ncref wrote:mscoach4 wrote:ncref wrote:The point of the tournament is to crown a champion. by definition,the best wrestler will win out independent of seeding.
If you are arguing about who should finish second or third, you are missing the point of the tournament
But is that the whole point of the tournament? Some would argue that determining the best team in the state is the point. In some years the placement points recorded by a single placement in a single weight class were enough to determine the state team champion. So is getting the wrestlers seeded in the correct position on the bracket important? If you feel determining a team champion is the "point" of the tournament it is absolutely important.
True , sort of.
The state tournament is, by NFHS definition, an "individually bracketed tournament". While team scores are tabulated, the focus in this tournament type is the individual.
Wrestling has always been, in my view, an individual sport with team consequences. As opposed to football/basketball/baseball, which is a team sport with individual contributions.
A true team championship should be determined by a true dual team tournament. We are getting there , but it needs to be expanded
Why am I against seeding you ask?? Seeding is not a pancea. Where I live now they seed for regionals (similar pill system for states) based on W-L record only. The result (an unintended consequence) is that coaches bump away or forfiet from competition to preserve a W/L record. So , often a coach will just forfeit a bout just to preserve his wrestlers record if it is clear his wrestler would lose anyways
Although it is a little off topic I would like to discuss the two statements I have underlined in ncref"s post above.
First, one is regarding the NFHS's definition and the inference that the focus is on the individual. My thinking may be wrong but I'm guessing that in most people's mind that if your team has no shot at a title or finishing high up in the team finishes it becomes all about the individual. But like everything in sports, if there is a competition involved and you stand a chance to win, then for all of those people team is almost equally important. This goes for wrestling, tennis, cross country, track, etc. (even Speech and Debate, just ask Wheeling Park who has won this state title for over 20 straight years or so if I'm not mistaken). Team only becomes unimportant if you have no chance of winning. It would be kind of like in football, if your team is always bad year after year then having a player on the first team all state team becomes the big accomplishment. Again, just my opinion.
Second is about the dual format actually determining the true team champion. I have two problems with this concept. I believe that for the most part if you took the same teams and individuals and held the same bracketed tournament repeatedly you would have very similar "TEAM" score outcomes. However, individual matches in dual matches have no points for coming in second place. Thus having the second best wrestler in the world is no better against the team having the best wrestler in the world than having the worst. Except that on occasion the second best might actually win while the other one never will. My point is that Team A can often match up well against Team B and usually win but can't beat Team C, while Team C always loses to Team B. This is not all that uncommon and we have seen it this year. If we are to be valid and accurate, we have a 3 way tie for first. That is, unless one wants to be "fair" and make the dual meet competition a single elimination format and allow seeding and/or the pill to determine which teams wrestles who first. The last sentence is said just as food for thought. Again, just my opinion.