The Pill !

[aaacoach49]

Being ranked #2 does not mean someone is the second best wrestler in a weight class. Based, initially on last seasons results, and then known results from this season, a few people have tried to rank the wrestlers as best they are able.

Its a bit insulting to all the other wrestlers in a bracket to act like there is no way someone else in the bracket is better than whoever is currently ranked #2.

With that being said...
If they ever went with a seeding, it would need to be limited to the the regional champs. A modified pill system could be used. Instead of simply drawing a pill number. the pill number would vary for each weight class depending on how the regional champs are seeded. The goal would be to separate the top 2 regional champs. Then, that placement would determine which pill to use to fill in all the other wrestlers. One might question, what about if the top 2 kids are from the same region? Well, only the regional champs get seeded, and a #2 ranked who ends up losing to the #1 ranked at their regional tournament would already be separated by whichever pill they end up using so its a non-issue.

[aacoach117]

I understand everyone's displeasure with the pill, and in many cases it is justified to be unhappy. The other side of the coin here is that we don't run into coaches showing favoritism or trying to manipulate the brackets. Like it or not, there are coaches who will gladly argue that their wrestler should be a higher seed just so they can try and win and they could care less if it is fair or justified. The pill not being announced until after regionals have finished ensures that it is entirely random and unpredictable and no coach can intentionally throw a 3rd/4th place match to get their wrestler in the better side of the bracket. After some of the stuff I have seen out of coaches I would rather have the pill 100 times than trust some of them one time.

[dunbar76]

Keep the pill for all the reasons aaacoach117 stated. I've been in seeding meetings where way too much BS goes on. Please keep the pill.

[Panther_coach]

Keep the Pill! I too have been in seeding meetings (a lot of them in my almost 30 years coaching) where coaches nearly came to blows because seeding is so subjective. Wrestler A, B,C and D are all highly touted. Wrestler A has a record of 43-4 but all his loses came to nationally ranked kids at Powerade, Ironman, etc. He was a state placer the last two years but in lighter weight classes. He’s a junior. Wrestler B is undefeated at 46-0 but has rarely left his little corner of the state and several of those wins came as forfeits at quads and tris. Wrestler C is only 4-1 but was the state runner up last year in the same weight class and a three time placer. He was dealing with an injury from football. Wrestler D is also undefeated at 44-0 but many of his wins were in a different weight class as he made his alpha weight late in the season. Now seed them and lets see how many opinions we get. It would sound something like this ...
“ but he’s undefeated! - He didn’t wrestle anyone - My kid is a three time placer - well mine’s undefeated too! - that was a different weight! - well a win is a win! - hey now, wait a damn minute, my kid is undefeated and all his matches were at this weight - did he place last year? - place, heck, my kid was the runner up in the same class - but my kid wrestled the best in the country - yeah, but he has 4 losses! - I’d like to see your kid wrestle those guys! My kid was runner up I tell you! Yeah but he’s hurt - no he’s OK now - how did he get beat then? It was his first match back! & half your kids wins were forfeits - shouldn’t placing three times mean anything? But he placed 5-5-3 ... my kid was runner up...but my kid placed at the Ironman ... has he placed at state in this weight class? My kid was in this class and the kid who beat him graduated... he did not graduate, he quit school ... what does that matter... but mine’s undefeated I tell you!... well my kid is a two time regional champ ... but your region sucks... we didn’t make the regions up ... let me tell you about the Ironman ... my kid was runner up ... that means he was first loser & my kid is undefeated... but he didn’t wrestle my kid yet .... ad naseum.
Take it from the old coach, this is not far off from the way it would go.

[mscoach4]

The Good = Opinions are left out of placement in the bracket and the best wrestler will be the state champion
The Bad = The 2nd best wrestler in the state might finish 3rd
.
In my opinion the good outweighs the bad

[rodneyjwv]

If everyone is so keen to avoid BS, why do you vote for representation in government?

Theses overpaid Wvssca tools get paid major salaries to do NOTHING but pick a pill once a year, or whatever tournament they preside over.

If everyone wants the pill, OK Vote on it! Then dissolve the WVSSAC, put that $500-$800k in salaries now paid for nothing, back into the coaches and teachers that represents the sports they coach and sponsor.

