wvmat.com

Does anyone know what the criteria is used to seed the regional brackets?

WVSSAC
Regional Wrestling Championships
2021-2022 Seeding Criteria

1. Head-to-Head
2. Common Opponent
3. Previous Season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
4. One season removed from previous season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
5. Previous Season Regional Champion
6. Current Season Varsity Win Percentage to Date (*Must have 10 Matches Minimum*)
7. Previous Season High School State Qualifier
8. High School State Qualifier one season removed from previous season
9. If tied and the wrestlers competed head-to-head, most recent win gets Higher Seed

brentsams wrote:WVSSAC
Regional Wrestling Championships
2021-2022 Seeding Criteria

1. Head-to-Head
2. Common Opponent
3. Previous Season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
4. One season removed from previous season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
5. Previous Season Regional Champion
6. Current Season Varsity Win Percentage to Date (*Must have 10 Matches Minimum*)
7. Previous Season High School State Qualifier
8. High School State Qualifier one season removed from previous season
9. If tied and the wrestlers competed head-to-head, most recent win gets Higher Seed

It’s always odd to me they have win percentage ahead of any other criteria. To me that would be the very last criteria. And if going to win percentage, it’s so unlikely two wrestlers would have the precise same win percentage…you’d essentially never get down to prior season state qualifier, etc.

Also #9 is confusing. Based on the numbered order you would only get to that #9 criteria if after considering the first 8 criteria two wrestlers are still tied. However, in prior seeding meetings I’ve observed if two wrestlers have met head to head twice and each won a match, criteria 2 through 8 are ignored and they immediately skip to 9 and ask who won the most recent match between them. I do not know what the intent was when drafting the seeding criteria, and I personally feel immediately looking to who won the most recent match is a better method, but skipping over criteria 2 through 8 does not seem to be in accordance with the written criteria.

brentsams wrote:WVSSAC
Regional Wrestling Championships
2021-2022 Seeding Criteria

1. Head-to-Head
2. Common Opponent
3. Previous Season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
4. One season removed from previous season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
5. Previous Season Regional Champion
6. Current Season Varsity Win Percentage to Date (*Must have 10 Matches Minimum*)
7. Previous Season High School State Qualifier
8. High School State Qualifier one season removed from previous season
9. If tied and the wrestlers competed head-to-head, most recent win gets Higher Seed

Those criteria are all well and good but none of them measure a wrestlers HEART

guard0544 wrote:

brentsams wrote:WVSSAC
Regional Wrestling Championships
2021-2022 Seeding Criteria

1. Head-to-Head
2. Common Opponent
3. Previous Season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
4. One season removed from previous season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
5. Previous Season Regional Champion
6. Current Season Varsity Win Percentage to Date (*Must have 10 Matches Minimum*)
7. Previous Season High School State Qualifier
8. High School State Qualifier one season removed from previous season
9. If tied and the wrestlers competed head-to-head, most recent win gets Higher Seed

It’s always odd to me they have win percentage ahead of any other criteria. To me that would be the very last criteria. And if going to win percentage, it’s so unlikely two wrestlers would have the precise same win percentage…you’d essentially never get down to prior season state qualifier, etc.

Also #9 is confusing. Based on the numbered order you would only get to that #9 criteria if after considering the first 8 criteria two wrestlers are still tied. However, in prior seeding meetings I’ve observed if two wrestlers have met head to head twice and each won a match, criteria 2 through 8 are ignored and they immediately skip to 9 and ask who won the most recent match between them. I do not know what the intent was when drafting the seeding criteria, and I personally feel immediately looking to who won the most recent match is a better method, but skipping over criteria 2 through 8 does not seem to be in accordance with the written criteria.

I agree about win percentage. That is such a subjective criteria. A wrestler can have a 9-1 record against weak opponents and get seeded higher than someone with a 26-4 record that faced tough opponents.

The biggest issue I have is #3. Using that criteria, if we are seeding the 132 class and Wrestler A placed 4th in 132 last year and Wrestler B placed 3rd in 113 last year, then Wrestler B would seed higher than Wrestler A, even though he placed higher in a different weight class. That makes no sense to me. Wrestler A is the higher placer in the weight being seeded, so he should take the higher seed.

