Clint Gard

It’s not a rule. It’s an interpretation by RF and it is wrong.  The Winter Bulletin says nothing about it which the other question I posed to him.  Why wasn’t it in the WB if that is the way we are supposed to do it?  Never got an answer.  I believe every sectional should go by the WB and be done with it.  If there is a “rule” to be followed then it’s in the WB.

It’s not a rule. It’s an interpretation by RF and it is wrong.  The Winter Bulletin says nothing about it which the other question I posed to him.  Why wasn’t it in the WB if that is the way we are supposed to do it?  Never got an answer.  I believe every sectional should go by the WB and be done with it.  If there is a “rule” to be followed then it’s in the WB.

It’s not a rule. It’s an interpretation by RF and it is wrong.  The Winter Bulletin says nothing about it which the other question I posed to him.  Why wasn’t it in the WB if that is the way we are supposed to do it?  Never got an answer.  I believe every sectional should go by the WB and be done with it.  If there is a “rule” to be followed then it’s in the WB.

I have an email from the man himself telling me that our "Coaches Association developed and presented the idea of this "new" head to head criteria."  I have it on good authority that his statement is false!

Absolutely the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard.

In regard to this new seeding criteria:
 
Mr. Faulkens, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Absolutely the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard.

(insert face palm emoji) - and this right here is why the IHSAA will never listen to any other sports about the importance of SEEDING - cause we (wrestling) can't even figure it out amongst ourselves! 
 
Essentially what I'm saying is I agree with Joe - don't make phone calls that are unnecessary. Figure it out as coaches. 

Or at least gain enough trust with your tournament director (usually an AD) to ensure they ask you or the sectional coaches for clarification before getting some outside sources involved who is not fully aware of the best way to handle the situation.   Even if a coach would have called it may have turned out to be a better interpretation based on how things were asked and talked through than an unknowing tournaments director with little concept of a seeding meeting process. 

Unfortunately coaches would rather "win" the seeding meeting and argue for crappy seeds than do the right thing. 

If you go look at 2020 Elwood Sectional, Robert Faulkens made us seed the whole sectional this way. I was coaching at Guerin Catholic at the time and our 145 Jeff Dunasky was 28-2 with losses to Viduya and bumped up and lost to Kervin, both state champs that year. Had also teched the 1 seed the week before in 1st period, but was made the 2 seed because he didn't have as many head to heads. The craziest seeding meeting I've seen. https://www.trackwrestling.com/predefinedtournaments/MainFrame.jsp?newSession=false&TIM=1674586934175&pageName=&twSessionId=ubusvatgld

Not one bit.  That is what happened at 182 at our conference.  Not our wrestler but he had no wins in the bracket because he was dropping to 182 for the first time.  Had the best record. No head to heads or common and was a state qualifier. Ended up 4th seed. 

Based on the explanation we were given at our conference seeding meeting it would be this order:
A, B, C, D, E, F for sectional.  22-0 doesn’t matter because he has no wins in the bracket.  Happened at 106 and 182 in our conference.  Completely off the reservation.

Based on the explanation we were given at our conference seeding meeting it would be this order:
A, B, C, D, E, F for sectional.  22-0 doesn’t matter because he has no wins in the bracket.  Happened at 106 and 182 in our conference.  Completely off the reservation.

I would love to know how they determine the second part of the head to head criteria in their version of head to total sectional interpretation.   
 
"If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed." 
 
This wording clearly indicates an individual vs. individual not a group head to head determination.

I have an email from the man himself telling me that our "Coaches Association developed and presented the idea of this "new" head to head criteria."  I have it on good authority that his statement is false!

I have an email from the man himself telling me that our "Coaches Association developed and presented the idea of this "new" head to head criteria."  I have it on good authority that his statement is false!

Absolutely the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard.

This just hurt my head!!!

I have an email from the man himself telling me that our "Coaches Association developed and presented the idea of this "new" head to head criteria."  I have it on good authority that his statement is false!

If not broke don’t change it . Ridiculous if true 

That's just ignorant.

Absolutely the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard.

I remember about 5 years ago that idea was a possible suggestion, wins agains the field that is. It was going to be after commons but before record on the criteria list, but it was never brought up again after that. 

That's insane. I have a spreadsheet of what I think seeds will be for the Jay County sectional, and this would change a ton of my brackets, when really it should be pretty cut and dry.