Please no speculation on this one, just solid answers:
3 wrestlers A,B,C
Wrestler A record: 25-1
wrestler B record: 20-10
wrestler C record: 17-13
wrestler D Record: 15-15

If wrestler's A only loss is to wrestler D, which seeding is correct:
1. D
2. A
3. B
4. C

OR
1. B
2. C
3. D
4. A

sorry, I meant 4 wrestlers: A,B,C,D

Heck of a lot more too the equation, any state qualifiers, state medalists....or just simply a bunch of guys with decent records and one guys that pulled a head to head?

Agreed...and before you even get to point criteria you need to know if there are any other head-to-head or common opponents between these wrestlers. If so, you may not even need the point system.

Completely agree with the above 2 posts. Need more information to decide the outcome.

For future discussion as it will probably come up after the other issues are settled..


Winning %

A 96.16
B 66.67
C 56.67
D 50.0

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Red Rocker,

Good question. I will see this same problem tonight in my seeding meeting. Assuming there were no h2h, common opp, SQ, or SM...

I know if I coach wrestler A, I would argue the first option, because he has percentage on B and C. If I was coaching B or C, I would argue the second option, because they have percentage over D, while D is over A by h2h.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Troxel,

This is my point. Assume EVERYTHING is equal. No common, no head to head... just look at records at the bottom wrestler beat the top. Does wrestler D jump everyone or does wrestler A fall to everyone

I remember talking about this at a seeding meeting 15 years ago in St. Paul, and then when we hosted districts in Deshler the next two years, I tried to set a precedent at the start of the seeding meeting saying that A would drop below D. How can you penalize B and C when they are not involved. "A" clearly had a bad loss and should be penalized, or he has had a very weak schedule and has an inflated record. Needless to say, it should have worked very well, but of course it didn't for a weight class or two..............

Perhaps, it is D who has wrestled the tougher schedule accounting for his amassed losses. Why should A be penalized for losing to a 'good' kid when he has the better record than B and C assuming of course no commons between them?

Boy, this is fun.

Here are my thoughts. If you can not possibly shake out 1 wrestler using head to head and common opponent, you go to the point system. In this situation, D does have head to head over A but does not have anything over b and c and b and c have nothing over A. So in my mind, there isn't a single wrestler that could shake out with the head to head or common opponent. True, D does have head to head over A, but it can not be justified that he should be over b and c and it can not be justified that b and c are above A in this situation.

Then you go to points and shake it out. Let's say you get to points and C had the most points because he was a state medalist or something, then he is #1. Then go back to head to head and nothing still shakes out. Then go to points again and let's say C had the next most points because he was a state qaulifier or something. Then go back to head to head and D would be above A.

My opinion.

I think you have to be able to shake 1 person out for a seed, and if that can't be done, you go to the points. In this case the only thing you have is that 1 wrestler beat the other, but the 2 in between them have nothing over A at all. This in turns means that there isn't a wrestler that is a clear 1 yet, so you go to points.

I guess what it boils down to is this: should wrestler D be able to jump B and C (and of course A) because of a good win
OR
does wrestler A fall because of a bad loss.

Seems like a tough one

I don't think you can jump b or c above A because they dont' have any head to head or common above A. Because of this, a wrestler can not be shook out and you go to points. If A has the most points, then that's the way it works. That would make A and D meet in the semi's and if d is better than A it won't matter!

LOL

Agree with phatjo completely. You cannot penalize b and c because of a's loss to d. D has nothing over the other two.

quote:

Originally posted by Newman:
This is my point. Assume EVERYTHING is equal. No common, no head to head... just look at records at the bottom wrestler beat the top. Does wrestler D jump everyone or does wrestler A fall to everyone

Are there any state qualifiers or medalists? This will go to the point system to shake out the first seed and eventually all 4 seeds so state qualifier and medalist have to be taken into consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by Vader:
Perhaps, it is D who has wrestled the tougher schedule accounting for his amassed losses. Why should A be penalized for losing to a 'good' kid when he has the better record than B and C assuming of course no commons between them?

Boy, this is fun.

Why is 'D' wrestling such a hard schedule? He should be penalized!

Thanks for the devil's advocacy.......... Darth Vader!

The problem that I see is that, like last night at the meeting, if you throw in common opp., head to head, etc., you may not be able to come up with a solution. Sometimes the more you throw in, the more complicated you get.

you are right! And if you can't sort it out through head to head and common opponent you go to the points. That is why I am trying to change my schedule some to meet as many different teams as possible!

So i am on the edge of my seat! what was the outcome?

Thanks, Chief! I knew you would appreciate.

Alright, let's take it to the next level:
What if wrestler 1 losses to wrestler 8, but 8 has lost to 5,6,and 7. Wrestler 2 beat wrestler 3 and has never seen wrestler 1. Wrestler 5,6, and 7 are in a round robin.

Here you go parents, this is why coaches sometimes yell.....to get our frustration out!!!