wvmat.com

I was just wondering if it might be too early to begin discussing the pros and cons of " The Pill"?

Why the pill is used: it is easier

What we try to teach kids:

The easy wrong should not be chosen over the harder right.

For the sake of argument, if you were to seed the state tournament, what would be your seeding criteria?

IndyHart wrote:For the sake of argument, if you were to seed the state tournament, what would be your seeding criteria?

I would seed the regional champions based off of head to head, common opponents, and then record. Depending on how the regional champions were seeded would determine the order of the remainder falling in.

Did it with another states junior high tournament and 99% of the time the best 2 were seperated even if they were champion and runner up from same region.

Just a way, don't necessarily care if it stays the same but think there is a better way.

The pill is the fairest way to do it. Maybe the first and second best guys meet sometimes in the semis. So what. Its often debatable who #2, #3 and #4 is anyways. Rarely is it crystal clear.

You can't say fairest. If all 4 regional champions wrestled in a season and one of them beat all and another beat 2 out of 3, then the fairest would be to seed. It is not the fairest, it is the quickest and easiest and allows someone to wash their hands of the time that it would take. If it were fairest all the NCAA tournaments would use it.....but they still seed.

I can...and did, say fairest.

Rarely are you going to have a circumstance where 1 regional champ has wrestled and beat all of the other regional champs, and a second regional champ in the same weight has wrestled and beat the remaining two regional champs. They simply do not all wrestle each other that frequently. Sure, if they did, and the results where as you stated (in this make believe perfect scenario)...it would seem fairer to seed them.

But, now lets talk in the real world. Its almost never going to be the case that they are going to have all faced each other, with two of them having defeated the other two regional champs. So we are left with a situation where some of them have wrestled each other. Maybe one has defeated a couple of the other. Maybe he has split with them. Maybe the other regional champ has split with some of the other regional champs as well. What do we do? Look at common opponents? By the end of the year there will likely be a ton of common opponents...with varying results. Are the coaches going to argue for hours over who deserves to be seeded higher? Someone mentioned it would then go to best record. Isnt that unfair to teams who wrestle more difficult schedules? Ive seen many wrestlers show up to states with only a few losses, only to be beat by someone who has 15+ losses from a team that has a difficult schedule. Obviously win/loss record means very little if the wrestlers have not faced similar competition.

Only in that one perfect scenario you outlined would seeding be fairer. For the other 99% of the time, I still say the pill is fairer.

Throughout my lifetime as a wrestler and/or a fan, the only realistic argument against the pill is that occasionally, the top two wrestlers meet somewhere other than the finals.

This might happen once every two years.

A few years ago, a wrestler flubbed up and got second in the regional. He came back and won the state title and a piece of the MOW. The pill and/or seeding didn't matter then. His weight class was the toughest we have had in the past 5 years.

Back in the 80s, there was a wrestler who got FOURTH in the region. He won the state title.

Parkersburg South wrestles a tougher schedule than South Charleston does. Independence wrestles a tougher schedule than Herbert Hoover does.

In the 2014/2015 state tournament, name two wrestlers who should have met in the finals but wrestled in an earlier round?

The only one that comes to mind is GW's Smith and South's 285. One match doesn't justify reorganizing the whole state tournament.

106 Josh Humphreys and Luke Martin

Maybe 106...Luke Martin seemed to clearly be the #2 and loss to Humphreys in the semis. Burdette made the finals in the other bracket...who Martin had beat 10-1 earlier in the year.

But in general I agree with you Bearhugger.

What may be even worse than the pill draw is the coin flip to start the 2nd period in a scoreless match. It happened in the Smith/Mills semi final match at states last year. Smith won the flip and the match went to OT and eventually to SV and Smith got his choice by scoring the first point off the coin flip. Neither could get a takedown and neither could hold the other down. I've witnessed the same thing happen in other matches also and I feel they need to look at a better solution to determine the final outcome in SV.

