Wrestling Talk Forums supported
USA Wrestling Kansas KWCA
Wrestling Talk Forums supported & maintained by USA Wrestling-Kansas
USAW USA Wrestling Kansas
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#228759 03/23/14 08:13 PM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3
O
oes
Offline
Member
Member
O Offline
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3
Not shure if this looks right to anyone else but why would a 1 vs 2 from same district wrestle first round?

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 134
P
Member
Member
P Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 134
Sure does not seem right.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
oes,
This bracket had 8 wrestlers in it. Four of which were from D1, one from D2, two from D3, and one from D4. The original 16-man bracket matrix looked like this (actual wrestlers in the bracket are in red)…

Match Id 1: D2 1 (1) vs D4 4 (16)
Match Id 2: D3 3 (9) vs D1 2 (8)
Match Id 3: D3 2 (5) vs D1 3 (12)
Match Id 4: D2 4 (13) vs D4 1 (4)
Match Id 5: D1 1 (3) vs D3 4 (14)
Match Id 6: D4 3 (6) vs D2 2 (11)
Match Id 7: D4 2 (7) vs D2 3 (10
Match Id 8: D1 4 (15) vs D3 1 (2)

As approved by the State body this year, brackets with 6, 7, or 8 wrestlers were to be modified to 8-man format. From the Kids Bylaws; Section III, Article II, Paragraph 13, Rule 10-4 In the event of a bracket with three to five wrestlers, there will be a round robin. In the event of a two-man bracket they will wrestle the best two out of three matches. Brackets with six to eight competitors will first be drawn up on a 16 man bracket to determine seeds and then the brackets will be reduced to an 8 man bracket with the seeds determined in order from highest to lowest as they appear on the 16 man bracket.

With this rule applied the modified bracket looks like this.

Match Id 1: D2 1 (1) vs D1 4 (15)
Match Id 2: D3 2 (5) vs D4 1 (4)
Match Id 3: D1 1 (3) vs D1 2 (8)
Match Id 4: D1 3 (12) vs D3 1 (2)

The reason for modifying these brackets to an eight man was bracket imbalance in the 16-man bracket that created automatic placers based a wrestlers spot on the 16-man bracket. The thought behind using the methodology listed above to create the 8-man bracket was that it was a fair and repeatable way to establish the bracket. After seeing how this one turned out we may need to take another look at it...our approved methodology may be repeatable but I am not sure about the fairness.

Mark Stanley
State Tournament Director

Last edited by Mark J Stanley; 03/24/14 08:59 AM.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3
O
oes
Offline
Member
Member
O Offline
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3
rules are rules and life isn't fair. Hope this disproves the theory and it changes next year to make it fair for the kids involved.

Last edited by oes; 03/24/14 08:29 AM.
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
Didn't the original proposal have the brackets with 6,7, and 8 wrestlers being seeded?
Why try to muddy the water with using the district format at all?
If nothing else, seed the top 4 and draw the rest.
Intent was to separate those that should be separated.
TK

Last edited by tkiser; 03/24/14 10:25 AM. Reason: Added text
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3
O
oes
Offline
Member
Member
O Offline
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3
if anyone should hafta wrestle same district first round it should be the 4th place kid instead of the second place every other bracket has 1 and 2 from same district on opisite sides of the bracket(just my opinion)

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
update...I am not saying it will change, but I have submitted it to the state tourney committee for review.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 527
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 527
I must be totally lost. There should never be 1 and 2 from same district on same side no matter what. I guess I don't get the logic (or lack of) on this.


Well you're just a special kind of stupid aren't you?
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
Two options.
1. Let geography place a kid in the semi finals of a 16 man bracket without wrestling a single match.
2. Forget geography and let 8 kids get placed in a bracket to determine which 6 should place.

Guess you can fight either way, but I'm taking #2

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
Here are the track stats on the kids in question.
Listed by district and how they placed.
Then how the standard bracket would have been.

D1
Lawrence 20-10 1st
Smith 18-18
Crooks 7-3
Kennedy 11-21
D2
Harris 5-13
D3
Kemling 12-3
Kreutzer 5-27
D4
Stokes 28-16

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
Bracket
Lawrence
Bye

Bye
Bye

Bye
Bye

Kennedy
Kremling

Harris
Bye

Smith
Bye

Crooks
Kreutzer

Bye
Stokes

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 527
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 527
My point is if there are 4 number ones then why would they put the 2 up against the same kid he just wrestled. Why not one of the other three kids that were "district" champions. I know that there are alot of times that the 1 and 2 from certain districts are alot tougher than all the other kids. It just makes no sense what soever and the way it was explained makes it sound like KSHSAA junior.


Well you're just a special kind of stupid aren't you?
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
Seeded by track numbers
Kemling
Stokes
Lawrence
Smith
Crooks

Kennedy, Harris, Kreutzer <.500

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
The worst is that 1 kid in the subs doesn't qualify with other districts sending a combined 8 open slots.
That could've been avoided.

Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
G
Member
Member
G Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
Just my two cents...district 1 vs district 3 and district 2 vs district 4 is the correct way to place the champions from districts in the state bracket. If you need to draw the other places in so be it. I do think its raw for the D1 first and second place to wrestle first round but I dont make the rules. Are we going to start seeding all other brackets according to their "track records"? If thats the case then we also need to take in account for the strength of tournaments they wrestle too. Dont get me wrong, my son will wrestle who ever he has to and im not complaining just wondering why we need to seed this bracket. Their places in the bracket have already been determined by the qualifiers!! Right? Btw my sons record on track is not correct. His record is 17-3 including tulsa nationals. If we are going to seed according to records then at least get everyones record right and I would like to be involved at this seeding meeting for 10U 52. Just tell me where and when.

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104

I don't personally know any of the kids. All I had to throw an example out there was the track records.
The other reason to seed the bracket is due to not allowing a challenge for true second.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 911
Update...

The State Tournament Committee has reviewed this bracket and the overwhelming consensus was to keep the bracket as modified. Those voting in favor included a majority of the D1 representatives on the committee, whose wrestlers took the biggest hit. The reasoning is that we wish to remain consistent with our bylaws and any additional mods would not comply with that desire.

Modification of a section of the bylaws is possible by a proposal submission from any member, followed by Executive Council review, and a 2/3 vote to approve from our body.

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 195
G
Member
Member
G Offline
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 195
There are 8 kids in the bracket. 75% of the wrestlers on the bracket will place. One kid might have placed higher spot on the bracket if it was seeded...big deal. Just wrestle. My son's bracket has the top 3 kids all on the same side...just how it worked out by districts and places. I still can't get over the fact that 66% of the wrestlers in the state Kansas at 10 U 52lbs will place at state.

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
T
Member
Member
T Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 104
Looks like the finishes were fairly close.
Stokes
Lawrence
Kemling
Smith
Kennedy
Kreutzer


Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,074 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Carl Laughlin, Bjones2014, ColeO, JTapia, Camden Schroeder
12,312 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums11
Topics36,125
Posts250,760
Members12,312
Most Online2,939
Nov 27th, 2025
Top Posters
usawks1 8,595
smokeycabin 6,248
Aaron Sweazy 5,262
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0
(Release build 20240826)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 8.3.28 Page Time: 0.072s Queries: 52 (0.062s) Memory: 3.2163 MB (Peak: 3.7137 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2025-12-04 23:37:46 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS