I know this had been debated a great deal before, especially on this web site.  But what do you guys think the chances are for getting the state tournament seeded?  Now I know coaches would be arguing constantly but maybe we could have a seeding criteria.  Such as records in state, placings at difficult tournaments (The dragon, WCI, 5 Star), and possibly taking the state rankings into consideration.  Now I know it would take a great deal of time to seed the top 8 wrestlers but maybe we could do the top 2 wrestlers and put them on opposite sides.  I think the state finals loses some of its prestige when someone gets pinned in the 1st period.  And I feel that if it was seeded obviously we'd have better state finals matches and maybe a higher attendance rate as well because of it.  Lets here some openions about this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  It can never work.  One person opinion of who is best is different than others. 

In State records:  Are you going to penilize those wrestlers that have went out of state and wrestle most of their season?  (If so it still does not accomplish what your trying to accomplish)

Difficult tournaments: Who considers what tourneys are tough?  WCI (has a lot of teams but not the TOP teams) (5 star is more of a team tourney) How is this more difficult that the Western Brown Tourney that Woodford attends in Ohio or the Dayton Tourney that Simon Kenton and Ryle attend.

State Rankings: are not official, they don't get all the records or matches of all the wrestlers in the state.

The only thing that this will change is who may get 3rd or 2nd in a few wt. classes.  I know the last two years of my career I wish I would have been on the opposite bracket.  I probably would have made the finals, but I still would not have won, and that is the ultimate goal. 2nd or 3rd doesn't really make much difference.

They should develop a point system where each team sends in their schedule at the beginning of the season.  There should be a board consisting of one representative from each region that ranks toughness of schedule.  Then at the end of the season, all regional finalists (if you take 3rd or 4th in the region you are not one of the top couple guys at that weight) send in their records and tournament placings.  Each tournament is worth so many points.  The person with the highest point total is number 1, next is number 2, etc.  If you put it all into a computer, it would not be that difficult.  The hardest part would be ranking the tournments that each team goes to.  Head to heads would count in close point totals.  Something like this would rate what you did this year as the number one priority.  It would also not penalize someone who is a first year wrestler, since he has no returning state or regional placings.  We could use this for the rankings during the season and everyone would know exactly where they stand all season long.

I have seen it work at sectional tournaments in california which are made up from anywhere between 75-125 schools.

Coach Mendez

Oneida Baptist

And such systems have also done goofy stuff like have U.S. soccer team ranked 5th in the world.  We all know how that turned out.

The point system seems like a good Idea.

One of the problems that Ky wrestling have is that we do not have set schedules.  Many teams are scrambling to get into tourneys throughout the year.  When you add a team or two to a tourney that can change the "toughness".

We also have many tourneys that open up at the last minute.  State Duals weekend seems to be the main weekend for this, because no-one really knows who will be at the state duals.

What is really needed is an impartial person.  Ohio has a person Brakeman, that goes to wrestling tourneys throughout the season and has scouts at the ones he cannot attend.  He puts out the Brakeman report that seems to be accurate.

i dont think there should be seeding at state keep what we have let who ever came in first in a region wheep the reward of taking on some one who got fourth in their region.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  It can never work.  One person opinion of who is best is different than others. 

In State records:  Are you going to penalize those wrestlers that have went out of state and wrestle most of their season?  (If so it still does not accomplish what your trying to accomplish)

Difficult tournaments: Who considers what tourneys are tough?  WCI (has a lot of teams but not the TOP teams) (5 star is more of a team tourney) How is this more difficult that the Western Brown Tourney that Woodford attends in Ohio or the Dayton Tourney that Simon Kenton and Ryle attend.

State Rankings: are not official, they don't get all the records or matches of all the wrestlers in the state.

The only thing that this will change is who may get 3rd or 2nd in a few wt. classes.  I know the last two years of my career I wish I would have been on the opposite bracket.  I probably would have made the finals, but I still would not have won, and that is the ultimate goal. 2nd or 3rd doesn't really make much difference.

