I was just curious what others thought about the current rating system. This subject came up when we were looking at the brackets for our tournament. I think that the "C" and "D" could be combined into one group. The current system is too subjective once you get past the "A" wrestlers.

Suggestion:
A - State Placer
B - State qualifier
C - Advanced wrestler
D - Novice or Beginner

I think this would give people something tangible to use to rate kids and also help drawing up brackets.

I think you need to have a 6pt. system.

AA=National placer
A=state placer
B=state Qual.
C=Usually top 3 (or something like that)
D=average
E=beginner

One other thought as it will always be tough to place kids all correctly is to always have challenges for 2nd. I realize this adds more matches, but it get things right for the wrestlers and that is why we are all doing this.

Twister

Just curious? What classifies as a national placer? Does any national tournament count? Please give examples of what tournaments count.

I would like to hear more on this subject.
This is one of the proposals I am giving to the Board next Sunday at our meeting. I would like to make it universal across the state? I get four or five different ones at on our tournament entries.

Sure you want to hear more now JT! We will never have a working system as long as coaches/parents sandbag their wrestlers in order to get them into a bracket with a better chance of placing. Some clubs used to bracket all the A and B wrestlers together and C and D's together at invitationals. I don't think any organized system will work until we are prepared to track all wrestlers records by our governing body. Also, are we then going to take away the right of clubs to set their own criteria for invites?

If you are going to use the above system on a uniform basis, I would change AA to State Champion or National tournament Placer. I think that being our State Champion is more of an accomplishment than certainly a low place at some of these national tournaments. I know we value and think more highly of my son's first place at State last year than his second place finish at Liberty Nationals. Even if he had won Liberty Nationals, we would have considered the state championship more difficult to achieve. A first place finish at State is also worthy of a higher rating than a lower State place position.

I would like to see a rating system simular to seeding at subdistrict used for seeding at OPEN tournaments.

Also I would like for the state to keep track of W-L records I don't think it would be that hard and it could also be done online. I was thinkin about creating a website to rank kids wrestlers but wrestling season started on me last October and I ran out of time...

Travius

There is nothing I can do about kids sand bagging all year to get those brackets and gold medals? The thing I tell my parents is that come sub-district time they will pay for not wrestling any competition.

What I am looking for is a general rating system that the whole state can use on their entry form.

A - ?
B - ?
C - ?
D - ?
N - ?
G - ?

I would at least like to define them all the same way across the state?

I would be fine with AA as state champion as well. As for a listing of what national tournaments apply I don't know but my initial list would be Cliff Keen Kick-off, Tulsa Nationals, Reno, USA Nationals, Liberty Nationals. But I am sure open to other suggestions.

As far as "sandbaggers"...We have to go under the assumption that MOST of the people are trying to do the correct thing. There is no way anyone can manage records of the thousands of kids in KS kids wrestling. We are looking at the wrong angle if we are trying to manage the masses that will do the right thing. Maybe someone has a suggestion for the few who abuse this or any system that would be put in place. A 6pt. system although not perfect, would be better that the 4 pt we have now and no more or less subject to those who want to cheat.

This is the way Liberty Nationals and some other do it. If you list "AA" you list the tournament and placing your kids got.

Twister

First of all, there are too many wrestlers to keep track of all the wins and losses. Also records carry very little weight in my book, as far as using it for rankings. As someones signiture says on this forum, "If you've never been beaten, you've never been far away enough from home."

I don't think making more choices is the best option either because again once you get past the top two or three ratings, it is again open to subjectivity. Five choices may be valid. Making a AA for State Champion. But as far as National placings, that may just be overkill. Unless of course you are seeding for a national tournament, then it becomes relavent.

I think this is this best choice.

AA - State Champion
A - State Placer
B - State Qualifier
C - Advanced wrestler
D - Novice or beginner

Either you are or aren't a state champion
Either you are or aren't a state placer
Either you are or aren't a state qualifier
And either you've been wrestling for a while or you are just beginning. It rates the wrestler according to the facts and not on what someone thinks. (On the top three list the year.)

As far as parents sandbagging in order to get an easier bracket, they are just hurting themselves. Because as this ranking system shows, when it comes down to the end of the season you are going to have to wrestle some tough matches to get to state, place at state, and win state. There is no easy way through it. TRAVIUS talked about a system similar to the one used for subs. At subs you have a seeding meeting and look at how wrestlers have faired throughout the season. Both head to head and against common opponents. So again wrestling an easy schedule is going to hurt you come subs.

And lastly, you can't have seeding meeting for every tournament. So doing it the way we do it at subs is out of the question.

I agree with LegRider, Jason Hosey. I would really not confuse the issue with national tournament wins and places either. First of all you run into the problem of what national tournaments should be recognized as such. The next problem is that there are some national tournament brackets that really do not get that many kids entered. The Liberty national tournament my son was in last year only had seven kids in his bracket so only one kid did not place. His state tournaments have almost always had 16 kids not to mention all the others who try to qualify at Subs and District. I think that Jason has suggested a very good rating system for our State.

