Look at D2 138lbs. Delebreau beat Bozile each time they faced off this year (all of Bozile's losses) including Sectionals, Bozile still got the #2 seed, that can't happen.
Similar situation in the D1 113 bracket. Wathke (Bay Port) beat Beckett (De Pere) in the regional and sectional finals but is seeded lower. It's not a huge deal because even if they flip flopped seeds they would still meet in the quarters. But, it's clear they are putting more emphasis on state results from the previous year instead of head to head results of the current year.
Some people will complain Koy Hopke got the number one seed!! is it perfect? No, but get over it and go out and win every match, the best wrestlers will prevail. Some people just like to complain
Go over each one of their matches and tell me how Bozile is better. Koy Hopke's losses are to the top 2 kids in the country, nobody will argue his seed. I'm not from either of their schools, I'm just stating a fact that the system didn't work here.
Quote from: harley25 on February 20, 2024, 07:59:17 AMSome people will complain Koy Hopke got the number one seed!! is it perfect? No, but get over it and go out and win every match, the best wrestlers will prevail. Some people just like to complain
Or, you could do a better job seeding as identified in the thread from yesterday. Take prior year state appearances out of the equation or move them more to the bottom of the criteria. You have a whole season, plus regionals and sectionals to consider that all happened in the current year. Emphasize the more current results and cross the brackets to reduce sectional rematches in the first 2 rounds.
Have you even watched the video explaining how the state seeding is completed? It's very informative and really takes the guess work out of the process, and it does take in to consideration head to head match ups. check it out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isiVcVarPzE
Quote from: harley25 on February 20, 2024, 07:59:17 AMSome people will complain Koy Hopke got the number one seed!! is it perfect? No, but get over it and go out and win every match, the best wrestlers will prevail. Some people just like to complain
hey- they are stating fair cases. It is not complaining... just stating what is and that we can improve on this in the future.
Also, nobody will complain about Hopke getting a 1 seed.
the seeding did a great job in a lot of places. we're going to enjoy it.
Quote from: beastmode on February 20, 2024, 08:18:02 AMHave you even watched the video explaining how the state seeding is completed? It's very informative and really takes the guess work out of the process, and it does take in to consideration head to head match ups. check it out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isiVcVarPzE
I did watch it, very informative. However it seems in this case because Bozile was hurt for most of the year, paired with his state place last year, that helped him. To me, that's a flaw in the system.
Improvements can absolutely be worked towards in the system. Didn't Delebreau lose to the 7 seed? Should the 7 jump them both?
It becomes a slippery slope when you have several losses on the year. The system tries to look at the entire body of work in a season, can't just focus on your good wins without also factoring the losses which Bozile didn't have in this case.
Why are sectional rematches an issue? You could also be matched against the neighboring sectional kid that you lost to this year first round.
I assume for many the issue is the match was lopsided the two previous weeks at regionals and sectionals.
So what options might be viewed as an improvement?
1) 2 matches for everyone at state. I think is would solve 90% of the complaints.
2) Does eliminating regionals and just having sectionals make a slight improvement?
3) Could only seeding the top half the bracket allow flexibility to avoid sectional first round rematches?
Quote from: beastmode on February 20, 2024, 08:18:02 AMHave you even watched the video explaining how the state seeding is completed? It's very informative and really takes the guess work out of the process, and it does take in to consideration head to head match ups. check it out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isiVcVarPzE
I watched it. It is very informative as to how the seed points work and I have a better understanding now. I still think it doesn't work well in many cases. They talk about "this year's body of work" while most of the criteria reference last year's state tourney. Let's be honest, in a lot of cases these kids in the bracket don't have a great deal of head-to-head or common opponents except for the guys from their own conference/regional/sectional. Now you are completely into last year's results. What's the incentive to get 2nd in your sectional instead of 3rd besides that one seed point? What's the advantage of having two guys who might be in the overall top 5 in the bracket wrestling each other in round 1 or 2 for the 4th, 5th maybe 6th time this season? What is the incentive for a team who had some qualifiers last year in a less tough sectional to go out and wrestle big tournaments against good competition? They can just stay in their own area, wrestle their duals and get good seeds at state based upon the last year's qualifier criteria because they have less or no head-to-head or common opponents. Worse yet, it reduces the upside/reward for kids who did go to those tourneys and prove themselves against that competition.
It makes no sense to me to talk about this year's body of work, and then have most of the criteria look back to last year. Most of the problem lies with the last year's state qualifier criteria. That will often times be a kid who finished 3rd in his sectional last year, and 3rd in his sectional this year. Why would that deserve a better seed than a kid who finished 2nd in his sectional this year and has a better body of work this year?
Quote from: SWIGuy on February 20, 2024, 08:59:48 AMQuote from: beastmode on February 20, 2024, 08:18:02 AMHave you even watched the video explaining how the state seeding is completed? It's very informative and really takes the guess work out of the process, and it does take in to consideration head to head match ups. check it out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isiVcVarPzE
I watched it. It is very informative as to how the seed points work and I have a better understanding now. I still think it doesn't work well in many cases. They talk about "this year's body of work" while most of the criteria reference last year's state tourney. Let's be honest, in a lot of cases these kids in the bracket don't have a great deal of head-to-head or common opponents except for the guys from their own conference/regional/sectional. Now you are completely into last year's results. What's the incentive to get 2nd in your sectional instead of 3rd besides that one seed point? What's the advantage of having two guys who might be in the overall top 5 in the bracket wrestling each other in round 1 or 2 for the 4th, 5th maybe 6th time this season? What is the incentive for a team who had some qualifiers last year in a less tough sectional to go out and wrestle big tournaments against good competition? They can just stay in their own area, wrestle their duals and get good seeds at state based upon the last year's qualifier criteria because they have less or no head-to-head or common opponents. Worse yet, it reduces the upside/reward for kids who did go to those tourneys and prove themselves against that competition.
