wvmat.com

Pill 2 could give us semifinal match ups such as:

Andrick vs Jones

Kehler vs Bentley

Mcafee vs Hoffman

Shelek vs Eads

Many #1 vs #2 just to name a few. This could be a new #1 vs #2 in the semifinal state record.

Enjoy!!!!

Goode vs Blessing

Howard vs Brothers

mscoach4 wrote:Howard vs Brothers

Holy Smokes! This is a disaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good catch coach. I haven' made it through everything yet.

We have talked about this for years. The can gets kicked down the road. Here we have the best wrestling season we have had in a long time. A very incredible AAA team race.

Now pill 2 is going to turn the state tournament into a disappointment.

The cream will rise to the top. The second cream will go for third. We might have cottage cheese in the finals vs the cream.

Wild

Anyone have a bracket for what pill 2 looks like? Is anyone else a fan of the idea of having true seconds at State level?

Jeffeey Jones, PARKERSBURG vs.Jackson Evans, Woodrow Wilson

Maybe just maybe there could be some upsets before we get there? To be continued?

aaacoach63 wrote:Jeffeey Jones, PARKERSBURG vs.Jackson Evans, Woodrow Wilson

Maybe we need to wait for the next rankings to come out to see how many are really 1 vs 2.

At 113 you have the current #1 and #2 matching up in the quarters.

standincoach wrote:Anyone have a bracket for what pill 2 looks like? Is anyone else a fan of the idea of having true seconds at State level?

Brackets posted on Mat Time’s Facebook and Instagram accounts! Go check them out and give ‘em a share

FMScoach7 wrote:At 113 you have the current #1 and #2 matching up in the quarters.

Wouldn’t that make one of them not in the top 2?

Wvufan08 wrote:Maybe just maybe there could be some upsets before we get there? To be continued?

It happens every year!

FMScoach7 wrote:At 113 you have the current #1 and #2 matching up in the quarters.

One of them didn’t win their region. Only way that happens. I will also add that the rankings are just a tool and cannot predict future results.

Campion wrote:

FMScoach7 wrote:At 113 you have the current #1 and #2 matching up in the quarters.

One of them didn’t win their region. Only way that happens. I will also add that the rankings are just a tool and cannot predict future results.

A seeding meeting is only a tool.

Trackwrestling is only a tool.

A Pill is only a tool.

The rulebook is only a tool.

We need to use all tools needed for their intended purpose.

A flathead screwdriver can be used for a chisel and too often is.

Bearhugger wrote:

Campion wrote:

FMScoach7 wrote:At 113 you have the current #1 and #2 matching up in the quarters.

One of them didn’t win their region. Only way that happens. I will also add that the rankings are just a tool and cannot predict future results.

A seeding meeting is only a tool.

Trackwrestling is only a tool.

A Pill is only a tool.

The rulebook is only a tool.

We need to use all tools needed for their intended purpose.

A flathead screwdriver can be used for a chisel and too often is.

Lol… Do you penalize someone for beating #1 or #2 in their regionals by using rankings prior to regionals as I believe you recommended? If the pre-regional #1 and #2 have to meet in the Quarters due to one or both of them losing in their region, what is the “Injustice” of that?? Help me understand, please…

Bearhugger wrote:

mscoach4 wrote:Howard vs Brothers

Holy Smokes! This is a disaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good catch coach. I haven' made it through everything yet.

We have talked about this for years. The can gets kicked down the road. Here we have the best wrestling season we have had in a long time. A very incredible AAA team race.

Now pill 2 is going to turn the state tournament into a disappointment.

The cream will rise to the top. The second cream will go for third. We might have cottage cheese in the finals vs the cream.

Each Pill will result in Regional Champions meeting in Semifinals that many of us feel should be a Championship Match. You call pill 2 a disaster when you, yourself said other pills could be worse in your own evaluation.

Campion wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:

Campion wrote:One of them didn’t win their region. Only way that happens. I will also add that the rankings are just a tool and cannot predict future results.

A seeding meeting is only a tool.

Trackwrestling is only a tool.

A Pill is only a tool.

The rulebook is only a tool.

We need to use all tools needed for their intended purpose.

A flathead screwdriver can be used for a chisel and too often is.

Lol… Do you penalize someone for beating #1 or #2 in their regionals by using rankings prior to regionals as I believe you recommended? If the pre-regional #1 and #2 have to meet in the Quarters due to one or both of them losing in their region, what is the “Injustice” of that?? Help me understand, please…

To use the rankings to seed state tournament, there has to be better information to rank from.

To get better information

1. The information must be presented to the entire state which is happening at a 100% clip. (But I won’t sit here and be on the wagon that coaches and/or parents etc aren’t doing enough. They work hard for their kids. They have kids themselves. In a perfect world yes it would be posted, but let’s give people a break some)
2. Some teams limit who they wrestle through the year. It doesn’t happen all the time or even most teams BUT there has been at least one case that has been posted on the forums where a seeded wrestling didn’t really have the credentials and was seeded higher in the regional tournament.

