Before everyone gets their opinion on the state seeding, I think it's important to educate yourself on how the seeds came to be. It's a complicated process that tried to look at the entire body of a season. We can always change criteria in the future, but outcomes will still be debatable. Seeds will never be perfect no matter how badly we want them to be. Thanks for taking time to understand the process so we can continue to have meaningful discussions to make our sport better!
The seeding system takes all of the wrestlers in the bracket and each wrestler is compared against the others in the bracket based on the seeding criteria identified by the coaches.
(A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D, A vs. E, A vs. F, A vs. G, A vs. H, A vs. I, A vs. J, A vs. K, A vs L, A vs M, A vs. N, A vs O, A vs P, etc.)
The seed criteria are as follows:
(1) Head-to-head competition
(2) Competition against common opponents
(3) Returning state champion
(4) Returning second or third-place finisher in the previous season
(5) Returning fourth through sixth-place finisher from the previous season
(6) Sectional champion
(7) Returning state qualifier in the previous season
(8 Winning percentage in the current season
In each comparison, the wrestler that meets the highest criteria first receives a point (1) whereas the other wrestler does not receive a point (0). After all wrestlers are compared to each other, each wrestler has a point total (15pt. max for a 16 wrestler D1 bracket and 11pt. max for a 12 wrestler D2/D3 bracket). The wrestler with the highest point total is the #1 seed.
A few examples of possible comparisons within a bracket:
When comparing A to B, they wrestled each other in the year and A won. A receives the 1 point and B receives a 0. (A received the seed point based on criteria #1)
When comparing A to C, they did not wrestle each other in the year, but they both wrestled the same opponent where C beat that opponent and A lost to them. C receives 1 point and A does not receive a point. (0) (C received the seed point based on criteria #2)
When comparing A to D, they did not wrestle each other in the year nor have a common opponent, the system goes through the descending order of seed criteria until the point can be earned. If D was a returning state 3rd place winner and A was not, D would receive the seed point. (D received the seed point based on criteria #4)
Again, after comparing all wrestlers in the bracket, they all have a cumulative point total. The seeds are assigned in descending order of this cumulative point total.
Rankings are not a factor in seeding as they are subjective. The Trackwrestling system uses an algorithm to sort and separate the wrestlers based on the criteria selected. Actual match head-to-head is only a factor when comparing the two wrestlers. A wrestler who did win head to head vs an opponent in the bracket will have just the seed comparison point over that particular opponent, but may not have scored as many comparison points versus the rest of the field to have a higher seed. A single match head-to-head win over the top seed will not automatically give the winner of that match the higher final seed. The top seeds overall comparison to all the other wrestlers in the bracket outweigh the single match head-to-head win.
There was never a discussion to keep sectional re-matches from happening, the request from the coaches was for seeding the tournament and the algorithm within Trackwrestling not regional or sectional representation.
There are some unique situations where the perceived "best wrestler" had a lower cumulative point total based on the decisiveness of the win (pin vs. major decision) and how their wins were compared to others within the bracket vs common opponent. These differences can and did make an impact in separating two very comparable wrestlers as to where the seed point was assigned. Also, an undefeated wrestler may have a lower seed to a wrestler with a loss, this is why the winning percentage is the lowest criteria to account for the strength of schedule differences.
Again, head-to-head is the first comparison when distributing points towards their cumulative point total. There are situations where wrestler A has defeated wrestler B in the same bracket this season, but B is seeded ahead of A. Wrestler A scored the head-to-head point for that match win over B, but B had a higher seed point total vs. the rest of the field. Remember, it is the collective comparison of all wrestlers in the bracket, not just two wrestlers head-to-head. Seeding criteria compares all wrestlers' full-season body of work vs. each other in the bracket based on the algorithm.
Ultimately, the coaches requested seeding to eliminate a matrix from determining who wrestled who and when they wrestled at the state tournament. Criteria was selected to separate the top wrestlers and the use of Trackwrestling to do so. This has been used in other states for some time and will be reviewed by the coaches if it met their intentions for Wisconsin.
You take out seeding criteria #2 and that solves 99% of the problems/complaining. You have to know with your own eyeballs how bad this looks. If you are being the loyal soldier for the WWCA and standing up for it I get it. But if you employed this seeding technique at Bi State some of the better teams would leave the tournament because of this.
Great write-up! Thanks for taking the time to do this. No system is going to make everyone happy. I think the best thing would have been to release this full explanation at the beginning of the season and it might have helped. Maybe it was released to coaches and didn't filter down to everyone though? In any case it will get decided on the mat in a few days!
Quote from: Coach Lu on February 20, 2022, 09:25:47 AM
Before everyone gets their opinion on the state seeding, I think it's important to educate yourself on how the seeds came to be. It's a complicated process that tried to look at the entire body of a season. We can always change criteria in the future, but outcomes will still be debatable. Seeds will never be perfect no matter how badly we want them to be. Thanks for taking time to understand the process so we can continue to have meaningful discussions to make our sport better!
The seeding system takes all of the wrestlers in the bracket and each wrestler is compared against the others in the bracket based on the seeding criteria identified by the coaches.
(A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D, A vs. E, A vs. F, A vs. G, A vs. H, A vs. I, A vs. J, A vs. K, A vs L, A vs M, A vs. N, A vs O, A vs P, etc.)
The seed criteria are as follows:
(1) Head-to-head competition
(2) Competition against common opponents
(3) Returning state champion
(4) Returning second or third-place finisher in the previous season
(5) Returning fourth through sixth-place finisher from the previous season
(6) Sectional champion
(7) Returning state qualifier in the previous season
(8 Winning percentage in the current season
In each comparison, the wrestler that meets the highest criteria first receives a point (1) whereas the other wrestler does not receive a point (0). After all wrestlers are compared to each other, each wrestler has a point total (15pt. max for a 16 wrestler D1 bracket and 11pt. max for a 12 wrestler D2/D3 bracket). The wrestler with the highest point total is the #1 seed.
A few examples of possible comparisons within a bracket:
When comparing A to B, they wrestled each other in the year and A won. A receives the 1 point and B receives a 0. (A received the seed point based on criteria #1)
When comparing A to C, they did not wrestle each other in the year, but they both wrestled the same opponent where C beat that opponent and A lost to them. C receives 1 point and A does not receive a point. (0) (C received the seed point based on criteria #2)
When comparing A to D, they did not wrestle each other in the year nor have a common opponent, the system goes through the descending order of seed criteria until the point can be earned. If D was a returning state 3rd place winner and A was not, D would receive the seed point. (D received the seed point based on criteria #4)
Again, after comparing all wrestlers in the bracket, they all have a cumulative point total. The seeds are assigned in descending order of this cumulative point total.