It makes no sense to me to talk about this year's body of work, and then have most of the criteria look back to last year. Most of the problem lies with the last year's state qualifier criteria. That will often times be a kid who finished 3rd in his sectional last year, and 3rd in his sectional this year. Why would that deserve a better seed than a kid who finished 2nd in his sectional this year and has a better body of work this year?
Removing prior year state qualifier is the easiest and most significant change to implement.
When kids shift weights before regionals or teams shift wrestlers to make a stronger dual team, it limits the head to head and common opponents seeding criteria effectiveness.
The idea that a second time state qualifying (did not place) wrestler gets a seeding point over a current year state qualifier that just accomplished the same standard is wrong. Also worth mentioning that some kids left at home last year were better than some of last year qualifiers due to sectional depths.
When seeding a tournament, when is I participated last year a criteria?
Coaches that know the system and criteria should seek out competition and put their athletes in a position to get seeded. As a coach I have refined our schedule to wrestle in different parts of state and tried to make sure that the competition was from our division as much as possible. Between our Christmas tournament and four other competitive tournaments most of my state competitors were able to get head to heads or common opponents. Some of this helped us and some hurt as we lost. I really try to get out of our conference/regional area as much as possible. I hate wrestling guys more than twice, yet we know that once we hit the tournament series it might be every weekend.
When I scan through the brackets the two wrestlers that seem to take a hit more than others are freshman and those that change a weight class at the end of the year. If one changes weight classes most of their H2H and common opponent criteria is gone with the exception of regionals and sectionals. As for the freshman, they will only receive H2H, common opponent, sectional champ, and then record. We have had freshman seeded in the top four the last two years, so it does happen if they have wrestled a tough schedule.
If we truly want to try and separate the top two to four wrestlers there is no 100% correct way to do it. The human element is too subjective and different opinions are sure to be had. Having been on both ends of this debate, a 10th grader that was 41-3 seeded 12th behind numerous wrestlers with 9-11 loses and wrestlers seeded 1st and 2nd due to criteria, they all need to win in the end to move on.
Create a bracket that is truly double elimination and a lot of this debating about seeding would go away.
I won't quote the whole post but I agree with pretty much all of this panther93. Double elim would make much of it go away. I think an easy fix that would help is still to remove the previous state qualifier criterion and replace with something with more emphasis on current year results. Sectional placement? Maybe current State qualifiers beaten this year? That one would at least reward current year results against good wrestlers, and would somewhat mitigate the negatives of changing weight classes and wrestling different divisions on the process. If you went to tournaments and beat guys that are now at State but in a different weight/division it seems like a better indicator than finishing 3rd in your sectional last year.
One other option would be to run the criteria thru the sectional champions and runners-up as a pool and seed them 1-8 (for D2/3), and then separately thru the sectional 3rd placers like they currently do in their tie breaker. That way you would reward 2nd vs 3rd in the sectional.
Nothing will be perfect, but perfect should not preclude improvement, right?
I like the idea of wins over current qualifiers across the 3 divisions. Would reward those with stronger schedules and wins from the current season.
The other elephant in the room is finding a way to make MFF from tough matches in a tournament to protect records and seeds not a thing. Not an easy thing to do but it is clearly being abused and taken advantage of
MFF are definitely being abused
Since MFF's seem to be the top complaint on this subject, does anyone throwing that one out there have a list of athletes that intentionally did it to avoid someone? Genuinely interested. So I'll wait.
I am just curious as to how many there were at each sectional. We had 6 at ours. One in the semi's (he did continue to wrestle after), 2 in the finals, and 3 in the 2nd place wrestleback. From what I watched those kids did not get injured in their previous match, but I can't say if they were injured coming in.
Quote from: wiwrestle#1 on February 20, 2024, 07:20:29 AMLook at D2 138lbs. Delebreau beat Bozile each time they faced off this year (all of Bozile's losses) including Sectionals, Bozile still got the #2 seed, that can't happen.
https://www.trackwrestling.com/predefinedtournaments/PrintableWeightClassInfo.jsp?TIM=1708464563517&twSessionId=uwnjmtfdos&groupId=18597138
What this link shows is that the seeding system "deemed" Delebreau as being the superior wrestler when compared to 7 wrestlers in the bracket... based on your information, that includes Bozile. It also said 4 wrestlers in the bracket were better than Delebreau.
The system "deemed" Bozile as being better than 8 wrestlers in the bracket. In fact, Bozile, Mau, and Scoles were all deemed to be better than 8 and worse than 3. So Delebreau ends up below all of those (and below Penn who the system had as better than all 11) and Bozile ended up winning the 3-way time amongst himself, Mau, and Scoles. I'm sure someone who knows the bracket well could figure out and post who were the 4 that the system rated as above Delebreau (one of them was clearly Penn). Then you could argue what you think instead.
I think the system works but this thread has raised some interesting potential changes at a review.
I like placing these categories above record and state qualifier last year
a) Number of state qualifiers beaten this year no matter the division or weight class
b) Number of sectional qualifiers beaten this year no matter the division or weight class.
I think this shows strength this year and I do think an interesting point was brought up earlier was that coaches will want to schedule to compete against those in their own division.
How about a tiebreaker being most matches won at the weight class they qualified at. Pick a way to reward those that wrestled at the weight class all year and did not just drop at the end of season.
I would be against making sectional placing as a category unless a formula could be devised that can measure strength of the weight class at that sectional. Some sectionals are certainly tougher than others but really the determining factor is the strength of that weight class at that sectional. A weak sectional can still have a loaded weight class.
If a wrestler can wrestle a guy at regionals and sectionals then why can't he wrestle again 1st round at state? I get it sucks for the wrestlers but is the most fair. Same thing is just as bad when two kids from the same conference get matched up 1st round at state which has happened for decades.
