Seeding Criteria

Every tournament seems to have their own set of "rules" for seeding. Why is it so inconsistent? Seeding is about separating the the 4, 6, or 8 best wrestlers in the bracket in a predictive manner based on the data available. The goal is to fairly distribute the competition onto both sides of the bracket. It is not science, it is not brain surgery, nor is there any way to be totally objective.

Seeding "guidelines" should be developed and sprinkled with some common sense decision making. There is no need for a seeding "dictator" but an arbitrator to hear the occasional case a coach might need to make for their wrestler.

Wrestling is all about beating your opponent! Simple, the one who scores the most points is the better wrestler at that time. Wrestlers who win more than they lose should be considered, in general, seedable. Beyond that their record winning percentage means ZIPPO! Strength and quality of opponents means everything!

1) All wrestlers over .500 considered for seeding.
2) ANY head to head win or last head to head win during the current season matters! If you have a loss against a seedable wrestler then you can't be seeded higher! That doesn't mean that a win jumps you up but it most certainly means a loss will pull you down!!
3) All wrestlers have the goal to win state! Being a state champion matters. Are all state champs equal?? HECK NO!! The state and the classification have to be considered.
4) All tournament placements from the current season matter. Rate the tournaments based on strength.
5) Wrestling outside of the HS season matters!! In order...
a. Super 32 below 160 b. Fargo FS c. Flo d. USA FLK Nationals e. VA Beach f. Super 32 160 and above g. Fargo GR

6) The previous year placing at your tournament.(2nd and 3rd are the same unless there was a head to head)
7) All state placings beyond the previous year. (2nd and 3rd are the same unless there was a head to head. Being a finalist means nothing unless you WIN!)
8) All host tournament placings prior to the previous year

There you have it. The preponderance of criteria is to be taken into consideration not just one category. There will ALWAYS be special cases and exceptions. Don't try to make it too black and white! Seeding is more art than science.

Feedback on these guideline??

Well said Will!!!!!! Saw lots of matches at Bob Cat, in the quarters that should have been semis, if not finals matches.

Blind draw and true 2nd! cream rises to the top! No excuses it's in the hands of the wrestling gods period

No it's in the hands of the person or people seeding the tourney! The gods have nothing to do with it. Do your research, before, you call it a blind draw. True 2nd? It will never happen in Kansas. Quality tourneys deserve, quality people putting it together. Sorry, just what I saw across the board. Cream does rise to the top. If done correctly!!!!

I completely agree with Cokeley, but the one thing I want to stress more is the seeding value of national sucess. After head to head and common opponent the next seeding critirea should be Fargo FS AA (or something similar such as Super 32 AA or USA Folkstyle Champion). Yes that trumps a KANSAS STATE CHAMPION (other states could possible jump this such as California or Pennsylvania.) Cadet level sucess can be debated (but should usually trump a Kansas State Champion). Junior level is no doubt! I don't say this out of disrespect of Kansas wrestling. I say this out of experience. The one thing Cokeley is dead right on is the goal of a seeding meeting is to separate the best 2 wrestlers so that they meet in the finals!

Thoughts?

Don't the coaches attend the seeding meetings? The seeding meetings I have been involved with - the coaches are normally involved supplying data and are aware of and involved in the process.

By these lines I reading, so at 145 Karsten won Fargo two years ago. But Trowbridge and frame both folkstyle national Champs last year. Should have been seeded ahead of Karsten? I'm afraid not. And if it had seeded that way Karsten still would have won! You can never please everyone and never remove "good old boy system"
And every year this argument is posted after bobcat bitching about seeding. Don't get me wrong I love stirring up the shit

This site really needs a like button

Man I just looked it up and counted 112 placers 84 of which placed within 3 or less difference of Their original seeding place. That ain't to shabby to me hope the math is close I got a ged

True second is always in favor the wrestler who just won a bronze. You make a huge deal out of the finals and a wrestler loses a heart breaker but has to come back and preserve their second place medal. That is not a true second opportunity. I HATE true second matches, they are not even opportunity.