Nothing is perfect, even if the state tournament is seeded based on rankings mistakes will be made there too.

beachbum1234 wrote:

Campion wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:
A seeding meeting is only a tool.

Trackwrestling is only a tool.

A Pill is only a tool.

The rulebook is only a tool.

We need to use all tools needed for their intended purpose.

A flathead screwdriver can be used for a chisel and too often is.

Lol… Do you penalize someone for beating #1 or #2 in their regionals by using rankings prior to regionals as I believe you recommended? If the pre-regional #1 and #2 have to meet in the Quarters due to one or both of them losing in their region, what is the “Injustice” of that?? Help me understand, please…

To use the rankings to seed state tournament, there has to be better information to rank from.

To get better information

1. The information must be presented to the entire state which is happening at a 100% clip. (But I won’t sit here and be on the wagon that coaches and/or parents etc aren’t doing enough. They work hard for their kids. They have kids themselves. In a perfect world yes it would be posted, but let’s give people a break some)
2. Some teams limit who they wrestle through the year. It doesn’t happen all the time or even most teams BUT there has been at least one case that has been posted on the forums where a seeded wrestling didn’t really have the credentials and was seeded higher in the regional tournament.

Nothing is perfect, even if the state tournament is seeded based on rankings mistakes will be made there too.

Well said…

I don’t think the seeding needs to follow the ranking system. Why can’t they do a normal seeding meeting like they do for every other tournament around the state? Nothing is ever going to be perfect. If we based everything off of seeds or rankings then we wouldn’t need to wrestle. Just award the kids based off what they were seeded. I just think seeding would do a better job in comparison to the pill system.

Campion wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:

Campion wrote:One of them didn’t win their region. Only way that happens. I will also add that the rankings are just a tool and cannot predict future results.

A seeding meeting is only a tool.

Trackwrestling is only a tool.

A Pill is only a tool.

The rulebook is only a tool.

We need to use all tools needed for their intended purpose.

A flathead screwdriver can be used for a chisel and too often is.

Lol… Do you penalize someone for beating #1 or #2 in their regionals by using rankings prior to regionals as I believe you recommended? If the pre-regional #1 and #2 have to meet in the Quarters due to one or both of them losing in their region, what is the “Injustice” of that?? Help me understand, please…

If a wrestler loses his region, then his claim to being #1 or #2 becomes weak. But what about the #1 and #2 ranked wrestlers that won their region and the pill has them hitting in the semifinals? We seed tournaments all season long to avoid this.

beachbum1234 wrote:

Campion wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:
A seeding meeting is only a tool.

Trackwrestling is only a tool.

A Pill is only a tool.

The rulebook is only a tool.

We need to use all tools needed for their intended purpose.

A flathead screwdriver can be used for a chisel and too often is.

Lol… Do you penalize someone for beating #1 or #2 in their regionals by using rankings prior to regionals as I believe you recommended? If the pre-regional #1 and #2 have to meet in the Quarters due to one or both of them losing in their region, what is the “Injustice” of that?? Help me understand, please…

To use the rankings to seed state tournament, there has to be better information to rank from.

To get better information

1. The information must be presented to the entire state which is happening at a 100% clip. (But I won’t sit here and be on the wagon that coaches and/or parents etc aren’t doing enough. They work hard for their kids. They have kids themselves. In a perfect world yes it would be posted, but let’s give people a break some)
2. Some teams limit who they wrestle through the year. It doesn’t happen all the time or even most teams BUT there has been at least one case that has been posted on the forums where a seeded wrestling didn’t really have the credentials and was seeded higher in the regional tournament.

Nothing is perfect, even if the state tournament is seeded based on rankings mistakes will be made there too.

We have continued to embrace mistakes and make excuses for the past 20 to 30 years in every aspect of life here in the United States. We simply have a wrestling community that will not put forth the effort to ensure the clear cut #1 and #2 wrestlers are given the opportunity to meet in the finals. Where there is a will, there is a way. There simply hasn't been any will.

From a selfish standpoint, we get to see two of the best meet in the quarterfinals, the semifinals and then fewer, but some in the finals. Heck, we even get to see a returning runner up vs a returning 6th placer on opening Thursday night.

At 106 AAA, there could be a matchup of current state champs meeting in the second round. 3x State Champion Zoey Salmons versus 2x Caitlynn Ash. Both are 2022 West Virginia Girls State Champions. Salmons at 107 and Ash at 115.

--What would be the proposed seeding criteria for the state tournament?

--If that criteria is the same as the one used for regionals, I can think of more than a few ways where regional results would be negated through this method. The regional tournament is an extension of the state tournament. If regional results are negated due to seeding criteria, what is the point of wrestling the regional tournament.

--What about a qualifier system. Wrestlers earn qualification points through out the year in order to qualify for the state tournament?

--Well if they qualify based on points, wouldn't those points have to be weight class based? A wrestler in 113 shouldn't earn points towards 106.

--Then wrestlers would not be eligible for late season weight changes.

The above are just a few problems that come about from trying to seed the entire state tournament. It will cause more chaos and confusion than is necessary. The solution can't be more problematic than the problem itself.

