Johns/Jenkins is in the quarters

@DrBaker have you looked at the random draw table? The brackets do not match it, they could be messed up.  

1 minute ago, CUTiger184 said:

@DrBaker have you looked at the random draw table? The brackets do not match it, they could be messed up.  

How do they not match?

2 minutes ago, CUTiger184 said:

@DrBaker have you looked at the random draw table? The brackets do not match it, they could be messed up.  

The ones we paired up yesterday seem to match.  Any ones in particular you are seeing?

They are correct, oversight on my part, didnt read the fine print lol

I hate how these brackets are done.

Berk at 150 and matney at 165 are the luckiest guys in the state. Matney hasn't wrestled anyone of note this year. And now he'll cruse to the finals. 

I just don't understand who thought it was a good idea to not seed the state tournament correct 

12 minutes ago, Jimbobert said:

I hate how these brackets are done.

Berk at 150 and matney at 165 are the luckiest guys in the state. Matney hasn't wrestled anyone of note this year. And now he'll cruse to the finals. 

I just don't understand who thought it was a good idea to not seed the state tournament correct 

Agreed!!! Every weight has a weaker side that can cruise to the finals. Happens every year. Kid places 2nd one year and 8th the next. 

19 minutes ago, Jimbobert said:

I hate how these brackets are done.

Berk at 150 and matney at 165 are the luckiest guys in the state. Matney hasn't wrestled anyone of note this year. And now he'll cruse to the finals. 

I just don't understand who thought it was a good idea to not seed the state tournament correct 

If Johns was on the same side as Berk, then the Jenkins would have an easy path to the finals. Or if Jenkins was on the same side as Berk, then Johns would. It happens in most weight classes.

13 minutes ago, Jimbobert said:

I hate how these brackets are done.

Berk at 150 and matney at 165 are the luckiest guys in the state. Matney hasn't wrestled anyone of note this year. And now he'll cruse to the finals. 

I just don't understand who thought it was a good idea to not seed the state tournament correct 

Matney and Birk are also former state finalists, lets not discount that. Still wish there was some sort of seeding, but these are not egregious examples of the random draw, Matney has to go through currently ranked #4 and #7. One of Birk/Jenkins/Johns would have to wrestle each other before the finals, but Birk has to beat Knight/Hicks/and either Gonzalez/Gist/Kessinger. 

19 minutes ago, Jimbobert said:

I hate how these brackets are done.

Berk at 150 and matney at 165 are the luckiest guys in the state. Matney hasn't wrestled anyone of note this year. And now he'll cruse to the finals. 

I just don't understand who thought it was a good idea to not seed the state tournament correct 

Rens lucky he didn’t get John’s or Jenkins. But other than that he has the number 4 ranked kid in the quarters if Smith can beat Knight in round 2. The top quarter and bottom quarter seems lop sided.  If they seeded it then You would have Ren/Jenkins 2-3 and Johns/ Smith 1-4. 

2 minutes ago, gseaknee said:

Matney and Birk are also former state finalists, lets not discount that. Still wish there was some sort of seeding, but these are not egregious examples of the random draw, Matney has to go through currently ranked #4 and #7. One of Birk/Jenkins/Johns would have to wrestle each other before the finals, but Birk has to beat Knight/Hicks/and either Gonzalez/Gist/Kessinger. 

Smith beat Hicks 11-2 this season. 

5 minutes ago, PPmothman said:

Smith beat Hicks 11-2 this season. 

I did gloss over Smith on that side as well. Smith and Knight have to wrestle round 2. I don't see where Smith and Hicks have wrestled this year on track, but hicks has been on a tear these past couple of weeks. Regardless, I think we both agree that Ren's path should not be considered easy.

Just now, gseaknee said:

I did gloss over Smith on that side as well. Smith and Knight have to wrestle round 2. I don't see where Smith and Hicks have wrestled this year on track, but hicks has been on a tear these past couple of weeks. Regardless, I think we both agree that Ren's path should not be considered easy.

Yes agreed. It was state duals. Not easy just not unfortunate to draw a Jenkins or John’s early. 

48 minutes ago, gseaknee said:

Matney and Birk are also former state finalists, lets not discount that. Still wish there was some sort of seeding, but these are not egregious examples of the random draw, Matney has to go through currently ranked #4 and #7. One of Birk/Jenkins/Johns would have to wrestle each other before the finals, but Birk has to beat Knight/Hicks/and either Gonzalez/Gist/Kessinger. 

