AAA 113 - Take 2 Pills and Call Us in the Morning

[Bearhugger]

The top four 113s in the state in AAA are Bailes, Carmen, McFarland and Perry in alphabetical order.

We can mix all the cream and iron together we want on any given day and get ourselves into a great state of delusion.

Bailes is the current #1. McFarland and Perry have been beating each other through 3 matches. All of you can debate which one is #2 and #3. Carman comes in a solid #4.

If the "any given day" factor doesn't come into play and one of these pieces of iron doesn't slip on a puddle of cream while rising to the top, then here is what we could see:

#1 Bailes hits #3 McFarland in the quarterfinals. If Bailes wins, he then could hit #4 Carman in the semifinals.

We gave the #1 guy the toughest path. This goes against all of the logic used all season long in all of the other tournaments.

[aacoach126]

You have to beat the best to be the best.

[Doyablameme?]

The top four 113s in the state in AAA are Bailes, Carmen, McFarland and Perry in alphabetical order.

We can mix all the cream and iron together we want on any given day and get ourselves into a great state of delusion.

Bailes is the current #1. McFarland and Perry have been beating each other through 3 matches. All of you can debate which one is #2 and #3. Carman comes in a solid #4.

If the "any given day" factor doesn't come into play and one of these pieces of iron doesn't slip on a puddle of cream while rising to the top, then here is what we could see:

#1 Bailes hits #3 McFarland in the quarterfinals. If Bailes wins, he then could hit #4 Carman in the semifinals.

We gave the #1 guy the toughest path. This goes against all of the logic used all season long in all of the other tournaments.

What EXACTLY would make u happy ? Seeding the tourney based on what ? Seeding meeting in person or via Skype of some sort ? No coach rankings ? A pre tourney spaghetti dinner !!!??? What will make u happy bro ?

[KDunbar]

The top four 113s in the state in AAA are Bailes, Carmen, McFarland and Perry in alphabetical order.

We can mix all the cream and iron together we want on any given day and get ourselves into a great state of delusion.

Bailes is the current #1. McFarland and Perry have been beating each other through 3 matches. All of you can debate which one is #2 and #3. Carman comes in a solid #4.

If the "any given day" factor doesn't come into play and one of these pieces of iron doesn't slip on a puddle of cream while rising to the top, then here is what we could see:

#1 Bailes hits #3 McFarland in the quarterfinals. If Bailes wins, he then could hit #4 Carman in the semifinals.

We gave the #1 guy the toughest path. This goes against all of the logic used all season long in all of the other tournaments.

You probably know this, but has Bailes gone head to head against any of the other 4? If not one might be jumping to conclusions making an emotional choice of him being number one, contrary to Beartracks position on the matter. At some point in your description of the incorrect brackets you would have to pick your poison and decide is it to be a true seeding meeting or the coaches poll. I think it is pretty clear that the coaches poll is not very scientific/factual based and is a fair amount of human bias. I'm not speaking negative about it, just that I don't believe any seeded tournament uses a "poll" as criteria.

[Bearhugger]

The top four 113s in the state in AAA are Bailes, Carmen, McFarland and Perry in alphabetical order.

We can mix all the cream and iron together we want on any given day and get ourselves into a great state of delusion.

Bailes is the current #1. McFarland and Perry have been beating each other through 3 matches. All of you can debate which one is #2 and #3. Carman comes in a solid #4.

If the "any given day" factor doesn't come into play and one of these pieces of iron doesn't slip on a puddle of cream while rising to the top, then here is what we could see:

#1 Bailes hits #3 McFarland in the quarterfinals. If Bailes wins, he then could hit #4 Carman in the semifinals.

We gave the #1 guy the toughest path. This goes against all of the logic used all season long in all of the other tournaments.

You probably know this, but has Bailes gone head to head against any of the other 4? If not one might be jumping to conclusions making an emotional choice of him being number one, contrary to Beartracks position on the matter. At some point in your description of the incorrect brackets you would have to pick your poison and decide is it to be a true seeding meeting or the coaches poll. I think it is pretty clear that the coaches poll is not very scientific/factual based and is a fair amount of human bias. I'm not speaking negative about it, just that I don't believe any seeded tournament uses a "poll" as criteria.

Bear Tracks does not make emotional decisions when ranking. Four seasons ago, Raike and Bartee were not ranked until they got around to wrestling and beating a ranked wrestler. In took almost one month due to scheduling. Last season, Gage Wright experienced the same treatment. This season, Gunner Andrick went from HM to #1 in one day 18 days into the season.

