STATE BRACKETS OUT

[WIWRESTLING1010]

Well to be honest, the coaches got what they deserved then...Keep it simple and seed the top 4

[Redeemer]

Seed them all, with head to head the first criteria, with a few other important criteria after that.

Seeding only the top 4 would just be kindergartner's work.

[WIWRESTLING1010]

You need to reward the sectional champions though...that is my point! You can't have a sectional champ wrestling on Thursday night and a kid that he beat getting a bye!!! THAT CAN NOT HAPPEN!

[padre]

You need to reward the sectional champions though...that is my point! You can't have a sectional champ wrestling on Thursday night and a kid that he beat getting a bye!!! THAT CAN NOT HAPPEN!

Totally agree.  Never heard one coach all weekend not think this is how it should be.

I'm also not sure why it keeps going back to the coaches did this...literally no coaches in our sectional knew anything on how kids would be seeded. 

[mpordon]

I don't understand how the WIAA just continues to screw everything up. It often makes me think there are other motives at play. For starters, the fact that they refuse to take the time to properly distribute the best teams to different sectionals is an absolute joke. Now, the coaches and fans asked for a very simple seeding procedure to ensure top ranked guys would be on opposite sides of the bracket and the WIAA could not even come close to making this happen.

I want to be clear...brackets will never be perfect and that needs to be understood

How hard is it to do this:
1) D1 Sectional Champions wrestle D1 runner-ups in the first round (NO EXCEPTIONS)
2) Seed the top 4 Sectional champions in D1 (1. head to head 2. previous state place 3. record)
3) IF YOU WIN SECTIONALS IN D2 and D3 YOU GET A BYE!!! HOLY inappropriate term3 THIS IS INSANE!!!! Seed the top 4 sectional champions in d2 and d3....Put the 2nd place finisher on the opposite side of the sectional champ and the third place finisher on the same side as the sectional champ but they wouldn't face each other until semifinals

I don't know maybe I am missing something here, but this does not seem like a difficult thing to do and I hate that grown men making way too much money continue to make lazy decisions that impact hard working young men and women. FIGURE IT OUT!!!

So in 2009 Thielke, a returning champ and eventual 4-timer, shouldn't have been seedable because he lost in the sectional finals? Two years ago Max Meeuwsen (another returning champ) lost to Cullen Quick in sectionals only to beat him in the state finals, Whiting (a returning champ as well) lost in sectionals to a eventual non-placer, and Scoles lost to Medora at sectionals after winning at the TKO and before going on to beat him again at the state finals; should none of them have been seedable either? Either seed all of them or none at all.

[harley25]

I don't understand how the WIAA just continues to screw everything up. It often makes me think there are other motives at play. For starters, the fact that they refuse to take the time to properly distribute the best teams to different sectionals is an absolute joke. Now, the coaches and fans asked for a very simple seeding procedure to ensure top ranked guys would be on opposite sides of the bracket and the WIAA could not even come close to making this happen.

I want to be clear...brackets will never be perfect and that needs to be understood

How hard is it to do this:
1) D1 Sectional Champions wrestle D1 runner-ups in the first round (NO EXCEPTIONS)
2) Seed the top 4 Sectional champions in D1 (1. head to head 2. previous state place 3. record)
3) IF YOU WIN SECTIONALS IN D2 and D3 YOU GET A BYE!!! HOLY inappropriate term3 THIS IS INSANE!!!! Seed the top 4 sectional champions in d2 and d3....Put the 2nd place finisher on the opposite side of the sectional champ and the third place finisher on the same side as the sectional champ but they wouldn't face each other until semifinals

I don't know maybe I am missing something here, but this does not seem like a difficult thing to do and I hate that grown men making way too much money continue to make lazy decisions that impact hard working young men and women. FIGURE IT OUT!!!

So in 2009 Thielke, a returning champ and eventual 4-timer, shouldn't have been seedable because he lost in the sectional finals? Two years ago Max Meeuwsen (another returning champ) lost to Cullen Quick in sectionals only to beat him in the state finals, Whiting (a returning champ as well) lost in sectionals to a eventual non-placer, and Scoles lost to Medora at sectionals after winning at the TKO and before going on to beat him again at the state finals; should none of them have been seedable either? Either seed all of them or none at all.

Correct JT should not have been seeded as he lost his Sectional final match and if he was good enough he would come back and win it all just like he did.

