Finals Matchups

[brentsams]

106 #1 Dolan, S. Mills vs #2 Roberts, South
113 #3 Cox, Ripley vs #4 Bosley, South
120 #3 Walls, G. Washington vs #4 Eades, St. Albans
126 #1 Dolan, S. Mills vs #3 Ford, South
132 #2 Felix, Unv. vs #6 Hardy, Washington
138 #1 Parker, Unv. vs #2 Johnson, South
145 #3 Bradbury, Washington vs #1 Wright, South
152 #1 Mitchell, W. Park vs #4 Shockey, South
160 #3 Jackson, S. Mills vs #1 Quiocho, South
170 #1 Dempsey, Hunt. vs #4 Childers, South
182 #4 Misner, Hunt. vs #1 Edge, St. Albans
195 #2 Bentley, Muss. vs #4 Edwards, South
220 #1 Brothers, W. Park vs #5 Mullins, G. East
285 #3 Tamburin, W. Park vs #2 Jones, PKB

[Doyablameme?]

Wonder if they start at 106 ?

[Doyablameme?]

According to South’s Facebook, the finals will n fact be starting at 106 .

[mscoach4]

Analysis of final results, there were 9 dec., avg score 6.85 to 1.42, 1 maj. dec., 3 falls, 1 inj. def., six matches in were jeopardy until final whistle which I judged as being 4 or less points and yes there are super rare occasions when a 5 point deficit is overcome in less than 10 seconds (Riggs-Simpkins),,, Do these stats speak to the argument for true seeding vs The Pill? How many weights probably had the 2nd best wrestler finish 3rd? and is that a Big deal? or are things just fine the way they are?

[Pottstd]

For a large percentage of finals matches, seeding would likely not likely alter all that much. For instance this year, it would/could have, in my opinion, changed only 126 (although w/ Ford pinning Locke and McAfee winning 9-1 you could still argue this, but McAfee wrestled significantly stronger against Dolan); 145 (w/ Wright's quick pin, but again you could argue that Bradbury and Pearson both wrestled O'Barrett and the score was only a 1 point difference so how much better/worse were they despite the difference in how Wright won); and 170 (which would have also included Kemo Summers if Bridgeport has not been withdrawn, but in either instance appears Summers or Hadedorn were the next best and should have made the finals).

Some of this was up to poor placement of the pill, but some could be argued that things happen in wrestling matches. People get caught and pinned when they could have wrestled better, etc. Overall for finals purposes, I think seeding would truly affect 1-2 matches per year (which is important, but not as widespread and atrocious as it is made out to be). Where I think seeding would help significantly would be in getting placers right, dealing with defaults at regionals, etc. So that we dont have matches (like Hobbs and Shelek wrestling in the blood round) that prevent placement of a deserving wrestler.

[guard0544]

Where I think seeding would help significantly would be in getting placers right, dealing with defaults at regionals, etc. So that we dont have matches (like Hobbs and Shelek wrestling in the blood round) that prevent placement of a deserving wrestler.

Or situations where rules are bent and/or ignored by the powers that be to allow regional champ calibers wrestlers to show up at state as 4th place regional finishers. Such wrestlers could be more appropriately placed in the bracket for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of others in that side of the consi bracket. Or, of course there’s the option of actually following the rules and avoiding those situations to begin with.

[Stonewall]

If you watched the Bradbury and Barrett match it was 2-2till the end of the third period when Bradbury caught Barret and scored. Pearson dominated Barrett the entire match. Seeding matters for true results

[guard0544]

If you watched the Bradbury and Barrett match it was 2-2till the end of the third period when Bradbury caught Barret and scored. Pearson dominated Barrett the entire match. Seeding matters for true results

Where do they draw the line on seeding and true results? Do they seed all 16 wrestlers? On what criteria? Are you confident the seeding criteria will not result in the same number, or perhaps even more, circumstances of your perceived 1 and 2 ending up in the same side of the bracket? You may have a freshman who is not a returning state placer without head to head matches against the other top few wrestlers. He may be the top or second best kid in the state but the criteria may place him below a returning state placer. There are countless circumstances where this type of seeding could occur. My point is seeding them may not get you the desired result.

