Both of these are in region instructions.  

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?

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. 

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.

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

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 

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

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)

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

“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.

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

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. 

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.

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. 

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? 

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.

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 

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.  

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. 

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. 

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

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.

Stupid question: wrestler A beats wrestler B. Wrestler B beats wrester C. Wrestler C beats wrestler A. All during the season. The head to head is tied. Do they move to next criteria between the 3 or just compare the AB AC BC individually and add the two criteria together?

It takes into consideration other common opponents. So, if those three wrestlers are tied, the computer looks at commons and criteria points are awarded. Next step, would be criteria set up by the tourney like winning percentage or state placement.

46 minutes ago, 119Rider said:

It takes into consideration other common opponents. So, if those three wrestlers are tied, the computer looks at commons and criteria points are awarded. Next step, would be criteria set up by the tourney like winning percentage or state placement.

I don’t think it works like that the way the khsaa has it set up. They are comparing each wrestler to every other wrestler in the bracket.
 

So in the scenario wrestlers a, b, and c each would get one seeding point for their head to head victory. If you had an 8 man bracket and each of those 3 wrestlers got the seeding points over the other 5 wrestlers you would have three way tie for the top seed. 
 

the khsaa should set out criteria for what to do if there are ties for the seeding points. Would it default back to the criteria they set, but only looking at the wrestlers in the tie?

3 hours ago, CoachBauer said:

I don’t think it works like that the way the khsaa has it set up. They are comparing each wrestler to every other wrestler in the bracket.
 

So in the scenario wrestlers a, b, and c each would get one seeding point for their head to head victory. If you had an 8 man bracket and each of those 3 wrestlers got the seeding points over the other 5 wrestlers you would have three way tie for the top seed. 
 

the khsaa should set out criteria for what to do if there are ties for the seeding points. Would it default back to the criteria they set, but only looking at the wrestlers in the tie?

The common opponents would be the kids in the region they just wrestled. The criteria has already been established by the state.

18 minutes ago, 119Rider said:

The common opponents would be the kids in the region they just wrestled. The criteria has already been established by the state.

I believe he is saying what if 3 wrestlers all end up with 6 points based on the criteria.   And end in a tie.   Then what?   Wrestler A wins criteria point over wrestler B.   Wrestler B holds criteria point over wrestler C.  Wrestler C holds criteria point over wrestler A.   All 3 wrestlers hold criteria over everyone else in the tourney.   So they all end up with 6 points.   What does the computer do then?   Or do the coaches have a conversation and decide at that point? 

13 minutes ago, LCalum said:

I believe he is saying what if 3 wrestlers all end up with 6 points based on the criteria.   And end in a tie.   Then what?   Wrestler A wins criteria point over wrestler B.   Wrestler B holds criteria point over wrestler C.  Wrestler C holds criteria point over wrestler A.   All 3 wrestlers hold criteria over everyone else in the tourney.   So they all end up with 6 points.   What does the computer do then?   Or do the coaches have a conversation and decide at that point? 

I believe it is last years state tournament placement then overall record. The KHSAA released those criteria this week. If they all placed 4th last year at state and carry the same win percentage then who knows? 

23 minutes ago, LCalum said:

I believe he is saying what if 3 wrestlers all end up with 6 points based on the criteria.   And end in a tie.   Then what?   Wrestler A wins criteria point over wrestler B.   Wrestler B holds criteria point over wrestler C.  Wrestler C holds criteria point over wrestler A.   All 3 wrestlers hold criteria over everyone else in the tourney.   So they all end up with 6 points.   What does the computer do then?   Or do the coaches have a conversation and decide at that point? 

That brings me back to my point in a previous post.  

If all 3 are in the same region.  The one who placed third in the region could be the #1 seed at Semi-state. 

1 hour ago, grappler-of-old said:

That brings me back to my point in a previous post.  

If all 3 are in the same region.  The one who placed third in the region could be the #1 seed at Semi-state. 

If he placed third in the region, then whoever beat him will have criteria over him, so he cannot be the number 1 seed. 

2 hours ago, 119Rider said:

If he placed third in the region, then whoever beat him will have criteria over him, so he cannot be the number 1 seed. 

Not true.   If he loses at regions to a kid who he beat earlier in the season they cancel each other out.   Region placement is not part of the criteria.   Head to head would be a wash.  The chances of them having the same winning % are probably slim.   Also wrestler A loses to wrestler B and places 3rd at regions.  But wrestler A beat wrestler C during the regular season and doesn’t wrestle them at regions.  Wrestler C wins that region.   In this scenario wrestler A could be the 1 seed at semi state after not winning regions.  

1 hour ago, LCalum said:

Not true.   If he loses at regions to a kid who he beat earlier in the season they cancel each other out.   Region placement is not part of the criteria.   Head to head would be a wash.  The chances of them having the same winning % are probably slim.   Also wrestler A loses to wrestler B and places 3rd at regions.  But wrestler A beat wrestler C during the regular season and doesn’t wrestle them at regions.  Wrestler C wins that region.   In this scenario wrestler A could be the 1 seed at semi state after not winning regions.  

This is the scenario that I'm afraid could play out. It gets even more complicated if A & B are in the same region and C is from the region they pair with at semi state. It's the common opponents criteria that messes it up. A wins Regionals over B and C wins his region, but B and C have better common opponents record than A, then B is 1 seed after having finished 2nd at region and A is 3 seed. Or is it a cumulative where all the comparisons for one wreslter between all participants in one criteria are added up?

I  think I'm just confusing myself now.

What if A beat D and B beat C to make finals, but A has a previous win over B and A injury defaults in the finals and keeps his higher seed? 

17 minutes ago, Tbagnky said:

This is the scenario that I'm afraid could play out. It gets even more complicated if A & B are in the same region and C is from the region they pair with at semi state. It's the common opponents criteria that messes it up. A wins Regionals over B and C wins his region, but B and C have better common opponents record than A, then B is 1 seed after having finished 2nd at region and A is 3 seed. Or is it a cumulative where all the comparisons for one wreslter between all participants in one criteria are added up?

 

I  think I'm just confusing myself now.

It’s hard to seed kids that have all matches in region 1 versus a kid that has all his wins in Region 2. 

This all sounds like Algebra 2!! This is not the year to do the seeding if they are trying to prove a point. Should be done with a 16 or 32 man bracket.

The top 4 should be pretty clear in any bracket. It really doesn’t matter the order so long as they meet in the semis and not the quarters (i.e. Bryce sheffer vs Trent Johnson). If you look at the 149 bracket at NAIA’s, it strongly suggests seeding doesn’t really matter.

14 minutes ago, GentleBeard said:

The top 4 should be pretty clear in any bracket. It really doesn’t matter the order so long as they meet in the semis and not the quarters (i.e. Bryce sheffer vs Trent Johnson). If you look at the 149 bracket at NAIA’s, it strongly suggests seeding doesn’t really matter.

It matters at Semi-state because only the top 2 advance. 

1 hour ago, grappler-of-old said:

It matters at Semi-state because only the top 2 advance. 

Because things are so screwed up this year, some podium pedigree wrestlers will be left at home. It’s the inevitable consequence based on bad decisions.