The Winners Choice results show all of the top 113s except Carman. Bailes won and hasn't been beat by WV opponent since.

Of course on any given day, anybody could slip on a puddle of cream and hit their head on some iron.

[Campion]

The top four 113s in the state in AAA are Bailes, Carmen, McFarland and Perry in alphabetical order.

We can mix all the cream and iron together we want on any given day and get ourselves into a great state of delusion.

Bailes is the current #1. McFarland and Perry have been beating each other through 3 matches. All of you can debate which one is #2 and #3. Carman comes in a solid #4.

If the "any given day" factor doesn't come into play and one of these pieces of iron doesn't slip on a puddle of cream while rising to the top, then here is what we could see:

#1 Bailes hits #3 McFarland in the quarterfinals. If Bailes wins, he then could hit #4 Carman in the semifinals.

We gave the #1 guy the toughest path. This goes against all of the logic used all season long in all of the other tournaments.

You probably know this, but has Bailes gone head to head against any of the other 4? If not one might be jumping to conclusions making an emotional choice of him being number one, contrary to Beartracks position on the matter. At some point in your description of the incorrect brackets you would have to pick your poison and decide is it to be a true seeding meeting or the coaches poll. I think it is pretty clear that the coaches poll is not very scientific/factual based and is a fair amount of human bias. I'm not speaking negative about it, just that I don't believe any seeded tournament uses a "poll" as criteria.

Bear Tracks does not make emotional decisions when ranking. Four seasons ago, Raike and Bartee were not ranked until they got around to wrestling and beating a ranked wrestler. In took almost one month due to scheduling. Last season, Gage Wright experienced the same treatment. This season, Gunner Andrick went from HM to #1 in one day 18 days into the season.

The Winners Choice results show all of the top 113s except Carman. Bailes won and hasn't been beat by WV opponent since.

Of course on any given day, anybody could slip on a puddle of cream and hit their head on some iron.

What about the wrestlers who never get the chance to defeat your ranked wrestlers? They don’t have any control of their teams schedule.

[Bearhugger]

You probably know this, but has Bailes gone head to head against any of the other 4? If not one might be jumping to conclusions making an emotional choice of him being number one, contrary to Beartracks position on the matter. At some point in your description of the incorrect brackets you would have to pick your poison and decide is it to be a true seeding meeting or the coaches poll. I think it is pretty clear that the coaches poll is not very scientific/factual based and is a fair amount of human bias. I'm not speaking negative about it, just that I don't believe any seeded tournament uses a "poll" as criteria.

Bear Tracks does not make emotional decisions when ranking. Four seasons ago, Raike and Bartee were not ranked until they got around to wrestling and beating a ranked wrestler. In took almost one month due to scheduling. Last season, Gage Wright experienced the same treatment. This season, Gunner Andrick went from HM to #1 in one day 18 days into the season.

The Winners Choice results show all of the top 113s except Carman. Bailes won and hasn't been beat by WV opponent since.

Of course on any given day, anybody could slip on a puddle of cream and hit their head on some iron.

What about the wrestlers who never get the chance to defeat your ranked wrestlers? They don’t have any control of their teams schedule.

Strength of schedule is discussed and sometimes measured in many sports. If coaches want to stick with the same old schedule from decade to decade, then they need to deal with the ramifications.

[mike.carman]

This is how I see it. Bailes is clearly the 1 seed. Perry beat Carman at Brooke and Perry and McFarland have gone back and forth. Clearly #2 and #3, pick your poison with that, making Carman the #4. Perry beat McFarland at Regionals, making Perry #2 entering the state tournament and in essence making Carman the 3 seed in the tournament because you can't or I should say shouldn't seed a regional runner up over a regional champion. This would put Cantwell at the 4 seed which would make an interesting semifinal match against Carman and Perry which last time went to OT and if lines were drawn off of regional seeds Cantwell would wrestle McFarland in the quarters and then the winner would see Bailes in the semis. Not winning the finals in his region messes up his line with the current pill situation. The way we do it in youth is the regional champions draw the 1-4 seeds. Regional runner ups draw the 5-8 seeds. #1 regions #2 will face the #3 regions #1 in the quarter finals, the #2 Regions #2 will face the #4 regions #1 in the quarters, the #3 regions #2 will face the #1 regions #1 in the quarters and the #4 regions #2 will face the #2 regions #1 in the quarters and so on and so forth, based on that pattern to split wrestlers in brackets and get the best matchups we can. Arguments can be had for both situations.

