Looks like 112 brackets is the same as last year with the same regionals against each other.

These are the number of losing records per bracket.

103: 2
112: 3
119: 3
125: 1
130: 1
135: 2
140: 2
145: 2
152: 2
160: 1
171: 1
189: 0
215: 2
285: 2

After intense statistical analysis I can determine that 189 will be the toughest weight class in 6A.

Which regionals produced the most losing records?? Or should I ask which was the toughest regional?

Is that a trick question or just rhetorical.
Isn't it obvious which region was the toughest, the one that had 6 of the top 10 teams in the state which would be NW Wichita. The Manhattan region was tough too but only 3 of the top 10. That's why Derby had 9 in the finals. There were good kids at the NW regional with really good records that are not going to state that beat kids from the Manhattan region that are.
The two KC regions are a joke. No disrepect to the kids who wrestled hard, but it is what it is and that's just reality. Two regions with 1 top 10 collectively.
And that's the problem with 6A. Not that the class is weak just 2 very weak regions because the association won't seed the regions and/or don't want to break up those regions. Why is another topic but for now it is what it is.
Some of the kids from the NW region that aren't going would not only have qualified in every other regional in 6a. They would have qualified from probably any other region in the whole state.
And that's why when people say it is harder to get to state in 4 and 3A don't know what they are talking about. They just look at the records of the state qualifiers and assume. It just depends on which regional you are at and which weight. I have already looked and there are some weak regionals in every class. But I didn't need to look because I already knew.

I think that it is pretty safe to say that Wichita Northwest hosted the toughest Regional

And I hope that you were just being sarcastic here Ricky because if not, I would have to reconsider the amount of stock that I have put into your comments in the past.

Here is at least one bad setup of a bracket. I looked at 112 6a and they are pretty much set up just like last year. Now I only did this weight to start but when I looked at win/loss ratio, the top half of the bracket was 196 to 76. the bottom half was 156 to 93 there will be some good wrestlers at the top half that would have won the bottom half. Just my opinion!

im happy with the 125 bracket

Guys, kids are placed in the brackets depending on where they placed in their regionals. Then regionals are "randomly" assigned for pairings. No bracket is more lopsided I would not think then 119 5a. The top 4 records are all on the bottom side. But two of those kids got on the bottom side by losing in the regional finals to kids with 10 losses. Sucks for them but not actually unfair...

Glad someone pointed that out. You make your own bed a lot of the times.

Instances like 4A HWT has Burns and Finney on the same side of the bracket. Without having seen a lot of the other heavies on the bottom side of that bracket, I think Burns and Finney are widely known as the two best, so here is an example of two guys that did all they could do, and yet still ended up on the same side.

The two KC regions are a joke. No disrepect to the kids who wrestled hard, but it is what it is and that's just reality. Two regions with 1 top 10 collectively.



I would agree that the NW Wichita region is probably the deepest and toughest, but to call the Blue Valley/Olathe regional a joke which produced I believe 4 State Champs in Lawrence, Tannenbaum, Madl, Vincent and a runner up in Perch is in my opinion an inaccurate label for that region, not to mention inappropriate for those kids that compete there. To get those titles, not looking I would have to believe that they faced and won out over kids from the two regions you classified as non - jokes.

There's no probably to it. If you have 6 of the 10 ten teams available for 4 regions in 1 region, then its the toughest, no need to argue about it.
Perhaps I should not have said joke as it is offensive I know but it is also reality. I realize that great kids come out of these regionals like Zach Roberson, but not as many and not great teams, at least not now. And according to the rankings which are based on the quality of kids, my statement is accurate. If you have 2 regions with 9 of the top 10 and 2 regions with 1 top ten, there you have it.
You can see where this would lead to losing records at state and comments about losing records and quality of class.
My man point was that a lot of people say ignorant things like "5A and 6A are weaker classes because they have more losing records" and "you can see from the losing records that its harder to get to regionals in 3A and 4A" and both comments stem from the losing records thing which is a direct result of a regionals alignment which has 2 regionals with 9 of the top 10 and 2 regionals with 1. If they seeded the regionals, which I don't expect them to, then that wouldn't happen and people wouldn't be able to talk as much inaccurate smack.
So, I am more concerned about the inaccurate comments about 5A and 6A than offending the people that went to the weaker regions.
Props to all who qualified. I am not saying that those kids don't deserve to go to state. I am just explaining why there are more losing records in 5A and 6A at state which is definitely not due to the classes being weaker. Do you like it when people make those comments, well I don't. Not just because they are offensive but because they are incaccurate. And remeber those kids you mentioned earned that state title at state not at regionals, so my comment in no way diminishes there state titles. Aside from some kids that maybe just had a bad day or a bad match, its all about what regional and what weight you happen to be at.