Semi state seeding

[Region2Alum 4]

It’s so funny reading this tread. The same people who say “you wanna be the best, you gotta beat the best” are complaining about a blind draw. I guess it’s only fair if there team/child is receiving the lesser ranked opponent. A blind draw gives all the kids a chance. Just saying practice what you preach. 
Good luck to all these young men. Who’s season hasn’t ended yet. And hopefully we won’t see to many Uncle Rico’s this weekend. 

[DrBaker 497]

4 hours ago, Region2Alum said:

It’s so funny reading this tread. The same people who say “you wanna be the best, you gotta beat the best” are complaining about a blind draw. I guess it’s only fair if there team/child is receiving the lesser ranked opponent. A blind draw gives all the kids a chance. Just saying practice what you preach. 
Good luck to all these young men. Who’s season hasn’t ended yet. And hopefully we won’t see to many Uncle Rico’s this weekend. 

A blind draw screws the fans and screws the kids. 2 years ago Trayce Eckman#3, lost to Spencer Moore #1 in the 2nd round. Trayce then went into the consolations and went 5-0. He knocked out 4 kids that should have had a shot to place. 
I am a proponent of seeing because I want to see the best 2 kids in the finals. 

[grappler-of-old 44]

Does it really matter at semi-state?  The top 8 are going to state.  Just qualify and you can still win the next weekend. 

[Chris Duke 284]

4 minutes ago, grappler-of-old said:

Does it really matter at semi-state?  The top 8 are going to state.  Just qualify and you can still win the next weekend. 

It does matter. Depending on where you finish could decide what side of the bracket you are on.  

[grappler-of-old 44]

Well KHSAA messed up the seeding last year.   (This has always been my concern)  I would be ok with just seeding the regional champions at semi-state.  No reason to seed everyone like last year and have kids who got 3rd in their region get second seed at semi-state.  

Plus you should not have to wrestle someone from your region in the 1st or 2nd round.  Maybe they are the 4 best and they are all 4 in the semi's.  (2 of my 3 years qualifying for state my region weight class had 3 in the semi's at state)

If you seed the champions then the runner ups will be opposite their regional champ and still be able to make the finals again. 

We can argue regional strength all you want but its geographical and nothing you can do about it.  

[Chris Duke 284]

The issue is if you have hands down the top 2 kids in the state wrestle in the semifinals at semi state they could end up on the same side at state.  The track seeding though not perfect is a lot better than this garbage.  

[DrBaker 497]

1 hour ago, grappler-of-old said:

Does it really matter at semi-state?  The top 8 are going to state.  Just qualify and you can still win the next weekend. 

Of course it does. The best 8 deserve to go, not just the luckiest 8. It still gets everything all skewed when the 2nd best kid is 3rd. 

[Keepyourheadup 10]

Why don’t they just do what MS does?? Seed the champs from the region and let the other placers fall in 

[DrBaker 497]

6 minutes ago, Keepyourheadup said:

Why don’t they just do what MS does?? Seed the champs from the region and let the other placers fall in 

Because ms doesn’t follow khsaa rules. 

[Keepyourheadup 10]

5 minutes ago, DrBaker said:

Because ms doesn’t follow khsaa rules. 

I know they don’t but that would be the simplest thing for HS to do. It just amazes me the khsaa won’t listen. This has been a thing that has been complained about for ever. They do that rating thing for football. That’s just like seeding 

[Dblev275 8]

The problem with seeding is that the “two best kids” are always subjective.  One of the true historians around here can probably answer this - how many times have the “1 & 2” been on opposite sides of the bracket and still not meet in the finals?  You see this all the time in college - the ncaa’s are seeded all the way out and the 1&2’s very rarely meet in the finals.  
 

If it could be done right, I’d probably be all for it, but where’s the fun in that?  If we all knew who truly was 1 & 2, 3 & 4, etc., then why wrestle the tournament if it’s already predetermined?  Trust me, there are many matches where I believed it should’ve been the finals match, but at least I still got to see the match regardless of where it happened.  Sure, some kids may get “screwed” but that’s the name of the game, unfortunately.  They shouldn’t seed the tournament simply because it can’t be done.  Prove me wrong with facts and I’ll easily concede my argument.

