One Division State Placers

T

TeamSniper06

New member
Would be cool to see Boro or someone else do a top 8 put into 1 division. Or for the state to do that period! Imagine how much more meaningful each placement would be especially being the 1 state champ. Keep it all the same then at state you are put into 1 bracket. I know it would be longer but would be awesome!
 
 
TeamSniper06 said:
Would be cool to see Boro or someone else do a top 8 put into 1 division. Or for the state to do that period! Imagine how much more meaningful each placement would be especially being the 1 state champ. Keep it all the same then at state you are put into 1 bracket. I know it would be longer but would be awesome!
Click to expand...
Or do sectional, district, regional, then state!
 
TeamSniper06 said:
Would be cool to see Boro or someone else do a top 8 put into 1 division. Or for the state to do that period! Imagine how much more meaningful each placement would be especially being the 1 state champ. Keep it all the same then at state you are put into 1 bracket. I know it would be longer but would be awesome!
Click to expand...
Would be awesome.
 
What you could do is make it a thirty two man bracket. The 24 who were top 8 in the three divisions. Seed them with criteria 1-8 regardless of division. The 16 state placers that are left can be random seeded. Though the top 8 might have to get a first rd bye where they'd sit idle in the 16 man bracket. Winners of the 32 man bracket (rat tail) advance to the 16 man bracket where the top 1-8 seeds are at. This bracket would read just how the state bracket is currently. You could include the true third in this scenario as well to spice it up.
 
TopBottomNeutralDefer said:
What you could do is make it a thirty two man bracket. The 24 who were top 8 in the three divisions. Seed them with criteria 1-8 regardless of division. The 16 state placers that are left can be random seeded. Though the top 8 might have to get a first rd bye where they'd sit idle in the 16 man bracket. Winners of the 32 man bracket (rat tail) advance to the 16 man bracket where the top 1-8 seeds are at. This bracket would read just how the state bracket is currently. You could include the true third in this scenario as well to spice it up.
Click to expand...
Or keep if a full thirty two man bracket and make those last eight spots at large bids from previous years criteria. Say state placer but took 5th at districts the following year.
 
This was a thought project I used to do after the state tournament. However, I found it to be something that yielded more anger than it was worth. Too many asymmetrical results at the state tournament from the course of the rest of the season (along with asymmetrical results from front side to back side at state).

One of the biggest pitfalls in this project was the national ranking mentality of the state tournament being but one data-point among many in a ranking cycle vs. the fan mentality of the state tournament as a end all/be all.

Example - D1/190 with one of the biggest upsets of the state finals. You have J.R. Miller who was 4th at Ironman, Powerade champ, 3rd at Doc B losing to Kowalski who was 8th at Ironman, 2nd at MBC (Neitenbach majored him 17-6), and Carnahan champ. In that Ironman event, two of Kowalski's three losses were to opponents that Miller beat during the tournament. Then you look at Kowalski beating Yackee by one in the state semi vs. Miller dominating him last week at district, along with the whole conversation around high leverage match results outside the season but within the ranking cycle. No national ranker worth their salt is going to have Kowalski over J.R. Miller even after the state final upset (you'll see Miller drop a few slots, and possibly Kowalski jump into the very back of a "20", depending on the composition of the back few spots); but in this type of "single division ranking", there would be pressure to do so.

I'm not trying to pick on Kowalski, who wrestled a great state final, but just trying to pick an obvious upset.
 
TopBottomNeutralDefer said:
What you could do is make it a thirty two man bracket. The 24 who were top 8 in the three divisions. Seed them with criteria 1-8 regardless of division. The 16 state placers that are left can be random seeded. Though the top 8 might have to get a first rd bye where they'd sit idle in the 16 man bracket. Winners of the 32 man bracket (rat tail) advance to the 16 man bracket where the top 1-8 seeds are at. This bracket would read just how the state bracket is currently. You could include the true third in this scenario as well to spice it up.
Click to expand...
32-man bracket would not work. Right now there are three, 16-man brackets per weight which is 48 wrestlers. Thats 48x14 weight classes, that’s 672 wrestlers, their parents, family members and fans following and buying tickets in order to justify the expense of the Schott.

That being said, I like the idea of 48-man brackets, however it wouldn’t be fair to small schools. I’d like to keep the divisions but at the same time, combine them at the end. 3 divisions doesn’t combine well in a double elimination bracket. In a perfect world, the schools would be divided into 4 or 2 divisions, not 3. That way, each division could have their own sectionals and districts and qualify the same number of wrestlers per size division, then combine into a giant 48-man bracket in the end.

With 4 divisions, each one could qualify 12 and fit nicely into a 48-man bracket at the Schott. You’d take the top 8 placers plus the 4 extra wrestlers that lost in the “blood round” as “wild cards.”