[mpordon]

I don't understand how the WIAA just continues to screw everything up. It often makes me think there are other motives at play. For starters, the fact that they refuse to take the time to properly distribute the best teams to different sectionals is an absolute joke. Now, the coaches and fans asked for a very simple seeding procedure to ensure top ranked guys would be on opposite sides of the bracket and the WIAA could not even come close to making this happen.

I want to be clear...brackets will never be perfect and that needs to be understood

How hard is it to do this:
1) D1 Sectional Champions wrestle D1 runner-ups in the first round (NO EXCEPTIONS)
2) Seed the top 4 Sectional champions in D1 (1. head to head 2. previous state place 3. record)
3) IF YOU WIN SECTIONALS IN D2 and D3 YOU GET A BYE!!! HOLY inappropriate term3 THIS IS INSANE!!!! Seed the top 4 sectional champions in d2 and d3....Put the 2nd place finisher on the opposite side of the sectional champ and the third place finisher on the same side as the sectional champ but they wouldn't face each other until semifinals

I don't know maybe I am missing something here, but this does not seem like a difficult thing to do and I hate that grown men making way too much money continue to make lazy decisions that impact hard working young men and women. FIGURE IT OUT!!!

So in 2009 Thielke, a returning champ and eventual 4-timer, shouldn't have been seedable because he lost in the sectional finals? Two years ago Max Meeuwsen (another returning champ) lost to Cullen Quick in sectionals only to beat him in the state finals, Whiting (a returning champ as well) lost in sectionals to a eventual non-placer, and Scoles lost to Medora at sectionals after winning at the TKO and before going on to beat him again at the state finals; should none of them have been seedable either? Either seed all of them or none at all.

Correct JT should not have been seeded as he lost his Sectional final match and if he was good enough he would come back and win it all just like he did.

Why bother seeding anyone then? "If he was good enough he would come back and win it all" is pretty much the system we just had where we only cared about crowning a champ and the rest be inappropriate term08.

[Numbers]

So if one of the best wrestlers in the state loses a sectional final match, punish the second or third best kid in the bracket with a round of 16 or quarterfinal surprise 

[DocWrestling]

They do need to reward sectional results. 
Seed everyone but...
No wrestler can be seeded ahead of a guy that finished in front of him at sectionals.

So in the Thielke case he would likely get seeded one seed below the guy that beat him.

You take away margin of victory and put in that sectional rule and you have an improved seeding criteria that would work better.

I still think humans should review computer seeds for blatant errors but nobody else seems to like that.  I could see errors occurring with maybe a wrestler that missed a lot of the season due to injury.  This could correct some possible supposed errors with freshman but I am not too worried about them because they will have time to earn it over the course of their careers.

[littleguy301]

You need to reward the sectional champions though...that is my point! You can't have a sectional champ wrestling on Thursday night and a kid that he beat getting a bye!!! THAT CAN NOT HAPPEN!

Totally agree.  Never heard one coach all weekend not think this is how it should be.

I'm also not sure why it keeps going back to the coaches did this...literally no coaches in our sectional knew anything on how kids would be seeded.

Coach Lu in many post appeared at least to me that some coaches knew about this and explained the seeding stuff.

I went back and couldn't find anything. I asked our AD and he never got much about this. I am in the process of reaching out to our board of control member to see what he got.

Padre, in January I had a coach say that how bad you beat someone may have an impact but wasnt sure.

This whole 14 events and seeding was rolled out late and their was alot of confusion on all of this. Glad it got done now to tweak it and make it work.

[drbrad]

You need to reward the sectional champions though...that is my point! You can't have a sectional champ wrestling on Thursday night and a kid that he beat getting a bye!!! THAT CAN NOT HAPPEN!

Totally agree.  Never heard one coach all weekend not think this is how it should be.

I'm also not sure why it keeps going back to the coaches did this...literally no coaches in our sectional knew anything on how kids would be seeded.

Coach Lu in many post appeared at least to me that some coaches knew about this and explained the seeding stuff.

I went back and couldn't find anything. I asked our AD and he never got much about this. I am in the process of reaching out to our board of control member to see what he got.

Padre, in January I had a coach say that how bad you beat someone may have an impact but wasnt sure.

This whole 14 events and seeding was rolled out late and their was alot of confusion on all of this. Glad it got done now to tweak it and make it work.

Agreed. Now everyone at least has a basic idea, and coaches can drill down to get as much further info as they like.

