State Tournament Wrestling Pill
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:07 pm
State Tournament Wrestling Pill
Every year, the WVSSAC has a system called “the Pill” that is supposed to be a ‘fair’ method to create a bracket layout for wrestlers who have qualified for the State Tournament. This system has really been nothing but bad news for our state as a wrestling community and here’s why...
Before I start, let’s not put ourselves in the perspective of being a fan, parent, etc. Instead, let’s think about the wrestlers side of it. Let’s say for example (I repeat this is just an example, I am not directing this towards anybody or anyone) your name is Billy and you wrestle in the Region 4 tournament at 138 pounds. You just got upset in the regional finals and now the only thing you can think about is, “I wonder how the Pill is going to effect me at the State Tournament?” The next day after your loss, you wake up and the first thing you go to check is what version of the Pill was selected. You see that you have another wrestler who beat you earlier in the year in the quarterfinals, while the kid who placed 3rd in your region, Region 4, has nobody hard to wrestle until the semifinals. You feel frustrated and overwhelmed. A kid that placed lower than you a week ago, now has a better chance of placing or even placing higher than you because of a certain way the Pill was drawn. Something so simple can effect the mindset of some of our best wrestlers and not make them want to compete.
This is just few of the many examples I could use as to why the Pill is a bad thing for West Virginia wrestling. If we want to see this sport grow in our state I think the WVSSAC should and must change. This does nothing but holds a wrestler back from his or hers true potential. Our high school wrestlers often get too worried about who they have to wrestle, and when they have to wrestle them. Rather than just going out, competing, and making the sport fun to watch.
Thanks for reading
Before I start, let’s not put ourselves in the perspective of being a fan, parent, etc. Instead, let’s think about the wrestlers side of it. Let’s say for example (I repeat this is just an example, I am not directing this towards anybody or anyone) your name is Billy and you wrestle in the Region 4 tournament at 138 pounds. You just got upset in the regional finals and now the only thing you can think about is, “I wonder how the Pill is going to effect me at the State Tournament?” The next day after your loss, you wake up and the first thing you go to check is what version of the Pill was selected. You see that you have another wrestler who beat you earlier in the year in the quarterfinals, while the kid who placed 3rd in your region, Region 4, has nobody hard to wrestle until the semifinals. You feel frustrated and overwhelmed. A kid that placed lower than you a week ago, now has a better chance of placing or even placing higher than you because of a certain way the Pill was drawn. Something so simple can effect the mindset of some of our best wrestlers and not make them want to compete.
This is just few of the many examples I could use as to why the Pill is a bad thing for West Virginia wrestling. If we want to see this sport grow in our state I think the WVSSAC should and must change. This does nothing but holds a wrestler back from his or hers true potential. Our high school wrestlers often get too worried about who they have to wrestle, and when they have to wrestle them. Rather than just going out, competing, and making the sport fun to watch.
Thanks for reading
-
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:24 pm
- Location: Marshall County
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
The pill operates on the “assumption” that for the most part all regions are equally talented. We all know this is not true. Always keep in mind that the powers that be make decisions based on that assumption and try to level a playing field that is not even close to level. Once people can accept this fact, rules can be made that facilitate fairness. With that said, rules need to be fair but equality is another story all together. Fair does not mean equal.
-
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:19 am
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
I believe the kids should be seeded. They work to hard all yr to let a blind drawn number decide who wrestles who instead of their accomplishments . We should have a seeding. It can be done either by coaches or a unattached group. Im not sure how to get it changed but if a petition would work lets try it.
-
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:01 am
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
mike.carman wrote:The pill operates on the “assumption” that for the most part all regions are equally talented. We all know this is not true. Always keep in mind that the powers that be make decisions based on that assumption and try to level a playing field that is not even close to level. Once people can accept this fact, rules can be made that facilitate fairness. With that said, rules need to be fair but equality is another story all together. Fair does not mean equal.
What are the toughest second toughest, third toughest, and weakest regions in AAA? A/AA?
-
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:24 pm
- Location: Marshall County
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
ZZChooseTop wrote:mike.carman wrote:The pill operates on the “assumption” that for the most part all regions are equally talented. We all know this is not true. Always keep in mind that the powers that be make decisions based on that assumption and try to level a playing field that is not even close to level. Once people can accept this fact, rules can be made that facilitate fairness. With that said, rules need to be fair but equality is another story all together. Fair does not mean equal.
What are the toughest second toughest, third toughest, and weakest regions in AAA? A/AA?
In AAA region 4 is the toughest then Regions 1 and 3 are close and Region 2 is the weekest IMO. In A/AA Region 1 is the toughest and Region 3 is next but I am guessing if I go further as I don’t follow A/AA as close. Again this is only my opinion. Before the realignment of regions AAA Region 1 was stronger than the other regions.
-
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:24 pm
- Location: Marshall County
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
aaacoach90 wrote:I believe the kids should be seeded. They work to hard all yr to let a blind drawn number decide who wrestles who instead of their accomplishments . We should have a seeding. It can be done either by coaches or a unattached group. Im not sure how to get it changed but if a petition would work lets try it.
I agree with you.
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:42 pm
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
As a fan and nothing more so please don’t put more into it. I like the pill as it brings uncertainty and excitement through out the tournament. I will asked two questions for thought.
1. If you wrestled the tournament 5 times with same pill would you have the same champion all 5 times?
2. If you seeded the tournament 5 times would you have the same champion all 5 times?
I am good either way because I have said for years it isn’t always the (best) wrestler. It is about the best wrestler that weekend.
That is my two cents worth!!
Good Luck to all the kids as they embark on this journey!
1. If you wrestled the tournament 5 times with same pill would you have the same champion all 5 times?
2. If you seeded the tournament 5 times would you have the same champion all 5 times?
I am good either way because I have said for years it isn’t always the (best) wrestler. It is about the best wrestler that weekend.
That is my two cents worth!!
Good Luck to all the kids as they embark on this journey!
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
I don't have evidence but I believe for a short period of time in the 70s or early 80s, the brackets were preset on what region would match up with the other regions. There was rumor that some favorite regional champions would intentionally lose to avoid an early round match up with the state favorite from another region, henceforth the ramdom drawing of the pill was born to be reveled after the regionals were completed.
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
forthekids wrote:As a fan and nothing more so please don’t put more into it. I like the pill as it brings uncertainty and excitement through out the tournament. I will asked two questions for thought.
1. If you wrestled the tournament 5 times with same pill would you have the same champion all 5 times?
2. If you seeded the tournament 5 times would you have the same champion all 5 times?
I am good either way because I have said for years it isn’t always the (best) wrestler. It is about the best wrestler that weekend.
That is my two cents worth!!
Good Luck to all the kids as they embark on this journey!
Would you have the same finalists? If no, would you always have the same team scores.
Your two cents means that the only thing that matters is the state champion, to some of these wrestlers (you know, for the kids), being a state finalist may mean something to their goals, being the best they can be, not the best the pill allowed them to be. Just my thoughts on let the seasons body of work mean more than a late Saturday night lottery.
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
Brent sams you are correct. The state tournament bracket was published in the WVSSAC Interscholastic in the Winter issue. With that, it did happen that it was obvious on a couple of occasions that the regional place winners did not turn out as expected. Upsets had nothing to do with the results. So the PILL was created. This discussion of removing the pill and seeding has been beaten to death. Would anyone advocating seeding please list any other state that seeds their state meet, who is involved in the seed discussions and how are conflicts resolved. Make sure that the seeding criteria is published so that it will not be considered a secret.
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:56 am
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
http://www.d6wrestling.com/SeedCriterion.htm
This is how PA seeds tournaments, its not that hard if you keep track of your athletes all season long.
