State seeding and match length

[coachteater 70]

Both of these are in region instructions.  

[JC Florida 0]

Was there an oversight in the post. I’m referring to the 6 minute match, 3 2 minute periods for championships. Are we going back to that in regionals?

[El Pollo Loco 20]

Criteria #3 Placement at last year's state championships. 

Will this be at the same weight class? I know that in the past it was specified that it was at the same weight class. 

[halfhalfhalf 122]

17 minutes ago, JC Florida said:

Was there an oversight in the post. I’m referring to the 6 minute match, 3 2 minute periods for championships. Are we going back to that in regionals?

yes and 2 coaches in the corner.

[grappler-of-old 44]

I am just waiting for the outcome of the seeding.  I truly hope I am proven wrong on my opinion of track seeding. 

[coachteater 70]

38 minutes ago, JC Florida said:

Was there an oversight in the post. I’m referring to the 6 minute match, 3 2 minute periods for championships. Are we going back to that in regionals?

Yes 

[coachteater 70]

21 minutes ago, halfhalfhalf said:

yes and 2 coaches in the corner.

Yes, 2 coaches in corner,  6 ft between chairs,  and you must remain seated during the match

[grappler-of-old 44]

6 ft. between coaches on the same team?

Is this really necessary or possible? 

1. They have been working together all year

2. Most teachers/school personnel, have had the vaccine (or at least had the opportunity)

[coachteater 70]

5 minutes ago, grappler-of-old said:

6 ft. between coaches on the same team?

Is this really necessary or possible? 

1. They have been working together all year

2. Most teachers/school personnel, have had the vaccine (or at least had the opportunity)

At least they did let two, it would have sucked to only have 1. Very happy they let that happen, along with going back to 6 min championship matches. 

[grappler-of-old 44]

Don't get me wrong I am glad, but moving back to a 2 minute 1st period after the wrestlers have been use to a 1 minute first period is kind of strange. 

Unless you have been wrestling in Ohio or some other states who did not change the minutes. 

[grappler-of-old 44]

So many changes, so many challenges.  The wrestlers that come out on top this year have really earned it.

This is the 1st time in the **** years that I have been involved that I am looking forward to the end of the season.  The turmoil of the season has worn on me and I look forward to next season when (hopefully) all returns back to normal.  Congrats to all the wrestlers and coaches who have stuck it out and done the best in the worst circumstances, after this weekend its GO TIME. 

[rjs4470 103]

1 hour ago, grappler-of-old said:

I am just waiting for the outcome of the seeding.  I truly hope I am proven wrong on my opinion of track seeding. 

I think it will be fine. It covers all the bases in the appropriate priority. I've gone strictly to letting Track seed any tournament I've ran over the last several years using similar criteria and it's been very accurate. The only thing that can make it not work is bad data, which at this point, shouldn't be an issue. No seeding will ever be perfect. But I'm sure people will get bent out of shape about something, even if it's 90% correct.

[GentleBeard 145]

“State first round tournament” where you can have 1 loss in a double elimination tournament, yet unable to advance. “State first round tournament” where you can have 1 loss in a double elimination tournament, yet still wrestle for a title. 
 

They can change match lengths a week before regionals, but can’t change the number of qualifiers as indoor capacity limits increase 400%?

But “we should all be happy we get to compete...” hahaha

This has been the most mentally and emotionally taxing season I think I’ve been a part of.

[LCalum 31]

Would like some clarification if it’s “placed at last years tourney......” at that weight?  Or at any weight?  

[rjs4470 103]

21 minutes ago, LCalum said:

Would like some clarification if it’s “placed at last years tourney......” at that weight?  Or at any weight?  

Does it matter in the big picture? A state placer is a state placer. Yes some classes are weaker and some are better.  At some point, you really can start to overthink seeding.. it doesn’t have to be rocket science. 

[bestmistake33 28]

4 hours ago, grappler-of-old said:

So many changes, so many challenges.  The wrestlers that come out on top this year have really earned it.

This is the 1st time in the **** years that I have been involved that I am looking forward to the end of the season.  The turmoil of the season has worn on me and I look forward to next season when (hopefully) all returns back to normal.  Congrats to all the wrestlers and coaches who have stuck it out and done the best in the worst circumstances, after this weekend its GO TIME. 

What is somewhat scary is that if this goes well, how do we know the KHSAA doesn't stick to this?  Post season speaking.

