Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
B1Gfan
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 25 2022
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Points: 247
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2025 at 4:23pm |
mo bloodyoung wrote:
I also think the team aspect in wrestling isn't a fraction as important as the individual side of things to most participants. | To the elite wrestlers, probably. But even in the very best programs they might get 4-6 state qualifiers in a given year. For those other guys who are district level this is their shot and you need those wrestlers. And I already know Gaj is going to beat all the 160s. I love the fact that in duals he might go 189 to hunt a big win. That, plus the opportunity for the 2 freshmen with .500 records to have the biggest bout of the night, is the kind of stuff that makes the team duals great.
|
 |
Chinwhipped
Groupie
Joined: Feb 20 2023
Status: Offline
Points: 75
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2025 at 4:51pm |
mo bloodyoung wrote:
Chinwhipped wrote:
Like I said, there's only one person on this thread that doesn't understand my point. I'm essentially making the same point with the others that are disagreeing with you on here. In fact, I'm looking for someone that agrees with your point. By the way, what is your point? |
My point is a committee with context is a better option than computer generated numbers without context. And the majority of the time they get it "right." But I do appreciate conspiracy theories, too, so keep em coming. |
Maybe, Maybe. The system used for individual post season seeding and advancement is well defined. Call it computer generated or an algorithm, I call it logical and simple to understand. Its also hard to complain about because it does not discriminate. Everyone knows on day one that freshman have no prestige points. Everyone who placed at states or top five at regions in the prior year starts with defined prestige points. You earn prestige points depending on the level of competition you face and if you win or lose in a vey well thought out defined way. All of these points earned and your win loss record are plugged into a formula and then compared to the other wrestlers at your weight. This is in stark contrast to the committee vote used for District Duals. If that's a conspiracy theory so be it.
|
No offense intended, none taken
|
 |
mo bloodyoung
Fanatics
Joined: Dec 06 2017
Location: The Lion's Den
Status: Offline
Points: 832
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2025 at 5:18pm |
Chinwhipped wrote:
Maybe, Maybe. The system used for individual post season seeding and advancement is well defined. Call it computer generated or an algorithm, I call it logical and simple to understand. Its also hard to complain about because it does not discriminate. Everyone knows on day one that freshman have no prestige points. Everyone who placed at states or top five at regions in the prior year starts with defined prestige points. You earn prestige points depending on the level of competition you face and if you win or lose in a vey well thought out defined way. All of these points earned and your win loss record are plugged into a formula and then compared to the other wrestlers at your weight. This is in stark contrast to the committee vote used for District Duals. If that's a conspiracy theory so be it. |
I agree, the individual seeding process is a good one, but you can't exactly duplicate that for teams for plenty of reasons: there's only 5-15 results instead of upwards of 30-35 for individuals, you can't use prestige points from the year before because rosters change and you can't necessarily give prestige points out for beating better competition because how do you actually know how good they are if they haven't competed in the postseason yet, and again, can't base off of last year because of differing rosters.
No system will be perfect but when you look at these seedings, it's pretty obvious they base it off of who teams beat, who teams lost to and health. Owen J. making the bracket is definitely debatable, but computers wouldn't be able to compute that a state runner-up and his little brother were returning from injury just in time for the tournament.
|
 |
MTLeister
Administrators
Joined: Nov 26 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6243
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2025 at 10:38pm |
Chinwhipped wrote:
MTLeister wrote:
Some Districts literally just use team winning percentage for their Duals seeding process. No issues there, right?
Most of the Districts that use a power rankings formula for wrestling have major complaints every year, way more than you see in District 1, IMHO.
Something most people don't realize... teams have to submit to enter the District Duals. That's the case in District 1 and I believe almost all the others as well. Every year there are teams which decide not to enter that likely would have qualified had they entered. So if your team didn't get picked, they either didn't enter or didn't make the cut for a top 16 spot.