[grappler-of-old 44]

2 hours ago, Dblev275 said:

The problem with seeding is that the “two best kids” are always subjective.  One of the true historians around here can probably answer this - how many times have the “1 & 2” been on opposite sides of the bracket and still not meet in the finals?  You see this all the time in college - the ncaa’s are seeded all the way out and the 1&2’s very rarely meet in the finals.  
 

Like you said who exactly are the true top 2? It is subjective.  I could go through the old brackets and see who I believe was the top 2 and did not meet in the finals but that would only be my opinion.  I know that many times the #2 from a region made it to the finals and lost. the #1 from that same region did not place 3rd. 

[DrBaker 497]

2 hours ago, Dblev275 said:

The problem with seeding is that the “two best kids” are always subjective.  One of the true historians around here can probably answer this - how many times have the “1 & 2” been on opposite sides of the bracket and still not meet in the finals?  You see this all the time in college - the ncaa’s are seeded all the way out and the 1&2’s very rarely meet in the finals.  
 

If it could be done right, I’d probably be all for it, but where’s the fun in that?  If we all knew who truly was 1 & 2, 3 & 4, etc., then why wrestle the tournament if it’s already predetermined?  Trust me, there are many matches where I believed it should’ve been the finals match, but at least I still got to see the match regardless of where it happened.  Sure, some kids may get “screwed” but that’s the name of the game, unfortunately.  They shouldn’t seed the tournament simply because it can’t be done.  Prove me wrong with facts and I’ll easily concede my argument.

Upsets are supposed to happen. The way random draw was, it was a 1/3 chance for the top 2 to meet in quarters, 1/3 for semis, 1/3 for finals. Almost every other event in the world has some sort of seeding. The goal should be to hand the top 4 in the semis and top 2 of those in the finals. 

[neverbreak 10]

18 hours ago, DrBaker said:

Of course it does. The best 8 deserve to go, not just the luckiest 8. It still gets everything all skewed when the 2nd best kid is 3rd. 

I understand your argument, but I have witnessed on several occasions where a region had 5 or 6 of the best guys in a weight class all fighting for the 4 qualifying spots.  That meant when the dust settled and the regional tournament was over one or two of the "best kids in the state" were sitting in the stands for the State Tournament.

Every year at a qualifying event there are kids who could place that never make the tournament.  This year will be no different.

[gator1 32]

2 hours ago, neverbreak said:

I understand your argument, but I have witnessed on several occasions where a region had 5 or 6 of the best guys in a weight class all fighting for the 4 qualifying spots.  That meant when the dust settled and the regional tournament was over one or two of the "best kids in the state" were sitting in the stands for the State Tournament.

Every year at a qualifying event there are kids who could place that never make the tournament.  This year will be no different.

True, but regions are based on geography, there's nothing reasonable we can do about it. Seeding, or not seeding, is a choice. We're clearly making the lazy choice. 

The NFL, MLB and NBA also restrict who makes the playoffs based on conferences and divisions. But they don't just randomly draw the playoffs bracket once the regular season is over. Because that would be dumb and no one would accept it. 

[grappler-of-old 44]

4 minutes ago, gator1 said:

The NFL, MLB and NBA also restrict who makes the playoffs based on conferences and divisions. But they don't just randomly draw the playoffs bracket once the regular season is over. Because that would be dumb and no one would accept it. 

 I have conceded to seeding the regional champs but beyond that is not possible. 

The NBA, NFL, .... all are measuring apples to apples.  We are measuring apples to oranges.  Many teams go out of state for competition, and we have no idea the strength of their competition, many of those states do not use track to counting wins of the opponents you have beaten is impossible.  You can't just say he wrestled the kid from the #1 ranked team in the nation, maybe they put in their 4th string kid to try and get him a win. 

[ukpridewrestler11 276]

By the time state rolls around, there are several head to heads for most people. Especially after the regional tournament. Yeah, some teams dodge tough competition the whole year and have absurd records, but those kids will get weeded out after regionals. 