This is how PA seeds tournaments, its not that hard if you keep track of your athletes all season long.
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
Coachcookie wrote:http://www.d6wrestling.com/SeedCriterion.htm
This is how PA seeds tournaments, its not that hard if you keep track of your athletes all season long.
New Jersey. 4a below, what a concept.
1. COMMITTEE Chaired by the Tournament Director who will break any tie
votes, his designated Seeding Chairperson and the eight (8) Regional
Presidents of the NJWCA.
2. DATE/SITE OF THE SEEDING MEETING Tuesday - February 27,
2018 at 9:00 AM at NJSIAA Headquarters on Route 130 in Robbinsville, NJ.
3. On Monday, Region Presidents will pre-seed assigned weight classes to
present to the entire seeding committee on Tuesday.
4. GOAL OF SEEDING
a. Separate the best wrestlers
b. Pre-seed, head-to-head movement and seed only 1st, 2nd and 3rd place
regions medal winners
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
Thank you for the info. The question I asked needed answered because all the advocates of seeding never provided a process. I
-
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:19 am
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
The discussion of the pill being removed over and over again is correct and for good reason. Now at this point something needs to be done. So what can be done? Anyone have any idea how to get this started and not just talking about it?
Maybe at the state tournament coaches meeting have a simple vote to keep the pill or move forward to change it would be a good way to start and see where the all the coaches stand?
Maybe at the state tournament coaches meeting have a simple vote to keep the pill or move forward to change it would be a good way to start and see where the all the coaches stand?
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
aaacoach90 wrote:The discussion of the pill being removed over and over again is correct and for good reason. Now at this point something needs to be done. So what can be done? Anyone have any idea how to get this started and not just talking about it?
Maybe at the state tournament coaches meeting have a simple vote to keep the pill or move forward to change it would be a good way to start and see where the all the coaches stand?
Now we're getting somewhere, if those who can effect such a movement towards a change are so inclined and have the perspective that many on here suggest. I kinda always thought that the Pill option was chosen and has stayed in place because it was the easy way out. Just my 1/2 a cent.
-
- Posts: 5146
- Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:14 am
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
Coachcookie wrote:http://www.d6wrestling.com/SeedCriterion.htm
This is how PA seeds tournaments, its not that hard if you keep track of your athletes all season long.
Thank you for your efforts from PA to help the wrestling community here in WV.
Holy smokes. Braxton Amos works out with a landmine now!!!!!!
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:45 am
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
As a fan of the sport and not having a dog in any fight. I believe weather You seed or use the pill the cream will rise rob he top. I believe many advocate for seeds because they want there Wrestler to place high in the tournament they look at a bracket and no they can't beat one or two but may never wrestle for third or fourth depending on the pill. I think if we were to change anything we keep the pill and wrestle for a true 2nd-3rd like many states do...Just an old man and his opinion
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
GraftonFan wrote:As a fan of the sport and not having a dog in any fight. I believe weather You seed or use the pill the cream will rise rob he top. I believe many advocate for seeds because they want there Wrestler to place high in the tournament they look at a bracket and no they can't beat one or two but may never wrestle for third or fourth depending on the pill. I think if we were to change anything we keep the pill and wrestle for a true 2nd-3rd like many states do...Just an old man and his opinion
You may be right, but the only thing I have heard complained about the pill on a repeated basis is that it has a 1/3 "chance" in every weight class that the obvious #1 and #2 in a "seeded" event will only end up meeting in the semifinals (if they both win as expected). So it is not about protecting wrestlers so they will place higher. With that said, your suggestion of a true 2nd with a 2nd vs. 3rd match-up (if the 2nd has not already beat the 3rd earlier in the tournament) would on paper address this. I'm not sure if that is ever done in high school and would wonder if the 2nd place high school wrestler is really going to be up to that match, especially the very night after their finals loss. However, I'm just saying, the big deal is the 3rd place wrestler getting to meet in the championship spotlight, as opposed to getting credit for 2nd instead of 3rd.