Coaches from all the leagues make the selections based on the entered teams. Usually there aren't many more than 16 teams that enter. |
The reason its "Something most people don't realize..." is because its done in a smoke filled room. lol. |
Sorry to say but you are most definitely incorrect.
|
|
 |
MTLeister
Administrators
Joined: Nov 26 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6243
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2025 at 10:40pm |
B1Gfan wrote:
I have no idea if you have to apply to enter the basketball postseason, but I am not aware of a team turning down the opportunity as the 24 or 28 seed. There is definitely an expectation that you keep playing the other sports if given a chance, and it is more of a hassle for some reason if you are the 16th best wrestling team in the district. |
I don't know either if you have to apply in other sports. One thing that's different in other sports is once you lose in those post-season games (or are eliminated from the bracket), your season is over. In wrestling, your season isn't over. Most teams still have dual meets and/or individual tournaments on their schedules before we get to the individual post-season.
|
|
 |
wrestlinggeek
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 15 2016
Location: IMG North
Status: Offline
Points: 275
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 8:37am |
Chinawhipped, I think we're all still waiting to hear what team you think got snubbed. If you want to go strictly based on Dual winning %, here's your top 16 (ties broken by pt diff) Would this be your preferred way of choosing the top 16 for District Duals? You can see which teams would miss out on top 16, unless you'd rather go top 24?
|
Team |
W-L-T |
PF |
PA |
W% |
1 |
Haverford High |
12-1-0 |
520 |
359 |
0.923 |
2 |
Council Rock South |
11-1-0 |
575 |
234 |
0.917 |
3 |
Boyertown |
16-2-0 |
862 |
298 |
0.889 |
4 |
Methacton |
14-3-0 |
731 |
392 |
0.824 |
5 |
Quakertown |
9-2-0 |
483 |
266 |
0.818 |
6 |
Oxford Area |
13-3-0 |
834 |
299 |
0.813 |
7 |
Downingtown East |
7-2-0 |
370 |
210 |
0.778 |
8 |
Sun Valley |
9-3-0 |
547 |
270 |
0.750 |
9 |
Garnet Valley |
9-3-0 |
520 |
279 |
0.750 |
10 |
Spring-Ford |
12-4-0 |
652 |
396 |
0.750 |
11 |
Central Bucks West |
8-3-0 |
430 |
337 |
0.727 |
12 |
West Chester
Henderson |
8-3-0 |
419 |
347 |
0.727 |
13 |
Upper Dublin |
10-4-0 |
595 |
364 |
0.714 |
14 |
Springfield Delco |
15-6-0 |
856 |
607 |
0.714 |
15 |
Upper Moreland |
12-5-0 |
691 |
491 |
0.706 |
16 |
Souderton |
14-6-0 |
826 |
520 |
0.700 |
|
Plymouth Whitemarsh |
7-3-0 |
371 |
312 |
0.700 |
|
Council Rock North |
9-4-0 |
452 |
422 |
0.692 |
|
Springfield Township |
11-5-0 |
667 |
481 |
0.688 |
|
Kennett |
6-3-0 |
349 |
256 |
0.667 |
|
Neshaminy |
13-8-0 |
840 |
599 |
0.619 |
|
Pennsbury |
11-7-0 |
651 |
572 |
0.611 |
|
 |
Chinwhipped
Groupie
Joined: Feb 20 2023
Status: Offline
Points: 75
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 10:00am |
wrestlinggeek wrote:
Chinawhipped,I think we're all still waiting to hear what team you think got snubbed. If you want to go strictly based on Dual winning %, here's your top 16 (ties broken by pt diff) Would this be your preferred way of choosing the top 16 for District Duals? You can see which teams would miss out on top 16, unless you'd rather go top 24?
