New State Tournament format

[KDunbar]

In the "What's New" section of the home page there is a letter penned by Coach Bill Archer with information that at the WV State Tournament next winter (2020) there will be a mechanism in place to prevent the 1st and 2nd "ranked" wrestlers from meeting in the semis. The word used was "ranked" and not "seeded". The question now to be answered is: Who is doing the rankings? If it is a panel of "voters" such as the coaches who vote on this web site, I hope the participation goes up several fold. Also, I wonder if this will have any affect on the coaches who in the past have voiced that they have no use or interest in these rankings. I'm not saying that their opinions were incorrect before, but now maybe the rankings have some importance rather than just a source of contention for fans who respond in inappropriate fashions.

Bearhugger may need to keep polishing up his rankings and the mechanisms used in their calculations, as they may well be needed. If nothing else, they will be a helpful source for those that do vote to refer to for a summary of results and matches that have taken place. Many coaches have repeatedly voiced that they do not have time to keep up with the many matches happening around the state. Also, maybe this will lead to some form of mandatory reporting of results to the WVSSAC in order for the rankings to be considered more accurate. I'm guessing that the rankings will not be merely the first and second ranked wrestlers listed on a weekly basis. I'm also hoping that they surely don't actually just wait until after regionals and do some sort of quick poll on who's 1st and 2nd. Sometimes public opinion can have an effect on some mistaken decisions that can be made on the spur of the moment. Time will tell.

[mattman]

With basically 8 regions and 28 weight classes (a/aa and aaa) gonna be tricky to perfect. I like the old system as a whole over seeding. Keeps opinions and politics out of the sport. If it isn’t broken, you can’t repair it.

[KDunbar]

Just so there's no confusion, there is not going to be any seeding from what was written. Secondly, the only change that will be made appears to be shifting one of the other two 4 man "sections" of the brackets randomly via an "alternate pill" if the original pill paired up the so called first and second ranked wrestlers (assuming they both made it to the semis). This would randomly shift one of the two other 4 man brackets on the other half in place of the second ranked wrestler's group of 4 man pairings. This will have to be done at the onset of the tournament and can't be held off until it is clear that both the so-called first and second ranked wrestlers make it to the semis, as the pairing of the consolation bouts will be affected by this change before that outcome is known. Also, I'm pretty sure AAA will have it's ranking while AA/A will have their own ranking. They will not be combined. The mystery remains, how are the first and second rank going to be determined.

[mattman]

Just so there's no confusion, there is not going to be any seeding from what was written. Secondly, the only change that will be made appears to be shifting one of the other two 4 man "sections" of the brackets randomly via an "alternate pill" if the original pill paired up the so called first and second ranked wrestlers (assuming they both made it to the semis). This would randomly shift one of the two other 4 man brackets on the other half in place of the second ranked wrestler's group of 4 man pairings. This will have to be done at the onset of the tournament and can't be held off until it is clear that both the so-called first and second ranked wrestlers make it to the semis, as the pairing of the consolation bouts will be affected by this change before that outcome is known. Also, I'm pretty sure AAA will have it's ranking while AA/A will have their own ranking. They will not be combined. The mystery remains, how are the first and second rank going to be determined.

I may be confused myself, but say pill 1 has the 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers set to see each other in the semifinal round at 106 lbs. They are then forced to draw another pill and say pill 3 is the lucky contestant. Now the 106 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers are separated at the top and bottom half of the bracket but now the 145lb 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers are on a collision course to meet up in the semis? With only 2 semifinal bouts in each weight there is a 50/50 shot that the top 2 ranked could see each other in semis unless both top ranked wrestlers are in the same region. With 4 regions and 14 weight classes, it would be nearly impossible to separate just 2 wrestlers. Ranking the top 4 would be a much easier task.

[coach_williams]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

[mattman]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

my quick research was from memory and the final “poll” was a guide. A-AA had 8 (1-2)in the finals and AAA had 6 (1-2) ranked in finals. That’s a 50/50 split. That tells me two things. 1 being the final polls were pretty darn close and the second being, the usual format (not perfect) but as good as any seeded tournament could do. I’m interested to see what others think as this thread continues.

