Washington Wrestling Message Board

Washington Wrestling Message Board
[ Washington Wrestling Message Board ]

Seeding

Posted by Ummm on 2/22/2025, 6:27 pm

How do you know when seeding wasn’t done correctly? When every finals match is a snoozer. Last night most of the matches were total blowouts and tonight is proving the same. What a joke!

Re: Seeding

Posted by Ummm on 2/22/2025, 6:42 pm, in reply to "Seeding"

4A had some great matches. I think the issue is that you're watching 1A AND 2A wrestling.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Ummm on 2/22/2025, 6:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

I watched last night 2 there was a couple good matches most of them were total blowouts. The seeding was terrible. A lot of semi final matches that should have been finals.

Re: Seeding

Posted by 3A on 2/22/2025, 7:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

Completely agree, 3A boys was the same way. Obviously the girls is a different story. 2A just doesn’t have depth.

Re: Seeding

Posted by No Kidding on 2/22/2025, 11:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

I watched a couple 3a and 4a semi finals matches at 144 that were super skilled, tough and exciting.

It looks like they matched the top 2 kids on the same side of the bracket at a bunch of different weight classes. I am sure either of the kids losing in the competitive semi's would win in the finals.

Common sense took a back seat to their criteria.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Agree on 2/24/2025, 10:34 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

1A girls is a joke. They need to combine with 2A. I can't believe people pay money to watch that.

Re: Seeding

Posted by 4A Coach on 2/22/2025, 6:48 pm, in reply to "Seeding"

Seeding was fantastic. This is a hilarious take.

4A Finals
106: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
113: 1 seed v 3 seed (almost perfect)
120: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
126: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
132: 1 seed v 3 seed (almost perfect)
138: 1 seed v 6 seed
144: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
150: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
157: 1 seed v 3 seed (almost perfect)
165: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
175: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
190: 8 seed v 2 seed
215: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
285: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)

26 of the 28 wrestlers in the finals were the 1, 2 or 3 seeds.

I don't know how seeding can actually get much better in 4A

Re: Seeding

Posted by 4A Coach on 2/22/2025, 6:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

3A Boys was the same story

106: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
113: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
120: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
126: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
132: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
138: 1 seed v 7 seed
144: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
150: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
157: 1 seed v 6 seed
165: 1 seed v 2 seed (perfect)
175: 1 seed v 3 seed (almost perfect)
190: 1 seed v 3 seed (almost perfect)
215: 1 seed v 3 seed (almost perfect)
285: 1 seed v 7 seed

25 of 28 the wrestlers in the finals were the 1, 2 or 3 seeds in 3A

Re: Seeding

Posted by Seeding Fan on 2/22/2025, 7:23 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

106 - Kennedy was the 3 seed. If you look at 157, they were tied at the computer moved Deonigi to the 3. so that one could have been perfect too.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Bozo on 2/22/2025, 9:30 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

Not all those 4a seeds you reported are correct. I know a couple off hand that are wrong. Not way off, but at least one 2 v 4 that was missed.

Re: Seeding

Posted by What's your point? on 2/22/2025, 9:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

No seeding system is perfect, but the seeds turned out to be pretty darn correct. If you compare to previous years, I will be willing to bet that it was better than year's past

Re: Seeding

Posted by No Kidding on 2/22/2025, 11:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

If anyone actually knew anything and paid attention, the #3 seed should have been the #1.

Re: Seeding

Posted by No Kidding on 2/22/2025, 11:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

This 1 vs 2 means nothing, when one of the wrestlers from both sides of one of the bracket would have beat the #1 or the #2.

When a semi finals match goes down to the wire, it's basically a finals level match. When the winner of that match goes onto easily beat the 1 seed in the final, it shows something is way off.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Exactly on 2/23/2025, 12:39 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

Yes! The seeding was terrible. It was not better. I hope they change it back. Most of the finals matches were blow outs.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Real Deal on 2/23/2025, 6:01 am, in reply to "Seeding"

It’s a good thing AI is running the show.

It was unfortunate,

Re: Seeding

Posted by Basic Math on 2/23/2025, 8:25 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

Some of you haven't done math in a while. There’s been some debate about whether the best matches happened in the semifinals rather than the finals, with some arguing that seeding didn’t properly set up the right matchups. However, when we break down the numbers in 4A, where the best wrestling overall happens, the data tells a different story.

The #1 and #2 seeds reached the finals in 9 out of 14 weight classes, showing that the best wrestlers were consistently making it to the championship rounds. In those finals, the #1 seed won five times, while the #2 seed won four times, proving that the top seeds were generally accurate in identifying the best competitors. If the semifinals truly featured the best matches, we would expect to see more upsets preventing the top seeds from making the finals, but that wasn’t the case.

Beyond the finals, seeding also worked well in determining placement matches. The higher-seeded wrestler won the third-place match in 10 of 14 weight classes, meaning that even when wrestlers fell short of the finals, seeding still predicted placement accurately. While upsets are always part of wrestling, and some brackets will have surprises, the results show that the seeding process effectively ranked the competitors and led to a fair, competitive tournament.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Show your work on 2/23/2025, 9:09 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

"the 1 met the 2, so seeding must have worked", what?!?! The point is one of them shouldn't of had that seed, which equated to terrible finals.