How many matches were wrestled at the state tournament? So far, we have come up with 2 matches that "should" have been in the finals. Two out of hundreds.

At the state tournament, Burdette lasted on the mat longer with Humphreys than anybody else did.

Smith chased the South boy off the mat the whole first period and then let up on him for some reason.

Whats your alternative to the coin flip Gator? They wrestle forever and no one ever score?

Pistols at 10 paces? Merry Christmas Guard!

Bearhugger wrote:In the 2014/2015 state tournament, name two wrestlers who should have met in the finals but wrestled in an earlier round?

Well, I'm a little biased, but A/AA 120 would be another one. Imho.

Not only does the pill put the two best wrestlers in the same half occasionally, it seems to frequently prevent kids from placing that could/should have. I've never been a fan of the pill. Perhaps they could take the top 2 kids per region and have a committee to award at large bids like the college tournament. Last season in AAA, region I had 7 champions and 30 placewinners, while regions 2 and 3 combined for 2 champions and only 25 placewinners. 3 weight classes had the top 3 wrestlers all from region I. Imagine the uproar if college football took the Conference USA or MAC champion and put them in the playoff because they were the best in their region and had a better record than the SEC or B10 champion that year.

Region 1 has been tough since the beginning of time. Region 2 is weak in AAA and isn't reloading.

I still think getting the top tiered B team kids a shot at the state tournament qualification process will help the sport more.

The pill takes the BS out of seeding. I've been in seeding meetings dominated by 1-2 self serving idiots that either bully or control the meeting by stalling and arguing. I've seen brackets blown up by egomaniacs trying to avoid certain people. What ever pill it is, you still must win to advance. It's the most fair way. Perfect , no, but fair.

Agree completely Dunbar76 - you should try attending the Middle School seeding meeting for WSAZ. 35-40 coaches crammed into a small room all proud of their kids and all trying to talk at once. Some of those self servers you mentioned show up with zero documentation as to their kids wins and losses. Add to that the mail in or call in rosters that we have to deal with, kids who are all undefeated but have not wrestled any common opponents, teams that wrestle 90% or more out of state so you have little to go on. I can see a lot of problems with trying to seed the state tournament. Just one scenario - 3 wrestlers all regional champs A pinned B who pinned C who pinned A. Happens sometimes ... who gets the 1-2-3 seeds? Then the arguments start about level of competition - in state vs out of state, etc. Second scenario - kid A has 2-3 losses but they are at Powerade, Ironman, etc. Kid B is undefeated but never left southern WV. Who gets the top seed? I actually had an hour long argument once just like that -I had a kid 44-2, returning champ whose only 2 losses were to Matthew Kolodzik and it was a 1 or 2 point match each time. If you do not know who that is Google him or check on Flo. In walks a coach from one of the schools who do not travel. His kid (coincidentally his son, I might add) is 14-0. They had only wrestled some tris and quads. He argued forever that a loss is a loss and my kid should be the two or even the three seed since the runner up from last year ( that we beat in the finals) was at 33-1 but his loss was to a local kid as well and we had not wrestled them yet that year. Finally, Coach Archer stepped in and made an executive decision - all the coaches present voted on it. This was at the middle school level, I can only imagine what would go on at the high school level where state championships were up for grabs! The pill is not perfect but I would hate to sit through the meeting to seed the state tournament!

Many good points. The pill sounds like the best approach until they open the state tournament up to 100% all wrestlers.

Thanks Panther coach. It means something coming from you. I once had an hour long debate with another coach trying to avoid someone for a Middle School conference tournament. We eventually ended up randomly drawing the bracket. Luckily, the four best kids ended up exactly where they should have been. It was a totally frustrating experience. This story also involved the other coaches kid. Many other stories come to mind but this one was totally way off. This could easily happen in many state tournament weight classes. You still have to wrestle the best to win.