106 Wolters N Busler just wrestled each other at regionals, team state, and sectionals, and now first round at state.
Quote from: WrestlerSB80 on February 20, 2024, 05:19:00 PM106 Wolters N Busler just wrestled each other at regionals, team state, and sectionals, and now first round at state.
That does suck but the results keep changing. They also wrestled in first tourney of season. Interesting though that the results keep changing
Every year people will be complaining about the first round matchups at state. The seeding for D2 & D3 isn't as good as it used to be, that is a understandable complaint. It is a big deal if you take second at your sectional and get to wrestle a sectional third place. It also does suck to have to wrestle the same kid back to back weeks (especially if you just lost to him). But a lot of kids wrestled in the conference finals and then wrestled in the regional finals a week later for a future seeded tournament (sectionals) and people weren't getting all hot and bothered about it.
For D1 seeding it is infinitely better than the old matrix system. That was an absolute joke.
Chris Hansen said that part of the stipulation of getting a seeded tournament was no human interaction. Which is too bad. Because the easiest solution is the human interaction. If you had every state qualifier coach put in their record, common opponents that qualified in that division and weight, highest place at last years tournament series whether it is a state champion or 6th at regionals, and note worthy accomplishments on current folk style season. Then have the coaches put in their seeds from 1-11 or 1-15 and not rank your own wrestler. Lowest total is the lowest seed and so forth. You would have a very balanced, seeded weight class. If you fail to put in your wrestlers information or don't seed you automatically gain 10 seeding points to your total (try explaining that epic fail to the kids parents). The coaches know whos who at each of their kids qualifying weight classes. It wouldn't take more than 10 minutes per kid to put in the information and seed it per coach. With so many qualifiers it would be incredibly difficult for coaches to pull favors as well and noticeably change the outcome of the seeds. All of this would be done in a timeframe that track would be open for a short window say the Sunday following sectionals.
But the main thing that would solve the problem is double elimination at state. They used to tell us there wasn't enough time to do it. Then it was it was close to enough time. Then they added girls state. So I guess there always was enough time. Not having double elimination at state is embarrassing. Even more embarrassing then wrestling 1 minute first periods on wrestle backs. If you implement that most rationale people would be satisfied.
Other sports had coaches doing the seeding originally and it was a massive fail and all went away from it. The only way to get human involvement would be to have a non coaches committee to maybe review for any major errors but I don't think anyone has identified any "major" errors. And once you make one change then it open up all kinds of complaints.
D2 190 is wrong based on the current seeding criteria. Wyatt Ingham should have 11 points and Silas Daily 10. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I went through the head to head and it comes dow to the final criteria which Ingham wins. Hmmm
D2 190 is weird
Ingham and Dailey have not wrestled head to head it seems
Ingham's only loss was to Mirasola (who Dailey also lost to)
They were both state champs last year
They are both sectional champs
Should come down to record with the point going to Ingham for better winning percentage
Yet track has Dailey with 11 seed points, meaning he was given the point over everyone in the bracket, including Ingham
D2 190 does appear to be an error and should have gone to winning percentage with the point going to Ingham between the two of them. I'd ask for clarification on that one though with those two wrestlers, I don't envision them having trouble outside of the finals.
Quote from: Fan1 on February 21, 2024, 05:32:53 AMD2 190 does appear to be an error and should have gone to winning percentage with the point going to Ingham between the two of them. I'd ask for clarification on that one though with those two wrestlers, I don't envision them having trouble outside of the finals.
Quote from: CLC FAN on February 21, 2024, 05:17:12 AMD2 190 is weird
Ingham and Dailey have not wrestled head to head it seems
Ingham's only loss was to Mirasola (who Dailey also lost to)
They were both state champs last year
They are both sectional champs
Should come down to record with the point going to Ingham for better winning percentage
Yet track has Dailey with 11 seed points, meaning he was given the point over everyone in the bracket, including Ingham
Quote from: beastmode on February 20, 2024, 08:38:22 PMD2 190 is wrong based on the current seeding criteria. Wyatt Ingham should have 11 points and Silas Daily 10. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I went through the head to head and it comes dow to the final criteria which Ingham wins. Hmmm
When the seeding points don't seem correct, it's most likely a coach's error. The computer runs it the same for everyone based on the data entered. It appears both coaches don't have their data entered correctly.
The important thing to note is that seeding only pulls matches from varsity matches entered into Track.
Ingham is 31-1 on the bracket and that comes from whatever coaches enter at regionals. On Track, if you go into Amery's matches and print matches for all levels, he's 24-1.
If you select varsity matches only for Ingham, he is only 13-0. Most of his matches on the year were not marked as varsity so he doesn't get credit for those in seeding. He's probably missing head-to-head and common opponent wins he should have.
For Silas, he's 47-3 on the bracket and 36-1 on Track varsity matches used for seeding. He's missing some wins and losses that were not included in seeding. If he lost to Mirasola, Track has no idea because it's not listed under his matches at all.
Unfortunately, not all coaches enter everything correctly. The WIAA has been very clear on how the process works and how to make sure everything is counted, but that's not always followed.
I bet the algorithm goes strictly off what the coaches input as their athlete's 2023-24 season. I went into the Dailey's season and the coach never linked in the outside tournaments that Dailey participated in therefore it only show's him with one loss to Aiden Sinclair. That said, all of Wyatt's matches aren't on there either. The coaches need to make sure the data is accurate in order for the seeds to be accurate.
Quote from: Backwards Singlet on February 21, 2024, 07:27:06 AMQuote from: Fan1 on February 21, 2024, 05:32:53 AMD2 190 does appear to be an error and should have gone to winning percentage with the point going to Ingham between the two of them. I'd ask for clarification on that one though with those two wrestlers, I don't envision them having trouble outside of the finals.