Why would in state records penalize people that wrestle outside the state.  If your undefeated in state but only have 10 matches in state, then your undefeated and could possibly be seeded.  And I see what your saying about what tournaments should be used in the point system, which ones should we choose?  Well I would say the 2 top tournaments year in and year out have consistently been WCI and The Dragon.  We could not use tournaments such as Western Brown simply because only Woodford and Ryle are the only Kentucky teams that attend this event.  I guess to a certain degree I understand where your coming from on the difficulty of seeding the state tournament.  But if we had a point system established then it wouldn't be based on the coaches openion but rather a system.  And regional champions could still wrestle the 4th place finishers from each region.  All I am saying is get the top 3 or 4 kids away from one another till the semifinals.  Since doing a true second would be out of the question then I think we really need to consider the option of seeding the state tournament.

It penalizes them for this reason.  I'm sorry, but WCI is not even, not even close to the Western Brown invitational.  Woodford got beat by 200 at that in 2005, and 100+ this year.  And no, they didn't take second this year as dominant as they were at Ky state.  Miami Trace also beat them in addition to Pemberville.

The tournament in Dayton OH that Ryle and Simon went to is on par with that too.  You had Paris Graham there, who like Pemberville was nationally ranked.  As good as Woodford is, they're not on the national radar whatsover.  And they're the Ky standard.

When people go to those tourneys, they're obviously gonna lose some matches.  In any ranking system, that hurts you. Hence, it penalizes you for wrestling out of state in one of the nation's powerhouses ... Ohio namely.

Grappling:

My point exactly.  We continue this circle argument about seeding the state tourney. 

Then it gets into teams wrestling out of state. 

That starts the "There needs to be a certain percentage of matches wrestled in state." 

This leads to the argument of "If they wrestle out of state they cannot be seeded.

This leads right back to not getting the best wrestlers seeded.

There is no "silver bullet" to this problem.  I know the system is not perfect.  I know it would be nice to wrestle in the finals.  I would have loved to wrestle in the finals back in the Stone Age, but I lost to the state champ in the semi

Trust me I was not comparing WCI and Western Brown, I know there not even close.  Partly because I've wrestled in both of these tournaments.  I was saying we could not use Western Brown because only 2 KY teams go to this tournament.  Much more KY teams go to WCI so you can compare the KY wrestlers rather than the OH wrestlers at Western Brown.  If you lost to some kids up in Ohio, Indiana, ect. it would not penalize you because your going to be seeded by your in state record and not you out of state record.  I know this will probably be debated for as long as the state tournament isn't seeded, I was just throwing out suggestions to possibly fix the problem.

I think it could work, but only seeding the top 4.  First, I say only region champions are considered.  The others (2-4) fall into place after that.  With only champs considered, we're only talking about 112 kids, probably from only a handfull of schools (Woodford and Larue both win 8-10 weight classes).  Plus, some of the region champs (coaches) will know that their guy isn't one of the top 4 and won't present any issues with the meeting.  Yes, there will be some arguing and fighting, but if the majority think it is worth it, I think it can happen.  I think the state would be involved as well.  With Jullian Tackett moderating the meeting, I think it could be successful.

grappler - I think we could develop a system like "Brakeman" like Ohio.  I try to attend as many meets as possible as a fan and gathering info for my rankings.  Plus, I research as much as I can find in the papers and hear from fans and coaches.  Where I would disagree with you big time is 2nd or 3rd doesn't matter.  Being out there under the lights is a completely different story than being one of the six guys out their battling for 3-8 places.  Same story here, I had "bad luck" that left me in consolations every year.  3rd place was nice, but walking out in the finals would have been so much bigger.  Plus, think about team points.  You never know how pins and things will work out and how much difference 2nd and 3rd make, but as a coach I think I would rather have the guy in the finals and have those point secured.  So it could affect team scores.

Ranger:

    Many times 3rd place scores the same as 2nd place.  Usually between 1-2 points either way.  But I'm not a big team points person, even when coaching. My belief is this is an individual sport, the team points will come when the individuals succeed.

    I would maybe agree to try and seed the champions, but there are 8 champs, maybe if we went back to a 16 man tourney with only 4 champs. 

