Dr. Miller you are making a valid point and a very good view from another angle but every year in the NFL a team stays home with a better record than a division champion from a weaker division..... but they still seed the NFL playoffs.
Same with the NBA, MLB, NCAA tournaments, etc....
None of the professional organizations have said, you know what, this takes too much time lets draw it out of a hat.
P I L L
Re: P I L L
re: J.W......Those professional sports teams do not seed their playoffs based on how good they "think" a team is. Its based on record. Which professional sport are you referring to that has a committee sit down and decide which team gets the top seed, the second seed? Im not aware of any. Their playoffs are also very limited in number...so even if they did, its not very comparable.
Keep the humans, and their biases, out of it. The seeding meetings often turn into which coach has followed the results on wvmat the best throughout the year. They can point to common opponents that benefit their own wrestler, intentionally not mention common opponents that are detrimental to their own wrestler, etc. Often it is simply a tie...when looking at common opponents, or head to head...and 3 or 4 guys have all defeated each other. And at that point...it usually comes down to whichever coach has the most influence over the other coaches...they will side with him and vote that coaches wrestler the higher seed. Or...you may end up with some unspoken "vote for my guy, and ill vote for yours" situations.
Id rather a wrestler sometimes "fairly" get a bad draw from the pill, than coaches in a meeting giving the kid a bad seed. Long live the pill.
Keep the humans, and their biases, out of it. The seeding meetings often turn into which coach has followed the results on wvmat the best throughout the year. They can point to common opponents that benefit their own wrestler, intentionally not mention common opponents that are detrimental to their own wrestler, etc. Often it is simply a tie...when looking at common opponents, or head to head...and 3 or 4 guys have all defeated each other. And at that point...it usually comes down to whichever coach has the most influence over the other coaches...they will side with him and vote that coaches wrestler the higher seed. Or...you may end up with some unspoken "vote for my guy, and ill vote for yours" situations.
Id rather a wrestler sometimes "fairly" get a bad draw from the pill, than coaches in a meeting giving the kid a bad seed. Long live the pill.
Re: P I L L
Slightly off-topic, but relating to the pill-
Hypothetical question: Why is it absolutely necessary that every region be represented equally in our state tournament? Isn't it possible that the 5th and 6th place wrestlers from a particular region are better than, or perhaps have already beaten other region qualifiers? Just for the sake of discussion.
Hypothetical question: Why is it absolutely necessary that every region be represented equally in our state tournament? Isn't it possible that the 5th and 6th place wrestlers from a particular region are better than, or perhaps have already beaten other region qualifiers? Just for the sake of discussion.
Re: P I L L
Anything is possible aacoach70. But its no different than most other high school sports state tournaments.
As for why is it necessary each regions top four go to states...its the fairest way to do it.
One must remember once we hit regionals its a whole new season. Other than seeding at regionals...it really doesnt matter what one did earlier in the year. Everyone has a 0-0 record.
Hypothetical: Wrestler A and Wrestler B...in the consolation semi-finals match at regionals. They have faced each other 4x already that year, with Wrestler A tech. falling Wrestler B each match. The score of this match goes similarly, its 14-0 with Wrestler A winning...20 seconds to go. Wrestler B reverses and pins Wrestler A with 5 seconds to go. Clearly Wrestler A...has proven through the year, and one could say in this regional match up...he is dominant over Wrestler B. But, Wrestler B....rightfully...advances to the state tournament. Thats simply how regionals/states goes. Its one match. Winner take all. What you did earlier in the year has no bearing on who advances. Nor should it.
As for why is it necessary each regions top four go to states...its the fairest way to do it.
One must remember once we hit regionals its a whole new season. Other than seeding at regionals...it really doesnt matter what one did earlier in the year. Everyone has a 0-0 record.
Hypothetical: Wrestler A and Wrestler B...in the consolation semi-finals match at regionals. They have faced each other 4x already that year, with Wrestler A tech. falling Wrestler B each match. The score of this match goes similarly, its 14-0 with Wrestler A winning...20 seconds to go. Wrestler B reverses and pins Wrestler A with 5 seconds to go. Clearly Wrestler A...has proven through the year, and one could say in this regional match up...he is dominant over Wrestler B. But, Wrestler B....rightfully...advances to the state tournament. Thats simply how regionals/states goes. Its one match. Winner take all. What you did earlier in the year has no bearing on who advances. Nor should it.