Quote from: CLC FAN on February 21, 2024, 05:17:12 AMD2 190 is weird
Ingham and Dailey have not wrestled head to head it seems
Ingham's only loss was to Mirasola (who Dailey also lost to)
They were both state champs last year
They are both sectional champs
Should come down to record with the point going to Ingham for better winning percentage
Yet track has Dailey with 11 seed points, meaning he was given the point over everyone in the bracket, including Ingham
Quote from: beastmode on February 20, 2024, 08:38:22 PMD2 190 is wrong based on the current seeding criteria. Wyatt Ingham should have 11 points and Silas Daily 10. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I went through the head to head and it comes dow to the final criteria which Ingham wins. Hmmm
When the seeding points don't seem correct, it's most likely a coach's error. The computer runs it the same for everyone based on the data entered. It appears both coaches don't have their data entered correctly.
The important thing to note is that seeding only pulls matches from varsity matches entered into Track.
Ingham is 31-1 on the bracket and that comes from whatever coaches enter at regionals. On Track, if you go into Amery's matches and print matches for all levels, he's 24-1.
If you select varsity matches only for Ingham, he is only 13-0. Most of his matches on the year were not marked as varsity so he doesn't get credit for those in seeding. He's probably missing head-to-head and common opponent wins he should have.
For Silas, he's 47-3 on the bracket and 36-1 on Track varsity matches used for seeding. He's missing some wins and losses that were not included in seeding. If he lost to Mirasola, Track has no idea because it's not listed under his matches at all.
Unfortunately, not all coaches enter everything correctly. The WIAA has been very clear on how the process works and how to make sure everything is counted, but that's not always followed.
Then there needs to be some check's and balances to make sure the coaches use trackwrestling correctly, or else you could manipulate the seeding system by only entering the information you deem fit.
Isn't it a concern that a coach can be responsible for entering the data correctly, TW has the data. If a coach wanted to be devious, they would just enter the losses as JV.
After running a tournament for the past 10 years, I'll go on record saying that you don't want coaches involved in the seeding process. Omissions, mistakes and flat out cheating would make a mess of the state tournament.
For all of those people out there that do not coach, the WIAA and the WWCA put out multiple reminders about seeding this year. I personally go over my tournaments/duals every Sunday to make sure everything is entered correctly. Usually is it just a simple select all from the tournament page and clicking import. One also has to make sure the event is marked at VARISTY, which is a simple click of a dropdown box on the schedule page on Track.
What is frustrating is coaches that do not do their job, either through ignorance or to purposely mislead. Criteria #2 could be impacted as well as incorrect records by coaches not following through with their duty as a coach.
One can argue the merits of the criteria being used, but that argument become mute when we do not have the correct data points. The WIAA and ADs need to hold coaches accountable. In other sports, coaches are required to email and call in scores and stats after each competition. In wrestling we have a nice one stop shop to do that, yet many coaches do not. It is hard to move our brand within the public sector with out doing this and giving them access to results.
Simple solution: do your job.
Quote from: panther93 on February 21, 2024, 12:17:59 PMFor all of those people out there that do not coach, the WIAA and the WWCA put out multiple reminders about seeding this year. I personally go over my tournaments/duals every Sunday to make sure everything is entered correctly. Usually is it just a simple select all from the tournament page and clicking import. One also has to make sure the event is marked at VARISTY, which is a simple click of a dropdown box on the schedule page on Track.
What is frustrating is coaches that do not do their job, either through ignorance or to purposely mislead. Criteria #2 could be impacted as well as incorrect records by coaches not following through with their duty as a coach.
One can argue the merits of the criteria being used, but that argument become mute when we do not have the correct data points. The WIAA and ADs need to hold coaches accountable. In other sports, coaches are required to email and call in scores and stats after each competition. In wrestling we have a nice one stop shop to do that, yet many coaches do not. It is hard to move our brand within the public sector with out doing this and giving them access to results.
Simple solution: do your job.
What's interesting here in this debate at 190... is Track has the correct overall records but a different part of track (sorry, it's confusing) has a different record. And this is because records weren't marked as "Varsity!?!" Just set the default to Varsity if that is the case. If it's left blank it automatically goes to Varsity. Should solve that issue. Or maybe that's too simple. The information is all there clearly, but just not correctly? Human error plays a part in everything we do. We should have the technology to eliminate the human error.
Simply put, if records or seeding criteria is not correct then that is on the coach. Problem is sometimes that incorrect information helps their wrestler and sometimes it hurts them so it makes it a concern of all coaches. There is no way the WIAA can keep track of every individual record like they can team records/results.
AD's, WIAA, and other coaches have to call out those not fulfilling their obligations and they should be reprimanded.
Which of course leads you to the next problem which is you don't want to fire or make it harder on coaches because there are not enough people that want their jobs.
Quote from: DocWrestling on February 21, 2024, 12:44:02 PMSimply put, if records or seeding criteria is not correct then that is on the coach. Problem is sometimes that incorrect information helps their wrestler and sometimes it hurts them so it makes it a concern of all coaches. There is no way the WIAA can keep track of every individual record like they can team records/results.
AD's, WIAA, and other coaches have to call out those not fulfilling their obligations and they should be reprimanded.
Which of course leads you to the next problem which is you don't want to fire or make it harder on coaches because there are not enough people that want their jobs.
Doc, so in this case it hurts a wrestler but what if in another case (which is detailed above) that a wrestler loses a match and it isn't marked as a varsity.
Maybe we can load in all the matches from the '80's and I will be undefeated :)
According to track wrestling I am undefeated! 0-0. Good thing I didn't wrestle in any old timers tournaments
Quote from: bigoil on February 21, 2024, 01:36:38 PMQuote from: DocWrestling on February 21, 2024, 12:44:02 PMSimply put, if records or seeding criteria is not correct then that is on the coach. Problem is sometimes that incorrect information helps their wrestler and sometimes it hurts them so it makes it a concern of all coaches. There is no way the WIAA can keep track of every individual record like they can team records/results.
