I have posted on an earlier link the proposal to the KWCA for bracket seeding at the State Tournament. As I mentioned at the meeting with the board , "There will probably be very few changes which need to be made from the KSHSAA formula." Today I just went through the pairings for this years 4A and only found one weight class which would need to be changed using the proposal I submitted. This took me about an hour to go through the 4A brackets and do this. Had I been prepared with a list of all returning State Placers ahead of time, I think it could have been done in 15 minutes.

For those who have not reviewed my earlier proposal, it is not seeding but only seperating the 4 Regional finalist. After that, the usual KSHSAA formula will be followed and all wrestlers will be placed according to thier Regional Champions placement. At the meeting this fall we felt our goal was to seperate these individuals which fit the criteria and provide them an opportunity to meet in the finals instead of the Semi-finals.

Looking at this years 4A I found only 152 was in any real need of an adjustment. Look at the KSHSAA's bracket and compare it to the order I will list below and see if you agree. Normally this would be done with a panel of possibly 3 or 4 individuals instead of just one and I know there will be some or many who disagree with my opinion. But remember, my goal is to seperate those 2 wrestlers who might be returning State Champs or undefeated wrestlers and give them a chance to showcase their talent in the finals and not the semi's.

Here is my revision for 4A 152
Use the States formula but change designations "B" & "C" around.

1B Blake Willmann -- Clayctr
4D Garrett ,mitchell - RoseH

2A Jordan Renfro - FtScott
3C Clint Taylor - Hays TMp

1D Tyler Koehn - Pittsb 3rd @ 135 5A also 34-0 this year
4B Frankie Deal - Concord

2C John Prater - Pratt
3A Clint Holland - Prarview

1A Kyle Hudgins - Spring Hill 6th@140
4C Aaron Deeds - Goodland

2B Aaron Quisenberry - Ward
3D John Hambleton - Labette C

1C Sam Thoman - Andale 4th @ 145
4A Sam Wilson - Baldwin

2D Faron Rodriquez - CFKindley
3B Ryan Carlson - Hiawatha

Reasons for the change:
There were two top 4 placers returning in the top half of the bracket. In our meeting this fall we felt that top 4 placers should be given the most consideration not 5 or 6.
Koehn is the highest returning placer and is undefeated. Seperate him from the other two placers and allow them the opportunity to meet him in the finals.

This is not to say any of the kids on the bracket couldn't be in the finals. All I am trying to do is set the stage for a more exciting finals match with the possiblity of two returning high place wrestlers meeting in the finals.

Tell me what you think. If I get a little time I will look at 3-2-1A and 5A and 6A

how do you know this is correct

So is this how the bracket will be or is it still as listed?

It is still as listed.

Coach Alley is providing an example of a bracket if changes he has proposed were implemented to the current system KSHSAA utilizes for bracket placement.

that guy needs a life

Look at 112 in 3a. The 2 that are clearly the top 2 is Hase returning state champ and freshman Rodgers undefeated with a win over Hase. They are on the same side. Wiegel who has been beat handly by both has a free ride to the finals. Would your system fix this. It seems simple to just seperate those guys when it is so clear that they are the top 2.One of those 2 boys will have to settle for 3rd and no championship fan fair. The spectators will have to watch their match with several others going on. It is the luck of the draw but it seems to me if 2 wrestlers clearly deserve to be ranked 1 and 2 they should be.

Been that way for an eternity.....and been countless state championships won and lost in the semis Friday night. But there have also been some people who won the big one Friday nite only to end up with silver the next day by someone who didn't buy in to the rankings.

I think your idea hold a lot of merit. No big change, more or less "using commen sense" for the better of the kids, which is what this is all about. I cant see why the state could not except it and implement without a lot of time or energy. I am sure there could be some situations that wouldnt be that easy but by just switching around quarters could take care of most situations.

Yes it has been that way for a while but it does not make it right. Anyone that has watched these 2 wrestle and watch the other 3a wrestlers knows that Hase and Rodgers are clearly better than the rest of the pack. yes on any give day there could be an upset but you should still have a design to have the best 2 wrestlers wrestling in the finals unless an upset occurs.