[KDunbar]

Just so there's no confusion, there is not going to be any seeding from what was written. Secondly, the only change that will be made appears to be shifting one of the other two 4 man "sections" of the brackets randomly via an "alternate pill" if the original pill paired up the so called first and second ranked wrestlers (assuming they both made it to the semis). This would randomly shift one of the two other 4 man brackets on the other half in place of the second ranked wrestler's group of 4 man pairings. This will have to be done at the onset of the tournament and can't be held off until it is clear that both the so-called first and second ranked wrestlers make it to the semis, as the pairing of the consolation bouts will be affected by this change before that outcome is known. Also, I'm pretty sure AAA will have it's ranking while AA/A will have their own ranking. They will not be combined. The mystery remains, how are the first and second rank going to be determined.

I may be confused myself, but say pill 1 has the 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers set to see each other in the semifinal round at 106 lbs. They are then forced to draw another pill and say pill 3 is the lucky contestant. Now the 106 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers are separated at the top and bottom half of the bracket but now the 145lb 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers are on a collision course to meet up in the semis? With only 2 semifinal bouts in each weight there is a 50/50 shot that the top 2 ranked could see each other in semis unless both top ranked wrestlers are in the same region. With 4 regions and 14 weight classes, it would be nearly impossible to separate just 2 wrestlers. Ranking the top 4 would be a much easier task.

I don't believe they are going to use another pill for the other tournament brackets. Just a pill for the one bracket that they wish to change. The reason it will be a pill is so there will be a random choice as to which of the other two 4 wrestler pairing to switch places with. That way the regional pairings all stay the same for the first 2 matches. I am surmising this from what was written but have no real inside information.

[KDunbar]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

I don't think the above example is actually the issue. If Cruickshanks beat Gibson at the regionals, with that being the most recent event before the state, then heading into the state Cruickshanks had the right to be ranked ahead of him. Rankings are merely what they are and outcomes neither prove them wrong or right. At the time they are made they are just somebody's best guess. The issue is "who are the somebodies that are guessing and are they the ones best qualified to make the guesses" ? I'm not offering an answer to that question, just asking it.

[KDunbar]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

my quick research was from memory and the final “poll” was a guide. A-AA had 8 (1-2)in the finals and AAA had 6 (1-2) ranked in finals. That’s a 50/50 split. That tells me two things. 1 being the final polls were pretty darn close and the second being, the usual format (not perfect) but as good as any seeded tournament could do. I’m interested to see what others think as this thread continues.

I'd have to think this through further, but I'm not sure the conclusions made above are statistically accurate. If by chance the top two wrestlers were never in the same region finishing 1st and 2nd, then the pill has a 66.7% chance of separating the top 2 wrestlers and a 33.3% chance of matching them up in the semis. Chance would on average over the years work things out this way. When the top 2 are in the same region and finish 1st and 2nd, then the pill can never match them up, thus making the pill system appear better than it actually is.
Unfortunately, the issue each year is that there are usually only 1 or 2 matches for the entire tournament when it appears very clear cut who are the top two and they are meeting in the semis. For example , last year (with no disrespect intended towards the actual 2nd place finisher) 182 lb AAA, Carmen (JM) met Lanham (Hunt) in the semis. It is for those unfortunate instance that this is really an issue I believe.

[mattman]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

my quick research was from memory and the final “poll” was a guide. A-AA had 8 (1-2)in the finals and AAA had 6 (1-2) ranked in finals. That’s a 50/50 split. That tells me two things. 1 being the final polls were pretty darn close and the second being, the usual format (not perfect) but as good as any seeded tournament could do. I’m interested to see what others think as this thread continues.

I'd have to think this through further, but I'm not sure the conclusions made above are statistically accurate. If by chance the top two wrestlers were never in the same region finishing 1st and 2nd, then the pill has a 66.7% chance of separating the top 2 wrestlers and a 33.3% chance of matching them up in the semis. Chance would on average over the years work things out this way. When the top 2 are in the same region and finish 1st and 2nd, then the pill can never match them up, thus making the pill system appear better than it actually is.
Unfortunately, the issue each year is that there are usually only 1 or 2 matches for the entire tournament when it appears very clear cut who are the top two and they are meeting in the semis. For example , last year (with no disrespect intended towards the actual 2nd place finisher) 182 lb AAA, Carmen (JM) met Lanham (Hunt) in the semis. It is for those unfortunate instance that this is really an issue I believe.