Number 1 is NEVER the issue with seeding. In fact, if you ever hear of a coach begging for a one seed, their wrestler isn't really the one seed. If you are the best you don't care where they put you in the bracket but all of the other coaches/wrestlers do care.

When you seed it wrong it can be a self fulfilling prophecy. 84 out of 112 is a C. I want seeding to be A or B+ at the lowest. I know that is what the coaches expect.

4 times Jon's taken 2nd and had to wrestle again won 3 lost one to a better wrestler period not cause he was down on himself. Tired demoralized wrestler hates to lose just as much as a fresh one. Besides though I wish Jon had done better this weekend. Bobcat champion means tons less the state championship. These loses motivate

The overall data demonstrates the exact opposite of what Johnny has done. Usually the 3rd place wrestler has a greater amount of recovery time as well. It is not practical.

So you are saying that we should just forget about trying to improve the seeding???

45 minutes is way more than u need to recover usa only gives 15. And we should ever stop improving.... even if we implement all this.. we'll have this same argument next year. The seeding was better than last year by 15%. They done good

Seeding meetings are all about Coaches running from competition and trying to get on the bracket in the best possible place for their athlete. I agree with Jon, Blind Draw and let's wrestle if it is a regular season tournament. If you wait until the end of the finals matches to do the true seconds then that is plenty of time to recover from your loss in the finals. I am tired of going to seeding meetings for hours and hours listening to coaches argue about 7 and 8 place seeds. Plus, there is only 1 seeding meeting that counts in Kansas and that is regionals.

All that being said would somebody please give me the names of the people that seeding hurt. I'm not seeing as much of it as you guys

OMG!!! I love you Greg but you are one of the biggest seeding whiners or all time!! LOL You argue with the best of them! See you at the seeding meeting in Garden City.

No you won't!

Ok. I will see you in Wichita.

Yep! And the only seeding meeting that really counts would have already happened the week before.

If I thought a wrestler was good enough to be the 1 seed - as a coach I would take 4,5 or 8. All on the same side of the bracket. Same thought process on the 2 & 3 seed take 6 or 7 and quit the discussion.

If you are the one seed you don't say a word. You are the best and don't care. If it were only as easy as you say. The biggest arguments are usually between 3 and 4 or getting seeded and not!

Dark horse is always a good spot. Ask Cody Brewer. He was a 13th seed (so in the 4 side off the bracket) he beat the 4, 1 and all from the other side. That same bracket the 12 beat the 5 and the 7 beat the 2. The seeding committee missed a few in that one But the cream rose on that weekend.

I think everyone can agree Brewer deserve a seed better than 13 before the tournament even started.

How many posters on this topic have ever run a seeding meeting or actually sat in on a high school or college seeding meeting?

Last years DI nationals seeding info - some of the smartest wrestling minds are in the room. 6 of the 10 number 1 seeds(60 percent) won the tournament.

125. - Tomasello the 4 seed won it all the 2 seed got beat in the round of 16 by unseeded Moisey who made the finals.

133 Brewers weight

141 1 seed Steiber won it - unseeded Kevin Jack beat the 4 seed and made it to semi's

149 1,2,3,5 made semi's

157 1,2,3,4 - only weight that got all 4 in the semi's

165 1,5,6,15 in semi's

174 8,12,3,2 seeds made semi's

184 1,13, unseeded,7 made the semi's

197 1,4,3,10 seeds made semi's

Hwt 1,5,6,2 seeds made semi's

In the 2014 DI national tournament only 3 of the 10 number 1 seeds (30 percent) actually won the tournament. 7 of the winners were either seeded 1st or 2nd. The other three weights were won by 3,3, and 5 seeded wrestlers.

There was a video on flo about the seeding for Nationals. It's not a panel in a room or coaches arguing for their wrestlers. Everything is entered into a computer and the seeds are figured from that. Brewer was the 13th seed because he missed most of the year and only had 16 wins.

