|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on February 17, 2010
|
I understand the NE district, and particularly the sectionals, have different seeding criteria than the other districts. Why is that? They are really all a part of the same tournament, the Ohio State Championships, so why wouldn't they all have the same rules and processes? Anyone have any idea why this is?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 17, 2010
|
Gary: When I was coaching--and that ended in 2000--the seeding criteria were the same throughout the state. However, there were a number of factors that made a big difference.
1) Other parts of the state had a flexible system for deciding which schools would attend which sectionals. This allowed for a more equitable set up as per the level of comp at each sectional. In NE Ohio, the NE district board did not allow us the same latitude.
2) How each sectional runs its seeding meeting can vary. When I was coaching, Chris Mather from Garfield Heights went strictly by the book. We didn't deviate from the set criteria. But other sectionals were not as strict in their interpretation. They allowed the coaches more say. By the way, Chris Mather did a great job. It was always a pleasure to deal with him.
One of the issues we faced at Garfield--esp. in the early to mid 1990's when it was the strongest sectional in the state--was that the criteria were a bit silly. A wrestler with an 8-0 record from a lousy program had the minimum number of matches necessary for seeding but a perfect record. A wrestler from Walsh could be 28-2 but if he hadn't placed at the sectional the year before (say he was a freshman or had been injured), he was seeded behind the 8-0 wrestler. This sometimes led to the two best wrestlers in the weight class meeting in the quarters.
The other sectional conundrum was that placement at the same weight class the year before took precedence over a higher placement at a different weight. I had a returning sectional champ get a 5th seed because there were 4 kids that had placed at the sectional the year before at the same weight. In other words, the criteria penalized you for growing (or shrinking)! I wonder if that's still the case?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on February 17, 2010
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"How each sectional runs its seeding meeting can vary. When I was coaching, Chris Mather from Garfield Heights went strictly by the book. We didn't deviate from the set criteria. But other sectionals were not as strict in their interpretation. They allowed the coaches more say. By the way, Chris Mather did a great job. It was always a pleasure to deal with him."
|
I think it is silly to not have a true seed meeting at sectionals. As you mentioned, to many factors that are "silly" can screw things up. Using the baumspage.com set criteria (sectionals, districts, state from previous year) you are completely throwing a freshman behind anybody with criteria from the previous year, which leads to some blind draw luck to not draw into a Bo Jordan, Tomasello, etc. That shouldn't happen in the first tournament in the state series.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on February 17, 2010
|
If we don't use the basic criteria -- and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, I really don't have an opinion -- what would you propose that we use?
Basic criteria includes state placement, district placement, sectional placement and winning percentage.
One possible new criterion could/should be... if Wrestler A has more wins than losses when wrestling head-to-head against Wrestler B in the current year. Whether the head-to-head record is 1-0, 5-0 or 3-2, it's still a significant statistic.
What are your ideas for other possible criteria?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Josh Lowe added to this discussion on February 18, 2010
|
As a person that helps run a sectional, I am a fan of criteria-based seeding. Why you ask? IT SAVES TIME AND HEADACHE.
I think the same weight/different weight thing is dumb though. It serves no purpose but to screw things up.
If I was commish, I would implement the following:
-State placer (1st - 8th)
-District placer (1st - 6th)
-Sectional top three
-Record; above 60%, 12 match minimum (I'm open on the minumum number).
-Sectional 4th/5th
Otherwise, you're going in "blind".
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on February 18, 2010
|
My question was not as much what criteria should be used as why they vary. All of the sectionals and districts are really part of the same tournament, the State tournament. Why should any part of the same tournament be handled differently than the rest?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 18, 2010
|
Josh: That was always Chris Mather's point. Ultimately the issue is what should the criteria be? I just couldn't get over the fact that the criteria included an advantage for wrestlers that had been at the same weight the year before.
As to how do you seed talent frosh--No good answer. Unless you want to incorporate Junior high state placement into the seeding process.
Gary: Some district boards have been more responsive to input from coaches associations than others.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on February 18, 2010
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"Josh: That was always Chris Mather's point. Ultimately the issue is what should the criteria be? I just couldn't get over the fact that the criteria included an advantage for wrestlers that had been at the same weight the year before.
As to how do you seed talent frosh--No good answer. Unless you want to incorporate Junior high state placement into the seeding process.
Gary: Some district boards have been more responsive to input from coaches associations than others."
|
Hank, why wouldn't the state step in and mandate this? Isn't it ultimately their tournament?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on February 19, 2010
|
|
Quote from Josh Lowe's post:
|
|
"As a person that helps run a sectional, I am a fan of criteria-based seeding. Why you ask? IT SAVES TIME AND HEADACHE.
I think the same weight/different weight thing is dumb though. It serves no purpose but to screw things up.
If I was commish, I would implement the following:
-State placer (1st - 8th)
-District placer (1st - 6th)
-Sectional top three
-Record; above 60%, 12 match minimum (I'm open on the minumum number).
-Sectional 4th/5th
Otherwise, you're going in "blind"."
|
I have no problem with having the criteria as a starting point. But most sectionals have less than 14 teams. How hard is it to start with criteria and then if any challenges, talk about your kid and vote. We do it every year in the SW district and we are in and out in less than 90 minutes. One time a year to do this isn't to much.
Most glaring issue with strict criteria is the incoming freshman. Very likely that in a middle weight, there are more than 4 kids with the top three criteria which would automatically freeze out a kid like Bo Jordan, Chris Phillips, etc. NO WAY should those kids (or other freshman that have beaten kids with those criteria) be blindly drawn into a bracket at sectionals.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Josh Lowe added to this discussion on February 20, 2010
|
Brady:
I forgot the clause where I would see all whom were seedable- at least to eight.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on February 20, 2010
|
|
Quote from Josh Lowe's post:
|
|
"Brady:
I forgot the clause where I would see all whom were seedable- at least to eight."
|
That makes more sense, I guess we may be more reasonable in the southwest. :) I've never had a seed meeting go more than 90 minutes and go very smoothly.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Josh Lowe added to this discussion on February 20, 2010
|
Brady,
We have no limits on number of seedables in the northeast -- FYI.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on February 20, 2010
|
|
Quote from Josh Lowe's post:
|
|
"Brady,
We have no limits on number of seedables in the northeast -- FYI."
|
That's good.
If there's a stud frosh like Phillips, Jordan, Steibers, etc, would they get first seed or does criteria over-rule common knowledge (as to whose the best in the weight class) in these cases?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Sectional Seeding Criteria
Josh Lowe added to this discussion on February 21, 2010
|
|
Quote from Brady Hiatt's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Josh Lowe's post:
|
|
"Brady,
We have no limits on number of seedables in the northeast -- FYI."
|
That's good.
If there's a stud frosh like Phillips, Jordan, Steibers, etc, would they get first seed or does criteria over-rule common knowledge (as to whose the best in the weight class) in these cases?"
|
There is no over-rule. Seed is criteria based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