-
RickDunbar
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:20 am
Re: P I L L
In my opinion, the pill stinks. It is a 50/50 chance that the 2 best wrestlers will meet in the finals. There are injustices every year. It does make the semi-finals much more interesting though!
The knowledge of the coaches can make the seedings come out as true as you can get them.
The knowledge of the coaches can make the seedings come out as true as you can get them.
-
Bearhugger
- Posts: 5146
- Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:14 am
Re: P I L L
last year at 195 Daniels vs White met in the semi's.Bearhugger wrote:Throughout my lifetime as a wrestler and/or a fan, the only realistic argument against the pill is that occasionally, the top two wrestlers meet somewhere other than the finals.
This might happen once every two years.
A few years ago, a wrestler flubbed up and got second in the regional. He came back and won the state title and a piece of the MOW. The pill and/or seeding didn't matter then. His weight class was the toughest we have had in the past 5 years.
Back in the 80s, there was a wrestler who got FOURTH in the region. He won the state title.
Parkersburg South wrestles a tougher schedule than South Charleston does. Independence wrestles a tougher schedule than Herbert Hoover does.
In the 2014/2015 state tournament, name two wrestlers who should have met in the finals but wrestled in an earlier round?
The only one that comes to mind is GW's Smith and South's 285. One match doesn't justify reorganizing the whole state tournament.
Re: P I L L
Its not very often that there are two wrestlers who are without a doubt the best two in the weight class. You may think White was #2. He was undefeated entering the tournament. But that doesnt mean he was the second best wrestler. He was pinned by Daniels in the semi-final match, and only won his third place match by a score of 9-7. To me, that doesnt in anyway demonstrate he was clearly the #2 guy in the tournament. He may have been. But, its not clear. So, I do not feel this weight class is a very good example of the pill "getting it wrong". If he had not been pinned by Daniels, and had beat his third place opponent by a larger margin...you would have a better case to make.
-
Bearhugger
- Posts: 5146
- Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:14 am
Re: P I L L
The biggest argument I can find against the pill is that it allows the 2 best wrestlers to meet somewhere other than the state finals.
The good thing the pill does do is that it always separates the regional champ from the same region's runner up and third place winner.
Although I have not sorted through tons of data contained here on WVMAT, I would wager:
1. We have a higher level of occurrence where the state finals is between two wrestlers from the SAME region, as opposed to where the "perceived" two best wrestlers meet in the semifinals.
The good thing the pill does do is that it always separates the regional champ from the same region's runner up and third place winner.
Although I have not sorted through tons of data contained here on WVMAT, I would wager:
1. We have a higher level of occurrence where the state finals is between two wrestlers from the SAME region, as opposed to where the "perceived" two best wrestlers meet in the semifinals.
Holy smokes. Braxton Amos works out with a landmine now!!!!!!
Re: P I L L
well, you could be correct but I doubt it. White beat Brown 2-3 times last year if I'm not mistaken. Plus, as far as 3rd place goes...sometimes a kids head isn't in it when he thinks he's gonna win it all and your focus isn't there. He was clearly the 2nd best wrestler and arguably beats Daniels 3-4 times out of 10guard0544 wrote:Its not very often that there are two wrestlers who are without a doubt the best two in the weight class. You may think White was #2. He was undefeated entering the tournament. But that doesnt mean he was the second best wrestler. He was pinned by Daniels in the semi-final match, and only won his third place match by a score of 9-7. To me, that doesnt in anyway demonstrate he was clearly the #2 guy in the tournament. He may have been. But, its not clear. So, I do not feel this weight class is a very good example of the pill "getting it wrong". If he had not been pinned by Daniels, and had beat his third place opponent by a larger margin...you would have a better case to make.