|
Team |
W-L-T |
PF |
PA |
W% |
1 |
Haverford High |
12-1-0 |
520 |
359 |
0.923 |
2 |
Council Rock South |
11-1-0 |
575 |
234 |
0.917 |
3 |
Boyertown |
16-2-0 |
862 |
298 |
0.889 |
4 |
Methacton |
14-3-0 |
731 |
392 |
0.824 |
5 |
Quakertown |
9-2-0 |
483 |
266 |
0.818 |
6 |
Oxford Area |
13-3-0 |
834 |
299 |
0.813 |
7 |
Downingtown East |
7-2-0 |
370 |
210 |
0.778 |
8 |
Sun Valley |
9-3-0 |
547 |
270 |
0.750 |
9 |
Garnet Valley |
9-3-0 |
520 |
279 |
0.750 |
10 |
Spring-Ford |
12-4-0 |
652 |
396 |
0.750 |
11 |
Central Bucks West |
8-3-0 |
430 |
337 |
0.727 |
12 |
West Chester
Henderson |
8-3-0 |
419 |
347 |
0.727 |
13 |
Upper Dublin |
10-4-0 |
595 |
364 |
0.714 |
14 |
Springfield Delco |
15-6-0 |
856 |
607 |
0.714 |
15 |
Upper Moreland |
12-5-0 |
691 |
491 |
0.706 |
16 |
Souderton |
14-6-0 |
826 |
520 |
0.700 |
|
Plymouth Whitemarsh |
7-3-0 |
371 |
312 |
0.700 |
|
Council Rock North |
9-4-0 |
452 |
422 |
0.692 |
|
Springfield Township |
11-5-0 |
667 |
481 |
0.688 |
|
Kennett |
6-3-0 |
349 |
256 |
0.667 |
|
Neshaminy |
13-8-0 |
840 |
599 |
0.619 |
|
Pennsbury |
11-7-0 |
651 |
572 |
0.611 |
|
Geek,
We need a list through all teams that actually were selected. That would be all teams up to and including: Hatboro Horsham win % 0.444 Owen J Roberts win % 0.385
Based on your method of using win percentage alone any team with a 0.500+ record might feel snubbed.
|
No offense intended, none taken
|
 |
wrestlinggeek
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 15 2016
Location: IMG North
Status: Offline
Points: 275
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 1:13pm |
China, You still haven't listed your team(s) that you feel were snubbed.
The above wasn't my method of choosing teams for Duals. If you read my reply, I asked if this would be your preferred way of choosing. I was giving you options (you have presented zero) of choosing and seeding teams for District Duals. You instead have just chosen to go down the "smoke filled room" "how many Benjamins it takes to get a pigtail match at this tournament" route.
I would like to hear what you think would be a fair way to pick and seed teams.
|
 |
Chinwhipped
Groupie
Joined: Feb 20 2023
Status: Offline
Points: 75
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 1:48pm |
wrestlinggeek wrote:
China,You still haven't listed your team(s) that you feel were snubbed.
The above wasn't my method of choosing teams for Duals. If you read my reply, I asked if this would be your preferred way of choosing. I was giving you options (you have presented zero) of choosing and seeding teams for District Duals. You instead have just chosen to go down the "smoke filled room" "how many Benjamins it takes to get a pigtail match at this tournament" route.
I would like to hear what you think would be a fair way to pick and seed teams. |
I obviously touched a nerve too.
|
No offense intended, none taken
|
 |
PopNShoot
Newbie
Joined: Feb 27 2023
Status: Offline
Points: 25
|
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 1:56pm |
A committee vote for selection and seeding for district duals is the only way to do it properly. The committee needs to account for strength of schedule when seeding for district duals. If seeding was only based on winning %, as Wrestlinggeek stated above, Haverford would have been the #1 seed and CR North would have not even made the district duals tournament. North's losses this year were to Wyoming Seminary, Faith Christian, Malvern and Boyertown. 3 of those teams are non-boundary schools ranked in the top 10 in the nation. North beat Haverford 47-22 last night. Teams should not be penalized for seeking out and wrestling the toughest competition or else every team would schedule a cupcake schedule and just look for wins.
|
 |
wrestlinggeek
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 15 2016
Location: IMG North
Status: Offline
Points: 275
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 1:57pm |
Chinwhipped wrote:
wrestlinggeek wrote:
China,You still haven't listed your team(s) that you feel were snubbed.
The above wasn't my method of choosing teams for Duals. If you read my reply, I asked if this would be your preferred way of choosing. I was giving you options (you have presented zero) of choosing and seeding teams for District Duals. You instead have just chosen to go down the "smoke filled room" "how many Benjamins it takes to get a pigtail match at this tournament" route.