Free rent at a High School but still high ticket fee's means more money in their pockets.

[CoachBauer 5]

Without being able to apply common sense we are going to have a ton of 1-0 type wrestlers with seeds way higher than it should be. 

[LCalum 31]

4 minutes ago, rjs4470 said:

Does it matter in the big picture? A state placer is a state placer. Yes some classes are weaker and some are better.  At some point, you really can start to overthink seeding.. it doesn’t have to be rocket science. 

If not stated it’s open to interpretation.  And will be argued.  In previous experience it’s always “at that weight” when seeding tournaments.  When 4 different groups are seeding a tourney for the first time ever i think it’s best to provide guidance ahead of time.  
 

some regions have their own bylaws when it comes to seeding the tourney and some say “at that weight”.   I believe it’s an important distinction one way or the other.  Especially in a year when getting the best kids to state tourney doesn’t matter to KHSAA.   
 

let’s say a kid placed 3rd at 106 last year but another kid took 4th at 120.  This year they are at 132.  Who wins that argument on placement at last years tourney? 

[rjs4470 103]

22 minutes ago, LCalum said:

If not stated it’s open to interpretation.  And will be argued.  In previous experience it’s always “at that weight” when seeding tournaments.  When 4 different groups are seeding a tourney for the first time ever i think it’s best to provide guidance ahead of time.  
 

some regions have their own bylaws when it comes to seeding the tourney and some say “at that weight”.   I believe it’s an important distinction one way or the other.  Especially in a year when getting the best kids to state tourney doesn’t matter to KHSAA.   
 

let’s say a kid placed 3rd at 106 last year but another kid took 4th at 120.  This year they are at 132.  Who wins that argument on placement at last years tourney? 

In the example you mention, the wrestler who placed higher would “win” that argument. Again, it doesn’t have to be rocket science. If both placed the same, you move to the next criteria. Personally, when setting up tourneys, I’ve never found using “placing at the same weight” necessary as part of the criteria.

[LCalum 31]

2 hours ago, rjs4470 said:

In the example you mention, the wrestler who placed higher would “win” that argument. Again, it doesn’t have to be rocket science. If both placed the same, you move to the next criteria. Personally, when setting up tourneys, I’ve never found using “placing at the same weight” necessary as part of the 

[LCalum 31]

I’m not saying i prefer one way over the other.  I’m simply asking what it is.  If weight class matters so be it.   If it doesn’t matter.  Also cool.   Just looking for clarification.  

[grappler-of-old 44]

Seeding a tournament is all about how you look at it.   If you are just worried about separating the better wrestlers its fairly simple.  Or even only worried about separating the best two wrestlers its still usually not a problem.  But if you are trying to get it right, meaning seeding the top 4, 5, or 6 that is when it gets difficult.  I want all the placers to be seeded as close to the final result as possible.  That way the 3rd gets a chance to wrestle the 2nd and the 5th gets a chance to wrestle the 4th.  To truly determine the better wrestler. 

When you get to the post season I believe that every wrestler should be seeded down to the 16th place or whatever.  A lot of coaches don't like it because that gives the 1st seed a bye and they worry about team points, instead of getting the best wrestlers onto the next round. 

[ukpridewrestler11 276]

38 minutes ago, grappler-of-old said:

Seeding a tournament is all about how you look at it.   If you are just worried about separating the better wrestlers its fairly simple.  Or even only worried about separating the best two wrestlers its still usually not a problem.  But if you are trying to get it right, meaning seeding the top 4, 5, or 6 that is when it gets difficult.  I want all the placers to be seeded as close to the final result as possible.  That way the 3rd gets a chance to wrestle the 2nd and the 5th gets a chance to wrestle the 4th.  To truly determine the better wrestler. 

When you get to the post season I believe that every wrestler should be seeded down to the 16th place or whatever.  A lot of coaches don't like it because that gives the 1st seed a bye and they worry about team points, instead of getting the best wrestlers onto the next round. 

If people are worried about a first round bye for top seed, do it like Indiana does and the top seed wins their next match, they receive advancement points for the bye as well. 

[grappler-of-old 44]

That is what the rules state, but they lose the points they could have earned for a pin. 

[ukpridewrestler11 276]

22 minutes ago, grappler-of-old said:

That is what the rules state, but they lose the points they could have earned for a pin. 

I believe up until this year, the first round of Indiana's state tournament no points were awarded. Could use that same format here.