We got a letter about district seeding criteria and our C-2 District is going to use the one proposed to the NSAA:

1. head to head
2. common opponent
point system as follows if 1 and 2 don't shake someone out:
1 point--returning state qualifier
1 point--returning state medallist
.5 point--winning % difference of 0-5%
1 point--winning % difference 5.1-10%
1.5 points--winning % difference 10.1% or more

if points are tied, then draw those tied

if there are 3 or more people tied in steps 1 and 2 go to the 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

On our sheet it has district voting on this proposal. District I, II, III, IV, and VI were unanimously in favor of it. District V was 9 for and 13 against. My question is what did District V see and dislike that no other district saw? I'll be honest that I don't even know what schools are in District V so if anyone could elaborate I would appreciate it.

With a whole year to create criteria, why on earth would you want to use ANYTHING from the year before? Doesn't make the least amount of sense. Why would you try to force this criteria on everyone just because someONE liked it? Let each district decide for themselves. Anyway, it has not passed yet, so we still have hope!

I think it is an attempt to find a method of separating 2 or more kids rather than leaving it to the flip of a coin. It is true that last year doesn't have a lot to do with this year but it is one way to get 2 or more wrestlers separated. Many times in a district meet the seeding will go a long way in determining who will make the trip to Lincoln and it it very important to get the seeds correct.

Just curious, what would your criteria be Baron?

RR

One thing I would personally like to see is that you could only count your record for matches wrestled at the same weight or a higher weight class. For example a few years back I was coaching a 189 pounder with an 18-6 record. A 171-pounder bumped up with a 20-5 record. The 171-pounder had an 18-2 record at 171 but 2-3 at 189. But because there was no head to head or common opponent, the 171 pounder got the higher seed. Fortunately we won the match in the round to qualify, but it was still not fair I don't think.

Some people in my district want to use a "common sense" and "coaches integrity" method of seeding. This would include head to head carrying a lot of weight, but common opponents, not so much. My question to the forum is this...can you simultaneously support head to head criterion while knocking the value of common opponents? I don't think you can. I think if one is valid, they both are. If one is invalid, they both are. What do you think?

I didn't write anything about any criteria. So whoever Patriot is, it is not a Millard South Patriot.

You sure g-man? You and TMF are famous (infamous?) For your expository battles here. Maybe it is both of you going back and forth!

What is your take on seeding for districts g-man?

RR

1) Head to Head
2) Common Opponent
3) This seasons record if >10%
4) If record is <10% go to point system
Record - 1 pt.
State Qual - 1 pt.
State Placer - 1 pt.
5) If still tied then draw

This seasons record should mean something. Some of these guys have improved alot from last year and have proven themselves this season.

I am not the patriot, I will only post as Tom McCann fan unless I tell you I am changing my moniker. I do think it is a fair question though. Grapplinman also knew I was not the Patriot, but he might like you to think differently.

I dislike the coin flip. I dislike the cafeteria. I dislike that our district teams aren't the same almost every year. Lets throw in Aquinas, David City, and Sutton and get rid of Ravenna, Fullerton, and Cross County, for example.

I was tired of going to the district seeding meeting and not having any criteria over half of the teams in our district so I changed our schedule to see 14 out of the 16 teams in our district instead of the previous 9. It backfired at little because of re-districting but at least I tried. I think we see 12 out of 16 this year.

I've also learned a little in the last six years, in that usually, usually the four best kids go to state in a bracket, so I've stopped being aggressive over the difference between a 2-7 seed. On paper, the 3 should wrestle the 5 to go to state and the 4 wrestle the 6. So the 5 might beat the 4 in the quarters, or the 6 beat the 3 20% of the time, and also the 3 and 2 could switch in the semis, but either way a wrestler has to beat one 3 seed or higher to get to championship finals, and if that doesn't happen they need to beat two seeds from 4-8 at some point in the tournament. For example, why be bitter about a 6 seed if he is state quality? He either wins or losses a close match against the 3 seed, if he losses he has got to beat the 7 seed and then the 4or5 to go to bobs house. If he wins against the 3 then losses against the 2 he should once again have the 4or5 seed to go to state. I know I prefaced all this by saying on paper!

