Bracket Seeding

panther93 · February 19, 2024, 02:03:14 PM

The tweak that was made for last season was in the common opponent, it is now a win is a win. In the first season of the seeded tournament they took the type of win into consideration (TF was not as good as a Fall, which was why Marko (4x form SCF was a 2 seed.) I think keeping the state qualifier in there below the sectional champ is important. One should be rewarded for that, I've had a kid lose to the champ in the quarters and then the 3rd place kid in the wrestle-backs. Didn't place, but was probably the 5th or 6th best kid in the bracket. Competitiveness in brackets can vary.

If I could change anything about this format it would be to just seed the sectional champs and then use the old matrix to separate the sectional opponents. There is no reason that two wrestlers from the same sectional need to compete against each other again in the first two rounds of DII or DIII, D1 would be fine because the two sectional opponents would be on opposite sides.

By seeding just the champs the #1 and #2 based on criteria would be separated even if they were from the same sectional. That was the intent of seeding anyways. It rewards being a sectional champ. Right now, one could potentially medically forfeit in the finals and it may not hurt them in seeding.

As an example, I have a wrestler seeded #2 this year and wrestling in the finals at sectionals really meant nothing to his seeding. If he won he would be 2-2 vs. the #1 in the bracket, but wouldn't give him the criteria point over him. If he lost 1-3 vs his opponent he would still lose the point. Technically he had everything to lose by wrestling, taking a loss on this record or even getting hurt. As more coaches start thinking about this I believe it will become a more common occurrence. I personally would have a hard time doing that, so he wrestled that match. We have seen this happening in college already in the conference tournaments.

SWIGuy · February 19, 2024, 02:40:16 PM

I like to lurk here but thought I'd chime in to address a couple comments, and can do so referencing one bracket I'm familiar with being from the southern part of the state, even though there are likely many examples. First, someone asked to name a freshman who is getting screwed over by the seeding. I would say that in the D3 150 bracket you could make the case that Dominic Garcia from Pardeeville is getting somewhat screwed. He's 46-4, with basically his only losses on the year to undefeated Zanton from Middleton and the #3 seed Meister (who he has also beaten recently). His reward is a 1st round matchup with Tyson Imhoff from IGH, who finished 2nd at Bi-State at 150 and has basically only lost there to Danny Heiser and to the #1 seed Zdanczewicz (who he beat in the Regional final but lost to in the Sectional final). One of Garcia and Imhoff is going home after Thursday, and the other gets a 2nd round matchup with the #1 seed. Both of those guys wrestled an extra match in their sectionals to win 2nd place and did so fairly handily. Their reward was to be seeded behind guys who got 3rd in their sectional and don't have the same body of work this season, but who had a cup of coffee at State last year on Thursday night. Garcia never had that opportunity last year, and Imhoff finished 4th in a loaded sectional (Fennimore/Aquinas/IGH/Riverdale/MP/Pec-Argyle/Westby

) behind Tarrin Riley, Zdanczewicz and Vatland from Westby. Riley won state, Zdanczewicz and Vatland had to wrestle on Thursday night, with Zdanczewicz winning in OT then eventually losing to Riley and wrestling all the way back to 3rd.

Sorry so long, but not rewarding sectional placement and rewarding a past state appearance over current body of work creates some pretty unequitable seeding situations. I think criteria 7 and 8 should either be switched, or criteria 7 should be removed or superseded by sectional runner-up. The difference caused in the bracket I outlined above probably isn't "splitting hairs" to Garcia and Imhoff, as their tournament outlook would be quite different if they were the 6 and 7 instead of the 8 or 9.

Respectfully, my two cents.

Junkyardpig · February 19, 2024, 02:43:00 PM

How did the Madison West kid get the 2 seed at 157?

1Iota · February 19, 2024, 02:46:26 PM

Quote from: tex on February 18, 2024, 09:16:04 PMI think this was all hashed out 2 years ago and then they tried to tweek it. I believe last year in d2 allmost every top 4 seed made the semis. Not sure on d3 or 1 but i think it was a high percentage. I know last years placeing does count for something as it should and head to head also is in the equation. I would be interested to see how many 1 or 2 seeds made the finals.

