delaWarr

Good pick-up on the clue. Brian did compete in that tournament, but he won his semis match. He and Hunter were teammates.

But there was only one four-time TSSAA State Champion before the split into D1 and D2. That wrestler was Marty Francis. When folks are referencing Marty Francis' feat, and they say or write "state champion", the TSSAA Tourney is understood. The absence of certain schools in the organization during a part of the time he was establishing his singular claim has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity or the magnitude of the claim. By the way, just out of curiosity, didn't the Mid-South include post high schoolers?

If my memory is correct, Marty did not win the Chattanooga Region the year he won his fourth State, but he sure came through in front of a standing room only State Tournament crowd at Hillwood High. Luke Worsham watched the match standing on a chair to see over the crowd standing in one corner of the gym.

When we define State Champions, we are talking about TSSAA State Tournament Champions. When Marty Francis wrestled there was only one TSSAA Tournament and Marty Francis won it four times. Marty Francis IS the only four time state champion when all of the TSSAA member schools were included in one tournament.

In D1, seeding is done by coaches at the Regional level. The State Tournament (TSSAA) uses the results of the Regional Tournaments to fill in the State brackets, following a generally accepted textbook model, i. e. the 1 and 4 from a given region are placed in the same semi bracket, but different quarter brackets; the 2 and 3 from that same region are placed in the opposite semi bracket (from the 1 and 4), but in different quarter brackets. Thus a region's 4 qualifiers in a given weight are distributed into the 4 different quarter brackets and could never meet one another in the championship bracket until the semis. The champions of each region are placed in the 8 different outermost brackets of a 32 man chart. Each of those 8 outermost brackets contains a 1st, a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th placer, all from different regions. Each of those outermost brackets is paired with an ajacent bracket that is paired in a like manner, forming a quarter bracket. The quarter brackt then contains 2 region champions, 2 region 2nds, 2 region 3rds, and 2 region 4ths, one qualifier from each of the 8 regions in the state. Since the 8 champions are given the top 8 seeded slots, and every other qualifier falls into a prescribed quarter slot (based on where the region champ is placed), the only flexibility remaining is into which quarter of the opposite semi bracket that the 2nd and 3rd place qualifiers are drawn. The only seeding consideration that could come into play at this point would be to draw a seedable (by TSSAA guidelines) 2nd place qualifier into the weaker of the two quarter brackets. The coaches have worked out a formula for seeding returning placers who win their region championships (guidelines used by the TSSAA). How can the rankings fit into and improve this system? What are the guarantees that the rankings will even be around year after year?

Re: Who was the "Super Soph" at 98 that Bogitsh upset in the semis in '73? Soms, Since Batton did not win State his freshman year, you may have overlooked the significence of the info that Bogitsh's semi opponent in '73 lost in the semis and therefore could not be a three timer (i. e. your Batton guess). Since you appear to need some help, here is a small hint to help you (and anyone else who may have an interest) out. The wrestler in question was not the only member of his family to wrestle.

"Sleeping in your own bed" may not be what "sports fans regard as home field advantage", but it sure becomes an important part of the equation when a coach considers his itinerary and modus operandi on an out-of-town overnighter. Not "sleeping in your own bed" in a literal interpretation may have predictably minimal effects on performances of athletes. But for scholastic athletes, the figurative consequences can get in the way. My guess is that many, maybe most, coaches can relate a variety of situations with negative consequences for athletes which occurred on overnighters that would not have happened had they been spending the night at home in their own beds. Over the years I have heard and observed the consequences of any number of such stories. I have observed teams that I felt wrestled just as well on the road as they did at home because the wrestlers had been conditioned to the situation. But for the teams who don't have the opportunities for such conditioning, traveling (vs staying at home) could make a difference in their performance on the mat.