Rankings are not a factor in seeding as they are subjective. The Trackwrestling system uses an algorithm to sort and separate the wrestlers based on the criteria selected. Actual match head-to-head is only a factor when comparing the two wrestlers. A wrestler who did win head to head vs an opponent in the bracket will have just the seed comparison point over that particular opponent, but may not have scored as many comparison points versus the rest of the field to have a higher seed. A single match head-to-head win over the top seed will not automatically give the winner of that match the higher final seed. The top seeds overall comparison to all the other wrestlers in the bracket outweigh the single match head-to-head win.
There was never a discussion to keep sectional re-matches from happening, the request from the coaches was for seeding the tournament and the algorithm within Trackwrestling not regional or sectional representation.
There are some unique situations where the perceived "best wrestler" had a lower cumulative point total based on the decisiveness of the win (pin vs. major decision) and how their wins were compared to others within the bracket vs common opponent. These differences can and did make an impact in separating two very comparable wrestlers as to where the seed point was assigned. Also, an undefeated wrestler may have a lower seed to a wrestler with a loss, this is why the winning percentage is the lowest criteria to account for the strength of schedule differences.
Again, head-to-head is the first comparison when distributing points towards their cumulative point total. There are situations where wrestler A has defeated wrestler B in the same bracket this season, but B is seeded ahead of A. Wrestler A scored the head-to-head point for that match win over B, but B had a higher seed point total vs. the rest of the field. Remember, it is the collective comparison of all wrestlers in the bracket, not just two wrestlers head-to-head. Seeding criteria compares all wrestlers' full-season body of work vs. each other in the bracket based on the algorithm.
Ultimately, the coaches requested seeding to eliminate a matrix from determining who wrestled who and when they wrestled at the state tournament. Criteria was selected to separate the top wrestlers and the use of Trackwrestling to do so. This has been used in other states for some time and will be reviewed by the coaches if it met their intentions for Wisconsin.
Great explanation- thank you. One question - if two wrestlers have the same seed points, how was it determined which wrestler got the better seed?
The main issue here is the fear of letting any humans involved in seeding. Humans are not the evil everyone wants them to be in seeding. This computer system can be the important step for the main starting point.
I am sure this process will be tinkered with but this should be the process.
1) Tinker with the computer formula
2) On Saturday night/Sunday morning all coaches should be given the opportunity to provide information about their wrestler in regards to the other wrestlers in the field.
3) A 3 person human committee should be appointed for each division. They review the computer seeds and look of clear and obvious errors and are allowed to make changes. Mainly reviewing the top 4 seeds
4) Release the brackets Sunday evening.
This gives the best of both humans and computers. Keep the committee confidential and have it be retired coaches.
Tinkering with computer formula
1) margin of victory cannot matter. That leads to a lot of bad things.
2) Sectional matches have to matter more. I don't care if kids have to re-wrestle at state in first round. We already make them wrestle at conference, regionals, and sectionals so why not state also. BUT.... sectional results have to carry weight or why wrestle it. Tweak it so NO wrestler can be seeded ahead of a wrestler at state that they finished behind at sectionals. That makes it a true part of the state tournament. Otherwise it is just another random tournament and in fact then we might as well get rid of regionals and sectionals and invite the top 12 or 16 seeded wrestlers in state based on regular season.
Coach Lu:
Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense with these examples. Just wondering if there is a way for us coaches or public to see the breakdown of how each wrestler scored their seed points versus the field-actual representation of the points would help make even more sense of why wrestler A is seeded higher than wrestler B in some questionable circumstances.
Question: Let's say wrestler A's team participated in a number of challenging multi-state tournaments (e.g. Dvorak, Cheesehead, Minnesota Christmas, etc.) and had a large number of matches against wrestlers from other states (and thus fewer opportunities for H:H and common opponents). Wrestler B's team instead participated in only more local and less "challenging" tournaments but gave wrestler B many more opportunities for H:H and common opponent "points". Does wrestler A get punished for wrestling against an overall stronger multi-state schedule (or say D2 or D3 schools wrestling in tournaments with primarily D1 schools)? I don't know the answer to this question or exactly how the head to head and common opponent criteria are applied. But it seems to me that this really favors a certain way to schedule, hopefully I'm wrong.
Ok Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Do "points" accrue or are they only counted in comparison between 2 wrestlers individually? What happens when wrestler A has more points when compared to wrestler B, B has more points when compared to C, but C has more points when compared to A?
Drop criteria #2 to #5 so beating a common opponent by tech fall vs pin is more of a tie-breaking criteria than a major seed point criteria and this works fine. Keeps your undefeated 3x state champ from losing any seed point to anyone.
Quote from: Coach Lu on February 20, 2022, 09:25:47 AM
The seed criteria are as follows:
(1) Head-to-head competition
(2) Competition against common opponents
(3) Returning state champion
(4) Returning second or third-place finisher in the previous season
(5) Returning fourth through sixth-place finisher from the previous season
(6) Sectional champion
(7) Returning state qualifier in the previous season
(8 Winning percentage in the current season
If margin of victory was removed from the comparison versus common opponents it would go a long way towards solving some of the issues seen.
Thanks Lulloff for the clear explanation.
Another hypothetical. Let's say wrestler A and B never wrestled head to head. Wrestler A had 12 matches against the field, but only won 4. Wrestler B only wrestled 3 matches against the field, but won all 3. Other criteria/points equal. Does A get seeded over B because of 4 head to head points, even though he actually lost 8 of his 12 opportunities? Does B get seeded below A because he only had 3 opportunities for head to head points, even though he won every opportunity he had? Admittedly, this is deep in the weeds and my head is swimming. Please help.
Quote from: drbrad on February 20, 2022, 10:29:06 AM
Another hypothetical. Let's say wrestler A and B never wrestled head to head. Wrestler A had 12 matches against the field, but only won 4. Wrestler B only wrestled 3 matches against the field, but won all 3. Other criteria/points equal. Does A get seeded over B because of 4 head to head points, even though he actually lost 8 of his 12 opportunities? Does B get seeded below A because he only had 3 opportunities for head to head points, even though he won every opportunity he had? Admittedly, this is deep in the weeds and my head is swimming. Please help.