Re: P I L L
With the pill, you've got a system that is somewhere between a random draw (like UWW uses to contest the World Championships) and a seeded tournament. It's kind of an educated random draw. I like the pill. Not because it is quick or because it is easy. In my eyes, the pill has two primary advantages. First, because there is no seeding based on records, it encourages coaches and wrestlers to seek out the best competition. Since your record doesn't affect your position in the state tournament bracket at all, wrestlers don't have to worry about their records and can go find the toughest competition. South, take your team as an example. They've wrestled at King of the Mountain, North Canton and Wheeling Park Duals. They are wrestling a bunch of young guys, especially in the lower weights. My guess is that some of those guys have some fairly ugly records as a result of the competition, and that will cause their seeding to be lower at tournaments where they seed, like the OVAC and WSAZ. But those guys will be ready when the state tournament gets here because of the difficult schedule they've wrestled. Coaches generally wouldn't wrestle such difficult schedules if they were worried about how their record would affect their seeding for the state tournament. If your goal is to have the best wrestler win the state tournament, I would argue that encouraging wrestlers to wrestle the toughest competition during the season promotes that goal more than seeding the state tournament does. The second reason I like the pill is because seeding tournaments requires seeding criteria that are known to coaches and wrestlers beforehand. And where seeding criteria exists, coaches and wrestlers will try and manipulate their resumes to fit the criteria and improve (or change) their seed. You will see wrestlers not showing up for tournaments where they think a loss might hurt their seed. You will see injury defaults at regional tournaments because someone thinks that losing a match puts the wrestler in a better place in the bracket. We saw that in the AA football playoffs this season where a team lost intentionally to get out of Bridgeport's side of the bracket. Though I don't remember the specifics, I can remember there were whispers about those kinds of things in wrestling a few years ago when the pill was announced before all of the regions had finished wrestling.
Having said that, there are a lot of opinions on here from people whom I respect that are different than mine so I wanted to see if the results of the state tournament are as bad as the posts seem to suggest. Before getting to that, I think it is important to point out that it isn't really a 50/50 proposition regarding whether the two best wrestlers wind up on the same side of the bracket. If you assume that the two best wrestlers in a weight are in the same region (which happens much more frequently in AAA due primarily to the strength of Region I), there is a zero chance that the two best wrestlers will be on the same side of the bracket. The pill automatically separates them. In fact, the pill separates the best wrestler (by regional finish) from the second and third best wrestlers. If the two best wrestlers in a weight are in different regions, there is a one in three chance that the wrestlers will be paired on the same side of the bracket. I don't know what the percentage that the two best wrestlers wind up on the same side of the bracket has been historically, but, based on last year's results, I would guess it is somewhere below 25 percent.
Using the results of last year's state tournament and comparing them to the last rankings before the state tournament (which are compiled by coaches and other people who pay a lot of attention to the results of matches statewide so that they serve as kind of a de facto seeding committee), there were 10 weight classes in AA-A where the #1 and #2 wrestlers were paired on opposite sides of the bracket (106, 113, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 182, 220 and 285). In two of those classes (132 and 285), the two top-ranked wrestlers were paired on opposite sides because they were in the same region. Of those 10 weight classes, the two top-ranked wrestlers met in the finals in 8 of them. The only two exceptions were the two weights where the top-ranked wrestlers were in the same region (132 and 285). Of the other 4 weights, there were two (120 and 195), where the two top-ranked wrestlers met in the semifinals. In both those cases, the top-ranked wrestler won and the second-ranked wrestler wrestled back to third. At 126, the two top-ranked wrestlers met in the semifinals. The top-ranked wrestler won, but lost in the finals to the wrestler who was ranked fifth. At 170, neither of the top-ranked wrestlers made the semifinals. They met, instead, in the blood round.
In AAA, there were two weight classes (106 and 285) where the two top-ranked wrestlers were paired on the same side of the bracket. In both cases, the wrestlers met in the semifinals. In both cases, the top-ranked wrestler won, then went on to win the state title. In both cases, the second-ranked wrestler wrestled back for third. Of the 12 weight classes where the two top-ranked wrestler and second-ranked wrestler were paired on opposite sides of the bracket, 7 of those weights (113, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170 and 220) had the two highest ranked wrestlers in the same region. Of the 12 AAA weights where #1 and #2 were paired in opposite brackets, those wrestlers met in the finals in 7 of them (120, 132, 152, 160, 170, 182 and 220).
Based on those numbers, it would appear that there were four weights (AA 120, AA 195, AAA 106 and AAA 285) where the wrestler who got third should have finished second, based upon the fact that the third place finisher was ranked higher and had beaten the runner-up earlier in the season. That's 4 out of 28 or about 14%. In AA, the top-ranked wrestler made it to the finals in every weight except 170, where he was disqualified in the quarterfinals after an illegal slam. In AAA, the top-ranked wrestler made it to the finals in every weight except 126 and 195, where the #1 ranked wrestler lost in each weight by one point in the semifinals.