I would like to hear what you think would be a fair way to pick and seed teams. |
I obviously touched a nerve too. |
I've simply asked for your opinion on how you would select and seed teams which you've refused to offer. No nerve touched. Typically leaders offer solutions to problems that they encounter while followers just complain about them. I think we've figured out which side you're on.
|
 |
ChuckFalzioli
Newbie
Joined: Jan 10 2023
Location: Richboro
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 2:32pm |
Woah, this is getting personal.
|
 |
dicemen99
Fanatics
Joined: Feb 15 2008
Location: Pennsburg, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1714
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 3:13pm |
wrestlinggeek wrote:
Chinawhipped,I think we're all still waiting to hear what team you think got snubbed. If you want to go strictly based on Dual winning %, here's your top 16 (ties broken by pt diff) Would this be your preferred way of choosing the top 16 for District Duals? You can see which teams would miss out on top 16, unless you'd rather go top 24?
|
Team |
W-L-T |
PF |
PA |
W% |
1 |
Haverford High |
12-1-0 |
520 |
359 |
0.923 |
2 |
Council Rock South |
11-1-0 |
575 |
234 |
0.917 |
3 |
Boyertown |
16-2-0 |
862 |
298 |
0.889 |
4 |
Methacton |
14-3-0 |
731 |
392 |
0.824 |
5 |
Quakertown |
9-2-0 |
483 |
266 |
0.818 |
6 |
Oxford Area |
13-3-0 |
834 |
299 |
0.813 |
7 |
Downingtown East |
7-2-0 |
370 |
210 |
0.778 |
8 |
Sun Valley |
9-3-0 |
547 |
270 |
0.750 |
9 |
Garnet Valley |
9-3-0 |
520 |
279 |
0.750 |
10 |
Spring-Ford |
12-4-0 |
652 |
396 |
0.750 |
11 |
Central Bucks West |
8-3-0 |
430 |
337 |
0.727 |
12 |
West Chester
Henderson |
8-3-0 |
419 |
347 |
0.727 |
13 |
Upper Dublin |
10-4-0 |
595 |
364 |
0.714 |
14 |
Springfield Delco |
15-6-0 |
856 |
607 |
0.714 |
15 |
Upper Moreland |
12-5-0 |
691 |
491 |
0.706 |
16 |
Souderton |
14-6-0 |
826 |
520 |
0.700 |
|
Plymouth Whitemarsh |
7-3-0 |
371 |
312 |
0.700 |
|
Council Rock North |
9-4-0 |
452 |
422 |
0.692 |
|
Springfield Township |
11-5-0 |
667 |
481 |
0.688 |
|
Kennett |
6-3-0 |
349 |
256 |
0.667 |
|
Neshaminy |
13-8-0 |
840 |
599 |
0.619 |
|
Pennsbury |
11-7-0 |
651 |
572 |
0.611 |
|
This is a pretty week rebuttal. I don't think anybody has used straight winning percentage to seed since the 70s. Or maybe the 2010s if we are talking District 1 sectional seedings. Mike could come up with a power ranking algorithm that would blow that away in under 15 minutes.
BTW, there have been some great changes in D1 over the past few years. The seeding formula for sections combined with the ranking system for regions is the best system I've ever seen put in place. Genius. Just changing to the section/region setup was a great move and long overdue.
But to hold the District Duals seeding process above reproach is disingenuous. It may not be "smoke-filled" room conspiracy - I'm sure the committee members have the best intentions - but you can't deny that the process involves coaches who are naturally advocating for their teams. While the process is transparent to those INSIDE the room, you also can't deny that the information on the hows and whys of the process is not available to those OUTSIDE the room.
I oversee a similar process, seeding Escape the Rock. We have our own internal algorithm, but ultimately this only guides us, the committee makes the final decision on the seeds. Coaches invariably question many of our decisions, but unlike the Duals process, we field those questions and answer them and outline exactly how we came to that decision. Some may still disagree, but rarely, if ever, do we hear that our process was not fair.
If you are not going to open the process up like that, you are better off with an algorithm. Mistakes will still be made, but at least coaches - and the fans - no exactly how the decisions are made. Right now they don't.
BTW, still waiting for the answer of how Quakertown is the #1 seed based on resume. Maybe it wasn't based on resume, but everybody outside that room doesn't know. That's the problem. That seeding itself doesn't really matter at all, but again, be transparent about how that decision was made. Did they want to avoid particular early round matchups, CRS-CRN in the semis, something else? Did they think Mutarelli was injured (he wrestled at Bensalem AFTER scratching ETR, so that doesn't make sense)? Obviously, they knew the Bechtolds were coming back - how did they know that?