3A 150 for example. Dale and Price were the best in that weight class but meet in the semifinal and that final was a total bust even though the 2 seed made it. Kid looked like he didn't want to be there or didn't realize he was in the state final. Dale vs Price was the state final and everyone but WIAA knew it.

I think most of the one seeds were close enough to correct. However the 2-4+ seeds were a mess.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Chip on 2/23/2025, 9:27 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

That was a break down of 4A. We know you 3A folk struggle with reading. The old way this was done was a random ass draw. You prefer that??? The seeds may be off one or two but go beat the guy during the year and move your self up. I don't know who Dale is, but think it's solid name and hope he won.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Exactly. on 2/23/2025, 10:34 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

I saw this at 3A 150, 3A 144, and 3A 138. The semi matches were barn burners, and each kid in that match won in the finals easily. When I compared it to the "rankings", most of these matches were
1 vs 2, but the seeds didn't reflect the rankings at all.

It's not that they were way off, but it ended up putting the best kids against each other too early.

The match with the kid from Mercer and Mt. Spokane came down to the final seconds and could have gone either way. Total finals match. The Mt. Spokane kid was seeded 2, and the Mercer kid 6 seed. Both were superior to the 1 seed in the finals. Mt. Spokane kid pinned the 1 seed in the finals easily. The other kid from the semis likely would have too.

Unsure how the 1 seed at 3A 138 made it to the finals. Completely outmatched and must have had an easy route to finals because the Hermiston kid was the 7 seed! Totally outclassed the 1 seed in the finals.

Anyone who compared the seeds to the rankings would see how off they were. Too much fluff in Washington to trust records and the criteria.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Coach on 2/23/2025, 11:06 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

3A 138 Hermiston kid wasn't a returning state placer, but he was ranked 1st last year and missed weight. If he won state last year like he should of, he would have been #1 in the matrix last year. Even winning just 7 matches this season he still got the 7 seed.

3A 144, Mt Spokane kid went 0-1 vs the Camas kid. Capital kid went 1-1 against the Camas kid, so Capital kid beat Mt Spokane in the Matrix since both were returning state placers. Mercer Island kid didn't place last year and was line 6.

Kids who didn't place but are talented will always blow up a seeding formula, even if there's a criteria for a committee to go off of.

You can't just place kids in a bracket off the trust me bro logic.

Hermiston and Mercer Island kids at 138 and 144 were huge outliers because they didn't place last year and were way better than the criteria they had.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Exactly. on 2/23/2025, 11:27 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

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.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Crazy on 2/23/2025, 11:47 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

Bro, you are such a victim. Arguing that the committee dropped the ball because of a few seeding changes makes wrestling seem like a very petty sport. I’m a coach and I think your attitude is terrible. Are we really doing the best for our kids by complaining about seeding? The top wrestlers will usually place top 8 with some variability. The criteria were published all year and it seemed as if it was consistent with the final seedings. The end results are very good compared to the seeding. Either way, they still have to wrestle it out.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Criteria on 2/23/2025, 11:19 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

Seeding isn't determined by "this will probably be a good match."

Re: Seeding

Posted by funny interpretation on 2/24/2025, 7:23 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

I watched the 3A 144 # match. The Halpin kid was winning and controlling the match until the 3rd period. The Mt Spokane kid was losing until he put the Capital kid on his back and pinned him in the 3rd. I would not call that a mismatch. Thats a weird interpretation you have there. Also, the 138 finals match was 5-0, not even a major decision. How would you interpret that as totally outclassed. If he got teched maybe but at 5-0 decision isn't total domination.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Sad Parents on 2/24/2025, 10:25 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

If you look at the big picture, seeding was great. If you want to complain about one kid here or there, that seems to be the only complaints.

This is so much better than the crazy system we had before that made zero sense.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Watcher on 2/24/2025, 1:01 pm, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

If you watched the match at 138lb the ref missed the fall. Also one of the wrestlers was on the defense the entire match.

Re: Seeding

Posted by But... on 2/23/2025, 10:25 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

Here's a real example. 4a 144lbs.

Nothing but compliments to these wrestlers.

Without question, anyone who knows anything knows Israel Acosta should have been seeded #1.

#2 - Koyama. #3. Johnson. #4. Gray.

Koyama, Johnson, Gray ended up on the same side of the bracket. Izzy was seeded #2, and his side of the bracket was a joke.

Koyama battles Gray, who upset Johnson in a battle. Gray, obviously more exhausted than Koyama ends up in the blood round. Johnson beats gray for 3rd. Izzy does his thing in the finals.

Just saying, anyone with a brain should have put Johnson or Gray on the bottom side of the bracket.

They weren't far off, but multiple brackets had the top 2 wrestlers mis-seeded on the same side of the bracket. The person who won that matchup was going to win in the finals against the #1 seed.

Re: Seeding

Posted by Green hat on 2/24/2025, 11:26 am, in reply to "Re: Seeding"

If you are basing seeding on who is the best you would be right but that isn't how seeding was done. If we go that route then we are dealing with a committe of 'people' who are gonna make the calls, and I am certain everyone would complain of bias. Seeding was done by an equation based off of points and comparing each wrestler to everyone in the bracket. Don't complain, learn the rules and do a better job building your schedule

« Back to index

[ Washington Wrestling Message Board ]