 Number 4 and 7. Not that tough in 165

Same with 150 Jenkins or Johns wouldn't have a problem with those 5 guys.

1 hour ago, Jimbobert said:

 Number 4 and 7. Not that tough in 165

Same with 150 Jenkins or Johns wouldn't have a problem with those 5 guys.

 

Fair enough. There's always going to be the element of luck and no bracket ever goes the way that it "should." I just am not a fan of discounting two kids who have a tremendous amount of accolades already and calling them lucky. Birk is fortunate to be on the other side of johns/jenkins, but we will see how he fares. Matney is still a returning 2x state placer, one of those being the state finals as a freshman, and he's currently ranked #2. He has beaten everyone he has needed to beat, I don't know why he isn't deserving of a good draw.

At  138 you've got Ranger's #5 vs #6 in first round.  Winner likely meets #9 2nd round then #3 in quarters.  Raney also on this side of bracket. 

Just seed the damn thing already lol

1 hour ago, CradleKY said:

At  138 you've got Ranger's #5 vs #6 in first round.  Winner likely meets #9 2nd round then #3 in quarters.  Raney also on this side of bracket. 

Just seed the damn thing already lol

 

 

Evans and Dennis overtime match in quarters last year. Until they fix it these types of things will keep happening. I know you have to beat so and so anyway to get a title blah blah blah but I want and I’m assuming everyone else does the best possible finals matches to watch. Just my opinion but it makes it more exciting all around. All surrounding states have it figured out I believe.

10 minutes ago, Ranchy said:

Evans and Dennis overtime match in quarters last year. Until they fix it these types of things will keep happening. I know you have to beat so and so anyway to get a title blah blah blah but I want and I’m assuming everyone else does the best possible finals matches to watch. Just my opinion but it makes it more exciting all around. All surrounding states have it figured out I believe.

I like the random draw for the excitement, but it does sting when a kid you're rooting for (or your own) deserves better.  For weights where I have no skin in the game, I love it.

I just don't see how it can be done because the seeding/rankings are so subjective.  I liked semi-state for the simple fact that it seeded the state tourney for you. 

18 hours ago, Ranchy said:

. All surrounding states have it figured out I believe.

Just curious.  What states have it figured out? 

This is how Ohio 'seeds' their state tourney:

The state draw will be conducted by the Executive Director’s office prior to the district individual tournaments according to the following criteria:

A. Each district has representation in each quarter bracket with an equitable balance of all pairings by district - #1 vs. #4, #2 vs. #3, etc.

B. No two wrestlers from the same district will meet in the first round.

C. Pairings are balanced.

D. Returning OHSAA state placers that finished either 1st, 2nd or 3rd the previous year will be separated in accordance with their previous place provided they qualify for the State Individual Tournament as a District Champion.

E. If returning state placers are from the same district, the wrestler(s) only loss must be to a top three (3) state placer from last year.

That being said, tennis appears to be the only other KHSAA sport that seeds their state tournament. I'd be interested to know how that goes because tennis and wrestling have pretty much identical challenges when it comes to seeding criteria. I have pasted the 'seeding criteria' below from the information on the KHSAA site (the UTR is a rating metric that all players must have to be seeded, are comparable metric is the 'Rank Value' on Track:

For the singles and doubles tournaments, KHSAA staff, along with the tournament manager, will supervise the conduct of the seeding and draw. UTR information shall be used to gather necessary initial information for seeding consideration.

Seeding shall be based on the All-Factors Method, considering each entrant’s chances of winning the tournament and shall consider all reasonably available information, including UTR, recent results, and particularly, head-to-head competition.

UTR is a tool to assist in consideration of seeding.

UTR information shall be used to gather necessary initial information for Strength of Roster, but can be reviewed during the region seeding meeting if challenged and examined with consideration of additional factors (results, outliners, injuries, etc.).

19 hours ago, Ranchy said:

Evans and Dennis overtime match in quarters last year. Until they fix it these types of things will keep happening. I know you have to beat so and so anyway to get a title blah blah blah but I want and I’m assuming everyone else does the best possible finals matches to watch. Just my opinion but it makes it more exciting all around. All surrounding states have it figured out I believe.

