Would it be better to seed teams based on each wrestler. For example if you have a returning:

state qualifier= 1

5th-8th=2

2nd-4th=3

state champ = 4 

of course the values could be adjusted. Also this would come after head to head match ups and common opponents in criteria. 
We want to improve Ky wrestling by encouraging teams to go wrestle the best. The best teams in the state (union, PT, JC and Ryle) all have taken losses bc they challenge themselves. 

43 minutes ago, PPmothman said:

Would it be better to seed teams based on each wrestler. For example if you have a returning:

state qualifier= 1

5th-8th=2

2nd-4th=3

state champ = 4 

of course the values could be adjusted. Also this would come after head to head match ups and common opponents in criteria. 
We want to improve Ky wrestling by encouraging teams to go wrestle the best. The best teams in the state (union, PT, JC and Ryle) all have taken losses bc they challenge themselves. 

How about type it up and send it as a proposal to the KYWCA board? That would make more sense then posting it here to try to bash the event we are trying to put together. The criteria is broken (every one agrees it is) the seeding is done. We will put together a few proposals to vote on this spring. 

Good luck to you tomorrow!

8 minutes ago, FCfalconwrestling said:

How about type it up and send it as a proposal to the KYWCA board? That would make more sense then posting it here to try to bash the event we are trying to put together. The criteria is broken (every one agrees it is) the seeding is done. We will put together a few proposals to vote on this spring. 

 

Good luck to you tomorrow!

I hardly think PPMothman was bashing anything, l think it was more of a suggestion 

22 minutes ago, FCfalconwrestling said:

How about type it up and send it as a proposal to the KYWCA board? That would make more sense then posting it here to try to bash the event we are trying to put together. The criteria is broken (every one agrees it is) the seeding is done. We will put together a few proposals to vote on this spring. 

 

Good luck to you tomorrow!

Can they not see what people's opinions are before sending it as a proposal?

I didn't take it as bashing 

1. Make It one class until the top teams aren't small schools consistently. 

2. Make It a two day event and allow more teams to enter

3. Let Ranger seed It

4. Throw everyone into pools randomly but based on seeds 1-2-3-4-5 in each pool.

5. Wrestle

I would send this to KYWCA but I am guessing not all big schools would be too excited about having to beat Union to win a dual title. I just think this would make for a fun and exciting tournament.

Never realized presenting ideas was bashing anything. Maybe someone should put their ego aside. Need to post it here before it’s presented anywhere. This way we can discuss ways to do it. I’m not sure what value should be added per wrestler for placement and so forth.  That’s why you post it so you can get input from multiple perspectives. 
 

I typically agree with ETC about one division, however having it in one location with divisional champs then a grand champion is exciting. I want to see how it works out. 

13 minutes ago, PPmothman said:

Never realized presenting ideas was bashing anything. Maybe someone should put their ego aside. Need to post it here before it’s presented anywhere. This way we can discuss ways to do it. I’m not sure what value should be added per wrestler for placement and so forth.  That’s why you post it so you can get input from multiple perspectives. 
 

I typically agree with ETC about one division, however having it in one location with divisional champs then a grand champion is exciting. I want to see how it works out. 

 

I didn’t take it as bashing. I appreciate you trying to hash out some ideas publicly, so we can improve the process. That’s what these forums are good for. 
 

i don’t love the idea of ranking based on returning state placers. Take JC, as an example. They have half their roster graduating this year, so they won’t have too many returning placers. I don’t know for sure, but I’m gonna guess they have some depth and will still be tough next year. I think it also undervalues light weights. There are few if any returning state placers at 106 and 113, but their points are just as important as the bigger guys. 
 

I do like what ETC suggested, just let Ranger (or a delegate) seed them. I’m not sure he’d want that responsibility though. I wouldn’t. People complain about the rankings now, imagine if they actually meant something. 
 

For this reason, I’d prefer that the coaches vote on the top 8 seeds. We could pre-seed based on some criteria, but ultimately vote. I think that would apply the “common sense” aspect that has been mentioned, while not ignoring current season results. 
 

Most importantly, it won’t punish teams for taking tough losses out of state, or meaningless early season losses before the football season is over. Because that can be taken into consideration before the vote. 

I would agree with this but I have literally watched D1 coaches call each other to see who had which weights for NCAA coaches poll seeding and intentionally rank kids wrong to help each other out. Not saying this will happen but just making an example. As far as the one class vs. 3 class things I just dont get the point of fake champions. Having one true champ vs. watching a "grand champion dual" is all the same with different numbers next to them.

Can anyone make a good argument why we separate into multiple divisions?

Since I was President the last few years, I will take blame. Fot the last couple years we had issues with seeding and we said we needed to address it, but the association dropped the ball and forgot about it in the spring meetings, that's ultimately my fault. I agree it's not a great seeding criteria and believe the coaches in the association tried their best with it.

The split was to promote growth. Being a direct cause or a coincidence,  we have had significant growth in the last 12 years since the split. I would have to look again,  but believe we have added 30 or so teams during that time.

And I could be wrong, but do believe he meant that this original post was bashing, but more of the other posts in state duals post. 

Just my 2 cents, hope it's a great weekend.  A LOT of work had went into doing this, thanks to all those involved.  It could have stayed the way it was and been easier,  the kywca put a lot in this to make it bigger and better. Is it perfect,  no, but many of those that complain have never done the first thing to help. 

3 hours ago, Kylemckune said:

Can anyone make a good argument why we separate into multiple divisions?

It promotes growth and gets more involved. 

21 hours ago, DrBaker said:

It promotes growth and gets more involved. 

I keep hearing that It promotes growth, but what is the difference between having more teams in one division and 3 divisions? Genuinely asking. 

2 hours ago, Elite Training Center KY said:

I keep hearing that It promotes growth, but what is the difference between having more teams in one division and 3 divisions? Genuinely asking. 

One thing that happens is you have a team like Bell Co get in states duals and have some success as a newer team. They promote their success and others see it. Now this year bam, Pineville started a team. There success shows other schools it's a positive add. If we still had 1 division, not likely Bell Co gets in and has same success to share. 

Another example is it I think 2 years ago East Carter got in state duals with basically a brand new team. Coach told me that he literally have kids show up the monday after state duals and wanted to join the team. Not adding team from this, but built existing team from success that would not have been gained by one divisions format

One of the problems you have with one division is that in some regions the teams are already known and therefore the teams that have little to no chance do not go to the sectional tournament.  Now that there are 3 divisions more teams have the opportunity to qualify.   Not sure what the big deal is.   The best teams will win it anyway, so allowing some of the smaller less successful team the opportunity is not hurting anyone.  

In whose eye is it a paper champion?  I'm sure it is not for the ones that received the award.  I'm sure St Ed's and Graham in Ohio don't think their 36, and 24 state titles are paper.