AD's, WIAA, and other coaches have to call out those not fulfilling their obligations and they should be reprimanded.
Which of course leads you to the next problem which is you don't want to fire or make it harder on coaches because there are not enough people that want their jobs.
Doc, so in this case it hurts a wrestler but what if in another case (which is detailed above) that a wrestler loses a match and it isn't marked as a varsity.
Maybe we can load in all the matches from the '80's and I will be undefeated :)
Here are other times it helps. These wrestlers in the girls brackets are undefeated in the seeding criteria due to very few matches marked as varsity. That gives them little to no head-to-head and common opponent data. They get a seed point over almost every wrestler who has not been at state before and is not undefeated. Some earned significantly better seeds.
#7 seed at 235 Alyssa Sagen at (1-4) from Cameron
- She has no prior state experience to earn points as a placer or qualifier.
- Going into track, she was 1-4 prior to sectionals. Those matches were not marked as varsity.
- She is seeded only based off her undefeated 4-0 sectionals record. She goes from likely a #14-16 seed to #7.
#8 seed at 114 Gemma Vaccaro (15-11) Fr. from Milwaukee Ronald Reagan
- She has no prior state experience to earn points as a placer or qualifier.
- She has no matches before sectionals marked as varsity and is also seeded only based off her undefeated 4-0 sectionals record. She goes from likely #14-16 seed to #8.
All Reagan's five qualifiers have zero or only a couple matches marked as varsity before sectionals. Some of their wrestlers like at 145 and 185 would probably be seeded high anyway, but their 114 gets a big boost.
#7 at 107 Greta Rzonca (19-5) from Wilmot Union
- Seeded based off a 6-0 record instead of the 19-5 record.
I agree with the posters above that coaches need to be doing this correctly because it can significantly affect some seeds.
I appreciate all the respectful discussion on where things can be improved upon. Today is a great day for everyone who enjoys this great sport
The seeding process needs to be improved. Example: D3 106 On the top of the bracket, you have three wrestlers from the same sectional wrestling again. How does that make any sense?
Comments after two rounds of D1
1) I agree that I would take state qualifier out as criteria. Some state qualifiers did find an easier path. In seeding our tournament we also struggled with this when we had returning state qualifiers but they had 6-6 records at the time or something like that. Maybe replace it with state qualifier that won at least one match at state A lot of kids that qualify and don't place are very good wrestlers and they have earned that criteria if they have won a match at state.
2) Overall the seeding did a nice job. It actually seemed to do an even better job in the upper weights where all the wrestlers are older and their criteria are probably more proven
I'm old enough to remember pages of threads pleading for seeding.
Looks to me like it has done its job in d1 so far by keeping best kids apart going into friday night. I did not see any weights that had the best guys wrestling each other thursday. Remember the purpose of seeding is to get best kids seperated and to semis and finals. The fringe kids and freshman have to go prove themselves, which they have the chance to. Im sure some will but the % will be small.
49 of 56 top 4 seeds in semis in d1.
87% accuracy.
Looks like it worked really well to me.
Quote from: DocWrestling on February 20, 2024, 04:53:31 PMI think the system works but this thread has raised some interesting potential changes at a review.
I like placing these categories above record and state qualifier last year
a) Number of state qualifiers beaten this year no matter the division or weight class
b) Number of sectional qualifiers beaten this year no matter the division or weight class.
I think this shows strength this year and I do think an interesting point was brought up earlier was that coaches will want to schedule to compete against those in their own division.
How about a tiebreaker being most matches won at the weight class they qualified at. Pick a way to reward those that wrestled at the weight class all year and did not just drop at the end of season.
I would be against making sectional placing as a category unless a formula could be devised that can measure strength of the weight class at that sectional. Some sectionals are certainly tougher than others but really the determining factor is the strength of that weight class at that sectional. A weak sectional can still have a loaded weight class.
If a wrestler can wrestle a guy at regionals and sectionals then why can't he wrestle again 1st round at state? I get it sucks for the wrestlers but is the most fair. Same thing is just as bad when two kids from the same conference get matched up 1st round at state which has happened for decades.
Regional results and State qualify points are always a challenge because some sectionals are easier than others. That's why last year's state placement is important, it's easy for some athletes to make state!
Quote from: womens_wrestling on February 21, 2024, 08:11:53 PMQuote from: bigoil on February 21, 2024, 01:36:38 PMQuote from: DocWrestling on February 21, 2024, 12:44:02 PMSimply put, if records or seeding criteria is not correct then that is on the coach. Problem is sometimes that incorrect information helps their wrestler and sometimes it hurts them so it makes it a concern of all coaches. There is no way the WIAA can keep track of every individual record like they can team records/results.
AD's, WIAA, and other coaches have to call out those not fulfilling their obligations and they should be reprimanded.
Which of course leads you to the next problem which is you don't want to fire or make it harder on coaches because there are not enough people that want their jobs.
Doc, so in this case it hurts a wrestler but what if in another case (which is detailed above) that a wrestler loses a match and it isn't marked as a varsity.
Maybe we can load in all the matches from the '80's and I will be undefeated :)
Here are other times it helps. These wrestlers in the girls brackets are undefeated in the seeding criteria due to very few matches marked as varsity. That gives them little to no head-to-head and common opponent data. They get a seed point over almost every wrestler who has not been at state before and is not undefeated. Some earned significantly better seeds.
#7 seed at 235 Alyssa Sagen at (1-4) from Cameron
- She has no prior state experience to earn points as a placer or qualifier.
- Going into track, she was 1-4 prior to sectionals. Those matches were not marked as varsity.
- She is seeded only based off her undefeated 4-0 sectionals record. She goes from likely a #14-16 seed to #7.