[Stonewall]

It’s not about a desired result
It’s about being fair to these kids who have worked their butts of for years
If you are fair then you get the true result
And all the states around us have been seeding their state tournament for years. I’m sure they could lend sound advice if the powers that be (wvssac) can’t figure it out.

[justwrestle]

In 126 I do believe it would have made a difference. Mcafee pinned Ford in the 1st period both times they wrestled. If you don't seed them at least have a true second match. The bottom of this bracket was ridiculous with talent.

[Stonewall]

True second would be nice but I’m sure the wvssac would frown on that

[guard0544]

It’s not about a desired result
It’s about being fair to these kids who have worked their butts of for years
If you are fair then you get the true result
And all the states around us have been seeding their state tournament for years. I’m sure they could lend sound advice if the powers that be (wvssac) can’t figure it out.

When I said desired results I only meant the desire for 1 vs 2 in the final.

[guard0544]

In 126 I do believe it would have made a difference. Mcafee pinned Ford in the 1st period both times they wrestled. If you don't seed them at least have a true second match. The bottom of this bracket was ridiculous with talent.

I’m not sure how 126 would have turned out if it were seeded using criteria similar to WSAZ. For example, Mcafee beat Ford. Hurst beat Mcafee. Taggert beat Hurst. And others beat Taggert. And those kids also lost to Ford etc. In that situation the criteria may have given preference to returning state placers, which wouldn’t help a freshman. Or it could have came down to best season win percentage for some of them. So it’s not as if seeding would have guaranteed him a place in the opposite bracket.

[justwrestle]

McAfee only had 1 loss in AAA which was to Hurst by 2 points very early in the season. I believe he would have definitely made it to the finals. Although he is a freshman he has seen his fair share of big tournaments. My opinion is just an opinion...

[justwrestle]

I believe McAfee was seeded 4th or 5th at WSAZ losing only one match to Short by 1 point. Seeding is definitely needed. Plus I think states and regionals is a different ballgame when the kids have to make weight in front of the ref.

[guard0544]

McAfee only had 1 loss in AAA which was to Hurst by 2 points very early in the season. I believe he would have definitely made it to the finals. Although he is a freshman he has seen his fair share of big tournaments. My opinion is just an opinion...

No ones questioning his credentials or talent. He looked like the #2 in the weight class. Pointing out his loss to Hurst wasn’t meant to suggest otherwise. The point was that even with seeding criteria he may have still ended up on Dolans side of the bracket, despite looking like the 2nd best wrestler in the bracket.

I guess wrestling for a true #2 would resolve the issue. But I don’t see them doing that.

[Campion]

Finishing as high as you can is a worthwhile effort but there is still only one Champion... then everyone else.

[Campion]

McAfee only had 1 loss in AAA which was to Hurst by 2 points very early in the season. I believe he would have definitely made it to the finals. Although he is a freshman he has seen his fair share of big tournaments. My opinion is just an opinion...

No ones questioning his credentials or talent. He looked like the #2 in the weight class. Pointing out his loss to Hurst wasn’t meant to suggest otherwise. The point was that even with seeding criteria he may have still ended up on Dolans side of the bracket, despite looking like the 2nd best wrestler in the bracket.

I guess wrestling for a true #2 would resolve the issue. But I don’t see them doing that.

I don’t see how anyone would have a goal for true #2. Not many wrestlers, that I have known, would be satisfied with that...

[guard0544]

McAfee only had 1 loss in AAA which was to Hurst by 2 points very early in the season. I believe he would have definitely made it to the finals. Although he is a freshman he has seen his fair share of big tournaments. My opinion is just an opinion...

No ones questioning his credentials or talent. He looked like the #2 in the weight class. Pointing out his loss to Hurst wasn’t meant to suggest otherwise. The point was that even with seeding criteria he may have still ended up on Dolans side of the bracket, despite looking like the 2nd best wrestler in the bracket.

I guess wrestling for a true #2 would resolve the issue. But I don’t see them doing that.

I don’t see how anyone would have a goal for true #2. Not many wrestlers, that I have known, would be satisfied with that...

But obviously a wrestler would rather finish 2nd than 3rd. Whether that was their goal going in or whether they are satisfied with finishing 2nd isn’t relevant. That being said, I think it’s fine as it currently is done with the pill.