Take Ramberg vs Hopke. Ramberg has 3 victories but is only 1 seed point in this. Ramberg gets the seed point vs Hopke. Then move on to the other 10 wrestlers and repeat the criteria.
So in your scenario yes the 12 opportunities helps for state seeding unless it's only vs say 3-4 kids multiple matches. If those 4 victories were truly against 4 separate state qualifiers it helps that individual as that would be 4 seed points. If four victories came against the same kid that would only be 1 seed point.
Downtown... You are correct this would not be good criteria to use for bi state. Kids at that point have 12-17 matches so we have to rely heavily on the previous season (which makes freshman have to earn it). Our seeding is not perfect and I get heat from many people each year about it. If kids had 40-50 matches more data is available and the way bi state seeds could potentially be changed.
Your suggestion on removing criteria 2 is appreciated. We can look at that as a possibility. When i sit in seeding meetings with coaches I always hear we should be ahead of wrestler x because he lost to wrestler y and we beat them. So just keep in mind removing it would open that door of complaints. Perhaps moving it lower?? After one year of seeding we have data and stat points to help make more informed decisions. Our intention is not to drop this and tell everyone it's perfect. We want to continue to make things better. When the decision on seeding was made other states who used this model really like it.
Madeyson.... Great question. I know if only two are tied, the tie breaker is the comparison between the two the separates them. If three are tied it runs the same comparison criteria with just the tied people to separate them.
Quote from: shouldvewrestled on February 20, 2022, 10:46:01 AM
Quote from: drbrad on February 20, 2022, 10:29:06 AM
Another hypothetical. Let's say wrestler A and B never wrestled head to head. Wrestler A had 12 matches against the field, but only won 4. Wrestler B only wrestled 3 matches against the field, but won all 3. Other criteria/points equal. Does A get seeded over B because of 4 head to head points, even though he actually lost 8 of his 12 opportunities? Does B get seeded below A because he only had 3 opportunities for head to head points, even though he won every opportunity he had? Admittedly, this is deep in the weeds and my head is swimming. Please help.
Take Ramberg vs Hopke. Ramberg has 3 victories but is only 1 seed point in this. Ramberg gets the seed point vs Hopke. Then move on to the other 10 wrestlers and repeat the criteria.
So in your scenario yes the 12 opportunities helps for state seeding unless it's only vs say 3-4 kids multiple matches. If those 4 victories were truly against 4 separate state qualifiers it helps that individual as that would be 4 seed points. If four victories came against the same kid that would only be 1 seed point.
Thanks for the splainin'. I'm kind of new to the sausage-making part of this. So if I understand this right the way you describe it, each wrestler gets either 1 or 0 seed points when compared to each other wrestler? Or a maximum of 11 total seed points, which would obviously be top seed. The way I was interpreting is that the total points accrued through all the comparisons (that may be my confusion). Is it true then that there are really two types of points- the CRITERIA points used when comparing wrestler A and B, and the SEEDING points gained one at a time when making each individual comparison? Seeding (not criteria) points are then added together for each wrestler and seeded based on total seeding points (possible 0 to 11)?
Drbrad, yes. First do the seeding criteria for each wrestler vs every other wrestler individually to get seed points 1 or 0. Add them up for each wrestler. Whoever has most seed points gets 1 seed and so forth.
If tie between 2 wrestlers on seed points then whoever won the seed point between the 2 wins the seed.
If tie between 3 or more I'm sure it goes who won the most seed points between them gets highest seed and then further down the line.
At least how I'm understanding. Maybe Coach Lu could further explain that part If I'm incorrect.
Head to head win should supersede any point system. Bottom line. This is not the case. Or the point system you have identified greatly undervalued head to head.
I do not think the WWCA ever really knew about the details of the seeding. This is a system that the WIAA copied from several states (not the WWCA) and ran with it.
I blame this on the coaches and the WWCA. No blame should be put on the WIAA. The adults in charge screwed up again. Why make this so difficult and confusing?
For division 2 and 3
Seed the sectional champs only.
Put the 2nd and 3rd place finishers on the other side of the bracket.
Finished!!!
Sectional champs should earn a bye.
Sectional opponents shouldn't have to face each other first round at state.
Hey Chad,
That is simply not the case. The WWCA membership voted overwhelmingly to seed the state tournament. There was a committee within the WWCA formed to investigate seeding criteria and make a recommendation to the WWCA board. Many factors were looked at including models used by states who seeded their state tournaments. Conversations were had with coaches from other states, conversations with trackwrestling occured, models were played with and different ways of seeding were debated and discussed. Ultimately in the end, this system seemed to give us the best starting spot. We didn't think designing our own model was the best when we could use an existing model that was well received and tweak in years to come.
You can be upset with me if you want -- I was on the committee which is why I am writing to inform you this was NOT a WIAA behind the scenes initiative. I am sorry if I failed you. I worked hard to provide something that allows for our finals to more often than not showcase the two best wrestlers. I have always been aware that heading something like this is tricky. People will always open brackets and be upset. No seeding will ever be perfect. We ridicule NCAA seeds when they come out too... I challenge you to look at the seeding in this light across all three divisions...
Are the perceived #1 and #2 kids on opposite sides of the bracket more often than two years ago with the random draw? If the answer is yes, then we may have made things a little better AND we are in year 1... We knew we would want to look at this heavily after year one. After the completion of this year we have the ability to play around with criteria and order of importance and see what it produces or would have produced (due to coaches not having data in trackwrestling in previous years, playing around with outcomes from criterias was difficult).
For others that have asked questions, I will try to answer your questions if I can. For now I am trying to stay on top of things while I also spend a few minutes with my two girls before I begin trying to prepare my own team for state. This is a busy time of year for everyone.
Last thought...Many of us think there needs to be a few changes in our sport. When changes are made, we slam the idea instantly before the process has even completed and before tweaks can be had. People, we need time to digest changes before we slam them. How willing is leadership to change if everything we do is slammed before we even get to digest it? If we want to arrive at the best for our sport we need to be patient, learn procedures, and find proactive ways to improve. Most of you in this thread have provided good input. I thank you for that. Best of luck to everyone!
Takedown,
Also I am sorry if I failed you. I am an adult in this conversation you speak of. We considered your suggestion. When the two best guys are in the same regional or sectional, and the sectional champs get seeds and the next best guy lands on the 1 or 2 seed side will people be angry? Your idea seems very similar to what we had which is what coaches overwhelmingly voted to get rid of. I guess I don't know what is best but I want you to know I tried.
