Jump to content

ironman55

Members
  • Posts

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ironman55

  1. You are so WRONG that is not name calling, I do the name calling. Our wrestlers are just fine it is foolish to believe that a post on this prestigous board would influence their behavior. 

    We actually wreslte at the McCallie Inv that includes Baylor. So the question is foolish one, why doesn't Baylor wrestle at our Invitational?

    You reply is that of a  typical Ryan hater, or is it jealousy..never been quite sure....but I find your reply to show great ignorance about our program..

    P.S. To all Ryan wrestlers please take note that I did try my best not to call this moron a name. Please use the same restraint in the future.

    825595431[/snapback]

     

     

    Typical Ryan poster, someone disagrees with you and you call them names. Please set a better example for your wrestlers.

     

    "Whats the bottom man doin" is proposing 8 DII dual matches. Tournaments do not count because not all wrestlers will get a head-to-head match in a tournament.

  2. The first paragragh of your statement is not right, actually the DII teams need to be required to wrestle each other more often, and less DI teams. If they wrestled 8 DII teams I would be happy now.The Ryan coach cannot schedule phoney matches with MBA without the MBA coach approval. If you don't know what you are talking about, why do you make yourself look like a fool. The results at the State tournament are not unknown.

    825582649[/snapback]

     

    Typical Ryan poster, someone disagrees with you and you call them names. Please set a better example for your wrestlers.

     

    I believe DII wrestlers get enough DII matches and need more DI and out-of-state matches. If Ryan is big on DII matches, where are your annual dual matches with Baylor and McCallie?

  3. It's also blind to your performance on the mat during the season. One of my suggestions is to require DII to wrestle a minimum of at least 8 other DII teams before the duals, and every team in DII over a three year period.

    825579976[/snapback]

     

     

    There are alot of unknown results when you start to change the procedure for seeding at state. DII teams see each other enough during the season without forcing more inbred competition. (McCallie, Ryan, Brentwood, Knox Catholic, State Duals). DII teams need more new, fresh opponents.

     

    The Ryan coach scheduled 2 phoney matches with MBA to make sure his wrestlers got to state if they were DQ'ed in the state duals. Would he schedule the 8 easiest DII teams and avoid unfavorable matchups to make sure his wrestlers got to state?

  4. "Based on our seed from the TSSAA, we offered to drop it and take a blind draw, but the TSSAA said no. Sometimes your seed works against you."

     

     

    You are proving my point. You lobbied the TSSAA to change the seeding to be more fair with your son.

     

    Did you care about the other 16 wrestlers in the weight class?

     

    Did your coach make any calls for you to the TSSAA?

     

    Can you imagine the amout of lobbying that would go on if all 14 weight classes were seeded in a secret meeting?

  5. I feel the current seeding process worked well this year. As I look at the brackets, I feel that in 12 of the 14 weight classes, the 2nd place finisher is better than the 3rd place finisher.

     

    The exceptions are 140, and 103 where the 1st seed was upset.

     

    Can you come up with a system for seeding the wrestlers that produces better results than the current, simple system?

  6. I vote to keep the present system. It is clean and simple. It keeps the lobbying and politics from coaches and parents out of the seeding process.

     

    There are not enough head-to-head matches in each and every weight class to do it any other way.

     

    Matt is a great wrestler and is the 2nd best DII wrestler at 140. He got his shot at Cleveland. All you are talking about is the difference between 2nd and 3rd.

     

    I would not vote to change to the current seeding process to a more subjective procedure just to correct an inequity in one weight class. The new system would also have inequities and create new problems.

  7. 2005 DIVISION II STATE WRESTLING TOURNAMENT

     

    Wrestlers to be Seeded

     

     

     

     

     

    103 – Alsobrook (CBHS)

     

     

     

    112 – Johnson (Baylor)-1st; Adamson (ND)-2nd; Sherbakoff (Webb)-3rd; Simpson (MBA)-4th

     

     

     

    119 – Dunning (Ryan)-1st; Hussein (Baylor)-2nd; Wheeler (McCallie)-3rd

     

     

     

    125 – Manson (Baylor)-1st; J. Young (McCallie)-2nd

     

     

     

    130 – Oddo (Ryan)-1st; W. Young (McCallie)-2nd; Baucke (CBHS)-3rd; Rawn (ND)-4th;

     

    Vance (ND)-5th

     

     

     

    135 – Goss (McCallie)-1st; Riddle (CBHS)-2nd; Doster (Baylor)-3rd

     

     

     

    140 – Cleveland (McCallie)-1st; Hall (MBA)-2nd; McLaughlin (CBHS)-3rd; Morales (Ryan)-4th;

     

    St. Charles (ND)-5th; McCarter (Harding)-6th; Murray (Baylor)-7th

     

     

     

    145 – Smith (McCalllie)-1st; Waddell (Baylor)-2nd

     

     

     

    152 – Smith (Webb)-1st; Spitalmy (Baylor)-2nd; Shillinglaw (MBA)-3rd; Rawn (MBA)-4th;

     

    Taylor (St. Benedict)-5th; Rainey (MUS)-6th; Kelly (Briarcrest)-7th; Holliday (CBHS)-8th; Robinson (McCallie)-9th

     

     

     

    160 – Marable (CBHS)-1st; Mayo (Ryan)-2nd; Vaughan (Baylor)-3rd; Spink (Pope John Paul II)-4th; Bible (McCallie)-5th; Brooks (BA)-6th

     

     

     

    171 – Watkins (ND)-1st; Jacques (MBA)-2nd

     

     

     

    189 – Walker (Baylor)-1st; George (MUS)-2nd; Erickson (K. Catholic)-3rd; Garrett (Ryan)-4th; Huffaker (McCallie)-5th; Wanat (ND)-6th

     

     

     

    215 – Meredith (ND)-1st; Coffey (Pope John Paul II)-2nd; Moore (McCallie)-3rd

     

     

     

    275 – Simmons (Baylor)

×
  • Create New...