In a time where the seed card is trying to take over a good old fashion coaches argument (and sometimes call out session) we as coaches should discuss the merits of a quality seeding criteria that we can all agree on before the season gets fully under way! There are too many early Saturday mornings where arguments start and ruin the mood of the day for the coaches as they argue over seeds. In my opinion, there are times that every kid should just be drawn in. The cream will rise to the top and the rest will be studying the merits of the front headlock!
We all know that head to head is a major point of contention! I know that a kid can be injured or get caught in a special move, but that is the price to pay!
Record has some merit but can be argued due to wrestlers ducking each other and not wrestling a tough schedule.
Early in the year guys will argue last years state meet finish, but that is really only good for a minute. We all know how weights and brackets change!
Now of course there is always the old calculator move where the coach pulls it out to say that his boys percentage is higher! That is always been the best one for me, espcially if they can not figure simple percentages!
In todays times, I would rather be number 4, lose in the semis and beat someone from the lower bracket to get to the state meet. We all have seen upsets where number 1 gets beat and then comes back to destroy the consolation bracket! So let me at him early!
So lets start a list of what we should all consider for criteria. If you a card man, state the merits of it and argue your points. If you prefer to just have the coaches fight it out, then are they allowed a tag team partner? Toughest coach gets the best seed for his kid!?!?!?

how about this one. i was doing a seeding meeting in dorchester nebraska one time and there was a 2x state placer who was undefeated in the bracket and there was another 2x state placer whose only loss was to the undefeated kid, and then there was a frosh who was undefeated and who had pinned everyone so far in the season. looked pretty easy to me as a ref: undefeated state placer, 1 loss state placer, frosh with great record. should have been case closed. this was in december when you could still use the year before state finish. here is how it went: the coaches (god bless them) decided that the two undefeated kids should be the ones considered for the top seed. and that put the one loss kid out. Then of all things they looked at the straight pins as equal to the state medal from the year before. so then the coaches voted and they put the frosh at 1st seed because it was his home gym. as the story goes, the undefeated state placer won in ot against the other state placer and the frosh lost 11-1 in the finals. good criteria! but this illustrates how coaches get at seeding meetings........ridiculous

My sophomore year I went to the East Butler varsity wrestling meet with our JV team. I had a record of I think 15-3 at the time all varsity matches. The coaches decided since I was on a JV team I couldn't be seeded over any varsity wrestlers even though I had a varsity record that would have put me 2nd. So I got the 6th seed even though the 5th seed was 1-10. After I pinned my way through the bracket I think they realized their system was flawed.

This is an NSAA propsal for district seeding criteria:

From Activities Manual: Wrestling Page 12 “Seedings and Pairings” Line 6


Add/Delete/Change the sections/paragraph/sentence as follows:

Change line 6 to Rules for the seeding meeting will be as follows:
1. Head to Head
2. Common Opponent

3. Point systems as follows if steps 1 and 2 don’t shake someone out

1 point returning state qualifier
1 point returning state medalist
.5 point winning % difference 0-5%
1 point winning % difference 5.1-10%
1.5 points winning % difference 10.1% or more

If points are tied draw those tied.
If there are 3 or more people tied in steps 1 and 2 go to point system, after one person shakes out then go back to step 1 head to head.

Draw the byes
Then place losing records by percentage

WHAT A LAUGHER. SHOWS THAT THE NSAA KNOWS TONS ABOUT WRESTLING>>>>>NOT! CAN YOU IMAGINE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE IN A ROOM USING THIS CRITERIA: BRAUN, ALEXANDER, MCCANN,MCCURDY,DNESON KUPFER,FROHLING, AND OTHERS. THESE GUYS WOULD BS THEMSELVES INTO OBLIVION?????? YOU ARE AT A DISTRICT MEET AND THESE GUYS WOULD ARGUE POINTS BASED UPON LAST YEAR'S INFO.......PICK ME UP, I AM STILL LAUGHING..........AND COMMON OPPONENT........NOW THAT IS A GOOD ONE, I'M GETTING A SIDE ACHE............NOPE BOYS, LEAVE ME OUT OF THESE SEEDING MEETINGS, I'M GETTING TO OLD FOR THIS CRA

how about mcgrath from ralston with a calculator trying to figure out those last few criteria?

