monarchpride;1579596 wrote:As I mentioned on another thread, before you decide to get rid of seeding and selection the coaches association in NE Ohio is trying to get the format/process we have. Additionally it is a decision made by the Central Athletic Board (of which Mr. Adams is a member), but is probably done so because that is how the other sports are also done in our area. BBall, Baseball, Soccer, Track, etc.

Exactly. Emphasis on the fact that the folks in NE want to adopt OUR system. They are able decouple "results" from the "process".

The current process does result in some situations where kids who could make districts (top 16 kid) doesn't make it out because his weight has too many Hammers. Pick north last year at 106. All 4 106s from this sectional went to state. R. Valenti finished 5th, and he likely makes Districts in any other sectional

That being said, I don't see how any other system (completely random, strict seeding, geographical) would avoid the same thing from happening. If anything, the current process probably makes it less likely that this will happen as coaches can try to protect at least some of their wrestlers.

So I guess I like the current process better than any other proposed alternative

Are their other problems with the current process that I am not aware of?

Dad4Sports;1578854 wrote:Does SW D2 choose sectional location?

Teams in the northern part of the district choose between Tipp and Tipp. The order of who chooses first is based on team ranking done by a coaches vote.

HilliardDad - Certainly agree that the best 16 don't get to the District, but as you said, that could happen with ANY sectional assignment process. Almost impossible to guarantee that. Of course, the best 16 don't necessarily reach the State either ...

As Dust_E points out, the current process surely does NOT keep a likely state qualifier from reaching the District. IMO the best four kids reach the District, and therefore have a chance to reach the State. It would be tough to argue that the 5th placer in a sectional, no matter how tough, should have been a SQ.

As long as we are making proposals, here is mine: One big tournament with all 44 D1 teams. Set up as a 48 man tourney. All kids seeded based on an agreed criteria. Top 16 get byes, bottom 32 rat tail into a 32 man tourney, with byes to higher seeded boys. Top 4 go to state.

Can you imagine such a tourney?

Not sure where we would hold it... Maybe the Fairgrounds.

But, wow!

Con_Alma;1579600 wrote:The fact that individual district are pushing for a certain type of seeding criteria is the issue. The entire State shold have the same criteria since they are all part of the same State Tournament.

Are you also in favor of the Federal Government having more control of State and Local matters? I don't see why it matters as long as each District supplies the correct number of qualifiers.

Top 16 don't always get to any specific district ...top 16 certainly don't get to state...top 8 don't place at state

So what? That's wrestling...things aren't always "fair" and never will be. Since this is a state tournament though, I can buy the argument that the entire state should follow the same process...whatever method that is. I like the way the CD does it. A strict criteria approach can really screw things up when you have a "stud" freshman in the mix. I'm not too worried about the freshman...but maybe more about another wrestler that is at a disadvantage because of it.

Do you know about the d3 brackets central district?

Pompero Firpo;1579685 wrote:Are you also in favor of the Federal Government having more control of State and Local matters? I don't see why it matters as long as each District supplies the correct number of qualifiers.

No I am not. The two are not correlated.

In the end it's one tournament starting at the local level. All participants should have the same evaluative criteria applied to them as they work their way to Columbus.

HilliardDad;1579684 wrote:As long as we are making proposals, here is mine: One big tournament with all 44 D1 teams. Set up as a 48 man tourney. All kids seeded based on an agreed criteria. Top 16 get byes, bottom 32 rat tail into a 32 man tourney, with byes to higher seeded boys. Top 4 go to state.

Can you imagine such a tourney?

Not sure where we would hold it... Maybe the Fairgrounds.

But, wow!

I love this idea ...especially since the State Duals are now being wrestled again. The individual tournament should truly be the best in each respective weight class without divisional segregation. I would even be willing to shrink to two divisions as a start. Don't think OHSAA would quite go for it, however.

Con_Alma;1580207 wrote:I love this idea ...especially since the State Duals are now being wrestled again. The individual tournament should truly be the best in each respective weight class without divisional segregation. I would even be willing to shrink to two divisions as a start. Don't think OHSAA would quite go for it, however.

I don't see where he made any mention of combining divisions?

Dust_E_Roads;1579633 wrote:How is our current process not "what's best for wrestling"? Please explain without using Pennsylvania or NE Ohio in your answer.

Folks on here have lots of complaints, but I"ve yet to hear a cogent argument that our current process does not end up with the best 4 wrestlers at a given weight making it it to state.
Maybe the best 16 don"t make it to Districts, but I don"t buy for a minute, that our process keeps the best 4 from advancing, and that is ultimately what matters most.

i completely agree with Mutt Cuts that coaches in other portions of the state envy our system. At least those I"ve spoken with.

I don't know that the current process isn't what's best for wrestling nor have I stated that it isn't. Mutt Coats mentioned that it may not be and I responded to that comment.

My only "complaint", I would offer that it's a suggestion as opposed to a complaint, is that we are consistent with all wrestlers across the State as they are evaluated for entry into the State tournament.

Dad4Sports;1580210 wrote:I don't see where he made any mention of combining divisions?

I didn't suggest that he did.

It was I that made mention of reducing it to one division and was even willing to consider 2 initially.

I have a few sectional brackets

www.OVAeC.org

Matt Lerner from Mentor got 4th in the state the same year he got 5th at sectionals in 2003. LOOK IT UP!! Blast 82.5. sectional champ got hurt, he stepped in. Lerner made District Finals, then crazy as it sounds made the state semi-finals..........................................you are now ITC!!!!!!!!!

Not reading this whole thread, however, in the NE D-3 Northwestern sectional represented 56% of the State qualifiers out of Garfield Heights. Thus leaving 44% from the remaining 3 sectionals. Kids with 30+ wins didnt get out of sectionals @ Nwn, while other sectionals had kids with .500 or LOSING records advance to districts.

Call me crazy, but that seems to be a little off balance.

1_beast;1580562 wrote:Not reading this whole thread, however, in the NE D-3 Northwestern sectional represented 56% of the State qualifiers out of Garfield Heights. Thus leaving 44% from the remaining 3 sectionals. Kids with 30+ wins didnt get out of sectionals @ Nwn, while other sectionals had kids with .500 or LOSING records advance to districts.

Call me crazy, but that seems to be a little off balance.

ill say a crazy beast!