Lullof,
I think you are misreading my comment. The WWCA committee really did not fully understand the "details" of the OPC. Just go look at Chris Hansen's (WWCA long standing member) post, just talk to the coaches (WWCA members) and they will all tell you they did not understand the head to head point accumulation. Once again, fixing the head to head will solve majority of the problems.
To most, head to head would supersede any point system.
Another point; being a part of the WWCA I have to say the messaging and transparency on this was subpar. When was a clear defined email ever sent out about how the OPC worked? Last week....
I agree with you that we will make it better, but we need to hear and listen to the constructive criticisms so we can do so. Look forward to our continued work on making WI Wrestling the best it can be.
Good Luck to all.
I agree with you about head to head but are you willing to live and die by it? What is your position if a kid who is 11-11 and he pins the returning section champ?
Quote from: Chad Steldt on February 20, 2022, 11:29:30 AM
Head to head win should supersede any point system. Bottom line. This is not the case. Or the point system you have identified greatly undervalued head to head.
I do not think the WWCA ever really knew about the details of the seeding. This is a system that the WIAA copied from several states (not the WWCA) and ran with it.
I would say he gets seeded higher the next day.
Records are meaningless because of quality.
This whole system devalues quality and pushing my kids to wrestle the best.
Furthermore, if we do not fix this before next year, I guarantee you we will have a devalued sectional meet.
Lu, the prior system wasn't totally broken.
The coaches voted to completely through that system in the garbage.
In previous years everyone's number 1 problem was getting the two best kids in the finals at state, right?
To do that you only have to seed the 4 sectional champs and then put their 2 sectional opponents on the other side of the bracket. If the two best kids came from the same sectional, fine, then they are on opposite sides of the bracket in this system and can meet in the finals.
That's it!!!
You guys voted to burn the old system to the ground.
Quote from: DocWrestling on February 20, 2022, 09:59:21 AM
The main issue here is the fear of letting any humans involved in seeding. Humans are not the evil everyone wants them to be in seeding. This computer system can be the important step for the main starting point.
I am sure this process will be tinkered with but this should be the process.
1) Tinker with the computer formula
2) On Saturday night/Sunday morning all coaches should be given the opportunity to provide information about their wrestler in regards to the other wrestlers in the field.
3) A 3 person human committee should be appointed for each division. They review the computer seeds and look of clear and obvious errors and are allowed to make changes. Mainly reviewing the top 4 seeds
4) Release the brackets Sunday evening.
This gives the best of both humans and computers. Keep the committee confidential and have it be retired coaches.
Tinkering with computer formula
1) margin of victory cannot matter. That leads to a lot of bad things.
2) Sectional matches have to matter more. I don't care if kids have to re-wrestle at state in first round. We already make them wrestle at conference, regionals, and sectionals so why not state also. BUT.... sectional results have to carry weight or why wrestle it. Tweak it so NO wrestler can be seeded ahead of a wrestler at state that they finished behind at sectionals. That makes it a true part of the state tournament. Otherwise it is just another random tournament and in fact then we might as well get rid of regionals and sectionals and invite the top 12 or 16 seeded wrestlers in state based on regular season.
DocWrestling, Thanks for the suggestions. You bring forward some good points. Based on how angry people get over seeds, not sure humans want to be involved (even if we think they are anonymous, my guess is people will assume who is involved and blast away)?? But maybe we do want them involved? Either way its a suggestion without tearing things apart and I appreciate that. It seems like WIAA is moving more towards computer seeds in many sports (I can imagine they get heat often from all ends when seeds get released in any sport).
I am curious what information coaches would provide that trackwrestling can't pull? I don't think we want emotion involved do we? Data does get pulled in relation to everyone in the field. The margin of victory suggestion could be a very easy tweak that might fix many problems without creating more. Something I already planned to look into -- thanks for that suggestion.
I also think your suggestion about the sectionals is creative. I want to bounce this back at you and see what you think...
Wrestler A, B, and C are in a sectional
Wrestler A has had a really strong season beating many top finishers from a year ago. Wrestler B is very good because they have an awesome headlock. Wrestler B loses to good wrestlers often but pins good wrestlers as well. Wrestler C is solid as well.
Sectionals happens and Wrestler A is perceived to be the best of the 3. He loses to wrestler B by pin in a headlock. Wrestler C then beats wrestler B because they avoid the headlock. Wrestler C is the least accredited wrestler. His seed comes back as 7-9. Are we ok putting a wrestler below that who has beaten many guys in the bracket because a guy with a great headlock go him? Or do we prefer to look at the entire season body of work? That's really the question that drives many decisions... I could argue for both honestly and either way people will see the seeds and be upset.
I am not attacking you one bit. I like your suggestion...I am just thinking it through outloud... I keep coming back to the idea that no matter what you decide, there will always be outliers that make things tough...
Hey Chad,
Sorry if I misread what you wrote. My apologies. That's why this is all tough because communicating through a keyboard is tough. The system we are currently using is very similar to team state seeding. I did speak with Chris, and he is very well spoken and has amazing thoughts. He is a guy I love bouncing ideas off of.
As far as communication goes, that's always an area that can be improved. No doubt. I will not argue that with you. I will say though that there were many times state seeding criteria was communicated and nobody ever asked for a detailed explanation on how things would be actually be applied. Everyone just heard it was Iowa model (very close to MN model) and it was done on trackwrestling. People stopped asking questions... Coaches weren't worried about it until after seeds got released (myself included). Oversight? Sure I will wear that. I was so busily working on what to do, once it was done, I wasn't following up on the communication because I understood it maybe? Also not to make excuses, but this was something started with previous leadership of WIAA and inherited by new leadership. Either way, point taken...Communicate.
Head to head supercedes everything else makes us diminish an athletes body of work throughout the season (meaning only the matches wrestled with people who qualified in that bracket would matter for seeding rather than looking at all the quality people they have wrestled and beaten. With kids dropping weights, etc. I wonder how that would look in a bracket?)..If that's what we all want, we can work towards that. Again, my personal opinion is that spin it either way there will be cases in the brackets that raises eyebrows. I am open to looking at things after this year to make things better. That is my main goal.
Thanks for the input.
Quote from: takdwn2 on February 20, 2022, 01:33:42 PM
Lu, the prior system wasn't totally broken.
The coaches voted to completely through that system in the garbage.