Does the home team have to host consecutive tournaments before it is considered home mat advantage, or does one year count? I saw the home team win the duals in '98 by one point and it never occurred to me as an observer that home mat had anything to do with it. I still don't think that it did. I find it interesting, however, that there may be a fan or two of that home mat of that year who apparently feel that it did. Neither the base of fans in Chattanooga nor the tradition built in the programs of all the schools plays a role in the traditional tournament being held on the UTC campus. Initially, the tournament was returned to Chattanooga because of the seating capacity of a State Tournament friendly venue, McClellan. Lipscomb had been the venue for the previous two or three years. It remained at McClellan, at least partly, because no Nashville area facility was available or else was affordable. Then as time passed, under the direction of top quality leadership, a tournament team and a system (an organization) evolved that would be tough to equal. Given equal facilities, Nashville vs Chattanooga, given Chattanooga's tournament organization vs Nashville's unproven (on the current State level), if I had a vote, it would be the Round House, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. The Chattanooga TSSAA Tournament Combine is worth its weight in gold. We don't need to mess with something that is working this well. If one of these days the tournament has to change venues or the organizational structure for some reason loses the dedicated people who make it work, then that would be the time to consider elsewhere. As far as Nashville area being a fan base bust, it never happened in the old days when the tournaments came to town. And a fairly educated guess would argue that it wouldn't happen today. Nashville area has a significantly greater fan potential than Chattanooga. Count the numbers of teams in the Regions in Chattanooga (which have no drawing potential to the South and limited drawing potential to the East). Count the numbers of teams in the Nashville area Regions (which have drawing potential in every direction). The potential numbers are obvious. Of course the arguement can be offered that there is a difference in an active fan base (Chattanooga) and a potential fan base (Nashville). And I will counter that the absent fan base in the Nashville area is a myth. I have enjoyed the packed house at Cleveland when Bradley came calling. What a great event. I have also observed on more than one occasion the stands filled on one side of the gym at Marshall County. Nashville fans turned out back when, and would turn out again...and then some, given time and stability...given the opportunity.

It was Hunter Bogitsh. Next follow-up question: In the '73 State at Brainard, Bogitsh upset the highly regarded "Super Soph" in the 98 Semis. Who was the "Super Soph"?

Follow-up question: Who did win 98 in '74?

From several years of obervation, my guess is that FR coaches don't cater to the dictates of athletes concerning the line-up. I have seen the program strategically move a quality athlete to compete against another quality athlete. Do you think these wrestlers in the past may have "stepped up" primarily for team strategy and that the "stopped all the talk" was a side benefit that was not intended as a stand-alone goal? The Pros may be built on stepping up to address "all the talk" to satisfy spectators who have bought into that game, but scholastic wrestling is first of all under the umbrella of educational institutions and is an extension of educational programs.

Hixson won the Traditional in the 1970s. As was pointed out above, the first Duals were held in 1988.

There is a credible concern about draws in the tournament. Whereas the ultimate reward for winning a spot would be to go undefeated and take the top prize, there are lesser rewards offered as well. There is a runner-up award given to the team that does not win in the finals. I know that some teams are proud of that accomplishment. I've seen the prizes displayed with apparent pride in their trophy cases...some along side lesser awards and some even along side greater awards. Not every team that wins a spot in the tournament has the strength and depth to have a reasonable chance of winning or even reaching the finals. But regardless of a realistic opportunity, my observations indicate that at least some teams would like the best draw possible to allow them to reach the level of their team's potential...and maybe with some luck, even higher.

reftn, I accept your statement in a post today "I would propose to speak for no one, only myself." at face value. However, "...what all wrestling fans would like...ONE TRUE STATE CHAMP!" included in your Jan 21 2005 quote printed above seems to give the distinct impression that you are saying that ALL wrestling fans share your view on the State Champ issue. Since I am a "wrestling fan" that does not share your view (and apparently there are others), you can understand that, when you use "all wrestling fans", I (and possibly others) may, however mistakenly, wonder whether you are presuming to speak for me (us). Your (likely welcome) invitation to attend MTWOA meetings did not address my previous question. Based on your call to "Pack the state meeting!", to identify the "obstructionists" to ...whatever ..., would a "Pack the ... meeting" crowd who showed up at the MTWOA in the same spirit that you are advocating still "likely" be "welcome"? I wouldn't bet my house on a poll or on anything else, but a big majority of the folks I have heard express opinions on the two divisions are in favor of things as they are. The meetings at the state have never been in secret. I have heard them announced multiple times over the course of the tournaments. reftn, I support your assessment of the TSSAA.

