Seeding procedures

[deaddux]

In fairness to the tssaa in regard to seeding D2, they have a tough situation- what are some suggestions that could be made short of having a region tourney. ie

-1) use all competition, including the matches that occur at the duals -2) prior year place winners (already used) -3)overall record ? (probably not good criteria)If you used records how do you score people who wrestle in 2/3 different weights 4) pick several highly competitive tournaments as criteria ( if this was considered entrance would have to be open to all D2's ie. McCallie Invit. , Father Ryan Invit.

I don't know what would help , the present system is far from perfect but it is not political like so many of the old "seeding meetings'can become.

I understand the gamble that occurs every year with the present system on the day bracketts come out , and if I were the Alsobrooks or the Morales's maybe I would be second guessing the current system ; but, we are dealing with a set of criteria that is not new. What would give the tssaa the ammo to do a better(fairer) job? SUGGESTIONS---

[reuben128]

i think u just nailed it..... the seeding meetings can get too political. at least the current system is blind to prejudices and biases.

[CoachBruce]

I can't believe I'm actually about to say this, (since I'm WAY opposed to it) but in D-2 it might make sense....

 

Maryland uses a point system for Regional Qualifications and Seeding. the top 8 point scorers are in the tourney, along with anyone who is top 4 in one of the 2 districts (usually the same people.) there is No seeding meeting- it is all up to the points. Soddy used to (still does, maybe?) do this for their tourney, and when done right it can work. I disagree with it because it encourages Dodging, but I think it could fit the situation for D-2.

 

here is the gist of it:

 

MPSSAA REGIONAL POINTS FORMULA

 

1. Four Points (4) for every Dual Meet win, including Forfeits

 

2. Two Points (2) for every win in a Dual meet Tournament

 

3. One Point (1) for every win in a Tournament (points not earned for byes)

 

4. Points for placement in a Tournament

 

* 16 Team Tournament (14 or more teams): 1st = 16, 2nd = 12, 3rd = 9, 4th = 6, 5th = 3, 6th = 2

* 12 Team Tournament (10-13 teams): 1st = 12, 2nd = 9, 3rd = 6, 4th = 4

* 8 Team Tournament (7-9 teams): 1st = 9, 2nd = 7, 3rd = 5, 4th = 3

* 6 Team Tournament (5-6 teams): 1st = 7, 2nd = 5, 3rd = 3

 

5. Carryover points for Regionals & States (previous season)

 

* Regionals: 1st = 9, 2nd = 7, 3rd = 5, 4th = 3

* States: 1st = 16, 2nd = 12, 3rd = 9, 4th = 6, 5th = 4, 6th = 2

[reuben128]

that is an interesting idea. im sure some ppl in the future would still feel slighted because some schools wrestle far weaker schedules than others, setting up a situation where a wrestler with losses to quality opponents could get stuck with a crappy seed, but at least it would be relevant to this year.

Edited February 22, 2005 by reuben128

[silverpie]

Another set of criteria I've seen, used for the San Diego sectional in California, is to count each wrestler's five best tournaments, with a grid measuring place and tournament quality. Previous state-series finishes also count, and there are provisions to include head-to-head results and/or common opponents (the only time dual-meet bouts come into play).

[pantheon]

Seeding can become political, so clear-cut criteria is needed to reduce the presence of politics. Obviously, the best criteria is head-to-head competition, followed closely by like opponents. If neither of this have been met, then previous state honors and current season honors can be considered, as well as overall record.

 

Sometimes head-to-head can be tough, specifically when the two wrestlers in question split meetings. The edge generally goes to who won the most recent meeting, which can indicate improvement. However, wrestler A might win by 4 in the first meeting in a clearly dominate/controlling fashion over wrestler B, but in the second match, wrestler B who is trailing by 3 might "catch" and pin wrestler A. Here is where dialogue is needed between coaches to explain certain aspects.

 

The problem in seed meetings usually arises over a couple coaches who want to avoid the toughest wrestler and their attempts to persuade other coaches is where the politics come in. Two coaches who are great friends or a coach who everyone wants to beat can set the stage for realpolitics.