i didn’t clarify my comment. A-AA had 8 top 2 ranked kids meet up in the finals. AAA had 6 top 2 ranked kids in the finals. When I say 1-2 ranked wrestlers, I based that off the final poll before the state tournament began. What I mean by 50/50 split was 14 weight classes and two divisions is 28 total weights. 8A-AA and 6 AAA is 14. That was my botched formula lol

[mike.carman]

my quick research was from memory and the final “poll” was a guide. A-AA had 8 (1-2)in the finals and AAA had 6 (1-2) ranked in finals. That’s a 50/50 split. That tells me two things. 1 being the final polls were pretty darn close and the second being, the usual format (not perfect) but as good as any seeded tournament could do. I’m interested to see what others think as this thread continues.

I'd have to think this through further, but I'm not sure the conclusions made above are statistically accurate. If by chance the top two wrestlers were never in the same region finishing 1st and 2nd, then the pill has a 66.7% chance of separating the top 2 wrestlers and a 33.3% chance of matching them up in the semis. Chance would on average over the years work things out this way. When the top 2 are in the same region and finish 1st and 2nd, then the pill can never match them up, thus making the pill system appear better than it actually is.
Unfortunately, the issue each year is that there are usually only 1 or 2 matches for the entire tournament when it appears very clear cut who are the top two and they are meeting in the semis. For example , last year (with no disrespect intended towards the actual 2nd place finisher) 182 lb AAA, Carmen (JM) met Lanham (Hunt) in the semis. It is for those unfortunate instance that this is really an issue I believe.

i didn’t clarify my comment. A-AA had 8 top 2 ranked kids meet up in the finals. AAA had 6 top 2 ranked kids in the finals. When I say 1-2 ranked wrestlers, I based that off the final poll before the state tournament began. What I mean by 50/50 split was 14 weight classes and two divisions is 28 total weights. 8A-AA and 6 AAA is 14. That was my botched formula lol

The one thing that your numbers don't bring up is that in AAA 7 1vs2 matches were held in the semi-finals. That is half the weight classes in AAA.

[Bearhugger]

Just so there's no confusion, there is not going to be any seeding from what was written. Secondly, the only change that will be made appears to be shifting one of the other two 4 man "sections" of the brackets randomly via an "alternate pill" if the original pill paired up the so called first and second ranked wrestlers (assuming they both made it to the semis). This would randomly shift one of the two other 4 man brackets on the other half in place of the second ranked wrestler's group of 4 man pairings. This will have to be done at the onset of the tournament and can't be held off until it is clear that both the so-called first and second ranked wrestlers make it to the semis, as the pairing of the consolation bouts will be affected by this change before that outcome is known. Also, I'm pretty sure AAA will have it's ranking while AA/A will have their own ranking. They will not be combined. The mystery remains, how are the first and second rank going to be determined.

I may be confused myself, but say pill 1 has the 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers set to see each other in the semifinal round at 106 lbs. They are then forced to draw another pill and say pill 3 is the lucky contestant. Now the 106 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers are separated at the top and bottom half of the bracket but now the 145lb 1 and 2 ranked wrestlers are on a collision course to meet up in the semis? With only 2 semifinal bouts in each weight there is a 50/50 shot that the top 2 ranked could see each other in semis unless both top ranked wrestlers are in the same region. With 4 regions and 14 weight classes, it would be nearly impossible to separate just 2 wrestlers. Ranking the top 4 would be a much easier task.

I don't believe they are going to use another pill for the other tournament brackets. Just a pill for the one bracket that they wish to change. The reason it will be a pill is so there will be a random choice as to which of the other two 4 wrestler pairing to switch places with. That way the regional pairings all stay the same for the first 2 matches. I am surmising this from what was written but have no real inside information.

The first time I read the new format memo, I also interpreted it that only the weight class that contained a #1 and #2 semi-final match up would have an alternative pill drawn. This makes the most sense and prevents shaking up the entire state tournament.

[Bearhugger]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

As you know, all three of these wrestlers were in region 2. The pill split them all apart fairly. Whiting was ranked #1 going into the state tournament and he should have been. He was undefeated within AA/A WV. Regardless of who placed 2nd and 3rd in region 2, the pill put Cruickshanks and Gibson down on one side and had Whiting at the top. In this scenario, WV lucked out by having all of these guys in the same region.