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
Coachcookie wrote:http://www.d6wrestling.com/SeedCriterion.htm
This is how PA seeds tournaments, its not that hard if you keep track of your athletes all season long.
This appears to be seeding criteria for districts. I was under the impression that PA did use set brackets for individual state tournament and only changed them to separate returning state champions. Has that changed?
The PA state dual championship is not seeded and uses a set bracket. Heard commentator discussing this on broadcast last week.
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
george wrote:Coachcookie wrote:http://www.d6wrestling.com/SeedCriterion.htm
This is how PA seeds tournaments, its not that hard if you keep track of your athletes all season long.
This appears to be seeding criteria for districts. I was under the impression that PA did use set brackets for individual state tournament and only changed them to separate returning state champions. Has that changed?
The PA state dual championship is not seeded and uses a set bracket. Heard commentator discussing this on broadcast last week.
Changed last season, they do seed now.
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
LOL, I for one, maybe the only on, love the pill. It keep coaches from "running" from some people in seeding meetings. I've been in some meetings where it took 45 minutes of fighting and maneuvering to seed 4 wrestlers in one bracket. If I'm a coach, not getting extra pay for the battle, I'm interested in the pill. You must wrestle to win anyway. I do understand the arguments though. I prefer the pill.
-
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:20 pm
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
As a coach, I didn't appreciate the 'pill'. It can determine the placement of the teams, in a close race, can even determine which team finishes first. Not this year though. As a wrestling fan, it's great because you have interesting matchups from the first round and beyond. Looking at the AA-A side, a few nice matchups in the first round but come Friday morning, WOW. I can't wait.
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
KDunbar, your percentage for the pill on putting the best two wrestlers on the same side of the bracket are a little off. There is a 33% chance of the two best wrestlers being on the same side of the bracket if they are in different regions. If the two best wrestlers are in the same region, they are separated 100% of the time. That reduces the percentage that the top two wrestlers would be on the same side of the bracket below 33%, significantly so in AAA where the majority of ranked wrestlers are together in Region IV.
The problem with the "seed the state tournament" argument is that it assumes that seeding the tournament would reduce the percentage that the best two guys wind up on the same side of the bracket to zero, which isn't the case. I doubt that the seeding criteria that would be adopted would be more successful at separating the wrestlers than the pill is. As an example, consider AA/A 132 this season. If we seeded the top four in that weight class based on this season's results and the regional seeding criteria adopted by the coaching committee, the seeds would be:
1. Caleb Rea
2. Peyton Hall
3. Lane Flint
4. Hunter Taylor
Rea and Hall, as demonstrated by the rankings, are pretty widely considered to be the two best 132 pounders in the state. This is essentially the bracket that the pill gave us. Rea would be the top seed based on his more recent wins over Hall. Flint would be seeded ahead of Taylor based upon a head-to-head win over Taylor during the East Fairmont-Independence dual in December. The match with Flint was Hunter's first match back following a pretty serious injury and his first time down to weight this season. Hunter wanted to wrestle in the match because he's a really tough kid and because East Fairmont kicked our butt in a dual last season, but there's very little chance his coaches would have let him on the mat against a wrestler as good as Flint if the match would have had seeding implications for the state tournament. Hunter also wasn't able to wrestle WSAZ due to injury so, but for the dual meet, he wouldn't have had any matches against the other three wrestlers. If Hunter hadn't wrestled in the East Fairmont dual and the rest of the season had played out the same way, here is how AA/A 132 would be seeded:
1. Hunter Taylor
2. Caleb Rea
3. Peyton Hall
4. Lane Flint
No separation based on head-to-head or common opponent for the top four. Hunter would be the one seed under the criteria because he is the defending 132-pound state champ. Hall and Rea won their state titles last season in lower weight classes. Rea and Hall would be on the same side of the bracket. What the pill got right, humans would get wrong.
