snugglyhippo;1382648 wrote:"I do give a little credibility to schedule. A Marysville kid at 19-9 if no head to head is better than a Westland or Kilbourne kid who never left Central Ohio and is 23-7"

This logic is foolish as well. So the Marysville kid who lost against all nine tough opponents (Eds, Steub, Blair, 0-2 at Brecks, etc.) with no "signature" win vs. a 23-7 person of the quality of say a Shakur Laney (easiest for me to think of a strong weight, 106) who has lost to Nace twice, perhaps Brusco a couple, maybe a Noah Jay and a couple times to a Guit, but has beaten a Lakso, an Oberly and a Furnas and you have a good argument for the Laney type competetitor. Don't get blinded by the colors on the singlet. Numbers, records and names of tournaments are not effective measurements of wrestling ability. If you actually want to seed people based on who is deserving, you need to remove such things and make judgements based on individual cases of who each wrestler has wrestled and beaten.

Agree, unless they've wrestled each other or a common opponent, it's hard to differentiate other than by personal opinion on ability.

M5 Grappler;1382387 wrote:I do give a little credibility to schedule. A Marysville kid at 19-9 if no head to head is better than a Westland or Kilbourne kid who never left Central Ohio and is 23-7

Guessing that seeding votes would be tempered with quality of wins and losses especially with quality opponents? If Marysville's wins were mostly by close decisions and losses mostly techs and pins, other wrestler's wins are usually techs and pins, his losses usually close?

another silly rule...no .500 or sub.500 wrestlers seeded. Ridiculous.

Frustration ... when head-to-head victories are ignored ... but league loyalties aren't.

snugglyhippo;1382689 wrote:another silly rule...no .500 or sub.500 wrestlers seeded. Ridiculous.

I've can't remember a tournament where a kid without a winning record was seeded. Why do you think this is silly?

Con_Alma;1383265 wrote:I've can't remember a tournament where a kid without a winning record was seeded. Why do you think this is silly?

Because his sarcastic wit overpowered his brain!

Stay light, coach.

Ahhh....sorry gentlemen. Please continue.

Lou Demas;1382378 wrote:Well you know what they say "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle em with bullsssh!"

Good stuff, you're a natural salesman sir!

This kid can bench...lol

His cousin had an uncle who knew someone that went to states to watch someone else wrestle there once.

Con Alma, it is a rarity, I agree. However, to summarily reject a below .500 record regardless of the circumstances simply does not make sense. Imagine a scenario where a good kid 132 is injured and comes back late and is 2-2 with two close losses and two wins over good kids. It doesn't matter if he lost to John Smith 3-2 and John Fisher 2-1 and his two wins are over J Jaggers and Nick Brascetta, by rule, he cannot be seeded with this record. It is rare, but if our goal is to truly have the best wrestlers in the finals, individual exception cases should be allowed to be considered, that's all. And yes, sarcasm and hyperbole often overwhelm my brain, but there are moments of lucidity.

The goal should be to have the kids who have earned the best bracket seed be in the most accurate seed. There's no explanation I have ever heard be worthy of having a .500 wrestle seeded.

We had a State qualifier injured in football and didn't get back on the mat until the conference tournament. He deserved not to be seeded at all.

This should not be subjective. There will always be cases whereby the criteria doesn't create the most ideal scenario. The bigger risk, however, is putting a bunch of biased people in a room to subjectively "discuss" it.

Set the criteria in advance. Have coaches send in the information. Let the tournament director seed based on the information provided. Have a quick meeting before the tournament for all coaches to verify the criteria was accurately applied....and then go wrestle. It's not that difficult and it works at all the big tournaments.

"Set the criteria in advance. Have coaches send in the information. Let the tournament director seed based on the information provided"

I agree with this, unless the information provided makes a compelling case to overide the criteria. I am simply saying that in my opinion, a wrestler who is 5-5 against stellar competition and has a couple good wins deserves the opportunity to be seeded more so than a 6-5 wrestler who has recieved 6 forfiets. An extreme example to be sure, but by the current rules this can happen, and it does not make sense. I would also say that in both of the scenarios I have provided, I would say that despite a .500 record, the wrestlers have earned the right to be seeded over a person of lesser credentials who simply has an above .500 record. It just seems like common sense. Now, if you are a person that feels that getting things done quickly is more important than accuracy, I can understand that argument, but I don't mind long meetings as long as the two most deserving kids wrestle at the end.

"We had a State qualifier injured in football and didn't get back on the mat until the conference tournament. He deserved not to be seeded at all."

I do not know what his potential opponents credentials were, but if you are saying that he should not be seeded over a 10-9 first year wrestler with no good wins, I would say that we will have to agree to disagree becasue to me, this statement seems ridiculous.