In previous years everyone's number 1 problem was getting the two best kids in the finals at state, right?
To do that you only have to seed the 4 sectional champs and then put their 2 sectional opponents on the other side of the bracket. If the two best kids came from the same sectional, fine, then they are on opposite sides of the bracket in this system and can meet in the finals.
That's it!!!
You guys voted to burn the old system to the ground.
If I seed the sectional champs, it may not be possible to put the 2nd and 3rd on the opposite side of the bracket. If two of the sectional champs would have been 6 seeds or lower, then you still have problems somewhere don't you? What would you do for D1? I can tell you that the 8 sectional champs are not always the 8 best wrestlers in D1...I am guessing doing something different for D1 than 2/3 would instantly cause problems as well.
I will agree with you that D2 and D3 would be easier to seed the top than would be D1 (being 2/3 have that natural break with byes). When talking to almost every other state they said if you seed it, seed all of it. Most states that started seeding top 4 or 8 a year later starting seeding it all...
I am not disagreeing with you by the way. Trying to enlighten you on some things we learned as to why decisions were made.
Do you believe this forum would have been quiet if your suggestion was a reality? We will most certainly need to survey coaches in the near future...Again thanks for the suggestion.
Did the WIAA/Coaches' Association look at what other states are doing? Illinois has been seeding Sectional Champions only for quite some time. The seeds are based on a points' system like is being used here, but there is no subjectivity. If you aren't a sectional champion, you cannot be a top-four seed.
Returning state champions at any weight class ........................30 points
Returning 2nd or 3rd place winner at any weight class .................25 points
Returning 4th, 5th, or 6th place winner at any weight class .20 points
Returning state qualifier at any weight class ...................................10 points
37 or more wins .................15 points
32 to 36 wins......................10 points
27 to 31 wins........................7 points
22 to 26 wins........................5 points
If tied for a place, flip of a coin would determine the seed of the wrestlers for placement of that seed on the bracket, except for the number one (1) seed and if the returning champ at that weight class is tied for the number one (1) seed, the returning champ will be seeded number one (1).
Quote from: Chad Steldt on February 20, 2022, 01:31:39 PM
I would say he gets seeded higher the next day.
Records are meaningless because of quality.
This whole system devalues quality and pushing my kids to wrestle the best.
Furthermore, if we do not fix this before next year, I guarantee you we will have a devalued sectional meet.
100%
What is the separation/tie-breaking criteria when 3 or more kids have the same amount of seed points?
Quote from: Chad Steldt on February 20, 2022, 11:29:30 AM
Head to head win should supersede any point system. Bottom line. This is not the case. Or the point system you have identified greatly undervalued head to head.
I do not think the WWCA ever really knew about the details of the seeding. This is a system that the WIAA copied from several states (not the WWCA) and ran with it.
This whole new seeding works for 16 man brackets but it doesn't work in a 12 man bracket plain and simple. D1 wanted this way more than other divisions this here we go.
The problem is especial in 2 and 3. Families get to drive to Madison and watch the same match that took place hundreds of miles away the weekend before the Thursday night at state and if they are lucky enough to win they get to wrestle the third kid of the previous week tournament..
Would basketball set it up to play the same team 4 times in a few weeks. Please we just cannt get out of the way of ourselves
Drive over to Minnesota and ask how they do their point system and use that, it isnt that hard!
Coach Lullof,
You stated what information would coaches provide that trackwrestling can't pull. Isn't that part of the larger problem? Not everyone uses track wrestling and not all of the results are there to be pulled. Wouldn't having coaches enter head to head before the brackets are made or WIAA enforcing the use of a database such as track be a better idea?
I would imagine it wasn't meant to be this way but this almost feels like the certain seeding criteria was withheld from the coaches. Such as the margin of Victory.
To me this is more of the WIAA's Responsibility to roll this out to the coaches with detailed information of how this would be.
Transparency regarding all of it is the key
Making wrestlers aware they must pin to retain a seed would have been valuable.
It also appears some coaches knew more then others - that is a failure on part of the committee and WIAA.
Quote from: Tims on February 20, 2022, 02:26:05 PM
Coach Lullof,
You stated what information would coaches provide that trackwrestling can't pull. Isn't that part of the larger problem? Not everyone uses track wrestling and not all of the results are there to be pulled. Wouldn't having coaches enter head to head before the brackets are made or WIAA enforcing the use of a database such as track be a better idea?
I would imagine it wasn't meant to be this way but this almost feels like the certain seeding criteria was withheld from the coaches. Such as the margin of Victory.
To me this is more of the WIAA's Responsibility to roll this out to the coaches with detailed information of how this would be.
All the data is in trackwrestling this year. Coaches had to do that before sectionals started. Many communications instructing them how.
Quote from: Coach Lu on February 20, 2022, 01:35:05 PM
I am curious what information coaches would provide that trackwrestling can't pull? I don't think we want emotion involved do we? Data does get pulled in relation to everyone in the field. The margin of victory suggestion could be a very easy tweak that might fix many problems without creating more. Something I already planned to look into -- thanks for that suggestion.
I also think your suggestion about the sectionals is creative. I want to bounce this back at you and see what you think...
Wrestler A, B, and C are in a sectional
Wrestler A has had a really strong season beating many top finishers from a year ago. Wrestler B is very good because they have an awesome headlock. Wrestler B loses to good wrestlers often but pins good wrestlers as well. Wrestler C is solid as well.
Sectionals happens and Wrestler A is perceived to be the best of the 3. He loses to wrestler B by pin in a headlock. Wrestler C then beats wrestler B because they avoid the headlock. Wrestler C is the least accredited wrestler. His seed comes back as 7-9. Are we ok putting a wrestler below that who has beaten many guys in the bracket because a guy with a great headlock go him? Or do we prefer to look at the entire season body of work? That's really the question that drives many decisions... I could argue for both honestly and either way people will see the seeds and be upset.
I am not attacking you one bit. I like your suggestion...I am just thinking it through outloud... I keep coming back to the idea that no matter what you decide, there will always be outliers that make things tough...
1) I do think a human panel would have obviously saw and error like Marko being a three seed. This panel would be for each division so they only had to look at 14 brackets. They may only change a seed or 2 in a couple brackets. Is that worth it? Not sure. I look at like NFL refs. Only make changes on something clear and obvious.