[DrBaker 497]

3 hours ago, grappler-of-old said:

 

 I have conceded to seeding the regional champs but beyond that is not possible. 

The NBA, NFL, .... all are measuring apples to apples.  We are measuring apples to oranges.  Many teams go out of state for competition, and we have no idea the strength of their competition, many of those states do not use track to counting wins of the opponents you have beaten is impossible.  You can't just say he wrestled the kid from the #1 ranked team in the nation, maybe they put in their 4th string kid to try and get him a win. 

That’s the thing, we can use technology we already have and give analytic data on wins and losses in and out of state. Does beating a champ from Indiana affect it more than the #5 kid in Ky? Absolutely. Matches are required to be put in track. This data is right there in front of us. Track can do it in the blink of an eye. It’s not perfect, but it’s easily adjustable. We can seat the top 100 if we wanted to. 

[grappler-of-old 44]

3 hours ago, DrBaker said:

That’s the thing, we can use technology we already have and give analytic data on wins and losses in and out of state. Does beating a champ from Indiana affect it more than the #5 kid in Ky? Absolutely. Matches are required to be put in track. This data is right there in front of us. Track can do it in the blink of an eye. It’s not perfect, but it’s easily adjustable. We can seat the top 100 if we wanted to. 

Track does not know what happens in Ohio they do enter results in track.  Most of Nky spend 3/4 of their season in Ohio.  Track would not even know if they defeated a state champion in Ohio. 

[DrBaker 497]

12 minutes ago, grappler-of-old said:

Track does not know what happens in Ohio they do enter results in track.  Most of Nky spend 3/4 of their season in Ohio.  Track would not even know if they defeated a state champion in Ohio. 

This is a section of Cole Thomas’s season. Shows his only loss to a badass from LaSalle. He has a 99.5 ranking. 

[grappler-of-old 44]

 

9 hours ago, DrBaker said:

This is a section of Cole Thomas’s season. Shows his only loss to a badass from LaSalle. He has a 99.5 ranking. 

  If track is able to do this then why was semi-state and state last year so jacked up?

As I have stated.  I am completely on board with seeding the regional champions.  If this is a progressive post season then what happens in region should count more than anything else in seeding. 

What I don't want to see is kids from the same region wrestling each other in the 1st round. This happened in the early 2000's at state and they fixed it. 

[chad.greenwell 21]

10 hours ago, DrBaker said:

This is a section of Cole Thomas’s season. Shows his only loss to a badass from LaSalle. He has a 99.5 ranking. 

I agree that RankWrestlers is better at giving a data driven seeding/ranking than Track. Track Wrestling seeding semi-state last year based on records and past qualifiers was really messed up.

I don't know what the best answer or solution is but I would like to see KHSAA at least have a discussion with the Coaches Association. 

[Ranger123 43]

I don't believe the "track" seeding from last year was jacked up.  I thought it was pretty good.  Once you understand the criteria and the process it made sense.  Now there may be debates about the exact criteria and order applied, but overall I thought last year was very good.  But unfortunately we have too many whiners who complained and now we are back to random draws.

Just because there are upsets doesn't make seeding wrong or inaccurate.  Seeding is based on the actual results and objectively sets the bracket based on what has happened prior to the event.  The Bengals were not even close to the best team in the AFC all year and had to run the gauntlet to make the Super Bowl.  In the end they proved they were the best team in the AFC when it counted.  Doesn't make the seeding wrong or suggest there shouldn't have been seeding.

[Ranger123 43]

Not buying the rank wrestlers path.  Just as many flaws there.  Maybe for the top guys, but not for full seeding.  I've only checked it out a few times over the years and seen girls with 4-0 records ranked above good guys.

[DrBaker 497]

1 hour ago, grappler-of-old said:

 

  If track is able to do this then why was semi-state and state last year so jacked up?

As I have stated.  I am completely on board with seeding the regional champions.  If this is a progressive post season then what happens in region should count more than anything else in seeding. 

What I don't want to see is kids from the same region wrestling each other in the 1st round. This happened in the early 2000's at state and they fixed it. 

I just looked through the state bracket and seeds worked great. Best 2 wrestlers made finals in almost every class.