Where the challenge will be is when we have the perceived top 2 wrestlers in different regions. Also, the schools that wrestle few instate opponents will be harder pressed in justifying their guy being in the top 2...………..unless...…………..he/she does attend one of the bigger WV tournaments and does well.

This new format should make the WSAZ more attractive.

[Bearhugger]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

I don't think the above example is actually the issue. If Cruickshanks beat Gibson at the regionals, with that being the most recent event before the state, then heading into the state Cruickshanks had the right to be ranked ahead of him. Rankings are merely what they are and outcomes neither prove them wrong or right. At the time they are made they are just somebody's best guess. The issue is "who are the somebodies that are guessing and are they the ones best qualified to make the guesses" ? I'm not offering an answer to that question, just asking it.

Two state tournaments x 14 weight classes = 28 #1 wrestlers and 28 #2 wrestlers. I bet out of 28 weight classes, 100 of us along with 100 coaches would agree on 26 to 27 out of 28 as to who is #1 and #2. Where we might get slicked is with some wrestler, from some far away school that nobody has seen or knows much about. Many of these situations could happen over in AAA region 2. However, Musselman always comes to the WSAZ. Spring Mills comes to the Winner's Choice and the South Classic. Some schools are either going to have to change their schedule some or just let the pill slot their wrestlers accordingly. I am sure the WSAZ hasn't filled up 64 brackets yet. Still time to jump in.

[Bearhugger]

To follow along throughout the season, I suggest the wrestling community follows Bear Tracks. Bear Tracks provides the wrestler's state tournament placement, their region and for the non-placers, their state tournament record is mentioned. A STQ that went 2-2 made it to the blood round. This information is provided in each edition.

Bounce these unofficial and unqualified rankings against the official rankings and look for differences in terms of who the top 2 are.

Rankings are a report card. How are you doing so far???? Not ranked, then you better get it together. Ranked low, you better turn up the heat. Ranked #1, don't get the big head.

Rankings are a forecasting tool. Who does everybody THINK will win, THINK will make the finals, THINK will place high or THINK will place.

Rankings are compiled based on wins and losses as one goes through the season. This same information, wins and losses, is used for seeding criteria.

Most brackets, in most tournaments, get seeded accurately in terms of who is #1 and #2. The toss up is most often between #2 and #3, but they get to sort that out on the mat in the semi-finals.

[coach_williams]

I don't think the above example is actually the issue. If Cruickshanks beat Gibson at the regionals, with that being the most recent event before the state, then heading into the state Cruickshanks had the right to be ranked ahead of him. Rankings are merely what they are and outcomes neither prove them wrong or right. At the time they are made they are just somebody's best guess. The issue is "who are the somebodies that are guessing and are they the ones best qualified to make the guesses" ? I'm not offering an answer to that question, just asking it.

That was my point. The rankings are opinions and best guess, not an exact science. Intentionally splitting the #1 and #2 "ranked" wrestlers is manipulation of the randomness of the tournament. Do we really want the tournament manipulated to ensure that two particular wrestlers have the best shot to be in the championships based on opinion and best guess? Why not just have seeding criteria?

[coach_williams]

My concern is this. There is no such thing as perfectly identifying the top 2 "ranked" wrestlers prior to states with a ranking system. 2019's AA/A 160 is a prime example of this.

Feb 8 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Gibson, 3rd Cruickshanks
Feb 15 rankings: 1st Whiting, 2nd Cruickshanks, 3rd Gibson (due to Cruickshanks defeating Gibson at regionals)
Feb 20 states results: 1st Gibson, 2nd Whiting, 6th Cruickshanks

So who should have been ranked 1st and 2nd?

As you know, all three of these wrestlers were in region 2. The pill split them all apart fairly. Whiting was ranked #1 going into the state tournament and he should have been. He was undefeated within AA/A WV. Regardless of who placed 2nd and 3rd in region 2, the pill put Cruickshanks and Gibson down on one side and had Whiting at the top. In this scenario, WV lucked out by having all of these guys in the same region.

Where the challenge will be is when we have the perceived top 2 wrestlers in different regions. Also, the schools that wrestle few instate opponents will be harder pressed in justifying their guy being in the top 2...………..unless...…………..he/she does attend one of the bigger WV tournaments and does well.

This new format should make the WSAZ more attractive.