I personally have no issue with the lines in this bracket as is. They are pretty close to chalk as far as I am concerned. I do agree one side is definitely tougher than the other. Where that comes into play is more in the wrestle backs. I believe Carman, McFarland and Bailes could fall right on top of each other in the wrestle backs putting one of them in the 5th place match instead of the 3rd place match, which affects team scoring and puts an opponent in the 3rd place match which possibly does not belong there. Creating extra bonus points for those matches but negating team placement points for 1 wrestler which could be the difference in a team title.

My argument is this, if team scoring is so important to the tournament, then it should be seeded properly to give each team's athletes the best line they deserve to advance as far as they can. If team scoring is eliminated then the pill makes sense.

[Bearhugger]

This is how I see it. Bailes is clearly the 1 seed. Perry beat Carman at Brooke and Perry and McFarland have gone back and forth. Clearly #2 and #3, pick your poison with that, making Carman the #4. Perry beat McFarland at Regionals, making Perry #2 entering the state tournament and in essence making Carman the 3 seed in the tournament because you can't or I should say shouldn't seed a regional runner up over a regional champion. This would put Cantwell at the 4 seed which would make an interesting semifinal match against Carman and Perry which last time went to OT and if lines were drawn off of regional seeds Cantwell would wrestle McFarland in the quarters and then the winner would see Bailes in the semis. Not winning the finals in his region messes up his line with the current pill situation. The way we do it in youth is the regional champions draw the 1-4 seeds. Regional runner ups draw the 5-8 seeds. #1 regions #2 will face the #3 regions #1 in the quarter finals, the #2 Regions #2 will face the #4 regions #1 in the quarters, the #3 regions #2 will face the #1 regions #1 in the quarters and the #4 regions #2 will face the #2 regions #1 in the quarters and so on and so forth, based on that pattern to split wrestlers in brackets and get the best matchups we can. Arguments can be had for both situations.

I personally have no issue with the lines in this bracket as is. They are pretty close to chalk as far as I am concerned. I do agree one side is definitely tougher than the other. Where that comes into play is more in the wrestle backs. I believe Carman, McFarland and Bailes could fall right on top of each other in the wrestle backs putting one of them in the 5th place match instead of the 3rd place match, which affects team scoring and puts an opponent in the 3rd place match which possibly does not belong there. Creating extra bonus points for those matches but negating team placement points for 1 wrestler which could be the difference in a team title.

My argument is this, if team scoring is so important to the tournament, then it should be seeded properly to give each team's athletes the best line they deserve to advance as far as they can. If team scoring is eliminated then the pill makes sense.

Thank you for your input. TEAM SCORING, TEAM SCORING, TEAM SCORING. That dominates the state tournament conversation everywhere and every time. However, too many people do not merge the impact of the pill on TEAM scoring. They want to keep discussions separate.

[mike.carman]

This is how I see it. Bailes is clearly the 1 seed. Perry beat Carman at Brooke and Perry and McFarland have gone back and forth. Clearly #2 and #3, pick your poison with that, making Carman the #4. Perry beat McFarland at Regionals, making Perry #2 entering the state tournament and in essence making Carman the 3 seed in the tournament because you can't or I should say shouldn't seed a regional runner up over a regional champion. This would put Cantwell at the 4 seed which would make an interesting semifinal match against Carman and Perry which last time went to OT and if lines were drawn off of regional seeds Cantwell would wrestle McFarland in the quarters and then the winner would see Bailes in the semis. Not winning the finals in his region messes up his line with the current pill situation. The way we do it in youth is the regional champions draw the 1-4 seeds. Regional runner ups draw the 5-8 seeds. #1 regions #2 will face the #3 regions #1 in the quarter finals, the #2 Regions #2 will face the #4 regions #1 in the quarters, the #3 regions #2 will face the #1 regions #1 in the quarters and the #4 regions #2 will face the #2 regions #1 in the quarters and so on and so forth, based on that pattern to split wrestlers in brackets and get the best matchups we can. Arguments can be had for both situations.

I personally have no issue with the lines in this bracket as is. They are pretty close to chalk as far as I am concerned. I do agree one side is definitely tougher than the other. Where that comes into play is more in the wrestle backs. I believe Carman, McFarland and Bailes could fall right on top of each other in the wrestle backs putting one of them in the 5th place match instead of the 3rd place match, which affects team scoring and puts an opponent in the 3rd place match which possibly does not belong there. Creating extra bonus points for those matches but negating team placement points for 1 wrestler which could be the difference in a team title.

My argument is this, if team scoring is so important to the tournament, then it should be seeded properly to give each team's athletes the best line they deserve to advance as far as they can. If team scoring is eliminated then the pill makes sense.