I also disagree with #4. A state placer from 2 years ago should not be seeded ahead of a regional champ from last year.

guard0544 wrote:

brentsams wrote:WVSSAC
Regional Wrestling Championships
2021-2022 Seeding Criteria

1. Head-to-Head
2. Common Opponent
3. Previous Season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
4. One season removed from previous season High School State Placer (Higher Place gets Higher Seed)
5. Previous Season Regional Champion
6. Current Season Varsity Win Percentage to Date (*Must have 10 Matches Minimum*)
7. Previous Season High School State Qualifier
8. High School State Qualifier one season removed from previous season
9. If tied and the wrestlers competed head-to-head, most recent win gets Higher Seed

It’s always odd to me they have win percentage ahead of any other criteria. To me that would be the very last criteria. And if going to win percentage, it’s so unlikely two wrestlers would have the precise same win percentage…you’d essentially never get down to prior season state qualifier, etc.

Also #9 is confusing. Based on the numbered order you would only get to that #9 criteria if after considering the first 8 criteria two wrestlers are still tied. However, in prior seeding meetings I’ve observed if two wrestlers have met head to head twice and each won a match, criteria 2 through 8 are ignored and they immediately skip to 9 and ask who won the most recent match between them. I do not know what the intent was when drafting the seeding criteria, and I personally feel immediately looking to who won the most recent match is a better method, but skipping over criteria 2 through 8 does not seem to be in accordance with the written criteria.

Perhaps it is time to give this criteria a review. Re-establish the order, remove what isn't needed, etc.

#1 and #2 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc. Avoiding regional competition should be penalized, not rewarded with higher seeds.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentages and what nots. Going head to head with 50% of regional competition to be seeded. But then you have some Schools in the region that you never know if they will have a team or not, i.e. Parkersburg Catholic.

brentsams wrote:#1 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentage.

If #1 should be enough, do you support a requirement that each regional team be required to attend dual events with at least 4 regional opponents? I would add a requirement that teams also must travel to some of these events and can’t just have home events.

guard0544 wrote:

brentsams wrote:#1 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentage.

If #1 should be enough, do you support a requirement that each regional team be required to attend dual events with at least 4 regional opponents? I would add a requirement that teams also must travel to some of these events and can’t just have home events.

I wouldn't make it a requirement, only a requirement to earn seeds. I'm just trying to brainstorm here and it hurts my head. lol

Does State Duals qualifier count as a weigh in or is it exempt?

brentsams wrote:#1 and #2 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc. Avoiding regional competition should be penalized, not rewarded with higher seeds.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentages and what nots. Going head to head with 50% of regional competition to be seeded. But then you have some Schools in the region that you never know if they will have a team or not, i.e. Parkersburg Catholic.

THANK YOU BRENT SAMS for speaking up about this. I had this discussion LAST season with a coach. Whereas regions are set up based on geography, why should schools avoid scheduling the closest teams geographically??

The fix is simple. Change the regional seeding criteria. The coaches can schedule accordingly to help themselves or shoot themselves in the foot come regional time.

brentsams wrote:#1 and #2 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc. Avoiding regional competition should be penalized, not rewarded with higher seeds.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentages and what nots. Going head to head with 50% of regional competition to be seeded. But then you have some Schools in the region that you never know if they will have a team or not, i.e. Parkersburg Catholic.

Another good talking point is the MSAC conference. It could be a great tournament to facilitate seeding for AAA regions 3 and 4. The word on the street is some schools only attend to avoid getting fined. Furthermore, too many schools do not take it serious. It is becoming a JV tournament.

Bearhugger wrote:

brentsams wrote:#1 and #2 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc. Avoiding regional competition should be penalized, not rewarded with higher seeds.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentages and what nots. Going head to head with 50% of regional competition to be seeded. But then you have some Schools in the region that you never know if they will have a team or not, i.e. Parkersburg Catholic.

Another good talking point is the MSAC conference. It could be a great tournament to facilitate seeding for AAA regions 3 and 4. The word on the street is some schools only attend to avoid getting fined. Furthermore, too many schools do not take it serious. It is becoming a JV tournament.

I have not attended the MSAC, but I looked at its brackets and I'm not sure if I'm missing something. I did not try to ascertain the usual starting line ups for the MSAC teams, but I did look at their ranked wrertlers on the coaches poll and PHS only had one wrestler not there, Cabell Midland only had 1 wrestler not there (besides Stewart at 144 who has been out for a long time before and after that tournament). Hurricane did have 5 ranked wrestlers not there, but I can't imagine it being a strategic move to achieve an advantage by them not wrestling against regional opponents. Why do you feel it is becoming a JV tournament?

KDunbar wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:

brentsams wrote:#1 and #2 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc. Avoiding regional competition should be penalized, not rewarded with higher seeds.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentages and what nots. Going head to head with 50% of regional competition to be seeded. But then you have some Schools in the region that you never know if they will have a team or not, i.e. Parkersburg Catholic.