#8 seed at 114 Gemma Vaccaro (15-11) Fr. from Milwaukee Ronald Reagan
- She has no prior state experience to earn points as a placer or qualifier.
- She has no matches before sectionals marked as varsity and is also seeded only based off her undefeated 4-0 sectionals record. She goes from likely #14-16 seed to #8.
All Reagan's five qualifiers have zero or only a couple matches marked as varsity before sectionals. Some of their wrestlers like at 145 and 185 would probably be seeded high anyway, but their 114 gets a big boost.
#7 at 107 Greta Rzonca (19-5) from Wilmot Union
- Seeded based off a 6-0 record instead of the 19-5 record.
I agree with the posters above that coaches need to be doing this correctly because it can significantly affect some seeds.
This is awful. If these were boys brackets people would be pissed.
But remember that was not the seeding system's fault. It was the coaches fault
Quote from: DocWrestling on February 23, 2024, 06:55:41 AMBut remember that was not the seeding system's fault. It was the coaches fault
Which is the fault of the WIAA that it is allowed. Records should be checked. That is unacceptable.
The WIAA don't care. They don't care if there is seeding at all. Besides there is no way they can check 520 male wrestlers plus the girls. Maybe they could but they would probably have to announce brackets Thursday morning.
Imagine them trying to verify all those wrestlers. How would they even know something is wrong. Think of the time taken if they did find something wrong and having to go back to the coach and wait for correction and then re-check.
Coaches association really cannot do it either and they are the lead on this seeding.
I do think there needs to be consequences for coaches. How about any coach that is shown to submit inaccurate info is not allowed on the floor at state.
Quote from: tex on February 22, 2024, 11:35:52 PM49 of 56 top 4 seeds in semis in d1.
87% accuracy.
Looks like it worked really well to me.
Wouldn't it have to be compared to prior non-seeded seasons to verify if it works or doesn't work?
In D1, all #1 seeds made it to the finals, and by my count 10 of the #2 seeds made it.
Rapids
Rapids
I would say the seeding works great - of course with hundreds of kids it won't be perfect, but it seems pretty darn good. And it sounds like it would be even better if every team or program was 100% accurate and perfect with their record keeping and data entry. I'd say there will probably always be a few issues with that, but I think it will improve once folks realize what a big deal it can be. The Finals tonight should be pretty sensational with for the most part the top 2 wrestlers facing off in the pinnacle of the sport in our state at this level. Enjoy the show!!
Quote from: PAUL on February 24, 2024, 07:00:16 AMI would say the seeding works great - of course with hundreds of kids it won't be perfect, but it seems pretty darn good. And it sounds like it would be even better if every team or program was 100% accurate and perfect with their record keeping and data entry. I'd say there will probably always be a few issues with that, but I think it will improve once folks realize what a big deal it can be. The Finals tonight should be pretty sensational with for the most part the top 2 wrestlers facing off in the pinnacle of the sport in our state at this level. Enjoy the show!!
Indeed, a quick scan of the seeds for the folks in the semi-finals suggests that the seeding was fairly accurate. If anything, this year's results would seem to suggest that the seeding system used was very accurate.
Quote from: npope on February 24, 2024, 07:37:17 AMQuote from: PAUL on February 24, 2024, 07:00:16 AMI would say the seeding works great - of course with hundreds of kids it won't be perfect, but it seems pretty darn good. And it sounds like it would be even better if every team or program was 100% accurate and perfect with their record keeping and data entry. I'd say there will probably always be a few issues with that, but I think it will improve once folks realize what a big deal it can be. The Finals tonight should be pretty sensational with for the most part the top 2 wrestlers facing off in the pinnacle of the sport in our state at this level. Enjoy the show!!
Indeed, a quick scan of the seeds for the folks in the semi-finals suggests that the seeding was fairly accurate. If anything, this year's results would seem to suggest that the seeding system used was very accurate.
I agree 100%
After looking at the results it was as spot on as you could get in D1, with a couple questionable 2 seeds over 3 seeds and that took care of it self last night.
I try to never complement the WIAA for obvious reasons but I will acknowledge that they have put in a solid solution to the seeding issue.
Now they need to work on a new weight decent plan (worst in the nation) the new season starts tomorrow!
It's not a decent descent plan?
Quote from: Ghetto on February 24, 2024, 01:16:43 PMIt's not a decent descent plan?
I thought his descent plan was a pretty decent plan though
For years many of the best match ups were on Friday night. Not a lot of people liked it. But you had to wrestle who ever was put in front of you and if you won you moved on. Not everyone gets the results they wanted. Last nights matches were much more reflective of a desire of many. Better reporting from coaches can make it better. True enough. Still only one person wins every match at state. Will there be some "I didn't see that coming?" Of course. That's why they wrestle the matches. Win or lose you face whomever is out in front of you. A full double elimination might, might fix some scenarios but probably not a whole lot if everyone reports correctly.
The whole MFF thing had me mystified. I wondered a few times when I saw someone MFF to s superior wrestler and the wrestle later. I wasn't there so I don't know but it seemed to happen a few times. I've never liked ducking an opponent regardless of how it impacts future match ups. If you are moving wrestlers around in a dual in order to give yourself a better chance to win. No problem. But in the middle of a tournament MFF for future placements seems to be against the very nature of wrestling.
In D1 the seeding worked well. #1 seed won 11 of the 13 weight classes. The #2 seed won the other two weight classes.
A few kids wrestled above their seed on the back side which always happens.
Overall lots of dominating wrestlers winning title and not to many upsets
Way more upsets in the girls' brackets, but it's kind of to be expected. It's a rapidly growing sport without a ton of historical data to feed to the computer. Plus, some programs don't get nearly as many matches for their girls as others. In some cases, they mainly wrestled boys all season.