Thank you for your input. TEAM SCORING, TEAM SCORING, TEAM SCORING. That dominates the state tournament conversation everywhere and every time. However, too many people do not merge the impact of the pill on TEAM scoring. They want to keep discussions separate.

If they continue to declare a team tournament champion then they can't separate the discussion, they are one and the same. Just look at the big board behind the head table. Everyone watches the team race.

Here is an example of team scoring. Semifinal match. Lets say the one that advances to the finals picks up 10 placement points and 2 advancement points, the one that loses earns 0 points for that match. In the wrestle backs they can earn 1 advancement point for winning 0 for losing and 5 placement points for getting into the 3rd place match and 1 for dropping into the 5th place match. So now they have earned either 6 or 1 point. Winning your placement match give you and additional 2 points. Champion gets a total of 12 points where 3rd would get a total of 8 and 5th would get a total of 3 as it should be. Placing 2nd gets 10, 4th gets 6 and 6th gets 1. The problem is the one that should wrestle for 3rd is in the 5th place match and loses 3 team points simply because he faces the wrong opponent in the cons semifinals. The other problem is you have a #2 that earned points that they probably shouldn't have. Plus they can only earn an additional 2 bonus points for a fall. Not seeding skews the scores and over inflates other scores. NCAA seeds the tournament, why, because team scoring matters. If it didn't they probably wouldn't seed it. I can see why there was no seeding in the Olympics as Mr Archer spoke about earlier, each country is not scoring team points, so there really is no need to really seed it as they are looking for the best 3 only as individuals so it really doesn't matter to a great degree.

If prior state tournaments were seeded and team scores were drawn out, I would be curious to know how drastically it would have changed the team scores if everyone simply wrestled to seed.

I think the results could be quite interesting and probably could have lead to tighter team races and definitely better finals matches, which is what people truly want.

[Bearhugger]

This is how I see it. Bailes is clearly the 1 seed. Perry beat Carman at Brooke and Perry and McFarland have gone back and forth. Clearly #2 and #3, pick your poison with that, making Carman the #4. Perry beat McFarland at Regionals, making Perry #2 entering the state tournament and in essence making Carman the 3 seed in the tournament because you can't or I should say shouldn't seed a regional runner up over a regional champion. This would put Cantwell at the 4 seed which would make an interesting semifinal match against Carman and Perry which last time went to OT and if lines were drawn off of regional seeds Cantwell would wrestle McFarland in the quarters and then the winner would see Bailes in the semis. Not winning the finals in his region messes up his line with the current pill situation. The way we do it in youth is the regional champions draw the 1-4 seeds. Regional runner ups draw the 5-8 seeds. #1 regions #2 will face the #3 regions #1 in the quarter finals, the #2 Regions #2 will face the #4 regions #1 in the quarters, the #3 regions #2 will face the #1 regions #1 in the quarters and the #4 regions #2 will face the #2 regions #1 in the quarters and so on and so forth, based on that pattern to split wrestlers in brackets and get the best matchups we can. Arguments can be had for both situations.

I personally have no issue with the lines in this bracket as is. They are pretty close to chalk as far as I am concerned. I do agree one side is definitely tougher than the other. Where that comes into play is more in the wrestle backs. I believe Carman, McFarland and Bailes could fall right on top of each other in the wrestle backs putting one of them in the 5th place match instead of the 3rd place match, which affects team scoring and puts an opponent in the 3rd place match which possibly does not belong there. Creating extra bonus points for those matches but negating team placement points for 1 wrestler which could be the difference in a team title.

My argument is this, if team scoring is so important to the tournament, then it should be seeded properly to give each team's athletes the best line they deserve to advance as far as they can. If team scoring is eliminated then the pill makes sense.

Thank you for your input. TEAM SCORING, TEAM SCORING, TEAM SCORING. That dominates the state tournament conversation everywhere and every time. However, too many people do not merge the impact of the pill on TEAM scoring. They want to keep discussions separate.

If they continue to declare a team tournament champion then they can't separate the discussion, they are one and the same. Just look at the big board behind the head table. Everyone watches the team race.