    I guess I'm pretty hard headed on this issue.  I don't like the idea of seeding the state.  I've seen hundreds of seeding meetings andmany times we could have drawn the whole tourney from a hat and it would have been the same. 

I'm just saying 4 because I think that would eliminate a lot of the battles.  I think there is often an obvious #1 and #2 in many of the classes.  Where the battles would begin is getting the last couple of spots.

I don't think it is something that has to be done, but I think it would help.  For example, let's assume both Courtney and Banks end up at 145 (or even 152) next season and are the obvious #1 and #2 in the class.  Wouldn't it be a shame for those two to meet in the quarters rather than a likely finals rematch?  This can be avoided.  This could also impact the team as the loser has to rebound from a devastating loss and wrestle a long way back for 3rd (to be equal).

I'm just saying 4 because I think that would eliminate a lot of the battles.  I think there is often an obvious #1 and #2 in many of the classes.  Where the battles would begin is getting the last couple of spots.

I don't think it is something that has to be done, but I think it would help.  For example, let's assume both Courtney and Banks end up at 145 (or even 152) next season and are the obvious #1 and #2 in the class.  Wouldn't it be a shame for those two to meet in the quarters rather than a likely finals rematch?  This can be avoided.  This could also impact the team as the loser has to rebound from a devastating loss and wrestle a long way back for 3rd (to be equal).

I do not disagree with your post.

But, what if they were to make a mistake and lose the in regional tournament and finish 2nd or 3rd. 

How do you reward the kid that gets first by an obvious upset? 

Would he not get the number one seed for his region?

Our state system is all based on ONE EVENT regions, the regular season make no difference.

45-5 or 25-25.  Its all about one tournament and the luck of the draw.

I do not disagree with your post.

But, what if they were to make a mistake and lose the in regional tournament and finish 2nd or 3rd. 

How do you reward the kid that gets first by an obvious upset? 

Would he not get the number one seed for his region?

Our state system is all based on ONE EVENT regions, the regular season make no difference.

45-5 or 25-25.  Its all about one tournament and the luck of the draw.

I say only region winners are considered in the seeding to keep it simple.  The upset guy would likely not be one of the top 4, depending on how big an upset it was.  If you look at Region 6 145 last season, Aylor and Wilson, it doesn't matter.  But if you look at the Coty Lewis situation (losing to Frasier) Lewis goes from a likely top 3 guy to not seeded.  Frasier would likely not be seeded as well.

I disagree, the regular season does matter.  If you go into regions with a horrible record you will have to wrestle your butt off to get to the finals.  And by seeding it would matter even more, especially with a well thought out clearly defined seeding criteria.

Like you said in your post DAWG6 its the luck of the draw come the state tournament.  Now doesn't that just sound wrong?  We have the state tournament to see who the top 8 wrestlers are not to see who can get lucky and dodge good wrestlers.  And if you make a mistake and lose at the regional tournament than thats tough.  I agree with Ranger123 only the regional champions should be considered in the seeding meetings otherwise every coach is going to try and fight for there kids to be seeded.

Luck of the draw ?  You're making it sound like you pull a name out of a hat, and you get a random wrestler to go against.  That is not how this works at all, not in the least.

Win regions and you dramatically reduce your odds of wrestling anyone good until the quarter finals.  Period.  If two guys in a region are ridiculous, they are on opposite sides of the bracket as are all 1st and 2nd place regional finishers.  Sounds almost eerily like effects of seeding anyway in this case.  Biggest issue to me is, it seems no one likes seeing big time matches in the quarters.  Why not ... its Friday night session ?  It should be good, interesting and dramatic seeing what talented guys are gonna drop.  Everything is heating up and the pressure is building.  I think its pretty cool seeing who ends up with who in this round. 

The biggest thing i always see is the argument about dodging good wrestlers.  So what ... if he had an easier road than you hand him his butt in the consols if you think thats the only reason he made it further than you.  If you don't make it far enough to do that, you probably shouldn't have been complaining along those lines in the first place.

The determining factor mostly is what region draws each other at what weight, not that a wrestler draws a random name out of a hat.  After you pick all the regional #1 postions, a lot starts crystallizing already.  Actually it kind of punishes weak regions, which seeding would also do.

