DIV II Brackets Posted!

[BOBJONES1983]

Bob, you have a good argument, but I don't see any McCallie people jumping up to help you. I guess they are content to just let it be settled this weekend.

This is a good point, because there are not that many McCallie supporters that use this message board. Why do you think they are always being bashed with no one coming to their support? I am just trying to state the facts. I guess I will let it die I have said all I can say. See yall at the tourny! Good Luck Will Young.

Edited February 17, 2004 by BOBJONES1983

[cb133]

The old sayin is,

 

To Be the Best, You have to Beat the Best

 

 

but a good draw does help out

[delaWarr]

The original intent in seeding the State Tournament was to place returning placewinners in seeded slots to help insure that the better wrestlers meet later in the tournament, rather than gamble on an unlucky randon draw which could match more competitive wrestlers in early rounds.

 

Head-to-head is a common number one criterion for seeding, often listed first simply to say that, if two wrestlers have met head-to-head, the winner will be seeded ahead of the loser. Everyone who has experience in seeding tournaments most probably has a clear understanding of this. It does not involve any other wrestler who has not been contested by either of the head-to-head contestants. It does not involve the number 2 criterion nor the number three criterion. It involves only the two wrestlers involved in the contest.

 

Example: In determining the order of the seeds by the standard criteria, if the order were to be:

 

1st seed A

2nd seed B

3rd seed C

4th seed D

 

But it turns out that C has beaten A in a head-to-head, then the order changes thus: (since a lower seeded wrestler has beaten a higher seeded wrestler, the higher seed then must drop below the wrestler who beat him in the head-to-head).

 

This then should change the order thus:

 

1st seed - B

2nd seed- C

3rd seed- A

4th seed- D

Edited February 17, 2004 by delaWarr

[mtnrasslin]

That was an intelligent response. I am still waiting on some valid fact-based evidence to support you and the rest of the Baylor crowd's stance on this issue. But it is funny how you can't find any cause it is not there! Don't resort to meager childish respones such as your latter.

Bob-

 

It is as intelligent as it gets when one is arguing with a someone who is convinced of a conspiracy by the TSSAA and the Simpsons when the seeding doesn't go the way he wants. It became like pushing a rope and I got bored with the argument. DelaWar makes the point clearly. You won't agree with it but ultimately it does't matter. It will all be settled over the weekend.

Edited February 17, 2004 by mtnrasslin

[matfan]

DelaWarr,

 

Thanks for showing that previous medal winners take precedent in this particular situation(which is the point I was trying to make)!

 

I will make my pick...could this be John McCall...McCallie's longtime statistician?

[usfjim]

bobjones1983,

 

still agree with you on the seeding.

 

matfan and mtnrasslin,

 

obviously, seeding criteria is not 1, 2, 3 but should be viewed in total when discussing this situation. if previous medal winners take precedence, is this only true for d2 due to everyone being able to compete at state? in d1, if a previous years medal winner doesn't win their region the following year, they are not seeded. while this doesn't solve the d2 question, are there different "interpretations" based upon classes? maybe?

 

please don't take this as trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand the difference.

[karelin]

Delawarr,

You have interpreted the criteria the way RC has correctly, showing there are two ways to read it. However, not only was Bob explaining the original interpretation, but the only interpretation used before this year. While there are seven cases of the original interpretation seen in the past two years, there is NONE which support your interpretation, and HEREIN lies the problem. Coaches were told that seeding will be the same as it has always been. It has obviously been changed. Actually Simpson deserves to be seeded first, based on his win at the state duals; if there was a true seeding meeting he would have received the #1 seed. However, D-2 is stuck with the present format (which doesn't allow for competition of the Duals), which has been flawed by changing the interpretation of past years(the record).

[walkenvol]

This is a good point, because there are not that many McCallie supporters that use this message board. Why do you think they are always being bashed with no one coming to their support?

Bob - there are plenty of McCallie folks who follow this board and if you will review the thread where someone tried to bash Nick Moore you will see that this board is generally supportive of wrestlers, regardless of the school. While I don't claim any expertise on the subject and certainly have not done the extensive research that your "friend" has compiled, when I saw the 1st 119 bracket my initial thought was that it was wrong. I went to the TSSAA site and when I read the rule I had the same interpretation as DelaWarr. If the new bracket is wrong, I'm sure the McCallie coaching staff is working hard with the TSSAA to get it corrected. If it were any other tourney, then the seeding would probably follow the current bracket. Maybe RC refuses to be handcuffed by the criteria on the website? Hope you can make it home from school for the tourney this weekend. See you there.

[matfan]

usfjim,

 

I believe that this is unique to Div II only. I have been following the seeding in Div II for the last 6 years...and I have not been able to get a real handle on every weight class and situation.

 

I think you are exactly right, in that there are different "interpretations" based on the different weight classes and situations each and every year!

 

I don't think any one of us is trying to "pick a fight" either...I wish RC could find a way to make this easier for us all! I guess the explanation on the TSSAA web-site has all of the pertinent info that RC is willing to divulge!

Edited February 17, 2004 by matfan

[usfjim]

agreed matfan. thanks for the info. looking forward to this weekend to see how it plays out!

[whiskey]

Anyone know why Johnson of Baylor is now wrestling at 103 instead of Doster?

[best_of_the_west]

What the heck? I just saw that too. Don't they have to chose by a certain date?