Edited by dicemen99 - Jan 24 2025 at 3:21pm
|
 |
charles
Fanatics
Joined: Feb 23 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1648
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 4:00pm |
dicemen99 wrote:
This is a pretty week rebuttal. I don't think anybody has used straight winning percentage to seed since the 70s. Or maybe the 2010s if we are talking District 1 sectional seedings. Mike could come up with a power ranking algorithm that would blow that away in under 15 minutes.
BTW, there have been some great changes in D1 over the past few years. The seeding formula for sections combined with the ranking system for regions is the best system I've ever seen put in place. Genius. Just changing to the section/region setup was a great move and long overdue.
But to hold the District Duals seeding process above reproach is disingenuous. It may not be "smoke-filled" room conspiracy - I'm sure the committee members have the best intentions - but you can't deny that the process involves coaches who are naturally advocating for their teams. While the process is transparent to those INSIDE the room, you also can't deny that the information on the hows and whys of the process is not available to those OUTSIDE the room.
I oversee a similar process, seeding Escape the Rock. We have our own internal algorithm, but ultimately this only guides us, the committee makes the final decision on the seeds. Coaches invariably question many of our decisions, but unlike the Duals process, we field those questions and answer them and outline exactly how we came to that decision. Some may still disagree, but rarely, if ever, do we hear that our process was not fair.
If you are not going to open the process up like that, you are better off with an algorithm. Mistakes will still be made, but at least coaches - and the fans - no exactly how the decisions are made. Right now they don't.
BTW, still waiting for the answer of how Quakertown is the #1 seed based on resume. Maybe it wasn't based on resume, but everybody outside that room doesn't know. That's the problem. That seeding itself doesn't really matter at all, but again, be transparent about how that decision was made. Did they want to avoid particular early round matchups, CRS-CRN in the semis, something else? Did they think Mutarelli was injured (he wrestled at Bensalem AFTER scratching ETR, so that doesn't make sense)? Obviously, they knew the Bechtolds were coming back - how did they know that?
|
If it makes you feel any better I can promise you it wasnt solely Quakertown coaches advocating for their team. They invite coaches from all around to advocate so that one league or area does not get preferential treatment.
That being said, I do not get how quakertown is the top seed. Apparently beating Saucon Valley is more impressive than beating Gettysburg. I think you are also accurate in assuming Mutarelli being so inconsistent in the lineup hurt as well. You should take it up with your league rep. The OJR rep obviously did his job well.
Chin whipped is like Bane here. Some people just like to watch the world burn. He has complaints but no solutions and will not be specific.
Edited by charles - Jan 24 2025 at 4:01pm
|
 |
MTLeister
Administrators
Joined: Nov 26 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6243
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 5:01pm |
dicemen99 wrote:
This is a pretty week rebuttal. I don't think anybody has used straight winning percentage to seed since the 70s. Or maybe the 2010s if we are talking District 1 sectional seedings. Mike could come up with a power ranking algorithm that would blow that away in under 15 minutes.
|
Actually, I'm pretty sure District 4 still uses winning percentage as their seeding criteria for their Duals. They have tiebreakers but it looks to be straight winning percentage for the main criteria.
|
|
 |
dicemen99
Fanatics
Joined: Feb 15 2008
Location: Pennsburg, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1714
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 5:13pm |
MTLeister wrote:
dicemen99 wrote:
This is a pretty week rebuttal. I don't think anybody has used straight winning percentage to seed since the 70s. Or maybe the 2010s if we are talking District 1 sectional seedings. Mike could come up with a power ranking algorithm that would blow that away in under 15 minutes.
|
Actually, I'm pretty sure District 4 still uses winning percentage as their seeding criteria for their Duals. They have tiebreakers but it looks to be straight winning percentage for the main criteria. |
The 70s is new-fangled technology in District 4. Driving through those counties is equal part feel good nostalgia about my pre-teen years and stark reminder of the origin of the term "pennsyltucky."
|
 |
ancienthatteroldram
Fanatics
Joined: Mar 12 2014
Location: Sellersville Pa
Status: Offline
Points: 1203
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 5:25pm |
Charles: Well said as usual. Fwif, I think beating Saucon Valley is more impressive.