I think that in a few years, the girls' brackets will "settle down" and become more predictable, and you won't see as many returning champions getting knocked off. Going to take a bit yet, though.
Quote from: firemanscarry on February 26, 2024, 03:48:10 PMWay more upsets in the girls' brackets, but it's kind of to be expected. It's a rapidly growing sport without a ton of historical data to feed to the computer. Plus, some programs don't get nearly as many matches for their girls as others. In some cases, they mainly wrestled boys all season.
I think that in a few years, the girls' brackets will "settle down" and become more predictable, and you won't see as many returning champions getting knocked off. Going to take a bit yet, though.
The returning state qualifier seeding criteria elimination would also help girls.
The only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
Quote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
Quote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
I would love double elimination, but think it will be easier to go to balanced divisions and run the 16 man bracket like D1 and girls. With competitive balance it would make it easier for the fans, coaches, etc.
12 weights. 2-2-2.
Quote from: wrastle63 on February 27, 2024, 10:37:31 AMQuote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
Quote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
I would love double elimination, but think it will be easier to go to balanced divisions and run the 16 man bracket like D1 and girls. With competitive balance it would make it easier for the fans, coaches, etc.
Your right. Competitive balance adds another dynamic. Does it ever transistion into individual success? How about girls wrestling, will we ever see multiple divisions?
Not that this ever happens, but would love to see a 40-man bracket, double elimination place top 12. Qualify everything the same, 16,12 and 12 all into one bracket. Wow!
Quote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
wrong- the third problem -- several weights had guys seeded lower than the provided data suggested. these guys pulled "upsets". there is an easy fix to it- just have a committee vote on it. a computer alone doesn't get the whole job done. the criteria is great and does a great job at getting a baseline down, but there a few more steps to improve the system further.
Quote from: rankwizard on February 27, 2024, 06:32:26 PMQuote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
wrong- the third problem -- several weights had guys seeded lower than the provided data suggested. these guys pulled "upsets". there is an easy fix to it- just have a committee vote on it. a computer alone doesn't get the whole job done. the criteria is great and does a great job at getting a baseline down, but there a few more steps to improve the system further.
What range of seeds? I would argue if the top 4 are close to being correct then there is no problem. Last thing you need is a committee debating over seeds 4 or 5, 6 or 7.
This is probably a hi-jack of this thread, but the team state seeding is jacked.
Homestead beat Hartford in a dual, beat them in the conference tournament, and scored more points at individual state. Still seeded below them.
I'm not smart enough to understand why.
Quote from: hornbuckleb on February 28, 2024, 09:14:50 AMQuote from: rankwizard on February 27, 2024, 06:32:26 PMQuote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
wrong- the third problem -- several weights had guys seeded lower than the provided data suggested. these guys pulled "upsets". there is an easy fix to it- just have a committee vote on it. a computer alone doesn't get the whole job done. the criteria is great and does a great job at getting a baseline down, but there a few more steps to improve the system further.
What range of seeds? I would argue if the top 4 are close to being correct then there is no problem. Last thing you need is a committee debating over seeds 4 or 5, 6 or 7.
Seeds 5-7 are super important in D2/D3. You lose round 1 and you are done. If all the brackets were the same we would all understand the importance and value the same things.
Quote from: wrastle63 on February 28, 2024, 12:03:41 PMQuote from: hornbuckleb on February 28, 2024, 09:14:50 AMQuote from: rankwizard on February 27, 2024, 06:32:26 PMQuote from: hornbuckleb on February 27, 2024, 09:46:53 AMThe only two problems with the current seeding system are inaccurate/missing data, and no double elimination. Both are easily resolved.
Track could produce a report containing the records for each qualifier broken down by team. Coaches would have until Monday at noon to certify the records.
Double elimination can happen. Start the entire tournament (all divisions) at 10:00 on Thursday.
wrong- the third problem -- several weights had guys seeded lower than the provided data suggested. these guys pulled "upsets". there is an easy fix to it- just have a committee vote on it. a computer alone doesn't get the whole job done. the criteria is great and does a great job at getting a baseline down, but there a few more steps to improve the system further.
What range of seeds? I would argue if the top 4 are close to being correct then there is no problem. Last thing you need is a committee debating over seeds 4 or 5, 6 or 7.
Seeds 5-7 are super important in D2/D3. You lose round 1 and you are done. If all the brackets were the same we would all understand the importance and value the same things.
I understand what you are saying, but not buying it. Double elimination fixes that problem regardless of division or seed.
The weights I had slight disagreements with were:
D1: 132 and 150
D2: 106, 120, 132, 138, 150
D3: 113, 132, 144
It all worked out okay, I just thought a couple kids got rougher draws than they deserved. I also got to keep in mind that life is not fair and this stuff happens.
Are you talking true double elimination? The loser bracket winner has to double dip the king seat?
Quote from: Houndhead on March 01, 2024, 06:18:31 AMAre you talking true double elimination? The loser bracket winner has to double dip the king seat?
We are going to go back to good points and bad points, need two X's in your row.
That brings back memories of monster brackets and avoiding the two X's! Someone needs to bring those back. Not sure anyone fully understood those brackets
I remember those State Freestyle brackets well. Once you had 2 black X's you were done. If you had no X's and all 4"s for each round then you were the man!! The brackets were split, and the top 2 advanced. 1 vs2, 2 vs 1. You could potentially wrestle the same kid twice if your half of the bracket was loaded!!
Quote from: bigoil on March 01, 2024, 01:44:24 PMQuote from: Houndhead on March 01, 2024, 06:18:31 AMAre you talking true double elimination? The loser bracket winner has to double dip the king seat?
We are going to go back to good points and bad points, need two X's in your row.
Then top 4 round robin
Quote from: hornbuckleb on March 02, 2024, 08:49:05 AMQuote from: bigoil on March 01, 2024, 01:44:24 PMQuote from: Houndhead on March 01, 2024, 06:18:31 AMAre you talking true double elimination? The loser bracket winner has to double dip the king seat?