Edited February 22, 2005 by pantheon

[deaddux]

Seeding can become political, so clear-cut criteria is needed to reduce the presence of politics.  Obviously, the best criteria is head-to-head competition, followed closely by like opponents.  If neither of this have been met, then previous state honors and current season honors can be considered, as well as overall record.

 

Sometimes head-to-head can be tough, specifically when the two wrestlers in question split meetings.  The edge generally goes to who won the most recent meeting, which can indicate improvement.  However, wrestler A might win by 4 in the first meeting in a clearly dominate/controlling fashion over wrestler B, but in the second match, wrestler B who is trailing by 3 might "catch" and pin wrestler A.  Here is where dialogue is needed between coaches to explain certain aspects.

 

The problem in seed meetings usually arises over a couple coaches who want to avoid the toughest wrestler and their attempts to persuade other coaches is where the politics come in.  Two coaches who are great friends or a coach who everyone wants to beat can set the stage for realpolitics.

825579194[/snapback]

Exactly , if the current seeding formula is ever fine tuned -steps to keep politics out of the process are important. The current system just seems to lack criteria to allow the best seeded tournament. A great example is 103 , not just this year but often there will be 1, possibly 2 seeded wrestlers. Sure you sometimes get guys that stay @ 103 for several years; but ,more than not, most 103 lbers come and go in a years time, which means that weight will be basicly a blind draw most years. If the tourney goes your way(like 05) fine, but it seems like to only seed 1 wrestler is inviting misrepresentation. After wrestling for 2 1/2 months there should be a way to Fairly seed at least 4 wrestlers. Thanks for the suggestions, i don't have a clear idea on what needs to happen, just that it could be better.

[Whats the bottom man doin]

i think u just nailed it.....    the seeding meetings can get too political.  at least the current system is blind to prejudices and biases.

825577773[/snapback]

 

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.

[ironman55]

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?

[pantheon]

Would he schedule the 8 easiest DII teams and avoid unfavorable matchups to make sure his wrestlers got to state?

825580067[/snapback]

 

Concerning seed meetings, the strength of schedule is considered but only if there are no other determining factors that dictate seeds. But again, this is subject to politics. The idea behind the seed meeting is that the whole (all coaches) is "wiser" (with guidelines) than the part. If a coach schedules "light" competition, then he risks hurting his student-athletes when it comes to tourney seeds.

[jomiba]

In fairness to the tssaa in regard to seeding D2, they have a tough situation- what are some suggestions that could be made short of having a region tourney. ie

-1) use all competition, including the matches that occur at the duals  -2) prior year place winners (already used) -3)overall record ? (probably not good criteria)If you used records how do you score people who wrestle in 2/3 different weights 4) pick several highly competitive tournaments as criteria ( if this was considered entrance would have to be open to all D2's ie. McCallie Invit. , Father Ryan Invit.

    I don't know what would help , the present system is far from perfect but it is not political like so many of the old "seeding meetings'can become.

    I understand the gamble that occurs every year with the present system on the day bracketts come out , and if I were the Alsobrooks or the Morales's maybe I would be second guessing  the current system ; but, we are dealing with a set of criteria that is not new. What  would give the tssaa the ammo to do a better(fairer) job? SUGGESTIONS---

825577741[/snapback]

 

 

 

Problem with using big tournaments is that not all teams go to the Mcallie Inv. and the Father Ryan inv. like mine so that wouldn't really work.

[cbg]

ironman55,

 

I am sure that Pat would do as you suggested and schedule the weakest D2 teams to wrestle each season. That has been his pattern ever since he started coaching in 1980 and has been the reason for his success over the years. Just take a look at the Ryan schedule the past few years and you can see that they are looking for the easy way to a title.

1. McCallie Invitational

2. CBHS Duals

3. Father Ryan Invitational

4. Mater Dei Invitational

5. Collins Hill, GA Duals

6. Helias, MO Duals

7. Hamilton, OH Duals

 

It looks to me like they are trying to dodge everyone in both Tennessee and D2.