Edited by ancienthatteroldram - Jan 24 2025 at 5:26pm
|
 |
dicemen99
Fanatics
Joined: Feb 15 2008
Location: Pennsburg, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1714
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 5:26pm |
charles wrote:
dicemen99 wrote:
This is a pretty week rebuttal. I don't think anybody has used straight winning percentage to seed since the 70s. Or maybe the 2010s if we are talking District 1 sectional seedings. Mike could come up with a power ranking algorithm that would blow that away in under 15 minutes.
BTW, there have been some great changes in D1 over the past few years. The seeding formula for sections combined with the ranking system for regions is the best system I've ever seen put in place. Genius. Just changing to the section/region setup was a great move and long overdue.
But to hold the District Duals seeding process above reproach is disingenuous. It may not be "smoke-filled" room conspiracy - I'm sure the committee members have the best intentions - but you can't deny that the process involves coaches who are naturally advocating for their teams. While the process is transparent to those INSIDE the room, you also can't deny that the information on the hows and whys of the process is not available to those OUTSIDE the room.
I oversee a similar process, seeding Escape the Rock. We have our own internal algorithm, but ultimately this only guides us, the committee makes the final decision on the seeds. Coaches invariably question many of our decisions, but unlike the Duals process, we field those questions and answer them and outline exactly how we came to that decision. Some may still disagree, but rarely, if ever, do we hear that our process was not fair.
If you are not going to open the process up like that, you are better off with an algorithm. Mistakes will still be made, but at least coaches - and the fans - no exactly how the decisions are made. Right now they don't.
BTW, still waiting for the answer of how Quakertown is the #1 seed based on resume. Maybe it wasn't based on resume, but everybody outside that room doesn't know. That's the problem. That seeding itself doesn't really matter at all, but again, be transparent about how that decision was made. Did they want to avoid particular early round matchups, CRS-CRN in the semis, something else? Did they think Mutarelli was injured (he wrestled at Bensalem AFTER scratching ETR, so that doesn't make sense)? Obviously, they knew the Bechtolds were coming back - how did they know that?
|
If it makes you feel any better I can promise you it wasnt solely Quakertown coaches advocating for their team. They invite coaches from all around to advocate so that one league or area does not get preferential treatment.
That being said, I do not get how quakertown is the top seed. Apparently beating Saucon Valley is more impressive than beating Gettysburg. I think you are also accurate in assuming Mutarelli being so inconsistent in the lineup hurt as well. You should take it up with your league rep. The OJR rep obviously did his job well.
Chin whipped is like Bane here. Some people just like to watch the world burn. He has complaints but no solutions and will not be specific.
|
No need for me to feel any better, I don't really feel bad about the result. Quakertown has as good a chance of winning this as Boyertown or South (I don't think North is capable - they can beat someone with the right matchup, but they don't have the lineup depth to win multiple duals against good teams). It is more the process I'm making observations about.
I don't think Quakertown was advocating at all (in fact, I know Kurt was at CR South at the time of the meeting) and I hate to keep pointing them out but it's just the best example that I can come up with this year. It's the fact that the coaches are involved - they SHOULD advocate for their team, that's their job.
I know we used to have coach's meetings to discuss pre-seeds at tournaments and advocate for their kids before finalizing seeds for decades. But that doesn't mean its a good system. And, yeah, the B1G still does it. It's tradition, but it makes no sense in my opinion.
Yours is a great post and I would absolutely endorse that if you were a member of the selection committee and this was a method of giving some transparency to the process - well, then I would tip my cap. Well done.
|
 |
dicemen99
Fanatics
Joined: Feb 15 2008
Location: Pennsburg, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1714
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 5:38pm |
ancienthatteroldram wrote:
Charles: Well said as usual. Fwif, I think beating Saucon Valley is more impressive.
|
I would agree if SV wasn't missing their 133 in that match which probably resulted in a 12 point swing to Quakertown. Either way, it's close between SV and Gettysburg.
Of course, Quakertown lost to Parkland, which is also on their resume. Unless we are not counting losses. I know duals are matchups, but I can not see Boyertown losing to Parkland in any scenario and probably not South either.
|
 |
dicemen99
Fanatics
Joined: Feb 15 2008
Location: Pennsburg, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1714
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 24 2025 at 6:16pm |
BTW, how do we still not have a Sun Valley-Pennridge box score up? C'mon coaches!!!
|
 |