Come to think of it, there are some similarites after all.

I say only region winners are considered in the seeding to keep it simple.  The upset guy would likely not be one of the top 4, depending on how big an upset it was.  If you look at Region 6 145 last season, Aylor and Wilson, it doesn't matter.  But if you look at the Coty Lewis situation (losing to Frasier) Lewis goes from a likely top 3 guy to not seeded.  Frasier would likely not be seeded as well.

I disagree, the regular season does matter.  If you go into regions with a horrible record you will have to wrestle your butt off to get to the finals.  And by seeding it would matter even more, especially with a well thought out clearly defined seeding criteria.

Ranger does the regular season matter?

you can have a 25-25 record and as long as you beat a few of the kids in your region you are automatically seeded and if you can pull off the upset like Frazer did against Lewis your the number one 1# seed out of your region.  So with that he probably wouldn't have consideration for state ranking  top 2 or top4,  Back on track Coty is (says 45-5) out of state lost to quality kids.  Does he get ranking criteria? No, because he's not a Champion so when they have the draw he ends up on the side of the bracket of another say the number # ranked kid in the state?  As you this year wasn't Coty the number one kid at 112?  So we say the number one kid in a weigh class doesn't get seeded at all :|

What we have may be the best (opinion); but the more we criteria (this or that) the more complicated it will get and then its all screwed up worst than what we currently have. My opinion

Dawg,

Good to see your post. I agree that the season should carry some weight but not sure how it should apply. But using your example of 112 and Lewis being obviously the #1 ranked going into districts and then getting beat in districts, does that person getting beat in district really deserve a #1 seed solely on his #1 ranking thru the  year, how would the loss at district be factored in?

This topic could be argued till state and still not settled to satisfy all.

I think what we have is fair in that it determines the #1 kid in the state, the rest of the placements while important are secondary to determining the champion.

e-ville. 

That is exactly what I was trying to get across.  The state champion is what the state tourney is all about.  Who wants to be second?  All that is is the best loser  (JK). 

The wrestler that gets 1st is the happiest kid in that wieght class. The wrestler that gets 3rd is the second happiest kid in that wieght class. This may not be true always but true for the most part.  Like I said I know the feeling.  Losing in the semi's by less than 4 three years in a row is tough to swallow, but losing by less than 4 three years in a row in the finals would be even harder.

I agree that this format is not perfect, (I don't think anything would be), but it is fair and I think adding anything else would cause more problems.

Just think if a kid was seeded 4th and he looses to the champ in overtime in the quarters.  He then pins his way through to 3rd and the kid that was seeded 2nd makes it to the finals in close matches, and gets pinned in the finals.

The wresler his coach and his parents would be yelling that the coaches (or whoever seeded the tourney cheated this kid)

Yes, I agree that the primary goal is to crown a state champion, but that includes a team state champion as well, and for that every match counts.  Plus, the state (khsaa) has made a committment to have as many kids as possible a part of the state tournament.  So I interpret that as everyone matters.

I think the number of times you have a Josh Ashbrook (who beat Griggs) lose to Murton in the semis and miss the chance to wrestle under the lights will far outnumber the times that the seeding appears to cheat a kid.  I agree it presents some early excitement in the tournament when the top 2 guys in a weight class meet in the quarters or semis, but it can also create some less than exciting finals matches.  And from my point of view that is the only less than perfect part of our state championship.  In my opinion, nothing can match the excitement of Saturday night in Frankfort.  I just think seeding would give a better chance to have the best matchups possible in the finals.

Ranger;

I think this is one issue that neither of us will budge from.  I think you bring up some good points, but I personally don't think they outwiegh the good points on the other side of the coin. 

Just my opinion though and like my wife always tells me it doesn't count.  :-D :-D

Ranger;

I think this is one issue that neither of us will budge from.  I think you bring up some good points, but I personally don't think they outwiegh the good points on the other side of the coin. 

Just my opinion though and like my wife always tells me it doesn't count.  :-D :-D

I guess in the end you win, because I don't think it will ever happen.  BUT, I still say I would hate for a "clash of the titans" type matchup like the Cooper vs. Metzger to be in the quarters.