Well, this would suggest that the seeding criteria is pretty darn accurate.

CLC FAN · February 19, 2024, 03:23:43 PM

Quote from: panther93 on February 19, 2024, 02:03:14 PMIf I could change anything about this format it would be to just seed the sectional champs and then use the old matrix to separate the sectional opponents. There is no reason that two wrestlers from the same sectional need to compete against each other again in the first two rounds of DII or DIII, D1 would be fine because the two sectional opponents would be on opposite sides.

I agree about your first and third point... the margin of victory thing was stupid. Great fix. I too am concerned about coaches and kids "gaming" the system and MFF out of tough matches at sectionals. You see it all the time at the NCAA conference tournaments and it's a shame.

If I understand the point you make here in the quote, I kinda like that too... so you're saying in D1 the sectional runner-up would go opposite the champ from your sectional (so like the kid who lost to the #1 seed is top match of the bottom half of the bracket... effectively the #13 seed since he'd face the #4?) Then you are saying for D2 and D3 the 2nd place sectional kids all get a 3rd place kid from a different sectional - with no sectional runner-ups meeting their own sectional champs until finals or back-side consolation semis?

So take a bracket where the seeds are

#1 Sectional Champ B
#4 Sectioanl Champ C

#3 Sectional Champ A
#2 Sectional Champ D

The 2nd A would wrestle 3rd D with winner facing #1 seed?
Then 2nd D would wrestle 3rd A with winner facing #4 seed?

If that's what you're advocating... I like it for several reasons...

1) An effort is being made to get the top 4 kids away from each other.
2) If a kid who lost at sectionals is truly the 2nd best kid in the bracket, he can still make finals. His "Schute" is on the opposite side of the bracket.
3) No sectionals re-matches on Thursday night. For many kids this is not the second re-match but the 3rd, 4th, or 5th.
4) Data helps a lot in separating out the top 4. It gets to be pretty messy when determining the difference between the 10th and 12th best kid in the bracket.
5) It rewards the D2 and D3 sectional runner-ups. There is a reason to care about that match.

SWIGuy · February 19, 2024, 03:35:50 PM

Quote from: Junkyardpig on February 19, 2024, 02:43:00 PMHow did the Madison West kid get the 2 seed at 157?

Good question.

SWIGuy · February 19, 2024, 03:45:16 PM

Quote from: CLC FAN on February 19, 2024, 03:23:43 PM
Quote from: panther93 on February 19, 2024, 02:03:14 PMIf I could change anything about this format it would be to just seed the sectional champs and then use the old matrix to separate the sectional opponents. There is no reason that two wrestlers from the same sectional need to compete against each other again in the first two rounds of DII or DIII, D1 would be fine because the two sectional opponents would be on opposite sides.

I agree about your first and third point... the margin of victory thing was stupid. Great fix. I too am concerned about coaches and kids "gaming" the system and MFF out of tough matches at sectionals. You see it all the time at the NCAA conference tournaments and it's a shame.

If I understand the point you make here in the quote, I kinda like that too... so you're saying in D1 the sectional runner-up would go opposite the champ from your sectional (so like the kid who lost to the #1 seed is top match of the bottom half of the bracket... effectively the #13 seed since he'd face the #4?) Then you are saying for D2 and D3 the 2nd place sectional kids all get a 3rd place kid from a different sectional - with no sectional runner-ups meeting their own sectional champs until finals or back-side consolation semis?

So take a bracket where the seeds are

#1 Sectional Champ B
#4 Sectioanl Champ C

#3 Sectional Champ A
#2 Sectional Champ D

The 2nd A would wrestle 3rd D with winner facing #1 seed?
Then 2nd D would wrestle 3rd A with winner facing #4 seed?

If that's what you're advocating... I like it for several reasons...