I remember when Trent Johnson and Bryce Sheffer met in the quarters that one year.  Everyone knew that was really the final's match.  Unfortunately, it was on a Friday afternoon in front of a sparce crowd instead of Saturday night under the lights with something on the line.  Both kids teched or pinned the rest of their bracket - finishing 1st and 3rd.  There definitely is something to be said for having a competitive final.  Based on some draws I've seen, this year's finals matches might be anticlimactic.

By the rankings 9 of 14 classes can be 1 vs 2 matchups in the finals. 

34 minutes ago, DrBaker said:

By the rankings 9 of 14 classes can be 1 vs 2 matchups in the finals. 

I'd say that's pretty fair.

Indiana does It right lol 3 different tournaments to get to state without full wrestle backs at semi state or state. Blood rounds in round one at state is intense. 16 man brackets and tons of good wrestling. Number one ranked person at 106 this year in Indiana didn't even place.

11 minutes ago, itsBoston said:

Indiana does It right lol 3 different tournaments to get to state without full wrestle backs at semi state or state. Blood rounds in round one at state is intense. 16 man brackets and tons of good wrestling. Number one ranked person at 106 this year in Indiana didn't even place.

There are good wrestlers there who may not even qualify due to the strength of their section / region.  I'm not necessarily a fan of that, but I bet it does make for exciting matches. 

This topic comes around every year!

Has anyone gone back and looked at how many of these "1 vs 2" early round matchups resulted in the loser of that match coming back and getting 3rd.  The proposed logic (that the two best wrestlers have to wrestle before the finals) would indicate that the losing wrestler should finish no lower than 3rd and beat everyone else in the wrestle backs.

1 minute ago, neverbreak said:

This topic comes around every year!

Has anyone gone back and looked at how many of these "1 vs 2" early round matchups resulted in the loser of that match coming back and getting 3rd.  The proposed logic (that the two best wrestlers have to wrestle before the finals) would indicate that the losing wrestler should finish no lower than 3rd and beat everyone else in the wrestle backs.

I would guess its extremely high with the lack of depth in KY. Obviously there are going to be guys that just don't handle that front side loss and have the "if I don't win It doesn't matter" mindset that can skew this. One that pops into my head would be Trumble a couple of years ago when he lost to Reeves in a crazy match on the front side then didn't place. Reeves went on to win a title. That year I am pretty sure Rider had wins over both Finalists. Then you look at last year and Rider had a win over Lehman but lost to Miller in the semis but was able to wrestle back for third in arguably the deepest weight we have seen in a while. 

Mindset plays such a big part in this. Its not something that can be looked at statistically in my opinion. (It can be looked at statistically, but It doesn't show the full picture at least)

2 hours ago, grappler-of-old said:

Just curious.  What states have it figured out? 

I haven’t heard of Indiana or Ohio or even Tennessee having same issues and I may be wrong but haven’t heard directly that they have. I have never liked the different classes but I assume that is because of volume. All I know is I want to be able to enjoy best wrestling possible and I may be greedy about it but would prefer in the finals. The way to do it is a way I have no clear idea. I also would love if Kentucky cared more about the sport to make state a bigger spectacle like other states.

8 minutes ago, Ranchy said:

I haven’t heard of Indiana or Ohio or even Tennessee having same issues and I may be wrong but haven’t heard directly that they have. I have never liked the different classes but I assume that is because of volume. All I know is I want to be able to enjoy best wrestling possible and I may be greedy about it but would prefer in the finals. The way to do it is a way I have no clear idea. I also would love if Kentucky cared more about the sport to make state a bigger spectacle like other states.

Semi-state would fix the issue.  It would seed the state tournament for you.  It would also allow for the girls / boys tournaments to be ran consecutively and in theory make it feel more like a "packed house."

7 minutes ago, itsBoston said:

I would guess its extremely high with the lack of depth in KY. Obviously there are going to be guys that just don't handle that front side loss and have the "if I don't win It doesn't matter" mindset that can skew this. One that pops into my head would be Trumble a couple of years ago when he lost to Reeves in a crazy match on the front side then didn't place. Reeves went on to win a title. That year I am pretty sure Rider had wins over both Finalists. Then you look at last year and Rider had a win over Lehman but lost to Miller in the semis but was able to wrestle back for third in arguably the deepest weight we have seen in a while. 