I'll look at 3A 112 and use my criteria to see what happens. It should not take me too long.

Thanks Richard for explaining that this is a proposal, hopefully for next year! I should of made that a little more clear in the title.

Sorry for being away from the site for a few hours and not answering the post but I took my wife out to eat. Just one of those things I do while trying to get a life. I'll post the 112 in a few minutes hopefully.

The rationale that it's always been done that way is like saying we don't want to try anything new. I know that the only person that likes change is a wet baby, but if Coach Alley's formula would provide the best of opportunities for the best wrestlers to meet in the finals rather than the semi-finals, then it should be given serious consideration.
He has a life. He probably thought of this formula while trying to take out a barbed-wire fence with his ultralight plane.

Whoa there 5 kids, I know the intent of your post was not to slam any of the other wrestlers on the same side of the bracket as Wiegel, but I hardly think he will "have a free ride".
In the second round, providing he wins, he will have either Frye of Eureka, or Stucky of Scott City, neither one of them are too shabby. Then, provided he makes the semi finals, he could have either Bingham of Burlingame, Janzen of Hesston, or Campbell of Oakley whom he has beaten twice, both by one point, 2-1 and 4-3. Both of those matchups came before Christmas break. I know he should be the favorite, but that's why they wrestle the matches.

I appoligize if anyone took this as a slam at the other wrestlers. You could replace the name Weigel with Frye or Campbell or others. The point is it would be a major upset for any of them to beat Rodgers or Hase and neither are on that side of the bracket.

Thanks for advertising my 2nd job Bill. I can remove fences in your pasture pretty effeciently.

I looked at the 3A 112 and my formula would require a change in the States formula. Here is my adjustment based on the criteria and my rational for the change.

3A 112
Change Regional "C" & "D" designations
There are two returning State Placers and one undefeated record in the bracket. Since one of the placers is a returning champion I would seperate him from the other two criteria's.
this would leave Hase of Silver Lake on the bottom by himself and place Frye of Eureka returning placer and Rogers of Smith Center who is undefeated on the top half. If Hase's only loss is to Rogers then this would give him a rematch in the finals if they both make it. Here is what it would look like.

1A Frye - Eureka 6th @ 103 31 - 5
4D Geist - Osborne

2C Keiswetter - norton
3B Phillips - ACCHS

1D Rogers - SmithCenter 33 - 0
4A Soliday - Flinthills

2B Bingham - Burlingame
3C Cemen - P burg

1C Campbell - Oakley 31 - 5
4B Wehner - Rosseville

2A Weber - Westelk
3D Janzen - hesston

1B Hase - Silverlake
4C Stucky - Scott City

2D Weigle - Plainville
3D Orsi - Wich Indep

Hope this helps show what the formula would do.

103 4a, should change it so that Stroot and Sharky are on the same side instead of having Sparr (2nd) vs Sharky (1st) meet up in the semi's. It's a repeat of Schroeder vs Elliot last year in the semi's that should have been a finals match.

I looked at that one, but none of the 4 Regional Champs are returning placers and all their records are very similar. I tried not to pay that much attention to rankings. It also has the two upper classmen and freshman already. With no clear criteria like Shroeder and Elliott last year I think you leave it alone. Otherwise it gets down to opinion as to why you split them.

I think if you stretch it this far people will then try to say why not just seed the state tournament?

Even if it is a good idea, I don't think we should mess with what has worked for years, simply because people will stretch the boundaries.

You could always just let third challenge for second, that way if third place really is the # 2 guy he would end up with it no matter where he is placed in the bracket.

If it fixes the obvious 1 & 2 match up and puts them on seperate sides of the bracket I'm for it. Just dont over do it and make adjustments unless it is obvious.

Thats my objective. Look to seperate the best and let the KSHSAA formula do the rest. We are never going to eliminate the upsets, that is what makes this sport great. But if we can seperate the obvious, then why not?