I guess it can be explained away, and there will always be outliers. I'm going off of the comment that many of the finals were non-competitive. The argument that the 1 vs 2 seeding holds is moot if the one side of the bracket is badly seeded, like the 144 4a with 3 of the top wrestlers on the same side.

It sounds like the committee is relying on these numbers more than the understanding of the talent of the wrestlers. Maybe they don't have a chance to see all of the wrestler.

Israel Acosta at a 2 seed never makes sense.

When it comes to talent, I will rely on a coaches or scouts who have watched most of these matches over criteria. There were a lot of soft kids placed on one side of the brackets and it showed when the finals matches rolled around.

We can act like the seeding worked when 1 and 2 are in the finals, but many of these wrestlers were rewarded with soft schedules, and even soft weight classes.

The committee probably thinks they did a great job, but when they are unaware of who the Hermiston kid was because he didn't place last year, that means they dropped the ball.

I saw the Capital kid lose last year, and couldn't believe he was a 1 seed. Don't know where that Mercer kid came from if he didn't place last year. He wrestled hard and seemed tough.

2 seed for Izzy, 7 seed for Hermiston, 6 Seed for Mercer, 1 seed for Capital at 144, 1 seed for Silas at 138 should show that something is off on the seeding or the committee.

Too much credit for past performance.