I do fight a little harder in a bracket if there is one true superman and then a close 2-4or5 seed. Of course I want to be the 2 or 3 so I can just avoid wrestling superman until after we've qualified. In this case, I would like to see wins over quality opponents. What is your record against kids with a winning record? How would you get this info? All 16 district host sites had the records by Monday I imagine. How about that info goes on to a NSAA web page accessible to only the coaches at the seeding meeting. You could quick look up how many of the wins you had came over kids with a winning record. It really wouldn't be that hard. I know I recieved a list of records on monday, email that to nsaa along with the other 15 host sites. There you have it! Every record of every varsity wrestler in the state (almost). You also would alleviate that viscious stare as someone assumes their schedule is sooo much more difficult than yours. You could also go to a point system just like some of our other team sports: 1 point for a win 1.5 for a win over someone with a record from 40% to 75% and 2 points for a win over a 76%+. You could have a number for every wrestler before you get to the seeding meeting! Go head to head, common, and then WHAT IS YOUR #? For those of you thinking that this would be unfair to those wrestlers who were injured or had josh brown syndrome, well take your number and divide by number of wins. If my number ends up to be 1.33 it isn't better than a wrestler with a 1.35. Just a thought! Sorry I got to rambling.

As far as the point system that was the original post, I don't think it is fair to freshmen, injured wrestlers, or teams that have a killer schedule. There has got to be a better way. Maybe my idea? Maybe not! But something should change. We have the technology to get this done and I think we should use it.

Rick Henry

[This message was edited by bdstorm on February 12, 2003 at 03:24 PM.]

I think one big problem with the proposed system is that it gives wrestlers a point for "returning state medalist" but it does not distinguish between first place and sixth place.

I am patriot. It is a ruse. My high school was the Orange Glen Patriot...Go Big Blue! Sorry Millard South coach, no intent at offense. My question still stands as valid. One can not negate common opponents without eliminating head to head. Also, I do think it matters a little. It isn't always about getting the right four guys to state, you also need to get them there in a fair order. If there are three studs in a bracket, it makes a huge difference between 1 and 2. 2 is going to have a tough semi, while 1 is assured of a 1 or 2 seed going into state. If you land a 3 seed, you should have a 1 in the quarters of state instead of the semis. So, although it doesn't always matter, quite often, it does.

The state meet is not seeded? SO why worry so much about the district meet? You can see why we need to come up with a system of seeding the state meet. Many many times, the top two end up on the same side of the bracket and the semis end up being the best wrestling. That is not the best way to do business. All of you guys are worried about the district meet, when in reality, most of the time, the best 4 end up going to state regardless of the seed at districts. I would spend my time worry about what bracket we get drawn into at state. If you want to get behind a cause, start working on a seeding system for the state meet! Districts is small potatoes, unless all you are worried about is qualifying. And unfortunately many kids and coaches base their season on how many qualifiers you get! I like to count state medalists and champs!

Forget about using coaches common sense as any part of the criteria.

what if the situation is like this:
guy a) has a 19-7 record and is not a previous state qualifier
guy b) has a 22-5 record and was a state qualifier but lost to a
guy c) has a 19-7 record and is a previous state qualifier, but has not wrestled any common opponents or any of a or b head to head
how would the system seed these guys? (i use specifics because this is the case in my district)

Just a question. I'm not to familiar with all of this seeding stuff but if it comes down to the win percentage do they take competition into consideration? I know that there are a few schools that wrestle alot tougher competition and have a few more losses than those who wrestle weaker schools so how would this pan out? Would the kid who wrestled the tougher schedule lose a seed because the other kid had a better record?

I believe it would go: guy A, then B, then C

Guy B could not be seeded above A because of head to head competition. Guy B gets 2 points (previous state qualifier, record is better by 8% over C). Guy C gets only 1 point (previous state qualifier).

It would end up C A B. Although A has the best record, he has a loss to A, whose record is equal to C. Since A and C have the same record the point system is in and C , being a returning qualifier is #1. B does have the reocrd, but cannot be considered until A is seeded. B' s loss to A effectively moves him back to #3.