WIAA Individual Tournament Brackets Reveal Show Sunday

[bigoil]

Head to head trumps that??

[Coach Lu]

In regards to the people questioning the undefeated Freshman Wolbert who yes has two wins over the number 1 seed...

This is possible because seed points are what determine seeds. 

Here are the criteria used and it is run against everyone in the bracket one at time.  Chris Hansen and I created a video that explains this and can be found here:
 

:

Criteria for seeding:

• Head-to-head competition
• Competition against common opponents
• Returning state champion
• Returning second or third place finisher in previous season
• Returning fourth through sixth place finisher from previous season
• Sectional champion
• Returning state qualifier in previous season
• Winning percentage in the current season

Each individual is run against the others in the bracket one at a time until a seed point is determined.  In this case, a talented freshman doesn't have any criteria 3, 4, 5, or 7 data points.  In this case, he has beaten good wrestlers and has a stellar record, therefore he still wins seed points, but only enough to be the 3 seed.  Bast, on the other hand, is a high state place winner from a year ago and only probably loses a seed point to Wolbert.  Wolbert could have lost a seed point to a state place winner with who he has no head-to-head nor common opponents.  Freshman will always be at a disadvantage in seeding criteria that leans on how they did last year, but will always have a way to be relevant in the seeds if they are excellent like Wolbert. 

I also noticed Koch of Neenah mentioned above.  His rationale would be similar I am sure in addition to the fact that he also isn't a sectional champion which was widely accepted as needed in our criteria by coaches and fans.  So doesn't get anything for criteria 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.  He is scoring his seed points on criteria 1 and 2 and his record.

Again, watch the video if you haven't, it will explain lots!

[TomM]

That is a 'thing' when a freshman is one of the top kids.
That is how the computer generated seeding program is written. It deals with 'facts' related to WIAA wrestling' only.
Not everyone wrestles each other.
Freshman have no WIAA 'state' history.

This seeding system 'works'. You may or may not see how or why, but it works as intended.

'People' (Wisconsin coaches) were not satisfied with the 'matrix' system of bracket placement.
'People' (Wisconsin coaches) sought to have 'seeding'
Seeding can be subjective or objective or a combination of both subjective and objective.
If the seeding used is 'subjective' (computer program generated) some people will feel there are 'errors' (what ever those are?)
If the seeding used is 'objective' some people will feel there are 'errors' AND prejudices by humans, which is impossible to deny. (people can attempt to deny it, but baloney to that argument)
If the seeding used is a combination of subjective and objective some people will feel there are errors AND prejudices by humans, which is impossible to deny.

There is no way to plan and or program for every possibility or eventuality.

I personally preferred the matrix, when applied as intended.

To borrow part of an expression from Abraham Lincoln;
You can SATISFY some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not SATISFY all of the people all of the time."

No one can know outcomes, until they are outcomes.

[Fan1]

I think the seeding video sent out makes this pretty clear.  You get a seed point vs each person in your bracket.  Returning place winners that wrestle a tough schedule can end up with more of the possible 15 seed points than an undefeated freshman.  System isn't perfect but no system is. 

In this case, Bast had 14 out of 15 possible (assuming he didn't get the point vs Wolbert) but he had the seed point versus everyone else. 

Wolbert likely lost seed points (ended up with 12 out of 15) to returning place winners in the bracket he had not wrestled this year or had victories over common opponents.

One thing I think the WIAA should do is make how the awarded seed points were calculated visible in TrackWrestling for each wrestler to help improve transparency and clarity. 

[Numbers]

Bast 14 of 15 points points (Only lost a point to Wolbert?)
Slama 13 of 15 points
Wolbert 12 points (so lost points vs 3 others in field)
Halter/Anderson/Campbell with 11 points.

Still much better than the semi random draw that could have been a Bast/Wolbert quarter Thursday night.

[Coach Lu]

One thing I think the WIAA should do is make how the awarded seed points were calculated visible in TrackWrestling for each wrestler to help improve transparency and clarity.

Fan1, that would be awesome to see, but highly unlikely for Flo to want their system out there to copy with the detailed report.  You can see how many seed points each wrestler acquired by clicking on "information" at the top, then "auto seeds".  This report details how many seed points each wrestler acquired.  Remember that the video we made explains that ties are broken head-to-head by whoever won the seed point.  3-way ties or more are broken by pulling out just those wrestlers and re-running the criteria without using 1 and 2.  For more details on this, watch the video posted above.

The video and criteria listed provides transparency of what is being done.  The computer runs algorithms and doesn't make mistakes.  The only mistakes that exist are from coaches providing the data I assure you.  I am not aware of any sport that releases how computer seeds were derived.  Football doesn't.  Basketball doesn't.  I am not sure why the WIAA would do this for wrestling fans.  I personally think the WIAA has been more than generous with the WWCA and fans by allowing feedback and input.  A committee by the WWCA was allowed to review and make "under the hood" modifications as to how the criteria perform in the algorithms.  These 8 criteria were the same used last year and in the same order, however, some tweaks on how it calculated in criteria 1 and 2 were made. 