2) The scenario you describe is something that can happen but is rare and yes that could completely change a bracket. Upset pins do happen but they also happen at regionals and sectionals and kids do not even advance to state that might have been predicted too. To me if sectionals are truly part of the state tournament then those results have to matter. If a wrestler gets caught in headlock at regionals we don't ignore that result and re-seed sectionals. Regional results matter for sectionals. Sectional results should matter for state. This new system starts an entirely new tournament. At some point in the season all that matters is who won no matter how it happened.
I do think the WWCA should really push for 3 divisions of same amount of teams and each gets 16 to Madison and double elimination. Seeding is such a hot topic in WI because it matters more when so many wrestlers only get to wrestle once.
Kudos to taking this step to seed the tournament. It will only get better as it gets tinkered with and everyone understands more. And even though it will get better the complaints won't stop. You are a leader and leaders bring change and take the heat. Kudos to you and all the other coaches that spent all the time working on this even if right now it might not seem like you are appreciated or even knowing you are a bullseye for everyone's comments at state. Thank you for also being the leader of the coaches to come on here and help explain
Quote from: 3wrestle on February 20, 2022, 03:22:55 PM
Transparency regarding all of it is the key
Making wrestlers aware they must pin to retain a seed would have been valuable.
It also appears some coaches knew more then others - that is a failure on part of the committee and WIAA.
No matter how well or poor communication is from any direction, there will always be coaches who know more than other coaches. Some coaches don't go to meetings, read emails, go to clinics, or watch videos. Some coaches choose to be more involved and their involvement gives them more opportunities to learn more about our sport. Some coaches ask very detailed questions and get a better understanding or clarity. This information about seeding wasn't with held from anyone. We have been using this point process for team state seeding for a few years.
The first time trackwrestling seeding was used at regionals or a tournament, do you think coaches understood exactly how the seeding process would work or do you think they understood it better after experiencing it? Were there coaches the first year or first tournament that understood it better than others? Do we like it now that we understand it? I remember a whole lot of resistance year one...
The first time we used the new weigh in sheet there were coaches who understood it much better. Some coaches didn't catch on until they realized they had to enter weights and couldn't add their guys to the next weigh-in until the entered actual weights from previous events.
The first time we changed 7 and 7 to 14 events and 50 matches, some coaches started changing their schedule. Some coaches decided to wait a year to better understand it before making changes.
The first time we ran a girls state tournament, some coaches filled out seeding and some did not do a great job. Info was requested multiple times. It was the same process we have always used for bringing in data and still coaches failed to do it right. I bet next time, coaches will get it correct.
I agree that we can always communicate better. I will not take that away from you. I will however admit that not all coaches are equal and that an experience with something one time is what makes us all better equipped (including fans). Lets wait and see how all this plays out at the Kohl Center. Some people who are disappointed now may actually like it when it's all said and done. Some people hopefully appreciate the attempt and will continue to help us make tweaks to make it even better.
DocWrestling,
Thanks for sharing. Your insight is well thought out and noted.
Anyone who knows me knows that I care and I work hard. I don't have all the answers but I try to think of every angle when problem solving. I hope people are inspired to take the next step next year rather than discouraged because something is different. We fully intend to review everything after it's all done.
If I missed other's comments on this thread I apologize. I am about the cash in from the forum and begin educating myself about all these super talented athletes who made the state tournament. I noticed that there is a post about state brackets being out and little to no tribute to the wrestlers who will be participating. I think I will post a thread in which we actually pay honor and excitement to those kids competing!
Also why is everything have to be enter before last Saturday? Was sectionals not included into trackwrestling? Some stinks to the high heavens here.
Also sounds like Chris Hanson in a post talking about December pins and January pins might has some points there.
I remember seeing some stuff about this and victory over common opponents but not the direct wording of it.
We needed a seeding system, we needed to change the 7 and 7 system. But let's just do it all at once and make it a one size fits all situation.
I appreciate and applaud the efforts to make the state tournament a better experience for the kids participating. I believe that one of the best things that could be done would be to make the tournament double elimination. This would provide every wrestler a fair chance to earn a place on the podium, regardless of where they are placed in the bracket. I cannot think of many other tournaments, other than the worlds or Olympics, that aren´t double elimination. Even if you get the seeding just right, it appears that a 16th seed has a better chance, or at least a more fair chance, of placing than the 8th and/or 9th seed. I hope that this is something that can happen in the near future. Thanks to all those working hard to continue to improve this awesome tournament.
Quote from: littleguy301 on February 20, 2022, 05:20:49 PM
Also why is everything have to be enter before last Saturday? Was sectionals not included into trackwrestling? Some stinks to the high heavens here.
Also sounds like Chris Hanson in a post talking about December pins and January pins might has some points there.
I remember seeing some stuff about this and victory over common opponents but not the direct wording of it.
We needed a seeding system, we needed to change the 7 and 7 system. But let's just do it all at once and make it a one size fits all situation.
Sectionals were indeed included. All sectionals are run through trackwrestling. Coaches had until sectionals to get their duals and tournaments they didn't enter earlier in the season.
At the end of the day people were only looking to try to get the top 2 separated. Seeding sectional champions would do this almost every time. As much as you try to explain at the end of the day it's obviously easy to see many of the brackets are way off.
I'm a pretty hands on coach that reads everything thoroughly all year long from the WIAA...we got basically 0 information on this.
You're being a stand up guy on this but a lot went wrong from beginning to end.
I would submit that when your seeding criteria doesn't identify a 2 time state champ with one loss on the season who has probably wrestled one of the toughest schedules in the state as the number one seed, and instead seeds a 3 loss wrestler, and 5th place finisher at state as the number 1 seed that the problem is with the seeding criteria, not those who point out the error.
Thank you for the explanation on the seeding criteria. I think a huge step into helping educate people and put them in a position to provide feedback, would be to allow coaches (or everyone) the ability to see a breakdown of how the criteria points were calculated for their wrestlers. I'm not sure how feasible this is with the Track software but thought I'd ask.
Quote from: padre on February 20, 2022, 08:35:51 PM
At the end of the day people were only looking to try to get the top 2 separated. Seeding sectional champions would do this almost every time. As much as you try to explain at the end of the day it's obviously easy to see many of the brackets are way off.
I'm a pretty hands on coach that reads everything thoroughly all year long from the WIAA...we got basically 0 information on this.
You're being a stand up guy on this but a lot went wrong from beginning to end.
Totally again with this! For DII and DIII, seed the sectional champs and then their 2nd and 3rd place kid would be opposite them in the matrix. If the 1 and 2 are from the same sectional they are separated, if they are frim different sectionals they are separated.