I'm sure most coaches would prefer to get more back for the 100s of
Hours they sacrifice from their own families to guide our kids. And our teachers definitely deserve more from the corruption that we call a state capital!

[rodneyjwv]

if you question the Salaries of those Valted WVSSAC officials, I know a Computer guy that has worked in that office multiple time over the past 20 years, he has no horses in any of the races and hasn't for many years, he has seen the books as they say. Along with the dirty laundry that goes with it in the form of emails and department memo's!

Corruption from the Top Down!

It infects all WV Sports, not just Wrestling. It just shows its ugly head every year at this time to us Wrestling fans!

[JustSomeone]

The Pill is lazy, and disrespectful to the wrestlers to have their positions in the State Tournament decided by sheer luck. We all want to see the two best wrestlers in the finals, we do not want to see the two best wrestlers meet in the quarters/semis and then watch a terribly boring finals match thinking "it should have been Billy and Bob in the finals, not the semis. This match is boring!". The Pill is lazy. Make clearly defined criteria for seeding, and stick to it, hard to argue against set and enforced criteria. The right thing for the kids is to seed the tournament, otherwise what is the point for anything before regionals?

[aaacoach49]

The Pill is lazy, and disrespectful to the wrestlers to have their positions in the State Tournament decided by sheer luck. We all want to see the two best wrestlers in the finals, we do not want to see the two best wrestlers meet in the quarters/semis and then watch a terribly boring finals match thinking "it should have been Billy and Bob in the finals, not the semis. This match is boring!". The Pill is lazy. Make clearly defined criteria for seeding, and stick to it, hard to argue against set and enforced criteria. The right thing for the kids is to seed the tournament, otherwise what is the point for anything before regionals?

Even clearly defined criteria will not adequately account for all circumstances. One example is there will always be freshmen who are better but who just are not a returning state placer or qualifier so someone else who is gets a seed over them. Any criteria that uses how someone did the prior season is inherently biased toward freshmen.

[JustSomeone]

The Pill is lazy, and disrespectful to the wrestlers to have their positions in the State Tournament decided by sheer luck. We all want to see the two best wrestlers in the finals, we do not want to see the two best wrestlers meet in the quarters/semis and then watch a terribly boring finals match thinking "it should have been Billy and Bob in the finals, not the semis. This match is boring!". The Pill is lazy. Make clearly defined criteria for seeding, and stick to it, hard to argue against set and enforced criteria. The right thing for the kids is to seed the tournament, otherwise what is the point for anything before regionals?

Even clearly defined criteria will not adequately account for all circumstances. One example is there will always be freshmen who are better but who just are not a returning state placer or qualifier so someone else who is gets a seed over them. Any criteria that uses how someone did the prior season is inherently biased toward freshmen.

That is why it should never be used as the main criteria for seeding. Overall record (against in-state competition would probably make this easier) and Head to Head using most recent results would take care of the bulk of the seeding.

[Bearhugger]

The Pill is lazy, and disrespectful to the wrestlers to have their positions in the State Tournament decided by sheer luck. We all want to see the two best wrestlers in the finals, we do not want to see the two best wrestlers meet in the quarters/semis and then watch a terribly boring finals match thinking "it should have been Billy and Bob in the finals, not the semis. This match is boring!". The Pill is lazy. Make clearly defined criteria for seeding, and stick to it, hard to argue against set and enforced criteria. The right thing for the kids is to seed the tournament, otherwise what is the point for anything before regionals?

Even clearly defined criteria will not adequately account for all circumstances. One example is there will always be freshmen who are better but who just are not a returning state placer or qualifier so someone else who is gets a seed over them. Any criteria that uses how someone did the prior season is inherently biased toward freshmen.

Do not let "perfect" become the enemy of "better".