Mindset plays such a big part in this. Its not something that can be looked at statistically in my opinion. (It can be looked at statistically, but It doesn't show the full picture at least)

I don't think the system in Kentucky is perfect and it really isn't broken either, the  "random draw" does what it is designed to do.  It clearly separates the region champions until the quarters which is the blood round on the front side of the bracket, this should be a tough round with a lot of tough matchups.  It also separates the top two out of each region, which prevents two top guys in the state from the same region to wrestle until the finals. 

It does not take a lot of looking to find examples in our own sport of "seeding" having a ton of issues, a perfect example of this is the NCAA D1 wrestling tournament.  As a fan of the sport I would love to have the two best wrestlers in the finals, but I also enjoy watching great matches in the quarters and semis.

1 hour ago, itsBoston said:

I would guess its extremely high with the lack of depth in KY. Obviously there are going to be guys that just don't handle that front side loss and have the "if I don't win It doesn't matter" mindset that can skew this. One that pops into my head would be Trumble a couple of years ago when he lost to Reeves in a crazy match on the front side then didn't place. Reeves went on to win a title. That year I am pretty sure Rider had wins over both Finalists. Then you look at last year and Rider had a win over Lehman but lost to Miller in the semis but was able to wrestle back for third in arguably the deepest weight we have seen in a while. 

Mindset plays such a big part in this. Its not something that can be looked at statistically in my opinion. (It can be looked at statistically, but It doesn't show the full picture at least)

Rider lost to Miller in the Quarters last year. We know all about wrestling the Best kids in the quarters with loosing to the eventual champs the last 2 years while like you said having wins over both finalist 2 years ago and Ayden last year.  its tough,  but part of it !! Gotta go to wrestle and be ready to wrestle back even after a Tough loss. 
Good Luck To All Wrestlers This Weekend !!!! 

5 hours ago, Take-em-down said:

Rider lost to Miller in the Quarters last year. We know all about wrestling the Best kids in the quarters with loosing to the eventual champs the last 2 years while like you said having wins over both finalist 2 years ago and Ayden last year.  its tough,  but part of it !! Gotta go to wrestle and be ready to wrestle back even after a Tough loss. 
Good Luck To All Wrestlers This Weekend !!!! 

And on Riders way through consis, he knocked out guys who should have placed or placed higher. 
Just the way it goes. 

7 hours ago, neverbreak said:

This topic comes around every year!

Has anyone gone back and looked at how many of these "1 vs 2" early round matchups resulted in the loser of that match coming back and getting 3rd.  The proposed logic (that the two best wrestlers have to wrestle before the finals) would indicate that the losing wrestler should finish no lower than 3rd and beat everyone else in the wrestle backs.

Happens every year. Biggest example was Sheffer vs Trent Johnson. 

11 hours ago, DrBaker said:

Happens every year. Biggest example was Sheffer vs Trent Johnson. 

I would expect it to happen every year, but how frequently is the question.  If it's only 50% of the time, then it may not fit the narrative people are pushing.  Seeding is a mess, you will always have "tougher" sides of a bracket regardless of how the seeding or draws shake out.  We also see upsets of highly touted wrestlers each year, so to say that the two best kids are on the same side of the bracket without first wrestling the tournament is a little like putting the cart in front of the horse.

59 minutes ago, neverbreak said:

I would expect it to happen every year, but how frequently is the question.  If it's only 50% of the time, then it may not fit the narrative people are pushing.  Seeding is a mess, you will always have "tougher" sides of a bracket regardless of how the seeding or draws shake out.  We also see upsets of highly touted wrestlers each year, so to say that the two best kids are on the same side of the bracket without first wrestling the tournament is a little like putting the cart in front of the horse.

Not really 

Everyone has great ideas. 

Seeding obviously would solve all problems. 

Never going to happen. They do a random draw for baskeketball sweet sixteen. It requires zero effort and is not subjective. Why would we expect KHSAA do do otherwise?

13 minutes ago, Kylemckune said:

Everyone has great ideas. 

Seeding obviously would solve all problems. 

Never going to happen. They do a random draw for baskeketball sweet sixteen. It requires zero effort and is not subjective. Why would we expect KHSAA do do otherwise?

Seeding would solve some problems but not all of them.

I don't know that I would mind bringing back semi-state but using it as a qualifier.  KHSAA considered semi-state as part of THE state tournament, which I found to be either lazy or ignorant.  A semi-circle is ALMOST a circle, but not quite.  The semi-finals are ALMOST the finals, but it's obviously not THE finals.  16 man brackets.  Wrestle for true 2nd.  Use criteria via track or semi-state placements to seed the state tournament. I have been known to be wrong, so I reserve that right.