Quote from: Chad Steldt on February 20, 2022, 01:31:39 PM
I would say he gets seeded higher the next day.
Records are meaningless because of quality.
This whole system devalues quality and pushing my kids to wrestle the best.
Furthermore, if we do not fix this before next year, I guarantee you we will have a devalued sectional meet.
There will be coaches that won't be wrestling in the Cheesehead and other big tournaments.
Quote from: rmk12175 on February 21, 2022, 06:20:12 AM
I would submit that when your seeding criteria doesn't identify a 2 time state champ with one loss on the season who has probably wrestled one of the toughest schedules in the state as the number one seed, and instead seeds a 3 loss wrestler, and 5th place finisher at state as the number 1 seed that the problem is with the seeding criteria, not those who point out the error.
The seeding criteria is fine. I cannot believe the WIAA and TrackWrestling have not corrected the error yet.
Quote from: Numbers on February 21, 2022, 10:35:08 AM
Quote from: rmk12175 on February 21, 2022, 06:20:12 AM
I would submit that when your seeding criteria doesn't identify a 2 time state champ with one loss on the season who has probably wrestled one of the toughest schedules in the state as the number one seed, and instead seeds a 3 loss wrestler, and 5th place finisher at state as the number 1 seed that the problem is with the seeding criteria, not those who point out the error.
The seeding criteria is fine. I cannot believe the WIAA and TrackWrestling have not corrected the error yet.
Computer likely didn't make a mistake, it computes it's parameters it's told to do. Clark obviously lost a seed point to someone since he only has 14, if it was Blaskowski because of common opponent criteria Blaskowski would get the seed. There in, it is a seeding criteria issue if strictly going by data computer uses.
From what I see quickly the both faced Ronsman LC, Blaskowski won by Fall, Clark won by MD 13-0, there is the seeding point criteria so computer is correct and not an error.
The seed criteria are as follows:
(1) Head-to-head competition
(2) Competition against common opponents
(3) Returning state champion
(4) Returning second or third-place finisher in the previous season
(5) Returning fourth through sixth-place finisher from the previous season
(6) Sectional champion
(7) Returning state qualifier in the previous season
(8) Winning percentage in the current season
I agree with eliminating #3-#5 & 7 ... unless the wrestler is at the same weight he placed the previous year
& #8 ... since there are sometimes vast differences in strength of opponents
& I would also like to eliminate #2 ... except that eliminating 3,4,5, 7, & 8 doesn't leave much else. I also think it's ironic that coaches would be vehement about this point - since I doubt they base their belief in their wrestler's ability to beat any other wrestler on record against common opponents. Strengths against one opponent may not be strengths against another.
... which is why I suggested this in the State Brackets thread
For D1:
Seed the Sectional Winners ...
random draw for the other slots, while assuring no same-sectional match-ups in the same quarter-bracket ...
add double elimination
Quote from: shouldvewrestled on February 21, 2022, 10:50:23 AM
Quote from: Numbers on February 21, 2022, 10:35:08 AM
Quote from: rmk12175 on February 21, 2022, 06:20:12 AM
I would submit that when your seeding criteria doesn't identify a 2 time state champ with one loss on the season who has probably wrestled one of the toughest schedules in the state as the number one seed, and instead seeds a 3 loss wrestler, and 5th place finisher at state as the number 1 seed that the problem is with the seeding criteria, not those who point out the error.
The seeding criteria is fine. I cannot believe the WIAA and TrackWrestling have not corrected the error yet.
Computer likely didn't make a mistake, it computes it's parameters it's told to do. Clark obviously lost a seed point to someone since he only has 14, if it was Blaskowski because of common opponent criteria Blaskowski would get the seed. There in, it is a seeding criteria issue if strictly going by data computer uses.
From what I see quickly the both faced Ronsman LC, Blaskowski won by Fall, Clark won by MD 13-0, there is the seeding point criteria so computer is correct and not an error.
I am thinking the #2 seed at this weight is perfectly fine with this ;) , the brackets are out, we are going to Madison - it is going to be an exciting weekend of wrestling!!
I do think if you wanted to model something - move criteria 3 and 4 ahead of 2 and it solves almost all of the issues people are seeing. Just my thought - there should be higher value on the state tournament - we all know it is not easy to place top 3 and that should be rewarded. Just my two cents.
Agreed move common opponent to #5 criteria and much is solved if you're in the state results from previous years should count more than current year common opponents.
That depends on who you ask many times, though I'm with you thinking state champ should supercede who beat a .500 wrestler worse which is how this criteria can play out.
Been trying to figure out in D2 160 how shefchik got more seeding points then Carter friend. Doesn't make sense when I run the criteria head to head.
Quote from: Ice on February 21, 2022, 12:27:43 PM
Been trying to figure out in D2 160 how shefchik got more seeding points then Carter friend. Doesn't make sense when I run the criteria head to head.
Carter Friend belongs as the obvious 2 seed. However, close-minded planning led to a very flawed seeding system. It happens.
Along with the seeding criteria if a coach did not enter data by saturday the 19th or accurate data it would effect the seeding outcomes......Not a perfect system yet but step in the right direction. Still agree with criteria #2 being removed.
I know Padre mentioned it in a post earlier, and he was spot on. If you're shaking your head at state wrestling seedings you should try to understand girls and boys basketball.... ??? Wrestling, at least, is a step in the correct direction. We went backwards with the other 2.
I suggest a computer based point scoring system for each bracket outcome versus the computer based seeding. Those results should help identify brackets that were most/least successful. Might be helpful for post analysis.
Wrestler places where seeded = +1 point
Wrestler places 1 or 2 places above/below seeding = -.5 points
Wrestler places more than 2 places above/below seeding = -1 point
This will not account for any "human" elements like injuries or sickness or just having an off/on day...but then again the seeding doesn't either.
Not sure how a computer based point system after the fact does much for the validity of how a bracket was seeded. Example We had 160 at conference... He had a head to head win in the conference over another wrestler. 4 wrestlers in the weight with a clear #1.. Our wrestler gets seeded 4th the wrestler we beat gets seeded 2nd. We were the 2nd best wrestler but could only prove that we were the 3rd best wrestler unless we had pulled off a huge upset. Most of the time the Wrestler that get the good seeds typically are able to wrestle to that seed. That is why seeding is important... Only time that isn't necessarily the case is with true wrestles back all the way to 2nd.