For a lot of reasons, I don't have any real expectation that seeding would separate the best wrestlers at a higher percentage than the pill does. For one, if you only seeded the regional champs, you would likely have regional rematches in the first-round or quarterfinals. You also run the risk that the two top-ranked wrestlers would be seeded into the same bracket, which probably would have happened in AA 106 last season unless there is a common opponent or head-to-head matchup between Laya and Gerhard I'm missing. Even if there is, I think wrestlers from different regions would go out of the way to avoid those matchups (and other tough matchups) if they knew their record would be scrutinized for seeding purposes at the end of the season. The OVAC probably isn't a fair comparison for seeding purposes because the OVAC teams are closer together and wrestle each other with much greater frequency than teams from Buffalo and Berkeley Springs or Independence and Oak Glen might. I think AAA would be much easier to seed properly than AA-A, especially after teams are reclassified next season and the number of AA-A teams increases. I don't think the pill system is broken and wouldn't trade it for another system that has its own set of flaws.
Having said that, there are a lot of opinions on here from people whom I respect that are different than mine so I wanted to see if the results of the state tournament are as bad as the posts seem to suggest. Before getting to that, I think it is important to point out that it isn't really a 50/50 proposition regarding whether the two best wrestlers wind up on the same side of the bracket. If you assume that the two best wrestlers in a weight are in the same region (which happens much more frequently in AAA due primarily to the strength of Region I), there is a zero chance that the two best wrestlers will be on the same side of the bracket. The pill automatically separates them. In fact, the pill separates the best wrestler (by regional finish) from the second and third best wrestlers. If the two best wrestlers in a weight are in different regions, there is a one in three chance that the wrestlers will be paired on the same side of the bracket. I don't know what the percentage that the two best wrestlers wind up on the same side of the bracket has been historically, but, based on last year's results, I would guess it is somewhere below 25 percent.
Using the results of last year's state tournament and comparing them to the last rankings before the state tournament (which are compiled by coaches and other people who pay a lot of attention to the results of matches statewide so that they serve as kind of a de facto seeding committee), there were 10 weight classes in AA-A where the #1 and #2 wrestlers were paired on opposite sides of the bracket (106, 113, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 182, 220 and 285). In two of those classes (132 and 285), the two top-ranked wrestlers were paired on opposite sides because they were in the same region. Of those 10 weight classes, the two top-ranked wrestlers met in the finals in 8 of them. The only two exceptions were the two weights where the top-ranked wrestlers were in the same region (132 and 285). Of the other 4 weights, there were two (120 and 195), where the two top-ranked wrestlers met in the semifinals. In both those cases, the top-ranked wrestler won and the second-ranked wrestler wrestled back to third. At 126, the two top-ranked wrestlers met in the semifinals. The top-ranked wrestler won, but lost in the finals to the wrestler who was ranked fifth. At 170, neither of the top-ranked wrestlers made the semifinals. They met, instead, in the blood round.
In AAA, there were two weight classes (106 and 285) where the two top-ranked wrestlers were paired on the same side of the bracket. In both cases, the wrestlers met in the semifinals. In both cases, the top-ranked wrestler won, then went on to win the state title. In both cases, the second-ranked wrestler wrestled back for third. Of the 12 weight classes where the two top-ranked wrestler and second-ranked wrestler were paired on opposite sides of the bracket, 7 of those weights (113, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170 and 220) had the two highest ranked wrestlers in the same region. Of the 12 AAA weights where #1 and #2 were paired in opposite brackets, those wrestlers met in the finals in 7 of them (120, 132, 152, 160, 170, 182 and 220).
Based on those numbers, it would appear that there were four weights (AA 120, AA 195, AAA 106 and AAA 285) where the wrestler who got third should have finished second, based upon the fact that the third place finisher was ranked higher and had beaten the runner-up earlier in the season. That's 4 out of 28 or about 14%. In AA, the top-ranked wrestler made it to the finals in every weight except 170, where he was disqualified in the quarterfinals after an illegal slam. In AAA, the top-ranked wrestler made it to the finals in every weight except 126 and 195, where the #1 ranked wrestler lost in each weight by one point in the semifinals.