1) An effort is being made to get the top 4 kids away from each other.
2) If a kid who lost at sectionals is truly the 2nd best kid in the bracket, he can still make finals. His "Schute" is on the opposite side of the bracket.
3) No sectionals re-matches on Thursday night. For many kids this is not the second re-match but the 3rd, 4th, or 5th.
4) Data helps a lot in separating out the top 4. It gets to be pretty messy when determining the difference between the 10th and 12th best kid in the bracket.
5) It rewards the D2 and D3 sectional runner-ups. There is a reason to care about that match.

Agreed. This would be a great improvement IMO.

CLC FAN · February 19, 2024, 03:48:38 PM

Quote from: SWIGuy on February 19, 2024, 02:40:16 PMI like to lurk here but thought I'd chime in to address a couple comments, and can do so referencing one bracket I'm familiar with being from the southern part of the state, even though there are likely many examples. First, someone asked to name a freshman who is getting screwed over by the seeding. I would say that in the D3 150 bracket you could make the case that Dominic Garcia from Pardeeville is getting somewhat screwed. He's 46-4, with basically his only losses on the year to undefeated Zanton from Middleton and the #3 seed Meister (who he has also beaten recently). His reward is a 1st round matchup with Tyson Imhoff from IGH, who finished 2nd at Bi-State at 150 and has basically only lost there to Danny Heiser and to the #1 seed Zdanczewicz (who he beat in the Regional final but lost to in the Sectional final). One of Garcia and Imhoff is going home after Thursday, and the other gets a 2nd round matchup with the #1 seed. Both of those guys wrestled an extra match in their sectionals to win 2nd place and did so fairly handily. Their reward was to be seeded behind guys who got 3rd in their sectional and don't have the same body of work this season, but who had a cup of coffee at State last year on Thursday night. Garcia never had that opportunity last year, and Imhoff finished 4th in a loaded sectional (Fennimore/Aquinas/IGH/Riverdale/MP/Pec-Argyle/Westby ) behind Tarrin Riley, Zdanczewicz and Vatland from Westby. Riley won state, Zdanczewicz and Vatland had to wrestle on Thursday night, with Zdanczewicz winning in OT then eventually losing to Riley and wrestling all the way back to 3rd.

Sorry so long, but not rewarding sectional placement and rewarding a past state appearance over current body of work creates some pretty unequitable seeding situations. I think criteria 7 and 8 should either be switched, or criteria 7 should be removed or superseded by sectional runner-up. The difference caused in the bracket I outlined above probably isn't "splitting hairs" to Garcia and Imhoff, as their tournament outlook would be quite different if they were the 6 and 7 instead of the 8 or 9.

Respectfully, my two cents.

You bring up a very good point. I would say that Imhoff's seed seems really out of balance, and Garcia's seems slightly out of balance. I wonder if some kind of "tether" effect would be manageable. Like Imhoff beat the #1 this year... yes he has a losing record against him, but that's a much better win on his resume than pretty much anyone else has.. no? So would it work to say you can't be seeded more that 2 spots below someone you've beaten? Or remove some of the "last year" stuff and replace it with... "wrestlers beaten in the bracket?" That way a) sectional runner-ups all have a one at least and b) even if you have a losing record against someone good, you still get credit for having beaten them once?

I'm not a fan of winning percentage playing any more of a role than it already does.
You're absolutely right that this case isn't splitting hairs. Those two can beat (and have beaten) some of the best in that bracket.

CLC FAN · February 19, 2024, 03:52:16 PM

Quote from: Junkyardpig on February 19, 2024, 02:43:00 PMHow did the Madison West kid get the 2 seed at 157?

https://www.trackwrestling.com/predefinedtournaments/PrintableWeightClassInfo.jsp?TIM=1708379372570&twSessionId=plwrfxtcyv&groupId=18586138

Not sure how transparent that is, but if you look at WIAA ind seed points in the upper right corner, the Madison West wrestler was given the point over everyone but Millard, himself, and one other ____? The next closest had 12 seed points.

For those of us who know nothing about the kids in the bracket - how should it look / who got the shaft?