The criteria is being sent to the NSAA not brought up by NSAA. It has been used in the B-1 district in the past. This past year entire meeting took just over an hour (compared to one C district that took over 4). I am not saying it is the best, but it has worked. Would love to hear other suggestions.

I don't think it is the position of the NSAA to tell anyone how to seed. Most of those at the NSAA have never even attended a seeding meeting let alone having knowledge of how the seeding meeting works. I'm personally for the cafe plan. Examine 5/6 pieces of evidence and see who has the most......I would be careful about using anything from last year.

We need to quit blaming things on "the NSAA".
When are we going to understand that we are the NSAA and are part of the process.
NSAA district meetings are coming up this next week. Let your voting administrator know your stance on these issues.
I submitted this to d III and someone else should have submitted it in every District so it will at least get discussed.I still am not sure where I stand on the seeding issue.
I plan on sending an e-mail out to all the wrestling coaches in d III and plan on bringing it up at the UNL clinic this weekend to find out the general opinion.
I will be attending the d III meeting and will present these opinions to them.
In any case coaches, get informed and make your opinions known to your voter.
Thanks for reading my babblings.

Power goes to the home district site director! NSAA has given this power and ain't goin to take it away, so call it a homer job, but home team rules! Hope you got a guy who is willing to draw consensus. and creighton guy, obviously you haven't been to one of those district meetings......zoo city! They don't give a Rats @#$ about wrestling criteria

Currently the NSAA has no set seeding criteria (see page 15 line 7 of the new wrestling manual).This summer at coaches clinic there was concern about how seeding meetings were handled, it was suggested there be a set staewide criteria, so all districts were seeding the same way. A proposed criteria was developed and sent to the NSAA districts. I agree with bdoggy, let your administrator know where you stand on this issue. I personally like to know ahead of time what the criteria will be, whether it is the one proposed or something else.

Phil Severson

is the first criteria of any seeding meeting and most of the time this holds true. But when district seeding meetings get rolling sometimes it is tough to use common sense when it means the difference between a three and a four seed. Anyway, I'm luke warm to any set criteria or cafeteria thing unless the following things are spelled out 1) If wrestlers are tied after the point system, is there a popularity vote or is there a random draw for the seeds in question? 2) if wrestlers A,B,C, and D have the first four seeds (kinda)with %'s of 100,95,90, and 85 where is wrestler E with a 58% placed if he beat the 95% kid (wrestler b) by a great c mixer with 15 seconds to go in the match two months ago? is he placed above C and D and get the second seed? or is wrestler B placed behind E even though he has criteria over C and D? and 3) If three seeded wrestlers are going to be drawn in because they are all even with splits and have a true round robin after criteria what happens to a barely seedable wrestler who has criteria over one of the three in the round robin? Does he once again jump all three wrestlers or is just the one wrestler penalized and gets thrown out of the round robin or automatically gets the lowest seed in the round robin?

I know some of this sounds like jibberish, but one or two brackets like these notoriously turn a 90 minute meeting into a 180 minute meeting very quickly. Have others experienced this problem? What kind of verbage can be come up with to cover this for a district proposal?

I don't love the long seeding meetings but just promise me this, if we get it figured out and the meetings get shorter can we still have the same hospitality spread of food before we drive home at 9:00 instead of 11:00? Gotta keep in shape!

Rick Henry

I've seen coaches that argue so hard for seeds, they forget that wrestling on the mat is where it is! If wins and losses were predetermined by the seeding meeting, then the seeding meeting would be all that much more important. As I see it, the big issues are if you have a kid you think you can get in the finals by being away from another stud, then there is a reason to argue seed. And if you get an eighth seed when there are 3 studs and throw the rest in the hat kind of deal. The eighth seed will meet 1 and 3 with little chance of advancing to the top 4 medal round. Otherwise, you have two chances of placing in the top 4 when seeded in the top 6 so make the best of it on the mat