Fan1, you are probably spot on with your analysis and seem to understand this very well...

[Numbers]

The video explanation gets an A+.  Well done Chris Hansen.

As people continue to look for ways to improve this new system, I think the tiebreakers could be improved.  If the view is to skip criteria 1 and 2, I think the tiebreaking criteria should be 3-4-8 or 3-4-5-8.  A returning state qualifier should not earn a point over a top freshman just because someone was a top 8-12% varsity wrestler last year. 

The criteria is already stacked against the first year varsity wrestler.  Then even more stacked by skipping criteria #1 and #2 in the tiebreakers.

My two cents...

[Coach Lu]

Numbers,

These are good suggestions.  I am unsure what the capability of trackwrestling is as far as breaking ties.  I am not sure if the criteria can be rearranged for breaking a tie or not.  There are limitations to the system as the code is written, but I don't know for sure what they are.  It's possible the original criteria you select is how ties are automatically broken.  I could be wrong here.

Either way, great solution based thoughts that have merit for consideration!

[ChargerDad]

Common sense.  Common sense says Wolbert should be number 1.  The computer generated system is a start.  Humans should then look at what the computer generated and discuss.  Most brackets will be fine. But, when there's an outlier it needs to be addressed.     

Giving wrestlers credit for what they did last year doesn't make sense.  Last year has nothing to do with this year.   

So, you believe that success at last years state tournament isn't a reasonable predictor of success at this years tournament?

Wolbert may well be the best wrestler in the bracket.  What's the effect of making him the 3 seed compared to what could have happened in years prior?  He won't face the #1 seed until the finals, and the #2 seed in the semifinals.  In years past, could have faced one of the in the quarters, and the other in the semi's.  Seeding isn't going to perfectly bracket every weight class, that's impossible.  But the odds of having everyone's "real state title match" in the quarters is MUCH less likely to happen now.  Perfect isn't possible, so let's not let perfect be the enemy of good..  Also, involving humans is 100% not the way to make it better.. this process has to be objective, and humans are not.

[rankwizard]

Common sense.  Common sense says Wolbert should be number 1.  The computer generated system is a start.  Humans should then look at what the computer generated and discuss.  Most brackets will be fine. But, when there's an outlier it needs to be addressed.     

Giving wrestlers credit for what they did last year doesn't make sense.  Last year has nothing to do with this year.   

You are exactly right. If Wolbert was #4, all the Bast people would be angry about it, as Bast would likely be once again denied a trip a to the state finals.

the #2 guy should be angry he does have Bast in the semis, instead of a tougher Wolbert, as would be the common sense principle.

[CLC FAN]

Common sense.

Giving wrestlers credit for what they did last year doesn't make sense.  Last year has nothing to do with this year.   

Last year common sense had the forum all riled up that an undefeated returning state champ was the 3 seed in Division 3. 


Completely throwing out last year doesn't seem like a common sense solution either.

[Gutwrench]

My issue with D1-120 is that Anderson is the 5 seed, while Oberg is the 9th seed and just majored Anderson in the sectional finals.

If this was a regular tournament during the season, I'm sure the Baraboo coaches would argue for the 5 seed based on head to head with Anderson, and I'm thinking they would probably get it.

[MatScoutWillie]

I'm not saying Wolbert is the best wrestler in the bracket.  But, he has done the most this season and should be the 1.  Plain and simple.   

Using the logic, "it's better than what we had." is lazy.  These things should not happen.  Same goes with the Oberg/Anderson topic.  That is inappropriate term01.  This is where the humans come in to play. 

Last years success has nothing to do with this year when it comes to seeding.  Nothing.  Of course if you did well last year you're probably going to do well again.  But, that doesn't mean you make it a seeding criteria.  Half of the seeding criteria is from last years state tournament!!!  That seems to be overkill. 

[Whizzersoldman]

A possible Skebba vs Koch in the quarters on Thursday night will be fun to watch. Wow!

This is how I define error!!!!!!!!!
I generally agreed with how this seeding worked last year but this match up on opening night should be on Saturday night. One Wisconsin wrestling web site has these two ranked 1 & 2 in the state with #3 guy in the same sectional coming in at 47-1, only loss coming in was to Skebba, staying home. Not sure what the WIAA needs to add into there seeding criteria but this freshman Koch has wrestled all around the world and won.It is a shame these two won't be marching in the "March of Champions" on Saturday night as many predicted they would. Skebba won both matches in regionals & sectional by the score 1-0 both times. I predict the loser of this match will end up in 3rd place.

[neutral]

Hard to understand how Ryan vs. Wolbert (from the same Sectional) is a first round match-up.   

Obviously - Wolbert has had Ryan's number ... but Ryan deserves a better placement than that.