My final thought on the matter is this. ANY system to seed state brackets will benefit certain individuals and hurt others- every bracket, every year. Now that we have a year under our belts, and the new system has been explained (thank you for informing us fans, Coach Lu), it's time for the coaches to discuss and decide what if any tweaks should be made. It's my hope that ALL coaches, across divisions and region, provide their input and that their input is heard and considered. They must decide as a group what is most important: separating the best 2 wrestlers until finals; rewarding wrestlers for winning their Sectional Championship; minimizing unfairly low seedings for the best wrestlers, separating sectional wrestlers (I doubt this is high on the list, but); etc. There have been a number of thoughtful ideas on this thread. I hope that the improvements made are based upon agreement amongst coaches throughout the state and not just the few loudest voices. Thanks again, Coach Lu. We know that the change was made with the best intentions for our wonderful, hardworking high school wrestlers.

[npope]

They do need to reward sectional results. 
Seed everyone but...
No wrestler can be seeded ahead of a guy that finished in front of him at sectionals.

So in the Thielke case he would likely get seeded one seed below the guy that beat him.

You take away margin of victory and put in that sectional rule and you have an improved seeding criteria that would work better.

I still think humans should review computer seeds for blatant errors but nobody else seems to like that.  I could see errors occurring with maybe a wrestler that missed a lot of the season due to injury.  This could correct some possible supposed errors with freshman but I am not too worried about them because they will have time to earn it over the course of their careers.

The JT scenario is a good exception to consider when attempting to mandate how state will (should) be seeded. Suppose JT's loss was really a fluke kind of thing, the kid that won was significantly less talented but he just caught JT and stuck him - it happens sometimes. When the seeding for state rolls around the sectional champ, based on his record, etc, pulls a seventh seed (or there abouts). Any mandate that says a loser in the sectional finals cannot be seeded above that sectional champ means that some high seed from another section is going to draw JT early in the tournament. That too, is not fair. Any time there are absolute criteria for seeding there is a potential for inappropriate term9 someone. Doesn't often happen, but it could. Just like the previous bracketing pattern of pairing a sectional champ with a second placer from a different sectional. Not perfect, but largely rational and functional - especially when there are wrestlebacks to third.

No perfect solution and I think efforts to make it "more perfect" are folly.

[Redeemer]

Yes, that is why there must a coach's vote on any obvious changes. One example is Brayten Casey and Neitzel were not seeded properly and many said this before the tourney began. Many other cases that were pointed out before the tourney began came to fruition.

Still, a good start and good tournament. There's always studs falling just short of the podium.

Improvements can be obviously made and I hope to see positive progress.

[npope]

Yes, that is why there must a coach's vote on any obvious changes. One example is Brayten Casey and Neitzel were not seeded properly and many said this before the tourney began. Many other cases that were pointed out before the tourney began came to fruition.

Still, a good start and good tournament. There's always studs falling just short of the podium.

Improvements can be obviously made and I hope to see positive progress.

You know, maybe Casey was seeded correctly, but he just wrestled above his seed and had a great tournament - it happens. I don't think seeds should be interpreted as predictions as to the wrestler's expected finish but rather, the wrestler's relative position to others in the weight he earned with his season's results up to that point. I think part of our problem is that we aren't recognizing the "wild card" element of wrestling an actual tournament; unexpected things happen sometimes - it doesn't mean the seed was wrong. The seed is based on pre-meet results and the final placement is based on the actual tournament results. While there may typically be a correlation between the seed and placement, people should recognize that they are two separate experiences and that a perfect alignment between them is not the norm.

[Handles II]

Yes, that is why there must a coach's vote on any obvious changes. One example is Brayten Casey and Neitzel were not seeded properly and many said this before the tourney began. Many other cases that were pointed out before the tourney began came to fruition.

Still, a good start and good tournament. There's always studs falling just short of the podium.

Improvements can be obviously made and I hope to see positive progress.

You know, maybe Casey was seeded correctly, but he just wrestled above his seed and had a great tournament - it happens. I don't think seeds should be interpreted as predictions as to the wrestler's expected finish but rather, the wrestler's relative position to others in the weight he earned with his season's results up to that point. I think part of our problem is that we aren't recognizing the "wild card" element of wrestling an actual tournament; unexpected things happen sometimes - it doesn't mean the seed was wrong. The seed is based on pre-meet results and the final placement is based on the actual tournament results. While there may typically be a correlation between the seed and placement, people should recognize that they are two separate experiences and that a perfect alignment between them is not the norm.

Spot on. People saying that seeding is right or wrong based on what final placing is vs. their opinion (correct or not) of who should be there, don't account for what actually can happen on the floor of the Kohl Center in any given match.