We are going to go back to good points and bad points, need two X's in your row.
Then top 4 round robin
And then A bracket vs B bracket. I have some of those crazy brackets, 40-60 kids split up into top and bottom. There were no 4 man round robins back then. You could have easily 10 matches in a day.
I only remember those brackets at state and nationals. Did other local tournaments ever use them? I need to dig in my parents basement to see if any of those brackets exist.
Does any organization across the country still use them? I am thinking they must because when I register our HS tournament on trackwrestling and you go through selections for settings, that bracket style is still an option.
AAU and USWF
Quote from: DocWrestling on March 02, 2024, 05:25:31 PMI only remember those brackets at state and nationals. Did other local tournaments ever use them? I need to dig in my parents basement to see if any of those brackets exist.
Does any organization across the country still use them? I am thinking they must because when I register our HS tournament on trackwrestling and you go through selections for settings, that bracket style is still an option.
In Freestyle there were many others. I recall specifically Sheboygan having a bracket with two wall charts 22-23 on each.
Definitely uswf, aau, regional nationals as well.
Doc - you are a couple of years younger than me, I also recall when I was younger, many of the freestyle tournaments were bad points and as years went on switched to good points. Whatever- you may recall this better than I since you are a couple of years older.
I had forgotten all about the brackets with 2 X's. Anyone know where I could find more info on how those worked?
It is called "vertical pairing". Trackwrestling still allows you to use these style brackets but I have not seen them in use in a long time.
As I remember it
1) Wrestlers were placed in either the top half or bottom half
2) Might be 20+ guys in each half. You wrestled guys in your half until enough were eliminated with 2 losses. Losses gave you an "X" and after two X's you got the dreaded thick black line meaning you were done.
3) That half of the bracket wrestled until their were only 3 guys left
4) Those 3 moved on to a round robin against each other. They did not have to wrestle the same guy again as I remember it. The earlier result carried over
5) Based on results of round robin matches and points you determined 1st, 2nd, and 3rd for that half of the bracket. 4th place was the next last guy eliminated that had the most points. I think you got 3 points for a decision and 4 points for a tech fall, and 5 for a pin.
6) Then you had the final placement matches that crossed over with the other half of bracket. Both kids that took 1st in their half of bracket wrestled for 1st place, 2nd place guys wrestled for 3rd, 3rd place guys wrestled for 5th, and 4th place guys wrestled for 7th.
Is that how others remember it? For some reason as a wrestler on one of the lines on the bracket you never knew who you were going to wrestle the next match because sometimes it would be a guy above you and other times it would be a guy below you. I think the system tried to match up guys that won with guys that lost to try and eliminate wrestlers as fast as possible.
I remember theses brackets at Rapids for state and then at nationals. I don't think there were any "regionals" at that time to qualify for state so it was not unusual for their to be 60-70 kids in your bracket since you did not have to qualify. Those were the days when rubber suits were everywhere and kids laying on mats under heat blankets to cut the last few ounces. Things are much better today in that instance. For the younger folks, the only state tournaments were in freestyle one day and then greco the next day. There was no state tournament for folkstyle but all the local tournaments were folkstyle as I remember
Quote from: DocWrestling on March 04, 2024, 08:50:23 AMIt is called "vertical pairing". Trackwrestling still allows you to use these style brackets but I have not seen them in use in a long time.
As I remember it
1) Wrestlers were placed in either the top half or bottom half
2) Might be 20+ guys in each half. You wrestled guys in your half until enough were eliminated with 2 losses. Losses gave you an "X" and after two X's you got the dreaded thick black line meaning you were done.
3) That half of the bracket wrestled until their were only 3 guys left
4) Those 3 moved on to a round robin against each other. They did not have to wrestle the same guy again as I remember it. The earlier result carried over
5) Based on results of round robin matches and points you determined 1st, 2nd, and 3rd for that half of the bracket. 4th place was the next last guy eliminated that had the most points. I think you got 3 points for a decision and 4 points for a tech fall, and 5 for a pin.
6) Then you had the final placement matches that crossed over with the other half of bracket. Both kids that took 1st in their half of bracket wrestled for 1st place, 2nd place guys wrestled for 3rd, 3rd place guys wrestled for 5th, and 4th place guys wrestled for 7th.
Is that how others remember it? For some reason as a wrestler on one of the lines on the bracket you never knew who you were going to wrestle the next match because sometimes it would be a guy above you and other times it would be a guy below you. I think the system tried to match up guys that won with guys that lost to try and eliminate wrestlers as fast as possible.
I remember theses brackets at Rapids for state and then at nationals. I don't think there were any "regionals" at that time to qualify for state so it was not unusual for their to be 60-70 kids in your bracket since you did not have to qualify. Those were the days when rubber suits were everywhere and kids laying on mats under heat blankets to cut the last few ounces. Things are much better today in that instance. For the younger folks, the only state tournaments were in freestyle one day and then greco the next day. There was no state tournament for folkstyle but all the local tournaments were folkstyle as I remember
Pretty much spot on. They did run a qualifier, but I can not remeber if that was for AAU or UWSF. I believe it was USWF. Mineral Point and Lodi hosted and then onto state at either Rapids or River Falls.
Are you talking about Brackets Like this?
https://www.trackwrestling.com/freestyletournaments/MainFrame.jsp?newSession=false&loadBalanced=true&TIM=1709570672025&pageName=%2Ffreestyletournaments%2FBracketViewer.jsp&twSessionId=hwoqgmlhgk
I'm trying to post an image of a USA Freestyle bracket from the Northern Plains 1993. this is the type of wallchart bracket we are talking about here, but can't figure out how to post the bracket image!!
I like these bracket ideas.
I do think the seeding works great, i was just thinking where it can be improved.