I like semi state. It did at least some what seed it. Some of the weights were lopsided on each end of the state but still gave you the best option to get the best match in the finals. 
 

You could also let track seed the regional champs based on head to head, common opponents, returning state placer, then Winning percentage.  Then the rest would fall in based on where their 1 went. Wouldn’t be perfect but be better than a random draw. 

It really wouldn't be that hard to seed based on head to heads and common opponents.  Let's take a look at the top 20 kids and their matches this weekend.  The matrix below shows the rankings prior to the regional matches.  If you see a highlighted green box in the bottom left, and a highlighted red box in the top right, that's an upset.

At 106,  there were 11 matches between top 20 opponents and zero upsets.  (Matches from regionals are highlighted in the matrix).  At 113 there were 6 top 20 matchups, and zero upsets. At 120 there were 7 matchups, zero upsets. And at 126, I had 9 matchups and two upsets.  Both upsets were between kids that were ranked very close, and both were close decision matches.  In fact, one of these wasn't even an upset according to Ranger's rankings at the time.

So that's 35 matches and 2 upsets.

Using nothing but head to heads and common opponents, we could seed the 32 qualifiers in a fair and transparent way.  And with the data available, it could be done pretty quickly as well. 

Alternatively, we could seed the 8 regional champs like middle school does.  Then regional runner ups get paired up in the same order, again like middle school.  So the runner up to #1 seed gets the #9,  etc.

Ramsey lost to Pulliam.

10 minutes ago, ukpridewrestler11 said:

Ramsey lost to Pulliam.

You're right. The "S" means split, because they have now each won a match against each other.  I missed that as an upset because the splits didn't get highlighted as new, I'll need to fix that. 

Didn't we allow track to seed the state tournament during Covid?  I don't think it was well received. Track does not seem to seed correctly. At region seed meeting track had an undefeated wrestler 20+ matches seeded 4th.  How is that possible? It never seems to get it correct. 

 The one thing that I like,. You cannot see someone from your own region until semi's .  That way all four placers could be in the Semifinals. 

The 1st year or two when we expanded to 32 man bracket some regions wrestled each other in the 1st round.  I don't like seeing that at all. 

This will be my 44th state tournament that I have been to.  I really don't see why it is such a big deal that it is not seeded. 

The state tournament has evolved from

1.  Only top 2 placers in region qualified for state. (16 man bracket) (Top 4 placers)

2.  A true follow your man. (only those who lost to the finalists were able to wrestle for 3rd/4th).(16 man bracket (top 4 placers)

3.  A first round follow your man (those that lost in the first round only got back in if the person who beat them wins their next match) (16 man bracket) (top 6 placers, no medals for 5th and 6th)

4.  2 and out tournament (16 man bracket) top 6 placers with medals)

5.  2 and out tournament (32 man bracket) top 8 placers with medals)

60 years of evolution.  

1 hour ago, grappler-of-old said:

Didn't we allow track to seed the state tournament during Covid?  I don't think it was well received. Track does not seem to seed correctly. At region seed meeting track had an undefeated wrestler 20+ matches seeded 4th.  How is that possible? It never seems to get it correct. 

 The one thing that I like,. You cannot see someone from your own region until semi's .  That way all four placers could be in the Semifinals. 

The 1st year or two when we expanded to 32 man bracket some regions wrestled each other in the 1st round.  I don't like seeing that at all. 

This will be my 44th state tournament that I have been to.  I really don't see why it is such a big deal that it is not seeded. 

The state tournament has evolved from

1.  Only top 2 placers in region qualified for state. (16 man bracket) (Top 4 placers)

2.  A true follow your man. (only those who lost to the finalists were able to wrestle for 3rd/4th).(16 man bracket (top 4 placers)

3.  A first round follow your man (those that lost in the first round only got back in if the person who beat them wins their next match) (16 man bracket) (top 6 placers, no medals for 5th and 6th)

4.  2 and out tournament (16 man bracket) top 6 placers with medals)

5.  2 and out tournament (32 man bracket) top 8 placers with medals)

60 years of evolution.  