For a lot of reasons, I don't have any real expectation that seeding would separate the best wrestlers at a higher percentage than the pill does. For one, if you only seeded the regional champs, you would likely have regional rematches in the first-round or quarterfinals. You also run the risk that the two top-ranked wrestlers would be seeded into the same bracket, which probably would have happened in AA 106 last season unless there is a common opponent or head-to-head matchup between Laya and Gerhard I'm missing. Even if there is, I think wrestlers from different regions would go out of the way to avoid those matchups (and other tough matchups) if they knew their record would be scrutinized for seeding purposes at the end of the season. The OVAC probably isn't a fair comparison for seeding purposes because the OVAC teams are closer together and wrestle each other with much greater frequency than teams from Buffalo and Berkeley Springs or Independence and Oak Glen might. I think AAA would be much easier to seed properly than AA-A, especially after teams are reclassified next season and the number of AA-A teams increases. I don't think the pill system is broken and wouldn't trade it for another system that has its own set of flaws.
Re: P I L L
Ohio has a "pill" system but overrides the pill to separate returning state champs. Not a complete fix to all of the issues raised here but would avoid returning champs in the same side of the bracket.
I think Indyhart hit the nail on the head when he said that if we seed the tournament and coaches know the criteria some coaches could be tempted to sit a kid out of a tough regular season match to preserve records and boost seeding placement. Sad to say that I've seen it happen on much smaller stages. The lesson those coaches are teaching (when in doubt, chicken out) fly in the face of what most coaches and parents want wrestlers to learn. I hope we don't allow that philosophy to poison high school wrestling.
Whether you like the pill or seeding meetings, doesn't true second resolve most if not all of the issues raised?
I think Indyhart hit the nail on the head when he said that if we seed the tournament and coaches know the criteria some coaches could be tempted to sit a kid out of a tough regular season match to preserve records and boost seeding placement. Sad to say that I've seen it happen on much smaller stages. The lesson those coaches are teaching (when in doubt, chicken out) fly in the face of what most coaches and parents want wrestlers to learn. I hope we don't allow that philosophy to poison high school wrestling.
Whether you like the pill or seeding meetings, doesn't true second resolve most if not all of the issues raised?
Re: P I L L
I ve never been a fan of the true second format.
I don't believe everyone deserves to win. I do think they deserve the opportunity.
But I don't want my wrestlers training for second. I want them setting goals high and striving to reach them. And when felling I want them to learn from there failures. And in the words of Terry Brands figure out what is broken, fix it and fix it fast!
I don't believe everyone deserves to win. I do think they deserve the opportunity.
But I don't want my wrestlers training for second. I want them setting goals high and striving to reach them. And when felling I want them to learn from there failures. And in the words of Terry Brands figure out what is broken, fix it and fix it fast!
Re: P I L L
IndyHart breaks it down very well with some very valid points, which knowing him, doesn't surprise me at all.
With that being said...it kinda sucks when you (or your son) are one of the ones it happens to, when you are clearly number 2 and wrestle (the clearly) number 1 in the semis (that you wrestled in the finals the year before), while in the other semis are two kids that you are 2-0 against, one of them the runner up in your region. While finishing on a winning note for third is all well and good, and something to be proud of, whether you win or lose in the finals, there is something special about wrestling Saturday night.
Just my slightly biased perspective
Edit to add...the point about dodging other wrestlers to pad records is very valid, some of that goes on already, at times...
With that being said...it kinda sucks when you (or your son) are one of the ones it happens to, when you are clearly number 2 and wrestle (the clearly) number 1 in the semis (that you wrestled in the finals the year before), while in the other semis are two kids that you are 2-0 against, one of them the runner up in your region. While finishing on a winning note for third is all well and good, and something to be proud of, whether you win or lose in the finals, there is something special about wrestling Saturday night.
Just my slightly biased perspective
Edit to add...the point about dodging other wrestlers to pad records is very valid, some of that goes on already, at times...
Re: P I L L
Life doesn't give perfect opportunities, so neither does wrestling, seeding or the pill. As discussed by many, I'm still a big supporter of the pill. I do however like the guy who stated Ohio might do something a little different if two returning state champions are in the same weigh class. But once again, if we would go to this, criteria must be set up or battle royals in seeding meetings will/could take the tournament away from the kids. Take your "pill" and wrestle!!!!
Return to “High School Wrestling”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 248 guests