I was using AA/A 160 as more of an example that rankings are not an infallible definer of who the "top 2" are fo the purpose of seeding the state tournament. You are correct that it worked out this year, but in other scenarios it may not be so easily resolved.

[Bearhugger]

I don't think the above example is actually the issue. If Cruickshanks beat Gibson at the regionals, with that being the most recent event before the state, then heading into the state Cruickshanks had the right to be ranked ahead of him. Rankings are merely what they are and outcomes neither prove them wrong or right. At the time they are made they are just somebody's best guess. The issue is "who are the somebodies that are guessing and are they the ones best qualified to make the guesses" ? I'm not offering an answer to that question, just asking it.

That was my point. The rankings are opinions and best guess, not an exact science. Intentionally splitting the #1 and #2 "ranked" wrestlers is manipulation of the randomness of the tournament. Do we really want the tournament manipulated to ensure that two particular wrestlers have the best shot to be in the championships based on opinion and best guess? Why not just have seeding criteria?

The two best meeting in the semis has been an issue for decades I am sure. It is obvious that Carmen vs Lanham was the match that finally brought this issue to the decision makers' table. Those two were ranked as the two best, they were "thought" to be the two best and they went 1-1 against each other. Furthermore, both of them did NOT lose to any other WV wrestler. Super furthermore, they both handily defeated the AA/A 182 state champion during the season. This is the likely situation that the state of WV will experience again.

So what everybody should look for during the 2019/2020 is who begins the season ranked #1 and #2. Follow the scores that are posted. Look for a strong #3 who could be the real #2. Who is undefeated within WV AAA and WV AA/A?? Ignore wins and losses outside of the state. Another aspect to consider is schedule. If your school doesn't wrestle in the Winner's Choice, the WSAZ or the OVAC, then you better have matched up somewhere, somehow with some guys in the top 5. If none of these apply, then your schedule is too weak to claim a #1 or #2 ranking before the state tournament.

[mscoach4]

So the biggest injustice that could happen with the pill is that the 2nd best wrestler might finish 3rd. more importantly a team might lose those team points. in 1976 4 teams finished within 3 1/2 points of each other at the top. With all that said I would be willing to take that risk to keep seeding by someones opinion out of the state tourney.

[Sj69]

I have an idea why don't we just let the top five teams' coaches from last year take the placers from the regionals and seed them. I think that way everyone would be happy with the results. It's a joke no one would be happy with someone's opinion setting up the tournament. The semi- finals are called the blood round for reason. Sure some are matches that should be finals, but the thing I have loved about wrestling since I got involve in high was that you had to put you toe on the line and beat the person across from you to advance or win the tournament. Let it stay as random as possibly without the personal opinion dictating who should be wrestling who.

[Bearhugger]

So the biggest injustice that could happen with the pill is that the 2nd best wrestler might finish 3rd. more importantly a team might lose those team points. in 1976 4 teams finished within 3 1/2 points of each other at the top. With all that said I would be willing to take that risk to keep seeding by someones opinion out of the state tourney.

What if the "opinion" is agreed upon by everybody? Who reading disagrees that Carmen and Lanham were not #1 and #2 at AAA 182 last season?

[mscoach57]

I have an idea why don't we just let the top five teams' coaches from last year take the placers from the regionals and seed them. I think that way everyone would be happy with the results. It's a joke no one would be happy with someone's opinion setting up the tournament. The semi- finals are called the blood round for reason. Sure some are matches that should be finals, but the thing I have loved about wrestling since I got involve in high was that you had to put you toe on the line and beat the person across from you to advance or win the tournament. Let it stay as random as possibly without the personal opinion dictating who should be wrestling who.

The blood round is not the semi finals. The blood round is the round in the consolation bracket wherein the loser is out and the winner is guaranteed a spot on the podium. The blood round is obviously different depending upon whether a tournament places top 6 or top 8.

[mattman]

I don't think the above example is actually the issue. If Cruickshanks beat Gibson at the regionals, with that being the most recent event before the state, then heading into the state Cruickshanks had the right to be ranked ahead of him. Rankings are merely what they are and outcomes neither prove them wrong or right. At the time they are made they are just somebody's best guess. The issue is "who are the somebodies that are guessing and are they the ones best qualified to make the guesses" ? I'm not offering an answer to that question, just asking it.