I once had to sit at a tournament for a long time because it was ran slow, too many breaks, bad officiating, name the excuse. The tournament is supposed to be for the athletes but each of you support the pill with woe is me on the difficulty of a seeding meeting and time involved.

So therefore maybe after regionals we can just put qualifiers names in a hat and draw the state place winners. Less time like the pill, it is fair to everyone like the pill, cuts out the BS like the pill. Saves time, less headache and easier than a seeding meeting and running a tournament. That matches the logic used by all of the pill supporters.

Again, I nor anyone else sees the pill going anywhere but give me a reason that is not based on tournament staff worried about their time leading up and how it is in the best interest of the athletes involved.

Using that logic, lets just cancel the whole wrestling season. It will save time.

The pill occasionally has the two best wrestlers meet before the finals. Other than that, it equals out for everybody else. You have to enter the tournament and wrestle your way to the place you earn.

It is ridiculous for somebody to think that "my boy would have placed 6th if it wasn't for that dang pill".

In last season's state tournament, we had an undefeated, returning state champ get beat in the semis by a wrestler he had pinned earlier in the season. This same previously undefeated returning champ finished 4th, not 3rd. There may have been plenty of reasons why this happened (illness, injury, off mat distraction, etc), but the pill was not a factor.

Last season there was a returning runner up who was arguably the second best wrestler in the class. He got beat early on and didn't place. I do not know what happened, but it was not pill related.

Last season there was a hot shot freshman that everybody talked about. The pill had him in the opposite bracket from his undefeated regional foe. This freshman lost and didn't place. It wasn't pill related.

Once in a while, the pill causes a wrestler to finish third instead of getting second. Other than that, everybody places based on how everybody wrestles.

My simple thouhts, it is a tool to remove the seeding meeting headaches. in the grand scheme. its up to the wrestlers. if you are a pigtail and have worked hard, your final finishing spot will show that. if you are #3 and have worked hard and PREPARED yourself it will show at the end. its all about our young athletes competing in a sport that MOST love. I've talked to a lot of kids over the years 99% could care less about the pill. They always say the guy who works the hardest trains the hardest and prepares for the Zs and States will finish on top. for those who oppose the pill. forget about it. coach your guys to wrestle hard clean and leave it all on the mat. Enjoying most of this discussion.

Agree with Bearhugger

I can recall 2

Simpkins vs Allen
Hill vs Allen

Both Semis

If your the best it doesn't matter when you beat the rest. Toe the mark and be ready.

I agree with J.W.
The PILL is used to save time and headache for the benefit of the ADULTS.

I cannot recall any wrestler who lucked out and won the entire state tournament due to being on the good end of the pill. He still had to win 4 matches.

The OVAC seeds their tourney with 41 team ( more than the state ) and has an accuracy rate that is very high. As mentioned in some of the posts there is no way you can sit together and pick who you want. You actually draw a number from a bucket to determine where you sit and you electronically vote on who goes where. I have sat in those seeding meetings and felt like I may have been getting the short end of the deal but after the tourney is over it is scary how accurate the guys were. If the powers at be would venture into that sort of plan and hopefully will with the new WVSSAC director from that area it would benefit our state tourney. The downside is it takes a while to get things done.

I have compared the final individual weight class rankings for a given year with the outcome of the state tournament a week later. All the rankings are archived on the site. I think it comes out pretty close.

I think the final individual weight class rankings for a given year are pretty close to how the tournament would be seeded, if it were seeded by ranking wrestlers.

Every year, there are a handful of wrestlers ranked in the top 10 who fail to qualify for the states.

My question is, if we were to seed the wrestlers rather than use the pill, what would be done with ranked wrestlers who don't get out of their region?

Do we eliminate regional qualifying tournaments, and every team enters every wrestler in the state tournament?

Or, do we keep the regional tournaments, just seed the qualifiers, knowing that some higher ranked wrestlers will stay home because they were in a tough region. That hardly seems fair either.