I would not complicate the rating system anymore for a kids tournament. The kids ultimately have to settle it on the mat. The only way to get it close to correct is a seeding meeting. And I do not want to go that meeting every week with 5 or 6 age groups and plenty of weight classes. Do not make the rating system Over Rated. If I have a good kid - I want him to be the #4 seed everytime. He becomes the sleeper for the number 1 kid.

Sean

STA

1). I would agree that an Standardized Objective Rating System (as opposed to subjective) needs to be developed.

2). I would also agree that National Tournaments (though none the less important) should not play a part in this rating system (I am sure this will lead to discussion ).

Here is my suggestion for what this rating system would look like... (please feel free to comment or criticize as needed :rolleyes: )

Two-Tier System (seperating Open & Novice)

Open Wrestling
A - Placed at State (list placing)
B - Qualified for State (but did not place, list placing at Districts)
C - Advanced (did not qualify for State, list placing at Districts-if qualified, or placing at Subs-if competed)
D - First year Open Wrestler

* Using the placing(s) will help seed the wrestlers fairly - giving highest seed to "A-1" and so on, then "B-1" and so on, then "C-1" and so on, then I guess a drawing for what's left of the "C", then a drawing for the "D".

Novice Wrestling
A - Advanced (second year)
B - Beginner (first year)

Maybe this could be one system for all wrestlers, but the point I am trying to get across is that a distinction should be made between a State medalist and a first year wrestler. As far as the "middle of the road wrestlers", you could go crazy trying to seperate all the variables there (and, is it even needed?).

I have not been in this sport for very long, and do not claim to know anything, but I do feel that anything that can be done to make the system better is a great thing. Whatever is decided should be based on the K.I.S.S. principle.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

There's another issue here.
My boys are the opposite of sandbaggers.
They've never qualified for State, although they have both come very close (alternates), and have soundly beaten State Placers at open tournaments. They don't figure they'll improve by wrestling in a weaker bracket, so they go in as A wrestlers all the time. How does this affect the rankings? Or is it a non-issue?

DJdad, You don't know it but you are by definition a sandbagger. Your intentions are admirable but you would be better off rating your kids as B wrestlers. The whole point in using a rating system is to seperate the more advanced wrestlers so that they do not meet until the later rounds. More times than not an A wrestler has an easy first match. This is because all the high ranked wrestlers are seperated and then everyone else is drawn into the bracket. So it is safe to bet that by ranking your kid high, he is actually getting an easier first match. If he is beating state placers, then he will get a higher ranking by the end of the year. But everyone has to do this the same way and that is by earning your rank by what you do at the end of the year. Good Luck to your kids!

Donnie, Again I think that your approach just complicates it even more. Having to look at what wrestlers did at districts and subdistricts would take to long. And again the only reason we even bother with these rankings is to seperate the top two or three.

Simple is better

Leg Rider - I have a question. If a kid qualifies and wins State as an 8 year old but is now 13 and has never qualified for state since would you still rate him as a "State Champion". In other words, when you ask for State Champion or State Qualifier do you mean "ever" or do you mean last year. And if it is last year then is a kid who qualified for state as a 10 and under but has now moved up to 12 and under better than a kid who is 12 and didn't qualify?

Let’s be realistic if you are lookin for a good system then the new system should be more objective then subjective... Meaning that a second year novice isn't automatically better than a first year novice... Meaning that a B rating "Advanced" don't mean the same for everyone... If you want a good system then it should be more objective with some criteria set to justify the rating.

TRAVIUS - I think that is what we are trying for.

Under the new criteria that I have proposed, the rating would be more objective.
AA - State Champion
A - State Placer
B - State Qualifier
C - Advanced wrestler
D - Novice or beginner

Each one of these has smething for you to base your rating upon. How is this less objective than the current system.
As far as having a Two-Tier System (seperating Open & Novice), that Donnie has suggested, we already do in the way of novice tournaments.

bdisney - Yes I would still rate him as an "AA" but as I stated in one of my previous posts, If you rate your wrestler AA, A, or B, then you should also include the year. I think it is a rare thing that one would win state and then not even qualify the next year.

Maybe you can only be ranked an "AA" if the championship was from the previous year.

Or, maybe your right. Maybe your ranking should only be as good as what you were the previous year. I would be interested to know what others think about your rating being based on your previous year.

I think the current system is fine, If an A wrestler is sent in as a B so what it's just going to hurt the kid in the long run. It doesn't
matter because eventually the kids are going to have to settle it on the mat.I have seen A wrestlers get beat by a C wrestler, The current system is fine, if it's not broke don't fix it.

Legrider - I should have clarified earlier that when my boys go in as A wrestlers, it is at the Roundrobin style tournaments, with many brackets per weight, that seem common to many tournaments in western KS. They are afraid of travelling to a tournament and ending up in a 5 man robin with below average wrestlers.
I've never thought about it enough to worry about seedings in an 8 or 16 man bracket. We just go in as Bs and take what we get there.