While there are still full wrestle-backs at Sectional, the Bulletin explains at the Regional and Semi-State level the alternate will be the last person eliminated by the Champion that did not place. According to page 65 and 66 of the Winter Bulletin http://www.ihsaa.org/Portals/0/ihsaa/documents/quick%20resources/Winter%20Bulletin.pdf Regionals to Semi-State Alternates–If it becomes necessary to provide an alternate for any contestant eligible to advance, the following procedure will be used: b. The 1st alternate will be the last individual defeated by the champion who did not advance by placing. Semi-State to State Finals Alternates–If it becomes necessary to provide an alternate for any contestant eligible to advance, the following procedure will be used: b. The only alternate will be the 5th place contestant in that weight class from that site. c. The 5th place alternate will be the last individual defeated by the champion who did not advance.
  18. Some places didn't run an efficient enough time schedule at regionals and semi-state apparently so the answer to complete things at a better time was to eliminate the 5/6 alternate match from the schedule. They resorted back to the last person eliminated by the champion as the alternate.
  19. Anyone have the full rundown of top placers for this one?
  20. We aren't to far away from that now if they don't turn off or at least tone down the brightness/color of the advertising strip they have running during face-offs and finals.
  21. Was also rank near the top nationally too. He was winning his first round state match early, but then made the decision to pick down on a very tough top wrestler.
  22. Awesome news. This is her first title after barely being edged out in the finals the last two years.
  23. But it's not 16 evenly between 4 semi-states so in your argument the current rankings still do not fit correctly.
  24. Thanks for the updates. Nice showing by the 3 Indiana Women so far. Hopefully Sara can final get over the hurdle and win the title this year.
  • 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.