[Studcradle]

Question for JustSomeone
Under the current system how would the two best wrestlers meet in the quarter finals of the state tournament? If they were the two best then one would presume that they were both regional champions and there is a 1 out of 3 chance they would meet in the semis (2/3 of the time they won’t). If they started in the same region and they’re truly the two best kids then one finished as regional champ and the other as either second or third (depending upon seeding criteria at regionals) sending them to opposite brackets so there is a 100% certainty that they would not meet until the finals. Can’t meet in the quarters unless they’re from different regions and one of them wasn’t the champ of his own region (casting doubt on the claim they they are the 2 best wrestlers in the state).

[Bearhugger]

Question for JustSomeone
Under the current system how would the two best wrestlers meet in the quarter finals of the state tournament? If they were the two best then one would presume that they were both regional champions and there is a 1 out of 3 chance they would meet in the semis (2/3 of the time they won’t). If they started in the same region and they’re truly the two best kids then one finished as regional champ and the other as either second or third (depending upon seeding criteria at regionals) sending them to opposite brackets so there is a 100% certainty that they would not meet until the finals. Can’t meet in the quarters unless they’re from different regions and one of them wasn’t the champ of his own region (casting doubt on the claim they they are the 2 best wrestlers in the state).

Indeed you logical forum poster.

[JustSomeone]

Question for JustSomeone
Under the current system how would the two best wrestlers meet in the quarter finals of the state tournament? If they were the two best then one would presume that they were both regional champions and there is a 1 out of 3 chance they would meet in the semis (2/3 of the time they won’t). If they started in the same region and they’re truly the two best kids then one finished as regional champ and the other as either second or third (depending upon seeding criteria at regionals) sending them to opposite brackets so there is a 100% certainty that they would not meet until the finals. Can’t meet in the quarters unless they’re from different regions and one of them wasn’t the champ of his own region (casting doubt on the claim they they are the 2 best wrestlers in the state).

That was more of a generic statement to say we need to make sure the best wrestlers based on regular season are separated. But since you want to argue:

Lets say Billy is 40-0, and Johnny is 40-0 and they are by far the two best wrestlers in the state. Billy wins his region, but poor Johnny is sick, he has the flu. The poor kid is struggling from the sickness, but he won't be denied a state tournament when he will be fully healthy in a few days and the tournament is 2 weeks away. Heck lets say he injury defaults his regional semis, struggles through the consi semis, and ID the 3rd and 4th match. Pill time, and Billy and Johnny are matched up in the very first match. Does an illness at one tournament mean Johnny is not one of the two best anymore, even though come tournament time he will be healthy? Should we have not considered those factors (any decent coach would not hold those ID against Johnny, given the situation)? How likely it is that the situation happens is irrelevant. It could happen, and we would have no methods of correcting it and ensuring the two wrestlers who have dominated until that point have the chance to meet where they should, the finals.

[Studcradle]

Under your far fetched scenario, Johnny doesn't enter the state tournament undefeated, he's 40-1 or 40-2 depending upon how he defaulted. He's lost either 50% or 67% of his most recent matches leading up to the state tournament. Under the rules it is possible that he isn't even eligible to wrestle at the state tournament (read rules regarding procedure for injury defaults prior to final placement match). You honestly believe that the coaches or a committee are all going to agree that he's clearly the #1 seed? the #2 seed? The wrestlers finishing ahead of him (at regionals) are going to have coaches or regional representatives lobby for them to be separated from Billy. The two other regional champs are going to have coaches or regional representatives lobbying for them to be separated from Billy. All will have compelling arguments. Anyone who sat through an old jr states seeding meeting has heard the arguments of being sick, tougher schedule, having a really good older sibling or other family member, as reasons for a higher seed. WSAZ in middle has a set criteria but even then there are discussions and alliances. In a team race you don't think that coaches would lean toward a team coach they like? Read the threads about OW and COY after many of the state tournaments, heck, read the thread this year about the Indy coaches and wrestlers at the conference tournament and tell me that coaches don't sometimes have an agenda when voting.

I recognize the faults of the pill but I also recognize that the odds of it screwing someone if there are 2 standout wrestlers from different regions is 33% and 0% if they're from the same region. That's better odds than humans who are motivated by many different factors.

You will note that even in your scenario, the two still did not meet in the quarter finals.

[Underdog3382]

Oh please. Any of the pills would upset someone. A lot of weight classes work out well this way. It’s not like one is better than the other. They all suck

That's why you seed the regional champions...