I remember that first year of the 32 man bracket. Several 1st and 2nd round rematches from the region tournament. In fact, one "quad" of the bracket had 3 of 4 wrestlers from the same region. 

19 minutes ago, grappler-of-old said:

Didn't we allow track to seed the state tournament during Covid?  I don't think it was well received. Track does not seem to seed correctly. At region seed meeting track had an undefeated wrestler 20+ matches seeded 4th.  How is that possible? It never seems to get it correct. 

 The one thing that I like,. You cannot see someone from your own region until semi's .  That way all four placers could be in the Semifinals. 

The 1st year or two when we expanded to 32 man bracket some regions wrestled each other in the 1st round.  I don't like seeing that at all. 

This will be my 44th state tournament that I have been to.  I really don't see why it is such a big deal that it is not seeded. 

The state tournament has evolved from

1.  Only top 2 placers in region qualified for state. (16 man bracket) (Top 4 placers)

2.  A true follow your man. (only those who lost to the finalists were able to wrestle for 3rd/4th).(16 man bracket (top 4 placers)

3.  A first round follow your man (those that lost in the first round only got back in if the person who beat them wins their next match) (16 man bracket) (top 6 placers, no medals for 5th and 6th)

4.  2 and out tournament (16 man bracket) top 6 placers with medals)

5.  2 and out tournament (32 man bracket) top 8 placers with medals)

60 years of evolution.  

I agree with you GOO, the "random draw" really isn't random.  It clearly separates the region champs, so they do not meet until the quarters, it also separates region champs from region runner ups, so they would not meet until the finals, and as you stated it separates region placers, so they will not meet until the semis.

I do believe they have made improvements as you've pointed out, I was wrestling when we switched over to the 32 man bracket and it was a nightmare the first couple years with region 1st and 3rd meeting as early as the second round.  Look at the 2002 152 pound state bracket the 1st, 2nd and 3rd state placers were all from the same region with the region champ (eventual state champ) and the 3rd placer from same region (eventual 3rd place finisher at state) meeting in the second round. The current draw system takes into account that the top two or four wrestlers might come from the same region and separates them as such.

Letting track seed would put the teams who travel out of state during their seasons at a clear disadvantage, as they may not have head to head wins or common opponents with those teams who primarily stay in state to compete.

14 minutes ago, neverbreak said:

I agree with you GOO, the "random draw" really isn't random.  It clearly separates the region champs, so they do not meet until the quarters, it also separates region champs from region runner ups, so they would not meet until the finals, and as you stated it separates region placers, so they will not meet until the semis.

The “random” is the drawing of the 8 regional champs. 
 

I’m struggling to understand the argument against seeding these 8 wrestlers. It seems like the arguments are “it won’t ever be perfect so let’s not even try” and “it’s better than it used to be.”  
 

Middle school has been doing this for years and it works well. Returning state placers get priority, then returning qualifiers. Head to heads and common opponents over ride everything else. Records are a last resort.  
 

If there’s an argument for our random draw being better than what middle school does, I haven’t heard it yet. 

Seeding the regional placers is ok with me.  Use a simple criteria like Ohio. State placers qualifiers ect.  then record.  Draw the rest into the normal way we do it now.  #1 seed is opposite the runner up from his region so forth and so on.  Will it be better than random draw?  Who knows but it would not be worse. 

The middle school seeding is different.  They only have 5 regions and the top 4 from the same region will not always be separated into quarter brackets. 

2 hours ago, neverbreak said:

I agree with you GOO, the "random draw" really isn't random.  It clearly separates the region champs, so they do not meet until the quarters, it also separates region champs from region runner ups, so they would not meet until the finals, and as you stated it separates region placers, so they will not meet until the semis.

I do believe they have made improvements as you've pointed out, I was wrestling when we switched over to the 32 man bracket and it was a nightmare the first couple years with region 1st and 3rd meeting as early as the second round.  Look at the 2002 152 pound state bracket the 1st, 2nd and 3rd state placers were all from the same region with the region champ (eventual state champ) and the 3rd placer from same region (eventual 3rd place finisher at state) meeting in the second round. The current draw system takes into account that the top two or four wrestlers might come from the same region and separates them as such.

Letting track seed would put the teams who travel out of state during their seasons at a clear disadvantage, as they may not have head to head wins or common opponents with those teams who primarily stay in state to compete.

Track rates the out of state people too. for example: Wins and losses at Ironman still have numbers associated.