If you seeded the state tournament, a seeding criteria would have to be set and publicly communicated before the season. Coaches and wrestlers would spend the season trying to game the system to protect their seed at the state tournament. Wrestlers would avoid tough matches that might hurt their seed. Teams would be discouraged from wrestling tough schedules out of fear as to how it might affect their seeds. If you don't believe this would happen, look at 165 in the Big Ten where teams sat their best wrestlers against Ivan Martinez during dual meets because they wanted to protect their wrestlers' seed.
My old coach, Ed Gilson, always told us that you don't have to be the best wrestler in your class to win a state title. You just have to win four matches when you get to Huntington. His advice is still good no matter how wrestlers are placed in the bracket. The pill does a pretty good job of separating the best wrestlers in each weight class while not discouraging wrestlers from facing the best competition each season. It isn't perfect, but neither is seeding. No one on here has made a very compelling argument as to why the pill ought to be abandoned.
David Hart
The problem with the "seed the state tournament" argument is that it assumes that seeding the tournament would reduce the percentage that the best two guys wind up on the same side of the bracket to zero, which isn't the case. I doubt that the seeding criteria that would be adopted would be more successful at separating the wrestlers than the pill is. As an example, consider AA/A 132 this season. If we seeded the top four in that weight class based on this season's results and the regional seeding criteria adopted by the coaching committee, the seeds would be:
1. Caleb Rea
2. Peyton Hall
3. Lane Flint
4. Hunter Taylor
Rea and Hall, as demonstrated by the rankings, are pretty widely considered to be the two best 132 pounders in the state. This is essentially the bracket that the pill gave us. Rea would be the top seed based on his more recent wins over Hall. Flint would be seeded ahead of Taylor based upon a head-to-head win over Taylor during the East Fairmont-Independence dual in December. The match with Flint was Hunter's first match back following a pretty serious injury and his first time down to weight this season. Hunter wanted to wrestle in the match because he's a really tough kid and because East Fairmont kicked our butt in a dual last season, but there's very little chance his coaches would have let him on the mat against a wrestler as good as Flint if the match would have had seeding implications for the state tournament. Hunter also wasn't able to wrestle WSAZ due to injury so, but for the dual meet, he wouldn't have had any matches against the other three wrestlers. If Hunter hadn't wrestled in the East Fairmont dual and the rest of the season had played out the same way, here is how AA/A 132 would be seeded:
1. Hunter Taylor
2. Caleb Rea
3. Peyton Hall
4. Lane Flint
No separation based on head-to-head or common opponent for the top four. Hunter would be the one seed under the criteria because he is the defending 132-pound state champ. Hall and Rea won their state titles last season in lower weight classes. Rea and Hall would be on the same side of the bracket. What the pill got right, humans would get wrong.
If you seeded the state tournament, a seeding criteria would have to be set and publicly communicated before the season. Coaches and wrestlers would spend the season trying to game the system to protect their seed at the state tournament. Wrestlers would avoid tough matches that might hurt their seed. Teams would be discouraged from wrestling tough schedules out of fear as to how it might affect their seeds. If you don't believe this would happen, look at 165 in the Big Ten where teams sat their best wrestlers against Ivan Martinez during dual meets because they wanted to protect their wrestlers' seed.
My old coach, Ed Gilson, always told us that you don't have to be the best wrestler in your class to win a state title. You just have to win four matches when you get to Huntington. His advice is still good no matter how wrestlers are placed in the bracket. The pill does a pretty good job of separating the best wrestlers in each weight class while not discouraging wrestlers from facing the best competition each season. It isn't perfect, but neither is seeding. No one on here has made a very compelling argument as to why the pill ought to be abandoned.