That was my point. The rankings are opinions and best guess, not an exact science. Intentionally splitting the #1 and #2 "ranked" wrestlers is manipulation of the randomness of the tournament. Do we really want the tournament manipulated to ensure that two particular wrestlers have the best shot to be in the championships based on opinion and best guess? Why not just have seeding criteria?

best post yet

[admin]

From the Editor:
I got this message from Coach Bill Archer:

Ask Dr. to post this.
"Any of you that really want to know the complete answer to the Pill question, please give me a call. Mr. Dunbar, Gator or Bearhugge"

Further note from The Editor:
You'll find (last year's) contact information for Coach Archer here:
http://www.wvmat.com/statetou/00tourn.htm

Still further note from The Editor:
What year are we in now? I know the calendar says that this is 2019 -- but we are in the 2020 school year (began 2019, ends 2020).
So....., what year are we in now?

[KDunbar]

From the Editor:
I got this message from Coach Bill Archer:

Ask Dr. to post this.
"Any of you that really want to know the complete answer to the Pill question, please give me a call. Mr. Dunbar, Gator or Bearhugge"

Further note from The Editor:
You'll find (last year's) contact information for Coach Archer here:
http://www.wvmat.com/statetou/00tourn.htm

Still further note from The Editor:
What year are we in now? I know the calendar says that this is 2019 -- but we are in the 2020 school year (began 2019, ends 2020).
So....., what year are we in now?

I appreciate Coach Archer's offer and willingness to explain this further. If I get a chance at a decent hour of the day and day of the week, I may take him up on that. Still a little while to go before the season starts, so plenty of time to find out just what the thinking is. However, since Gator hasn't contributed anything of value to this thread, I would ask Coach Archer to please ignore his calls .

[mattman]

From the Editor:
I got this message from Coach Bill Archer:

Ask Dr. to post this.
"Any of you that really want to know the complete answer to the Pill question, please give me a call. Mr. Dunbar, Gator or Bearhugge"

Further note from The Editor:
You'll find (last year's) contact information for Coach Archer here:
http://www.wvmat.com/statetou/00tourn.htm

Still further note from The Editor:
What year are we in now? I know the calendar says that this is 2019 -- but we are in the 2020 school year (began 2019, ends 2020).
So....., what year are we in now?

Would it be easier for someone that knows the hall of famer on a personal level to simply find out the facts and post them?! No need to make a back door move and keep the rest of us wondering and shut the topic down. Just simply find out what the deal is and post it. Why even make the post of you call and you call and you call? You obviously know the man on a personal level and more than likely already know what the deal is. I speak as a curious one. Fill myself and the rest of the assumers in if you could sir.?

[firedawg64]

Why can we not seperate AA and A from each other. It seems kind of crazy that AA/A share champions but AAA gets their own. I am sure there is enough kids in A to make a seperate class. It is one of a couple sports that still do that. It should be changed or combine them all and watch the free for all.

[JR080502]

I think it should be winner take all tournament. But how about we make it single A class and then join AA and AAA together?

[admin]

Memo from Coach Archer
https://www.wvmat.com/statetou/archermemopill.pdf

[KDunbar]

Memo from Coach Archer
https://www.wvmat.com/statetou/archermemopill.pdf

So, if I am to restate this, it appears that the evening when the regionals are completed the "Coaches Committee" members will conference call and will initially use the regional seeding criteria, and then any other input that they choose to utilize, and then determine the 1st and 2nd ranked wrestler in each weight class (AAA & AA/A separately of course). This will not be directly associated with any other ranking up to that point (although those prior rankings over the course of the season and especially leading up to the regionals might have some effect in the court of public opinion and thus in helping the Coaches Committee in doing their job). Then if the "primary pill" drawn pairs any of the 1st and 2nd ranked wrestlers in a weight class, the "alternate pill" will be used to rearrange the bracket in that particular weight class, thus "unpairing" the 1st and 2nd ranked wrestlers.
I'm sure this won't make everyone happy, but it comes closer in pleasing those wanting seedings while somewhat limiting the human factor from the equation. I'm also going to put forth a guess that the Coaches Committee may be comprised of more individuals than the number of coaches that routinely vote in the rankings or polls. Also, these individuals hopefully are aware of the job awaiting them well in advance so that they will stay abreast of the top individuals throughout the state in order to make the decisions required of them the evening of the regionals. I for one think this sounds logical and reasonable to address the situation regarding the main and primary concern that most people have had.