Understanding State Seeding

[Coach Lu]

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.

[downtown]

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.

[RF_Super_Fan]

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!

[madeyson]

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?

[DocWrestling]

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.

[jdwrestle]

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.

[drbrad]

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?

[shouldvewrestled]

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.

[CLC FAN]

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.

[drbrad]

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.

[shouldvewrestled]

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.

[Coach Lu]

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. 

[drbrad]

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)?

[shouldvewrestled]

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.

[Chad Steldt]

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.