[Bearhugger]

To be the man, you have to beat the man. Of course this season you also had to beat the Covid-19 exposure, the CDC, the BOE and the witch hunts. Many perfectly healthy wrestlers were banned from the state tournament.

[wvwrestling1981]

To be the man, you have to beat the man. Of course this season you also had to beat the Covid-19 exposure, the CDC, the BOE and the witch hunts. Many perfectly healthy wrestlers were banned from the state tournament.

What this guy said!

[Campion]

No ones questioning his credentials or talent. He looked like the #2 in the weight class. Pointing out his loss to Hurst wasn’t meant to suggest otherwise. The point was that even with seeding criteria he may have still ended up on Dolans side of the bracket, despite looking like the 2nd best wrestler in the bracket.

I guess wrestling for a true #2 would resolve the issue. But I don’t see them doing that.

I don’t see how anyone would have a goal for true #2. Not many wrestlers, that I have known, would be satisfied with that...

But obviously a wrestler would rather finish 2nd than 3rd. Whether that was their goal going in or whether they are satisfied with finishing 2nd isn’t relevant. That being said, I think it’s fine as it currently is done with the pill.

I have no problem the Pill, either. Only one Champion no matter how you set up the brackets.

[Matofficial]

Seeding rarely works any better than the pill. I believe that if you began seeding the state tournament it would drastically weaken the quality of WV wrestling. The minute you start seeding, teams will do all the can to assure their wrestler has the best record. That would eliminate teams going to tough tournaments so they might not lose any matches. We deal with this at the OVAC every year. A wrestler gets placed ahead because he has a better record. Until recently teams from the eastern panhandle have better records and don’t live up to their records. I believe coach Regalbuto has changed that by wrestling tougher opponents and obviously is seeing better results from it even though his wrestlers may not have the best records when it comes to the state tournament. A better example might be take a look at how many 200 winners are from the eastern panhandle and correlate that to how many state titles they win. I could go on and on about the pill vs seeding within resolve. Seeding at this point for our state tournament makes no sense. True second might work in freestyle for qualifying for the Olympics but has no relevance here unless they start listing in the results Billy should have won second but got the wrong seed.

[Matofficial]

Seeding rarely works any better than the pill. I believe that if you began seeding the state tournament it would drastically weaken the quality of WV wrestling. The minute you start seeding, teams will do all the can to assure their wrestler has the best record. That would eliminate teams going to tough tournaments so they might not lose any matches. We deal with this at the OVAC every year. A wrestler gets placed ahead because he has a better record. Until recently teams from the eastern panhandle have better records and don’t live up to their records. I believe coach Regalbuto has changed that by wrestling tougher opponents and obviously is seeing better results from it even though his wrestlers may not have the best records when it comes to the state tournament. A better example might be take a look at how many 200 winners are from the eastern panhandle and correlate that to how many state titles they win. I could go on and on about the pill vs seeding with no resolution.Seeding at this point for our state tournament makes no sense. True second might work in freestyle for qualifying for the Olympics but has no relevance here unless they start listing in the results Billy should have won second but got the wrong seed.

[beachbum1234]

No ones questioning his credentials or talent. He looked like the #2 in the weight class. Pointing out his loss to Hurst wasn’t meant to suggest otherwise. The point was that even with seeding criteria he may have still ended up on Dolans side of the bracket, despite looking like the 2nd best wrestler in the bracket.

I guess wrestling for a true #2 would resolve the issue. But I don’t see them doing that.

I don’t see how anyone would have a goal for true #2. Not many wrestlers, that I have known, would be satisfied with that...

But obviously a wrestler would rather finish 2nd than 3rd. Whether that was their goal going in or whether they are satisfied with finishing 2nd isn’t relevant. That being said, I think it’s fine as it currently is done with the pill.

I know it isn't a huge difference but there is a difference in team points between second and third... isn't there?

Man a true #2 would be rough...
You just lost the finals, your goal of winning a state title just short of your grasp and now you have to defend second place. I'd say you'd have a lot of the guy coming out from that 3rd place finish winning that match because of the emotional roller coaster.