Here is an example of team scoring. Semifinal match. Lets say the one that advances to the finals picks up 10 placement points and 2 advancement points, the one that loses earns 0 points for that match. In the wrestle backs they can earn 1 advancement point for winning 0 for losing and 5 placement points for getting into the 3rd place match and 1 for dropping into the 5th place match. So now they have earned either 6 or 1 point. Winning your placement match give you and additional 2 points. Champion gets a total of 12 points where 3rd would get a total of 8 and 5th would get a total of 3 as it should be. Placing 2nd gets 10, 4th gets 6 and 6th gets 1. The problem is the one that should wrestle for 3rd is in the 5th place match and loses 3 team points simply because he faces the wrong opponent in the cons semifinals. The other problem is you have a #2 that earned points that they probably shouldn't have. Plus they can only earn an additional 2 bonus points for a fall. Not seeding skews the scores and over inflates other scores. NCAA seeds the tournament, why, because team scoring matters. If it didn't they probably wouldn't seed it. I can see why there was no seeding in the Olympics as Mr Archer spoke about earlier, each country is not scoring team points, so there really is no need to really seed it as they are looking for the best 3 only as individuals so it really doesn't matter to a great degree.

If prior state tournaments were seeded and team scores were drawn out, I would be curious to know how drastically it would have changed the team scores if everyone simply wrestled to seed.

I think the results could be quite interesting and probably could have lead to tighter team races and definitely better finals matches, which is what people truly want.

What the wrestling community should do is focus on the now and work to improve. Especially the quick, easy improvements. Instead, there is too much DEFLECTION from the current needs. I do not see how something that happened in the 1973 state tournament, the 1990 Olympics or the 2013 Bugtussle Classic needs to be brought up to deflect.

If a wrestler cannot get takedowns good enough today, should he work on his takedowns in the off-season? I would say yes. However, he goes to Dan Gables Super Duper camp because Dan Gable is a legend. Dan Gables' super duper camp ends up focusing on tilts. The said wrestler learns 17 new tilts. He loses next season in SV1 in the regional consolation round because he couldn't get the takedown. He doesn't go to the state. The wrestler followed the legend but didn't focus on the problem or need at hand.

[KDunbar]

I am not making an argument against the concept of seeding the tournament if it makes the tournament better for the wrestlers and it can be done fairly and accurately. I personally think the only real concern might possibly be whether the number two wrestler gets beaten on a different night other than in the lights on Saturday night. I also did not mention or see where it was mentioned that the state tournament was not a team event. (On a side note, Bearhugger has actually often stated that he felt that wrestling was more of or should be more of an individual event rather than a team event because of the many schools with smaller teams and participation). However, my argument is that I do think it is a massive stretch to put forth the concept that the pill has ever or will ever truly have an impact on the overall team champion in the state tournament. The following is a simpler explanation why it is very unlikely.

A wrestler placing 1st in the tournament will have a 4-0 record and score 22 points and a maximum of 8 bonus points= possibly 30 points
A wrestler placing 2nd in the tournament will have a 3-1 record and score 18 points and a maximum of 6 bonus points= possibly 24 points
A wrestler losing the quarterfinals or semifinals and placing 3rd will have a 5-1 record and score 14 points and a maximum of 10 bonus points= possibly 24 points
A wrestler losing in the first round and placing 3rd will have a 5-1 record and score 13 points and a maximum of 10 bonus points= possibly 23 points
A wrestler losing the quarterfinals or semifinals and placing 4th will have a 4-2 record and score 12 points and a maximum of 8 bonus points= possibly 20 points
A wrestler losing in the first round and placing 4th will have a 4-2 record and score 11 points and a maximum of 8 bonus points= possibly 19 points
A wrestler losing the quarterfinals and placing 5th will have a 4-2 record and score 9 points and a maximum of 8 bonus points= possibly 17 points

In this discussion the difference between the scores of the first place wrestler and the others is inconsequential. Also, the difference between 3rd and 4th doesn't come into play. So the only real concern would be between finishing 2nd rather than 3rd and 5th rather than 4th. In the first scenario it is a matter of about 4 team points. In comparing 4th to 5th it is about 3 team points. One would have to have this scenario playing out in multiple weight classes positively for the "winning" team and negatively for the "2nd place" team in order for it to ever be of any consequence in deciding the winner. Quite honestly, if one was to place the "true" second place wrestler in the opening bracket with the eventual champion and gave them the opportunity to wrestle back through the consolation rounds against all the lesser opponents they otherwise would never have faced they could possibly outscore the second place finisher. I have seen the 3rd place finisher outscore the 2nd place finisher on more than one occasion.

So, if one can truly find a fair way to "seed" the tournament for the sake of Saturday nights finals (just don't be too disappointed when the "upset" occurs and one's dream match doesn't come true) then that might be okay. Although I know it wasn't the intention, just don't taint all the past team champions with the thought that they only won because of the unfairness of the pill. The math just doesn't support that.