This would make for a hell of an exciting post season IMO.
 
bucksman said:
This was a thought project I used to do after the state tournament. However, I found it to be something that yielded more anger than it was worth. Too many asymmetrical results at the state tournament from the course of the rest of the season (along with asymmetrical results from front side to back side at state).

One of the biggest pitfalls in this project was the national ranking mentality of the state tournament being but one data-point among many in a ranking cycle vs. the fan mentality of the state tournament as a end all/be all.

Example - D1/190 with one of the biggest upsets of the state finals. You have J.R. Miller who was 4th at Ironman, Powerade champ, 3rd at Doc B losing to Kowalski who was 8th at Ironman, 2nd at MBC (Neitenbach majored him 17-6), and Carnahan champ. In that Ironman event, two of Kowalski's three losses were to opponents that Miller beat during the tournament. Then you look at Kowalski beating Yackee by one in the state semi vs. Miller dominating him last week at district, along with the whole conversation around high leverage match results outside the season but within the ranking cycle. No national ranker worth their salt is going to have Kowalski over J.R. Miller even after the state final upset (you'll see Miller drop a few slots, and possibly Kowalski jump into the very back of a "20", depending on the composition of the back few spots); but in this type of "single division ranking", there would be pressure to do so.

I'm not trying to pick on Kowalski, who wrestled a great state final, but just trying to pick an obvious upset.
Click to expand...
Kowalski broke Miller in the finals.
 
Put all the info/data into a predictor , like dubs, and see what the results would be, it would be very interesting.
 
Toe Hook said:
Speaking of 4 divisions...any truth to the rumor that Ohio might go to 4 divisions for wrestling next year???
Click to expand...
I don't know how this can be a rumor. The number of divisions is based on the number of wrestling teams versus standard cutoffs the state has. I think in the last count, wrestling was on the low end for needing 3 divisions.
 
Kudos to Kowalski for being a state champ and can see the improvements from last year to this year. But also, Miller's ankle injury had an impact on the match.
 
I wonder how many teams will move up a division per the proposal up for vote this spring? Issue 1B would allow each sport to opt in for postseason D1.
 
bucksman said:
This was a thought project I used to do after the state tournament. However, I found it to be something that yielded more anger than it was worth. Too many asymmetrical results at the state tournament from the course of the rest of the season (along with asymmetrical results from front side to back side at state).

One of the biggest pitfalls in this project was the national ranking mentality of the state tournament being but one data-point among many in a ranking cycle vs. the fan mentality of the state tournament as a end all/be all.

Example - D1/190 with one of the biggest upsets of the state finals. You have J.R. Miller who was 4th at Ironman, Powerade champ, 3rd at Doc B losing to Kowalski who was 8th at Ironman, 2nd at MBC (Neitenbach majored him 17-6), and Carnahan champ. In that Ironman event, two of Kowalski's three losses were to opponents that Miller beat during the tournament. Then you look at Kowalski beating Yackee by one in the state semi vs. Miller dominating him last week at district, along with the whole conversation around high leverage match results outside the season but within the ranking cycle. No national ranker worth their salt is going to have Kowalski over J.R. Miller even after the state final upset (you'll see Miller drop a few slots, and possibly Kowalski jump into the very back of a "20", depending on the composition of the back few spots); but in this type of "single division ranking", there would be pressure to do so.

I'm not trying to pick on Kowalski, who wrestled a great state final, but just trying to pick an obvious upset.
Click to expand...
Don't doubt Kowalski. He was ready for this. He was already ranked 13 in the nation after Super32 at one time He deserved this. Homegrown.
 
Sometimes in the warm up room you can tell who is really undervaluing their opponents. Then before you know it youre in a real dog fight and the switch cant get turned on. Thats not a shock, thats humble pie served twice back to back. Everybody eats it at some point in a carreer.
 
Miller had the same 6 minutes to win that match as Kowalski did. Kowalski has been dealing with a knee injury for weeks, he didn't let that stop him. Kowalski shut down every offensive attempt that Miller tried. You can make whatever excuse that you want, champions find a way to win no matter what the circumstances are, losers have excuses. Give the state champion credit for a dominating match.
 
Last edited:
Dkski said:
Miller had the same 6 minutes to win that match as Kowalski did. Kowalski has been dealing with a knee injury for weeks, he didn't let that stop him. Kowalski shut down every offensive attempt that Miller tried. You can make whatever excuse that you want, champions find a way to win no matter what the circumstances are, losers have excuses. Give the state champion credit for a dominating match.
Click to expand...
Yeah i wasn't surprised at all. We see him a few times each year and he's always ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top