Just to play devil's advocate...

Take...AA/A HWT, for example. JUST seed the champs? Well, Champ A lost to Champ B, cut and dry. WELL...not exactly. Champ B split with runner-up B, and Champ A never made it to runner-up B in only tournament they could have matched up. So...if this were TRUE seeding...It would go Champ B, Runner-up B, Champ A.

Point is, without common opponents, head to heads, and a clear cut criteria, this seeding process does not work. Few states seed their state tournament. The match-ups are, in fact, predetermined. It is not perfect, but do not pretend seeding is either. It is FAR from a perfected practice.

I agree. Also, it looks like Runner-up B and Champ A will get to settle things in the quarterfinals.

[JustSomeone]

Under your far fetched scenario, Johnny doesn't enter the state tournament undefeated, he's 40-1 or 40-2 depending upon how he defaulted. He's lost either 50% or 67% of his most recent matches leading up to the state tournament. Under the rules it is possible that he isn't even eligible to wrestle at the state tournament (read rules regarding procedure for injury defaults prior to final placement match). You honestly believe that the coaches or a committee are all going to agree that he's clearly the #1 seed? the #2 seed? The wrestlers finishing ahead of him (at regionals) are going to have coaches or regional representatives lobby for them to be separated from Billy. The two other regional champs are going to have coaches or regional representatives lobbying for them to be separated from Billy. All will have compelling arguments. Anyone who sat through an old jr states seeding meeting has heard the arguments of being sick, tougher schedule, having a really good older sibling or other family member, as reasons for a higher seed. WSAZ in middle has a set criteria but even then there are discussions and alliances. In a team race you don't think that coaches would lean toward a team coach they like? Read the threads about OW and COY after many of the state tournaments, heck, read the thread this year about the Indy coaches and wrestlers at the conference tournament and tell me that coaches don't sometimes have an agenda when voting.

I recognize the faults of the pill but I also recognize that the odds of it screwing someone if there are 2 standout wrestlers from different regions is 33% and 0% if they're from the same region. That's better odds than humans who are motivated by many different factors.

You will note that even in your scenario, the two still did not meet in the quarter finals.

You asked how they would, i gave you a scenario. Since you are being pedantic just for the sake of an argument, little Johnny gets 3rd instead of 4th at regionals, wins his first match at states, now they are in the quarters wrestling each other. I offered a scenario where they wrestled even before the quarters, but apparently you are keen on proving me wrong about the quarters for some reason.

I could go into further detail regarding my scenario to further cement the point i was making, but it seems it would be pointless as you are looking to argue. Create set criteria and you will have no problems. There are a multitude of ways you could create a better system than the ridiculous pill to create the brackets. Overall record, tie in an official ranking system for a SoS argument for wrestlers (ex. Wrestler A beat 3 kids ranked in the top 5 in the final poll), seed the regional champs and let them pick their spot in the bracket (do the same for 2nd,3rd, and 4th seeds), anything other than letting spots be determined by sheer luck and chance. Cream always rises to the top, the true champion will emerge no matter what. But as a fan, i am sick of seeing the finals be played out in the semis or before. It's time to change it up.

[mike.carman]

Question for JustSomeone
Under the current system how would the two best wrestlers meet in the quarter finals of the state tournament? If they were the two best then one would presume that they were both regional champions and there is a 1 out of 3 chance they would meet in the semis (2/3 of the time they won’t). If they started in the same region and they’re truly the two best kids then one finished as regional champ and the other as either second or third (depending upon seeding criteria at regionals) sending them to opposite brackets so there is a 100% certainty that they would not meet until the finals. Can’t meet in the quarters unless they’re from different regions and one of them wasn’t the champ of his own region (casting doubt on the claim they they are the 2 best wrestlers in the state).

There is one plausible situation where this could happen. 2nd best wrestler in the state Injury defaults in his finals match at the regional. It does happen. Now that wrestler is on the same side(with a lucky pill or unlucky pill draw, however you want to look at it) with the best wrestler in the state. 2s wrestle 1s in the quarters.