Fan1 · February 19, 2024, 04:51:15 PM

D-1 157 is very weak in terms of seedable criteria points outside of the 1 seed. He lost one seed point to direct loss to Maier(luckily for him all of Maier's losses came to people not in this bracket). No place winners means he is at the highest level possible with being a state qualifier and sectional champion with the highest winning percentage. Wins over Weidman and Kudinger also helped I'm sure.

beastmode · February 19, 2024, 05:00:28 PM

Come on guys, let's not just cherry pick one or two brackets and complain. If a freshman is worthy of a state title he's going to beat who he needs to beat one way or the other.

SWIGuy · February 19, 2024, 05:35:45 PM

Quote from: beastmode on February 19, 2024, 05:00:28 PMCome on guys, let's not just cherry pick one or two brackets and complain. If a freshman is worthy of a state title he's going to beat who he needs to beat one way or the other.

I guess if you're just talking about the title you may be right, but there are more places at State besides 1st that can matter to folks down the road for obvious reasons. It's true I only mentioned one bracket but I'll bet there are more with similar situations. When there is no reward to win 2nd at sectionals over 3rd if you weren't at State last year there should be an easy fix. It seems like the method outlined by CLC in post 19 would do a better job of rewarding current performance and reducing early rematches.

rankwizard · February 19, 2024, 07:44:35 PM

Quote from: SWIGuy on February 19, 2024, 02:40:16 PMI like to lurk here but thought I'd chime in to address a couple comments, and can do so referencing one bracket I'm familiar with being from the southern part of the state, even though there are likely many examples. First, someone asked to name a freshman who is getting screwed over by the seeding. I would say that in the D3 150 bracket you could make the case that Dominic Garcia from Pardeeville is getting somewhat screwed. He's 46-4, with basically his only losses on the year to undefeated Zanton from Middleton and the #3 seed Meister (who he has also beaten recently). His reward is a 1st round matchup with Tyson Imhoff from IGH, who finished 2nd at Bi-State at 150 and has basically only lost there to Danny Heiser and to the #1 seed Zdanczewicz (who he beat in the Regional final but lost to in the Sectional final). One of Garcia and Imhoff is going home after Thursday, and the other gets a 2nd round matchup with the #1 seed. Both of those guys wrestled an extra match in their sectionals to win 2nd place and did so fairly handily. Their reward was to be seeded behind guys who got 3rd in their sectional and don't have the same body of work this season, but who had a cup of coffee at State last year on Thursday night. Garcia never had that opportunity last year, and Imhoff finished 4th in a loaded sectional (Fennimore/Aquinas/IGH/Riverdale/MP/Pec-Argyle/Westby ) behind Tarrin Riley, Zdanczewicz and Vatland from Westby. Riley won state, Zdanczewicz and Vatland had to wrestle on Thursday night, with Zdanczewicz winning in OT then eventually losing to Riley and wrestling all the way back to 3rd.

Sorry so long, but not rewarding sectional placement and rewarding a past state appearance over current body of work creates some pretty unequitable seeding situations. I think criteria 7 and 8 should either be switched, or criteria 7 should be removed or superseded by sectional runner-up. The difference caused in the bracket I outlined above probably isn't "splitting hairs" to Garcia and Imhoff, as their tournament outlook would be quite different if they were the 6 and 7 instead of the 8 or 9.

Respectfully, my two cents.

I agree. A few IGH wrestlers got a bad seed. Imhoff should be on the bottom half of the bracket also. the criteria is a good starting place but we need a lot more work on it. There are dozens of obvious errors in seeding.

TomM · February 19, 2024, 08:19:59 PM

Quote from: beastmode on February 19, 2024, 05:00:28 PMCome on guys, let's not just cherry pick one or two brackets and complain. If a freshman is worthy of a state title he's going to beat who he needs to beat one way or the other.

And that was true of the matrix system as well.

rankwizard · February 20, 2024, 08:30:08 AM

Sectional champs don't necessarily need a first round bye. For example in D3 at 106, Underwood and Johnson both deserve a top 4 seed- for their own sake and their competition's sake. Give the other guys a fair shot at winning a first round elimination match. Plus we get to see Underwood vs Johnson in state semis.. which the seeding successfully set up.