David Hart
Re: State Tournament Wrestling Pill
IndyHart wrote:KDunbar, your percentage for the pill on putting the best two wrestlers on the same side of the bracket are a little off. There is a 33% chance of the two best wrestlers being on the same side of the bracket if they are in different regions. If the two best wrestlers are in the same region, they are separated 100% of the time. That reduces the percentage that the top two wrestlers would be on the same side of the bracket below 33%, significantly so in AAA where the majority of ranked wrestlers are together in Region IV.
The problem with the "seed the state tournament" argument is that it assumes that seeding the tournament would reduce the percentage that the best two guys wind up on the same side of the bracket to zero, which isn't the case. I doubt that the seeding criteria that would be adopted would be more successful at separating the wrestlers than the pill is. As an example, consider AA/A 132 this season. If we seeded the top four in that weight class based on this season's results and the regional seeding criteria adopted by the coaching committee, the seeds would be:
1. Caleb Rea
2. Peyton Hall
3. Lane Flint
4. Hunter Taylor
Rea and Hall, as demonstrated by the rankings, are pretty widely considered to be the two best 132 pounders in the state. This is essentially the bracket that the pill gave us. Rea would be the top seed based on his more recent wins over Hall. Flint would be seeded ahead of Taylor based upon a head-to-head win over Taylor during the East Fairmont-Independence dual in December. The match with Flint was Hunter's first match back following a pretty serious injury and his first time down to weight this season. Hunter wanted to wrestle in the match because he's a really tough kid and because East Fairmont kicked our butt in a dual last season, but there's very little chance his coaches would have let him on the mat against a wrestler as good as Flint if the match would have had seeding implications for the state tournament. Hunter also wasn't able to wrestle WSAZ due to injury so, but for the dual meet, he wouldn't have had any matches against the other three wrestlers. If Hunter hadn't wrestled in the East Fairmont dual and the rest of the season had played out the same way, here is how AA/A 132 would be seeded:
1. Hunter Taylor
2. Caleb Rea
3. Peyton Hall
4. Lane Flint
No separation based on head-to-head or common opponent for the top four. Hunter would be the one seed under the criteria because he is the defending 132-pound state champ. Hall and Rea won their state titles last season in lower weight classes. Rea and Hall would be on the same side of the bracket. What the pill got right, humans would get wrong.
If you seeded the state tournament, a seeding criteria would have to be set and publicly communicated before the season. Coaches and wrestlers would spend the season trying to game the system to protect their seed at the state tournament. Wrestlers would avoid tough matches that might hurt their seed. Teams would be discouraged from wrestling tough schedules out of fear as to how it might affect their seeds. If you don't believe this would happen, look at 165 in the Big Ten where teams sat their best wrestlers against Ivan Martinez during dual meets because they wanted to protect their wrestlers' seed.
My old coach, Ed Gilson, always told us that you don't have to be the best wrestler in your class to win a state title. You just have to win four matches when you get to Huntington. His advice is still good no matter how wrestlers are placed in the bracket. The pill does a pretty good job of separating the best wrestlers in each weight class while not discouraging wrestlers from facing the best competition each season. It isn't perfect, but neither is seeding. No one on here has made a very compelling argument as to why the pill ought to be abandoned.
David Hart
Thanks for correcting that for me. I had put the word "often" a 1/3 chance but took out the word often to avoid confusion and didn't quite know how to succinctly word it otherwise. You did a very good job explaining the situation. Since I have never been in a seeding meeting I mainly try to avoid advocating one way or the other because in this situation I am out of my league. I think your experience speaks volumes towards those who glibly say it is no big deal to seed a tournament and it would always work out just the way they envision it would. It's "no big deal" possibly if one gets to choose the seeding criteria they want and change it for each and every situation that comes up and therefore create the ideal bracket that they as a single individual would want. I kinda doubted it would be that clear cut and easy. However, I'm sure the next post will be about how it is done somewhere and how easy it is to always get it right.
Return to “High School Wrestling”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 81 guests