There are a lot ways to twist this topic. Bottom line is USAWKS format creates state brackets where the two best wrestlers may not meet in the finals or finish 1 and 2. There is no seeding when it comes to the state tournament. I am in favor of true 2nd for many reasons.

It honestly makes the finals match practically meaningless. Most of these tournaments hype the finals to the point that to the kid nothing else matters.

I don't agree that it is meaningless. Maybe it reduces the "making the finals" status but earning your spot based on performance vs luck of the draw is a good thing to me.

We could always remove the finals hype including the parade. BTW - you already know this but I support true 2nd for brackets that are drawn or mapped based on geography.




I'm a data guy and this just doesn't pass the sniff test. Just for grins I took a well known national tournament (Tulsa) and mapped the results for the person who lost in the finals by age group. They either won the true 2nd, lost it or didn't have to wrestle since they already wrestled the 3rd place finisher. Here are the results (Note round robin brackets removed from data):

Division--Won--Lost--No Match
---6U--------2-------2------5
---8U--------4-------4------5
--10U-------6-------5------5
--12U-------6-------4------8
--15U-------4-------4------6
TOTAL----22-----19----29

Based on the above:
The wrestler that lost in the "finals" won their true 2nd 54% of the time.
The wrestler that lost in the "finals" LOST their true 2nd 46% of the time.
Of the total opportunities no match was required 41% of the time since the 2nd and 3rd had already wrestled (RULE).

Unless Tulsa is a statistical outlier in terms of results I'd say the above data suggests that the 75%-90% assumption does not hold true. No doubt it's an emotional task but it seems that more than 50% are up to the task!

I believe it is fine the way it is. Do high school state tournaments wrestle a true 2nd? Do any level college national tournaments or conference tournaments wrestle a true 2nd? No! Making the finals and the parades and how big they make it is part of what makes the state tournament and national tournaments special. Everyone is battling for a state championship, whether you are 2nd or 3rd doesn't really matter. When its over start training and get the title the next year. The only reason you wrestle a true second or 3rd is if the tournament is a qualifier for another tournament and then you want to make sure the top 2 if you are only taking 2 or the top 3 if you are only taking 3 are the best ones to go on. Why not go ahead and wrestle a true 4th at subs and districts so you make sure the actual top 4 get out each week? That is more important than a true 2nd at state.

Big difference between Kids and High School that are bracketed according to regional or district finish compared to College which are seeded with criteria. I don't think you should even start to compare these with college.

I would prefer seeding over the "extra match". I had data from 10 years ago from the three years I went to CK Kickoff and Tulsa Nationals with Ryne. My data with him, he lost every time he got 2nd and won every time he got 3rd with one exception so 90%. I am guessing their is variation from year to year. Also, it should be noted, Tulsa and all Roller events are seeded and this seeding has improved over the years with the increased availability of information from the internet. I don't think your data is relevant to this conversation.

We are in this for the kids... What good comes from an extra match of this type? Maybe we should go to a true double elimination format?

Not sure I agree with that Will. OK National events tends to favor OK. It is remarkable how they tend to seed all KS wrestlers on same side of the bracket with a higher seed not from OK. Then seed an OK wrestler with fluff. It's all about getting an OK kid in the finals. Been there done that a few times and even got into a heated discussion about it with Roller about it and it wasn't even my kid at the time. Seeding is often very biased and a bit overrated. Prob why we all get so worked up over HS rankings.

I agree, when you wrestle in a series they weight the seeding based on results from THEIR events. Yet and still, there is an attempt to seed so it isn't really a "geographic split" which means you don't have a true random 2nd place. There was an attempt to separate the best.

We took four kids to the USJOC in which all four were seeded 2nd behind kids they had beaten earlier in the season. All four 1 seeds were from an OK club. So I know exactly what you are referring to.

Seeding is worth arguing over but I don't think rankings are as they just provide information.

I can not believe Ricky Bobby has not weighed in on this topic.

It is really simple. "If your not first, your last." Does it really matter who took second? If you lost it does not matter what place you take, because it is not first.

They one thing I hate about True Second, as long as you don't lose to the second place kid you get a shot at second. You could lose to a kid that gets beat out and still get a shot at second.

The only way I could go with True Second is if we added a twist. If you lose the Second Place Match, you are beat out of the tournament and everyone else moves up the ladder. Two losses means you are beat out, even if it is for True Second.

It is a slippery slope. What is the 3rd place guy challenges and beats the 2nd place guy and has never lost to the Champion. Should he get a shot at the title?

Did you just say that, so the 4th place wrestler, who just lost his 2nd match to the 3rd place wrestler is now 3rd?????????

No, the 3rd place wrestler is either going to be in 2nd or beat out. So naturally we would move 4th to 3rd since 3rd is no longer in the tournament. It makes just as much sense as wrestling for True Second don't you think?

Or the idea I like the best. Once you lose two matches you are done and do not place. This would get rid of 4th, 5th, and 6th. It would give us a real reason to wrestle for True Second, only first and second could place. Third would no longer matter either, because with a True Second, the third place wrestler would lose two and by definition be beat out of the tournament.

With this reasoning, I can see a REAL NEED to wrestle for a TRUE SECOND.

You can't move 4th up, they got beat out, 2 loses, a few minutes earlier...remember the 2nd loss is what kicks out the 3rd place wrestler who just lost in the true 2nd match.

Sorry John,
I kept editing, not realizing you had posted. I fixed the double elimination problem. I'll repost my edits.

Reposted Edits.

LOL

Some regional, sectional tournaments true 2nd actually determines whether or not the wrestler moves on to the kids, HS or College - State or National Tournament.
Then the true 2nd sometimes is offered at those next level tournaments. Gold, Silver or Bronze. I have a tough time saying the 2nd best guy on a given day (Silver medalist) is meaningless.

How about at the big tens this year wrestling back for 9th place and then placing higher at D-I Nationals.

I would bet some where around the state in one of the subdistricts or districts there are a few guys good enough to place in state but did not make it this year.

I'm sure there are several guys in all of the Districts that could place in state, unfortunately they are in a tough bracket for Districts.

2nd place means nothing for series points, moving on to a National Tournament, or anything else in the State Series. There is no real reason to wrestle for True Second. Sometimes your the windshield, sometimes your the bug.

I agree in wrestling true 2nd.
My kid ended up on the wrong side of the bracket last year and kids he beat all year that were on the opposite side went on.
Very similar this year also. We would have been better off getting 2nd place at our district.