I understand the frustration with "#1 and #2" meeting in the semi-finals. There is an easy solution to this problem. If #1 and #2 both win their region, and a pill places those wrestlers on the same side of the bracket, a new pill should be drawn for that weight class alone. This is something the coaches committee is aware of and working towards getting approved (from my understanding).

brentsams wrote:At 106 AAA, there could be a matchup of current state champs meeting in the second round. 3x State Champion Zoey Salmons versus 2x Caitlynn Ash. Both are 2022 West Virginia Girls State Champions. Salmons at 107 and Ash at 115.

Yes. I looked at that and it is possible the #1 Dolan could go through 2 girls to make the semis. I bet that has never happened before.

aacoach126 wrote:--What would be the proposed seeding criteria for the state tournament?

--If that criteria is the same as the one used for regionals, I can think of more than a few ways where regional results would be negated through this method. The regional tournament is an extension of the state tournament. If regional results are negated due to seeding criteria, what is the point of wrestling the regional tournament.

--What about a qualifier system. Wrestlers earn qualification points through out the year in order to qualify for the state tournament?

--Well if they qualify based on points, wouldn't those points have to be weight class based? A wrestler in 113 shouldn't earn points towards 106.

--Then wrestlers would not be eligible for late season weight changes.

The above are just a few problems that come about from trying to seed the entire state tournament. It will cause more chaos and confusion than is necessary. The solution can't be more problematic than the problem itself.

I understand the frustration with "#1 and #2" meeting in the semi-finals. There is an easy solution to this problem. If #1 and #2 both win their region, and a pill places those wrestlers on the same side of the bracket, a new pill should be drawn for that weight class alone. This is something the coaches committee is aware of and working towards getting approved (from my understanding).

The solution you speak of has been mentioned and discussed on this forum at least two seasons ago. I am sure somebody can dig up the origin post. It doesn't take 2, 3 or 4 years to approve a second pill draw for one weight class. This could be discussed and approved in 30 minutes. The people involved either do not want to make the change or they are simply too overwhelmed in their duties to take on a 30 minute task.

As for me, I am simply keeping the dialogue open. I have friends for the pill as is. Some want seeding. I am fine with drawing a second pill to separate 1 and 2.

Bearhugger wrote:
The solution you speak of has been mentioned and discussed on this forum at least two seasons ago. I am sure somebody can dig up the origin post. It doesn't take 2, 3 or 4 years to approve a second pill draw for one weight class. This could be discussed and approved in 30 minutes. The people involved either do not want to make the change or they are simply too overwhelmed in their duties to take on a 30 minute task.

As for me, I am simply keeping the dialogue open. I have friends for the pill as is. Some want seeding. I am fine with drawing a second pill to separate 1 and 2.

It should also be stated that just because the coaches committee has voted on a topic does not mean that the SSAC will approve it. There's more to it that a "30 minute task"

aacoach126 wrote:--What would be the proposed seeding criteria for the state tournament?

--If that criteria is the same as the one used for regionals, I can think of more than a few ways where regional results would be negated through this method. The regional tournament is an extension of the state tournament. If regional results are negated due to seeding criteria, what is the point of wrestling the regional tournament.

--What about a qualifier system. Wrestlers earn qualification points through out the year in order to qualify for the state tournament?

--Well if they qualify based on points, wouldn't those points have to be weight class based? A wrestler in 113 shouldn't earn points towards 106.

--Then wrestlers would not be eligible for late season weight changes.

The above are just a few problems that come about from trying to seed the entire state tournament. It will cause more chaos and confusion than is necessary. The solution can't be more problematic than the problem itself.

I understand the frustration with "#1 and #2" meeting in the semi-finals. There is an easy solution to this problem. If #1 and #2 both win their region, and a pill places those wrestlers on the same side of the bracket, a new pill should be drawn for that weight class alone. This is something the coaches committee is aware of and working towards getting approved (from my understanding).

Agree with everything you said. 2 questions I have…

1. is #1 and #2 seeds? ranked? which poll(s)? Other criteria?
2. Is this determination of who is #1 and #2, through whichever method or process, before or after Regionals?

I don’t think it is always clear who they would be, regardless. Especially distinguishing between #2a and #2b as one of the coaches pointed out to me earlier.

Campion wrote:
Agree with everything you said. 2 questions I have…

1. is #1 and #2 seeds? ranked? which poll(s)? Other criteria?
2. Is this determination of who is #1 and #2, through whichever method or process, before or after Regionals?

I don’t think it is always clear who they would be, regardless. Especially distinguishing between #2a and #2b as one of the coaches pointed out to me earlier.

If it were up to me, coaches would vote one last time after regionals are over (BUT PRIOR TO SELECTING THE PILL). This would allow any upsets and new match ups to be accounted for in the rankings. Then, after this set of rankings, the new #1 and #2 could be separated should the pill place them on the same side of the bracket.

Coaches rankings would be the most fair set of rankings to go off of. Every coach has the opportunity to make their voice heard in these voting forums. Voting forums are open for 3-4 days on average and allow plenty of time to sort everything out.