But the criteria for the computer is developed by a panel
of wrestling people. Coaches panel and RPI - ranking panel index all year long. They have seeding meetings at all the qualifier conference and regionals leading up to nationals as well. They also have seeding meetings at some of the big collegiate tournaments (Scuffle, Midlands, Reno, Duals etc.) throughout the year. Some of those events are definitely considered in the computer program. It is all a logical process - but sometimes it just comes down to what wrestler is peeking at the right time in the final outcome of the tournament results.

In my mind that 13th seed was just as good as a 4 seed for Brewer. The unseeded guys that made the Semi's makes everyone think about the process.

They are dealing with a pool of 730 wrestlers. That makes things way easier than dealing with four states of high school wrestlers. There were a potential of 504 varsity wrestlers at the bobcat alone. Throw in just the other 2500 Kansas varsity wrestlers and you have five times the competitors to evaluate. Not even an apples to apples discussion. Sorry. .

Now let's discuss the broad range of skills in HS be the FACT that ALL D1 wrestlers are at a level with much less variation.

And yes smokey I have done all of the above.

The Bobcat had 10 of the 14 number 1 seeds win it. 12 of the 14 either 1 or 2 seeded. The other 2 weights were 4th and 5th(these are good places to be) seeded and had to go through the 1 seed to win it all and they did it. Just at a glance (on paper/computer) for this type of multi-state tournament they did a pretty good job of seeding. Sometimes guys wrestle above and below their seed - it happens every weekend.

Number 1 can be an issue with seeding. But not really. The Newton tournament did a good job of seeding based on the available info of the predominately instate teams. 10 of the weight classes were won by the 1st or 2nd seeded wrestler. Only 5 of the weight classes were won by the number 1 seeded wrestler.
Weight and seed below:
106. - 2
113 - 3
120 - 5 (good sleeper seeds)
126 - 2
132 - 1
138 - 1
145 - 1
152 - 2
160 - 2
170 - 1
182 - 2
195 - 1
220 - 6(good sleeper seed)
Hwt - 4(take care of business - then beat the - 1) in the finals with a chance to stand on top of the podium and he did I it!

If they gave hardware for seeds their would be no need to wrestle - we could do it all on a computer.

One of the Toughest Tournaments we have ever been too, Geary Oklahoma, was a blind draw. NO SEEDS. First round this year had two nationally ranked kids. They do have a wrestle back for a true second. Saves a lot of time and headaches not having to go to the pissing match, errr Seeding Meeting.

Kansas City Stampede - 2015

Based on how the 16 are placed in the bracket AFTER the pools(some wrestlers get in favorable pools) - so there is some seeding criteria for the pools.
- "All head coaches will have to provide accurate information on their wrestlers in order to insure the top wrestlers are separated." This is not always done properly - unfortunately.


Pool Placement – There is no seeding of the tournament. We will place the wrestlers into the pools, working to separate the best wrestlers into different pools. The pool placement will be based on national rankings, national tournament results, prior state tournament results in your home state, and past win-loss records. Rankings and input from nationally respected columnists may be considered for guidance on this process. Additionally, we will try to separate in the pools all wrestlers that could possibly meet each other at any other time during the regular season. If you compete against any of the other teams in the tournament anytime during your regular season please let us know as soon as possible. All head coaches will have to provide accurate information on their wrestlers in order to insure the top wrestlers are separated. The pool placement will be finalized no later than Wednesday evening, December 16th.

We've digressed. I was looking for direct feedback to the hierarchical criteria list at the onset of this stream. A general set of guidelines that any tournament could use. I feel the true second match is impractical and could also be impeded by the five match NFHSA restricrion. Every tournament has some good ideas and there are some that get totally wacky. Some coaches have team scoring more in mind than the goal of equitable separation. I would just like to see direct critiquing of the initially listed points of seeding emphasis.