[Studcradle]

You sir are correct! Unlike Justsomeone who wanted to create outlandish scenarios just to argue, you gave a legitimate example. Does your youth organization still use the PILL system for your state tournament? I can't say most because I have not done the research but I will say many states use the PILL system or some modification of it for high school. Good luck next weekend.

[ncref]

Confirm the whole point is to finish first. So why do seed matter? Best wrestler wins regardless of the path. If you are arguing over who is second or third best , we have missed the point of the tournament in the first place

[KDunbar]

Keep the Pill! I too have been in seeding meetings (a lot of them in my almost 30 years coaching) where coaches nearly came to blows because seeding is so subjective. Wrestler A, B,C and D are all highly touted. Wrestler A has a record of 43-4 but all his loses came to nationally ranked kids at Powerade, Ironman, etc. He was a state placer the last two years but in lighter weight classes. He’s a junior. Wrestler B is undefeated at 46-0 but has rarely left his little corner of the state and several of those wins came as forfeits at quads and tris. Wrestler C is only 4-1 but was the state runner up last year in the same weight class and a three time placer. He was dealing with an injury from football. Wrestler D is also undefeated at 44-0 but many of his wins were in a different weight class as he made his alpha weight late in the season. Now seed them and lets see how many opinions we get. It would sound something like this ...
“ but he’s undefeated! - He didn’t wrestle anyone - My kid is a three time placer - well mine’s undefeated too! - that was a different weight! - well a win is a win! - hey now, wait a damn minute, my kid is undefeated and all his matches were at this weight - did he place last year? - place, heck, my kid was the runner up in the same class - but my kid wrestled the best in the country - yeah, but he has 4 losses! - I’d like to see your kid wrestle those guys! My kid was runner up I tell you! Yeah but he’s hurt - no he’s OK now - how did he get beat then? It was his first match back! & half your kids wins were forfeits - shouldn’t placing three times mean anything? But he placed 5-5-3 ... my kid was runner up...but my kid placed at the Ironman ... has he placed at state in this weight class? My kid was in this class and the kid who beat him graduated... he did not graduate, he quit school ... what does that matter... but mine’s undefeated I tell you!... well my kid is a two time regional champ ... but your region sucks... we didn’t make the regions up ... let me tell you about the Ironman ... my kid was runner up ... that means he was first loser & my kid is undefeated... but he didn’t wrestle my kid yet .... ad naseum.
Take it from the old coach, this is not far off from the way it would go.

I thought the post above answered all the questions and covered all the scenarios before all the other stuff that came after it. I think it clearly alluded to the fact that all seeding in AAA be as follows: South 1st seed, PHS 2nd seed, South and PHS coaches take turns doing the rest of the seeding, unless the South coach decides to override the PHS coach. Otherwise use the pill to ensure it is fair and unbiased. Do not put the WVSSAC in charge of seeding the State Tournament. If they are as bad as being portrayed, they would just charge more money for the service and bribes would determine the seeding. Heck, the cost for getting the pill draw one wants has gone up so much over the past few years that it is hardly worth throwing matches in the regionals just to increase the odds for a 3rd or 4th place finish.
As far as AA/A seeding. Put it in the hands of the Point Pleasant, Independence, East Fairmont, and Oak Glen coaches with the order of choosing based on a pill draw, unless the South coach objects.

Now if you want a real life scenario for seeding the StateTournament, then seed the AAA 126 weight class top three seeds and I assure you that you will get it wrong. Just ask everyone.

[aacoach75]

Seen quite a few bracketed tournaments which didn't end up with the top 2 wrestlers in the finals.

[timamos]

Our pill system could be modified to separate returning champions like Ohio but that doesn’t happen very often and would not satisfy the people upset by the results this year.
Look back at simpkins allen humphries pine and nangle bracket 3 or 4 years ago. Humans wouldn’t have seeded that bracket any better than the pill did. *That simpkins Allen match was the best officiated match I’ve ever seen. The scrambles had most of the fans screaming for 2 and then saying oh crap not yet, the official held the calls and he was right. Many of us also said what a shame it was that allen simpkins wasn’t the finals match and complained about the pill until simpkins and Bryce humphries put on an equally great show in the finals.
Indiana’s system is by far the worst that I’ve seen. Top 4 from each qualifier move on, like our regionals. The twist is that there are no wrestle backs. Winners of semis wrestle for first. Losers of semis wrestle for 3rd. Anyone losing before semis is eliminated. So a top wrestler being called for an illegal slam in the first round of semi state would not qualify for state.

