Understanding State Seeding

[neutral]

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
( 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.

[neutral]

... 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

[madeyson]

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.

[shouldvewrestled]

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.

[Ice]

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.

[Redeemer]

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.

[Ice]

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.

[LKing]

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.

[single_leg_sweep]

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.

[Tims]

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.

[single_leg_sweep]

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. 

[stbird]

Excellent!  Keep the humans out of it!  It's the fairest way to do it!

[ramjet]

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 ?)   

[DocWrestling]

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

[shouldvewrestled]

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.