Con_Alma;1384024 wrote:The goal should be to have the kids who have earned the best bracket seed be in the most accurate seed. There's no explanation I have ever heard be worthy of having a .500 wrestle seeded.

We had a State qualifier injured in football and didn't get back on the mat until the conference tournament. He deserved not to be seeded at all.

This should not be subjective. There will always be cases whereby the criteria doesn't create the most ideal scenario. The bigger risk, however, is putting a bunch of biased people in a room to subjectively "discuss" it.

Set the criteria in advance. Have coaches send in the information. Let the tournament director seed based on the information provided. Have a quick meeting before the tournament for all coaches to verify the criteria was accurately applied....and then go wrestle. It's not that difficult and it works at all the big tournaments.

Coaches are biased??...Nah, can't be...lmao! I 100% agree with u, just use criteria!!

So use criteria. Alright. At every "big tournament" the first criteria is state champ/placer/qualifier...so any person who had achieved this criteria the record is moot...a wrestler with a sub-.500 record could be seeded provided he (or she) had first met this criteria. Yet in Sectionals this is not the case. Which way should it be? What is the best set of criteria to use? This is not a loaded question it is important. If we could all agree on a perfect criteria seeding meetings would be a thing of the past...but we cannot because regardless how many numbers you attach to wrestling much of the data is still qualitative not quantitative. I remember not too long ago (bout 15 years...pre-internet) there were seeding meetings for all tourneys.

snugglyhippo;1384113 wrote:So use criteria. Alright. At every "big tournament" the first criteria is state champ/placer/qualifier...so any person who had achieved this criteria the record is moot...a wrestler with a sub-.500 record could be seeded provided he (or she) had first met this criteria. Yet in Sectionals this is not the case. Which way should it be? What is the best set of criteria to use? This is not a loaded question it is important. If we could all agree on a perfect criteria seeding meetings would be a thing of the past...but we cannot because regardless how many numbers you attach to wrestling much of the data is still qualitative not quantitative. I remember not too long ago (bout 15 years...pre-internet) there were seeding meetings for all tourneys.

Sectional tournament seeding criteria...http://nedab.drupalgardens.com/sites/nedab.drupalgardens.com/files/WRSeedCriteria2013.pdf

We shouldn't have to agree on criteria. When it comes to the State tournament run/sectional tournament, it should be set by the State. Everyone in the entire State should be seeded based on the same criteria.

On another note, others areas of the State don't have seeding meetings for the sectional tournament. It is carried out how I explained above.

Con_Alma;1384154 wrote:
We shouldn't have to agree on criteria. When it comes to the State tournament run/sectional tournament, it should be set by the State. Everyone in the entire State should be seeded based on the same criteria.

Agree.......should be the same for everyone, whether you agree with the procedure or not.

"We shouldn't have to agree on criteria. When it comes to the State tournament run/sectional tournament, it should be set by the State. Everyone in the entire State should be seeded based on the same criteria." I would be o.k. with this. Even if I don't personally agree with a certain aspect of the criteria, I think it would be easier for me to accept if I knew everyone did it the same way.

"On another note, others areas of the State don't have seeding meetings for the sectional tournament. It is carried out how I explained above." I don't disagree with this, and I understand this to be the case. I am curious how many other districts (across all divisions) if any, do it our way and why it has never been a problem of inconsistency with the OHSAA regarding application of the rules.

snugglyhippo;1384633 wrote:"We shouldn't have to agree on criteria. When it comes to the State tournament run/sectional tournament, it should be set by the State. Everyone in the entire State should be seeded based on the same criteria." I would be o.k. with this. Even if I don't personally agree with a certain aspect of the criteria, I think it would be easier for me to accept if I knew everyone did it the same way.

"On another note, others areas of the State don't have seeding meetings for the sectional tournament. It is carried out how I explained above." I don't disagree with this, and I understand this to be the case. I am curious how many other districts (across all divisions) if any, do it our way and why it has never been a problem of inconsistency with the OHSAA regarding application of the rules.

Not sure.....but I get the impression the Central District is in the minority with its seeding procedure.

Dad4Sports;1384643 wrote:Not sure.....but I get the impression the Central District is in the minority with its seeding procedure.

They are the only ones I know of.

Automatic Criteria really makes some lopsided half brackets at tournaments. Coaches meeting although long and full of rants are the best way to ensure fairness.

So your raional is to wrestle the weakest schedule you can and hope that the good wrestler who wrestled a tough schedule gets put in the opposite bracket and you don't have to wrestle him. The problem with coach vote is you can't see everyone so many times it is a group vote for someone they have seen. Of course this says that schools not in the OCC need to try and wrestle them if you can.