fiscon, The Windows Media on the tournament site would not respond last night or this morning. Are others having this problem, or is this an isolated problem? Do you have any suggestions?

reftn, Need a little clarity. "Pack" which state meeting, DI or DII? Does your packing the house with like-minded folks to seek out the "obstructionists" to "see the path to take" to "ONE TRUE STATE CHAMP!" also apply to those who might want to pack the house at your officials association meetings prior to and/or during the season to observe the proponents of various and sundry issues in officiating that come up from time to time among coaches and fans? I am a wrestling fan who under the current circumstances is supportive of the current State Tournament. Is your statement which includes "all wrestling fans" attempting to speak for me? And is it attempting to speak for all of those wrestling fans whom I have heard express a viewpoint similar to mine?

Pezavan's championship in '67 marked a first for me also. It was the first State Tournament that I attended. Although I cannot recall the names of most of those champions that year, his name is one that was always fresh in memory. Such was the impression that he made.

" with no guarantees". Aptly prophetic. While the counter-Plan A is being put into play to lobby for change, those players who feel the current system under the current circumstance is the best plan for the majority would be activating influence to keep the current system in place.

The fiscusconsulting site for tournament results sure is well done...including the pics of the hardware winners. Just about everything a fan would want to know about tournament results can be found on the site. Wouldn't it be terrific if there were a system in place whereby every tournament across the state could post their tournament data this way? The more educated we fans become about the current big picture, the greater our enthusiam and our likelihood to become a more active part of it...i. e. walk through the turnstyles and see it live.

Was "voted best ref" something that occurred among the fans... or the wrestlers... or the coaches? Where/when was it announced at the tournament?

I wrestle, Matre Dei should have been in the tournament because the host coach invited them to be in it. The tournament was supposed to be just what you saw it to be, because, with the consent of the teams who accepted invitations or asked to be invited, that's the way the host fashioned it. From this spector-fan's point of view, the tournament achieved not only a portion of what you were looking for, as Sundancer said, it gave top-end wrestlers a great chance at honing skills in preparation for the end of the season competition. Not only did the host pull together a fine pool of teams, in agreement with what others have expressed, his tournament organization team kept the action flowing smoothly from start to finish.

Donnie has always been among the elite group who are as conscientious as it gets concerning the quality of the job on the mat. He richly deserves all accolades that come his way.

Brad Fiscus does a first class job of scoring a tournament and of keeping pairings current and of allowing tournaments to run smoothly. Tournament directors would do themselves favors by inquiring about the service he offers.

Read post #72 to find results.

We know that the seedings alone do not determine placements in tournaments. They may, at best, be an indicator toward placements. With a great deal of reservation, I submit the following top 12 team placement predictions of a randomly devised system based almost entirely on seeding, with minimal consideration for non-seeded entries of teams (vs no entry at all). None of the predictable variables are considered, only the seeding info provided by the host site. Changes in the line-ups could change the outcomes of the predictions. 1. Franklin - no one close - 80 value points ahead of MD Next level: These 5 teams are close enough that the final order could easily be different among them. The closer the listed placements, the more likely a change. There is a 19 value point difference between Matre Dei and Clarksville. 2. Matre Dei - only slightly ahead of Soddy Daisy 3. Soddy Daisy - only the value of an 8th seed below MD 4. John Overton - a few points below Soddy 5. Ridgeway - a virtual tie with Overton 6. Clarksville - very few points below Ridgeway The next 6 teams: 7. Brentwood - 27 value points below Clarksville 8. Page 9. Cookville 10. Tullahoma 11. Kenwood - 12. Ravenwood - 28 value points below Brentwood The rest of the field were below Ravenwood in value points.