[mscoach4]

In my opinion the argument for seeding would be more valid in consideration of the team point situation. I know that in 1977 the top 4 teams were separated by only 3 1/2 points and as of right now this years class A point spread is only 1 1/2 points among the top 3 teams

[Mamabear]

For a large percentage of finals matches, seeding would likely not likely alter all that much. For instance this year, it would/could have, in my opinion, changed only 126 (although w/ Ford pinning Locke and McAfee winning 9-1 you could still argue this, but McAfee wrestled significantly stronger against Dolan); 145 (w/ Wright's quick pin, but again you could argue that Bradbury and Pearson both wrestled O'Barrett and the score was only a 1 point difference so how much better/worse were they despite the difference in how Wright won); and 170 (which would have also included Kemo Summers if Bridgeport has not been withdrawn, but in either instance appears Summers or Hadedorn were the next best and should have made the finals).

Some of this was up to poor placement of the pill, but some could be argued that things happen in wrestling matches. People get caught and pinned when they could have wrestled better, etc. Overall for finals purposes, I think seeding would truly affect 1-2 matches per year (which is important, but not as widespread and atrocious as it is made out to be). Where I think seeding would help significantly would be in getting placers right, dealing with defaults at regionals, etc. So that we dont have matches (like Hobbs and Shelek wrestling in the blood round) that prevent placement of a deserving wrestler.

Before everyone starts calling out who are "the next best" and who "should have made the finals"...how about taking into consideration that we are talking about wrestling here. You have NO CLUE as to how some of those matches would have turned out. Everyone is beatable and to say that so and so should have made the finals is a direct insult to the ones who DID make the finals! You have no clue how hard these boys worked. You can't say that seeding would have changed the outcome! Who are you, God? Seriously people! think of the kids who have worked so hard to even place...to stand on the podium! Maybe my kid would have knocked off one of those wrestlers off...or maybe he would have got his butt kicked but you don't know. I guarantee he wouldn't run from them! You are calling kids out by name that they don't deserve their accomplishments while you hide behind a forum name. Ridiculous!

Matt and Mary Jo Childers

[Matofficial]

Keep in mind when you have less matches and less placers your scores will reflect that. The top two only from the four regions went to the state. More teams competed in triple A another factor to consider here is I believe, opinion only that our top guys are better and there is less depth in each wt class. All of those factors could come into play making scores closer.

[Bearhugger]

McAfee only had 1 loss in AAA which was to Hurst by 2 points very early in the season. I believe he would have definitely made it to the finals. Although he is a freshman he has seen his fair share of big tournaments. My opinion is just an opinion...

No ones questioning his credentials or talent. He looked like the #2 in the weight class. Pointing out his loss to Hurst wasn’t meant to suggest otherwise. The point was that even with seeding criteria he may have still ended up on Dolans side of the bracket, despite looking like the 2nd best wrestler in the bracket.

I guess wrestling for a true #2 would resolve the issue. But I don’t see them doing that.

I don’t see how anyone would have a goal for true #2. Not many wrestlers, that I have known, would be satisfied with that...

Agreed. However, this state tournament provided a tight race in AAA for second place in team standings. It was also a tight race in AA for second and unbelievably tight for FIRST in Single A. A wrestler making the finals can play a big difference in team standings.

[Bearhugger]

Seeding the state tournament is discussed every year. I have been involved in the past in these discussions. However, the discussions typically happen once the pill is released and before the tournament is wrestled. More of these comments are based on "after the fact" events.

Based on this season's pill draw, the only major argument that came to mind BEFORE matches occurred was AA/A 113. We had returning state champions Henderson and Layman that were bracketed to be on course for the semifinals. All of the "anything can happen in wrestling" did NOT happen. Those two clearly won their first two matches and met for a barnburner semifinal match. Henderson won and went on and pinned in the finals. Layman fought back and finished third. Henderson pinned everybody except Layman, which was a decision win.

Furthermore, the pill placing returning state champions in the semifinals has been the biggest challenge to the pill in the past.

Here is the solution. Use the pill. If it places returning state champions against each other before the finals, select a different pill only for that weight class. In addition, this should only be considered if both returning state champions WIN their region and have not had head to head matches previously in the given season. For example, Henderson and Layman never met in the regular season. Both won their region.