[mike.carman]

You sir are correct! Unlike Justsomeone who wanted to create outlandish scenarios just to argue, you gave a legitimate example. Does your youth organization still use the PILL system for your state tournament? I can't say most because I have not done the research but I will say many states use the PILL system or some modification of it for high school. Good luck next weekend.

We use a hybrid pill. We seed the regional champions to try to ensure the best matchups. We take top 6 so the first round of a 32 man bracket 3s face 6s and 4s face 5s. 2s then face the winners of the 3s and 1 face winners of the 4s in the round of 16. 2s and 3s are separated from their regional champion just like in HS. 4s and 5s end up on the same side of the bracket as their regional champion and 6s are on the same side as a regional runner up. It works. I would want to try to seed all 24 participants for 62 individual brackets but seeding 4 isn't hard. I use a spreadsheet to pill everything out. For 16 man brackets it would take about an hour to do 14. 2hours to do 28.

[aaacoach49]

Our pill system could be modified to separate returning champions like Ohio but that doesn’t happen very often and would not satisfy the people upset by the results this year.
Look back at simpkins allen humphries pine and nangle bracket 3 or 4 years ago. Humans wouldn’t have seeded that bracket any better than the pill did. *That simpkins Allen match was the best officiated match I’ve ever seen. The scrambles had most of the fans screaming for 2 and then saying oh crap not yet, the official held the calls and he was right. Many of us also said what a shame it was that allen simpkins wasn’t the finals match and complained about the pill until simpkins and Bryce humphries put on an equally great show in the finals.
Indiana’s system is by far the worst that I’ve seen. Top 4 from each qualifier move on, like our regionals. The twist is that there are no wrestle backs. Winners of semis wrestle for first. Losers of semis wrestle for 3rd. Anyone losing before semis is eliminated. So a top wrestler being called for an illegal slam in the first round of semi state would not qualify for state.

Agreed. The ref was superb in that match.

[mike.carman]

You sir are correct! Unlike Justsomeone who wanted to create outlandish scenarios just to argue, you gave a legitimate example. Does your youth organization still use the PILL system for your state tournament? I can't say most because I have not done the research but I will say many states use the PILL system or some modification of it for high school. Good luck next weekend.

We use a hybrid pill. We seed the regional champions to try to ensure the best matchups. We take top 6 so the first round of a 32 man bracket 3s face 6s and 4s face 5s. 2s then face the winners of the 3s and 1 face winners of the 4s in the round of 16. 2s and 3s are separated from their regional champion just like in HS. 4s and 5s end up on the same side of the bracket as their regional champion and 6s are on the same side as a regional runner up. It works. I would want to try to seed all 24 participants for 62 individual brackets but seeding 4 isn't hard. I use a spreadsheet to pill everything out. For 16 man brackets it would take about an hour to do 14. 2hours to do 28.

Plus with HS there is a ton of information out there that can be used to gather common opponents if there is no head to head. Seeding the HS regional champions would be a lot easier than the youth and could be done by 1 person who is unbiased. Not to mention we run our regionals and states 5 days a part where HS is 12 days apart. So we do roughly 3X the work in less than half the time with way less resources. But we are committed to the kids, where the SSAC is not.

[mscoach20]

That poor, dead horse...

[Campion]

WOW... Can't believe I just read through all of that.

[Panther_coach]

MsCoach20 .... you were in several of those contentious seeding meetings with me and can attest to the shenanigans that surround seeding .... but you and I were always the voices of reason .... and always right! Plus, we got the big chair! LOL.

[Bearhugger]

That poor, dead horse...

The teachers got tired of being last and they beat their own dead horse until they got results. Acceptance leads to being last.

I also heard from my good friend "TrueSouthFanInLeon" that Point Pleasant implemented some NEW ideas into their wrestling team and the results are showing.

I hate horses anyway.