Another good talking point is the MSAC conference. It could be a great tournament to facilitate seeding for AAA regions 3 and 4. The word on the street is some schools only attend to avoid getting fined. Furthermore, too many schools do not take it serious. It is becoming a JV tournament.

I have not attended the MSAC, but I looked at its brackets and I'm not sure if I'm missing something. I did not try to ascertain the usual starting line ups for the MSAC teams, but I did look at their ranked wrertlers on the coaches poll and PHS only had one wrestler not there, Cabell Midland only had 1 wrestler not there (besides Stewart at 144 who has been out for a long time before and after that tournament). Hurricane did have 5 ranked wrestlers not there, but I can't imagine it being a strategic move to achieve an advantage by them not wrestling against regional opponents. Why do you feel it is becoming a JV tournament?

For the past two seasons, the MSAC hasn't been what it could have been. Many varsity wrestlers do not participate.

Is it too early to discuss the Pros/Cons of the dreaded PILL

brentsams wrote:#1 and #2 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc. Avoiding regional competition should be penalized, not rewarded with higher seeds.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentages and what nots. Going head to head with 50% of regional competition to be seeded. But then you have some Schools in the region that you never know if they will have a team or not, i.e. Parkersburg Catholic.

I believe the criteria is absolutely great !! It’s never altered at all, really consistent year to year, never changes from weight to weight, never favors any schools, always for the time I have been around absolutely fair and consistent. Great job guys with it !!

KDunbar wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:

brentsams wrote:#1 and #2 should be enough.
Who is at fault if you don't see your regional opponents during the two and a half month season? I can understand injury and weight class change but coaches should make a valid attempt to oppose each other during the season, either at a local tournament, dual, quad, etc. Avoiding regional competition should be penalized, not rewarded with higher seeds.

Maybe #3 should be regional record/win percentage, to encourage more regional competition. Put that ahead of overall win percentages and what nots. Going head to head with 50% of regional competition to be seeded. But then you have some Schools in the region that you never know if they will have a team or not, i.e. Parkersburg Catholic.

Another good talking point is the MSAC conference. It could be a great tournament to facilitate seeding for AAA regions 3 and 4. The word on the street is some schools only attend to avoid getting fined. Furthermore, too many schools do not take it serious. It is becoming a JV tournament.

I have not attended the MSAC, but I looked at its brackets and I'm not sure if I'm missing something. I did not try to ascertain the usual starting line ups for the MSAC teams, but I did look at their ranked wrertlers on the coaches poll and PHS only had one wrestler not there, Cabell Midland only had 1 wrestler not there (besides Stewart at 144 who has been out for a long time before and after that tournament). Hurricane did have 5 ranked wrestlers not there, but I can't imagine it being a strategic move to achieve an advantage by them not wrestling against regional opponents. Why do you feel it is becoming a JV tournament?

Half of Midlands lineup wasn’t there !!

abettnman wrote:

KDunbar wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:
Another good talking point is the MSAC conference. It could be a great tournament to facilitate seeding for AAA regions 3 and 4. The word on the street is some schools only attend to avoid getting fined. Furthermore, too many schools do not take it serious. It is becoming a JV tournament.

I have not attended the MSAC, but I looked at its brackets and I'm not sure if I'm missing something. I did not try to ascertain the usual starting line ups for the MSAC teams, but I did look at their ranked wrertlers on the coaches poll and PHS only had one wrestler not there, Cabell Midland only had 1 wrestler not there (besides Stewart at 144 who has been out for a long time before and after that tournament). Hurricane did have 5 ranked wrestlers not there, but I can't imagine it being a strategic move to achieve an advantage by them not wrestling against regional opponents. Why do you feel it is becoming a JV tournament?

Half of Midlands lineup wasn’t there !!

As I said, I wasn't going to go through all of the teams line ups and only looked at ranked wrstlers not in attendance. Looking back, I see that I missed Giampolo not being there at 190 for CM. I want to emphasize, I'm not trying to be "right", just trying to make sure we put forth accurate information. Comparing Cabell Midlands lineup at MSAC to the one they entered at Winner's Choice here is the difference:
10 weight classes exactly the same
106 Evans in for Salmons
190 Giampolo missing
At 113 a different 9th grader wrestled
At 126 the "starter" was out
So hardly the half of the lineup
Both Holt and Stewart missed both Winner's Choice and MSAC, so if done with disdain for the MSAC, apparently the feeling was mutual for Winner's Choice.

I think the analogy is spot on!!!!