Quote from: Tims on February 22, 2022, 03:49:57 PM
Not sure how a computer based point system after the fact does much for the validity of how a bracket was seeded. Example We had 160 at conference... He had a head to head win in the conference over another wrestler. 4 wrestlers in the weight with a clear #1.. Our wrestler gets seeded 4th the wrestler we beat gets seeded 2nd. We were the 2nd best wrestler but could only prove that we were the 3rd best wrestler unless we had pulled off a huge upset. Most of the time the Wrestler that get the good seeds typically are able to wrestle to that seed. That is why seeding is important... Only time that isn't necessarily the case is with true wrestles back all the way to 2nd.
Appreciate the feedback!
I'm not sure if your Conference scenario follows the criteria used for State seeding...it's difficult to say without additional information. Our conference usually has a seeding meeting after the auto-seeds to argue cases like this and maybe yours did as well, again I don't have the information to properly analyze that situation. But let's give it a try...
Without knowing the other seeds and results beyond the top 4 I'm not able to do a full evaluation. However, considering your scenario the 1st and 2nd Seeds each placed where they were seeded (+1 and +1) but 3rd and 4th flip-flopped (-.5 and -.5) so a bracket total of +1. That would seem to be a poor point total which would be a good candidate for post analysis to determine if criteria rules should be adjusted. It is a "post" analysis and doesn't help your 160 get the silver he likely deserved but it might help one of your wrestlers next year.
Regarding full wrestle-back to 2nd place...it's really the only way to solve the problem that started the seeding debate IMO.
Excellent! Keep the humans out of it! It's the fairest way to do it!
I am back....
First off we're there scenario based test runs with this system?
Was the criteria shared with the members of the WWCA before the sectionals if so in what format?
If computer based seeding is so fair why discriminate against incoming freshman?
Why discriminate against a freshman when they have data as an 8th grader for State tournament qualification and placement?
How was the representation of the different divisions on this Committee, were there equal numbers of reps for D1-D2-D3? If not why not?
Will this seeding change the end results of the final placements ?
Why ignore the blatant discrimination against D3 with 1 and done?
Does 1& done not disturb anyone as as unusual discriminatory practices and why wasn't it a priority over this ?
What other Tournament discriminated against a class of people like the WIAA 1 & and done?
Anyone else think this was far more complicated than it needed to be?
Flame away
(Hey Tom does the T-Shirt fit ?) ;D
It looks like seeding really helped in D1 with getting the 8 best wrestlers into the final 8 (4 on each side left). The seeding had some possible issues with getting some of the top 8 in the right right order but it did a really nice job of identifying the likely bottom 8 and spreading them out.
Very few wrestlers who lost their 1st match (likely a bottom 8 seed) and got a wrestleback actually won their second match.
In the past you have had many 4 wrestler pods without a top wrestler and thus you had too many top wrestlers in another 4-person pod. When that happens one of the top wrestlers does not even get a chance to wrestle back for 3rd.
Hopefully that makes sense because it is tough to explain. Now all those top 8 can battle out for places
Quote from: DocWrestling on February 25, 2022, 10:32:18 AM
It looks like seeding really helped in D1 with getting the 8 best wrestlers into the final 8 (4 on each side left). The seeding had some possible issues with getting some of the top 8 in the right right order but it did a really nice job of identifying the likely bottom 8 and spreading them out.
Very few wrestlers who lost their 1st match (likely a bottom 8 seed) and got a wrestleback actually won their second match.
In the past you have had many 4 wrestler pods without a top wrestler and thus you had too many top wrestlers in another 4-person pod. When that happens one of the top wrestlers does not even get a chance to wrestle back for 3rd.
Hopefully that makes sense because it is tough to explain. Now all those top 8 can battle out for places
True for the most part. I would still say double elimination should be a coaches association priority. D1 you're really better off getting a 13-16 seed than 9-12 seed if seeding is truly working, since then you are more likely to get a second match at state.
Seeding is a step into the 21st century but much more to be done. Why not double elimination? Seed only top 4. Divide wrestling schools into 3 equal divisions. 16 wrestlers in each. Any why are consolation and placement matches 1-2-2? There is plenty of time to go 2-2-2. Why not guarantee two matches at team State?
Quote from: Hoople on February 26, 2022, 10:35:52 PM
Seeding is a step into the 21st century but much more to be done. Why not double elimination? Seed only top 4. Divide wrestling schools into 3 equal divisions. 16 wrestlers in each. Any why are consolation and placement matches 1-2-2? There is plenty of time to go 2-2-2. Why not guarantee two matches at team State?
You are speaking my language!
Why is ANY varsity match 1-2-2 during any part of the season?
What is reason for it? Seriously, what is reason for changing the rules because you lost a match?
Do those matches not matter as much? Are we just in a rush to go home?
Quote from: DocWrestling on February 27, 2022, 07:25:45 AM
Why is ANY varsity match 1-2-2 during any part of the season?
What is reason for it? Seriously, what is reason for changing the rules because you lost a match?
Do those matches not matter as much? Are we just in a rush to go home?
Especially when you take long breaks on Friday and Sat.
All divisions 16 man brackets, double elimination, less break time, and add two more mats until the semi finals.
Quote from: dman on February 27, 2022, 09:49:41 AM
All divisions 16 man brackets, double elimination, less break time, and add two more mats until the semi finals.
One thing to add: let's think like a dual meet and draw a starting weight for finals. Or we could do as other states and pick a weight that would be the feature match that would be the last of the night!
Quote from: justwrestle on February 27, 2022, 10:34:33 AM
Quote from: dman on February 27, 2022, 09:49:41 AM
All divisions 16 man brackets, double elimination, less break time, and add two more mats until the semi finals.
One thing to add: let's think like a dual meet and draw a starting weight for finals. Or we could do as other states and pick a weight that would be the feature match that would be the last of the night!
I could get on board with that. Especially considering that the D1 HWY match was one of the best all weekend and a lot of people missed it.
Quote from: dman on February 27, 2022, 09:49:41 AM
All divisions 16 man brackets, double elimination, less break time, and add two more mats until the semi finals.
Yep!
Certainly there is space to do 8 mats. Certainly there is the time and interest to do double-elimination. Certainly there is interest from the D2/D3 people to get rid of the 12 man bracket system. Certainly there are states that do exactly this, so it's just a matter of cut/paste and nothing to actually invent, no huge logistical hurdles to overcome. Should have been done this way when we added wrestle backs to third place.