Beeson and Cokeley(Will) have wrestled three times this year. Will won the first two matches. Beeson wins the third and final match before Regionals. Cokeley leads 2-1, with Beeson winning the last match. Everything else being equal, who gets the higher seed at Regionals?

At the Holton regional it would have been Cokeley. Most wins, then the last win was the criteria,

Wouldn't all regionals have the same seeding criteria?

I would think that all Regionals statewide should have the same seeding criteria. Pesonally I think I would get the higher seed because I have the last win, head to head. Is there a seeding criteria, or do the coaches just make it up as they go?

There is a State Recommended Criteria for Regional Seeding meetings and then the coaches at the meeting discuss and vote on any additions or changes BEFORE they start seeding a weight.

1-1 or 2-2 goes to the guy with the last win. 2-1 or 3-1 goes to the guy with the most wins. That is the standard for Head to Head at every tournament we go to.

. . .

The seeding criteria provided by the KSHSAA is very basic and with the proviso that it can be added to or modified.

For example, at the seed meeting in Norton it was emphasized that if there was deviation from the seed criteria put out it would be consistently allowed through the remaining weights. This led to some good discussion beforehand among the coaches as to what to include, which led to being "just" a state qualifier not being considered (another indication of just how deep this tournament was!); a state placer yes, a state qualifier, no. Also the coaches decided to not consider winning percentage as a tie breaker.

In answer to the original question, the most recent head-to-head is generally considered to be the determiner in an even match series, but generally the wrestler with the greatest number of wins in a multi-match scenario receives the higher seed.

Even if it is 2-1 or 3-1?

Not where we go.

GENERALLY you are correct and I have edited my response to reflect that, however. . .for example, a 3-2 situation, but the wrestler with the two received the seed because both wins were the most recent two in the series.

That's why it should be last win. Your only as good as your last match.

That is not the way it worked at the Wichita Northwest Regional. According to some coaches 1-1 was a wash, last win didn't matter. Also, "my kid beat a kid that beat the kid that beat your kid" was criteria.

I would say we need to look into a seeding criteria that is recognized and followed State and Classwide.

early season wins can be at higher weight classes also. if a wrestler plays football on a team and goes deep into the playoffs, conditioning can be a huge factor early on. meetings later on when "all things" being equal should carry some merit.

They do. The higher seed goes to the wrestler who won the last match...unless the other wrestler has won more head to head.

If you wrestled 6 times and the other guy beat you 5 times, but the last match you beat him...good for you, now you know you can beat him, but he still gets the seed.

I disagree, Beeson. In my opinion the basic framework as supplied by the KSHSAA and as modified by the coaches (either added to or subtracted from) is just fine. Local problems are best solved locally.

i should have clarified further, i think the current system is correct, the way it is worded. sorry that's not the way it came across. when records/ "all things" are equal last match should be the criteria, other than that numbers matter for seedings. why read any more into it.

Your both too old to wrestle KSHSAA will not recognize anyone over 50 as a worthy opponent.

Well I'm only 37 so I get the seed over Will.

You look a lot older than that Beeson

Seeding meetings crack me up. They always have.

Head-to-head is a wash. If you won you get the seed. If there are multiple matches it's best record. If you split, you could argue last outcome or flip a coin. Either way is fine.
Common opponent is a dumb form of criteria. It just is. The problem with it is that it opens the door for any combination of common-opponent scenario. I have heard arguments like: "Well, my kid, beat a kid in a summer tournament two years ago that beat your kid." Dumb as that sounds, it actually worked!

You take two coaches arguing for a seed -- say second or third at Regionals. Both have 30 wins, both are studs. But all of a sudden, this surly little third coach over there goes, "Um, who are your losses to?" Pretty soon he's arguing that his kid with an 11-21 record beat a kid that gave one of those two 30-win kids a loss. Not withstanding the fact that the common opponent was ahead 14-2 at the time and the surly little coach's kid happened to catch him with a throw or something. Next thing you know you have an 11-21 kid seeded second at Regionals. That's just wrong.

Here's my favorite Regional seeding meeting story. One year, I had a kid in the middle weights was clearly the fourth seed; 20 wins, quality wins, whole thing. Another coach asked for our losses. I rattled them off; all quality kids. The other coach says, "Well, my kid beat 'Smith' (fake name) in a dual." 'Smith' was our league champion, ranked in 4A, but I knew he a couple of losses here and there. And the other coach was well-respected so I didn't dispute it; his kid was a sophomore and had a .500 record and ended up being pretty good. My kid ended up in a draw that had him seeded 7th.

But it didn't make any sense how this kid beat 'Smith,' so on the day between the seeding meeting and Regionals, I called 'Smith's' coach and asked him about it. To my surprise, he told me 'Smith' didn't wrestle that night. He had weighed-in, but during the day there was a death in his family and they took off to travel. Unfortunately, the coach who brought this up at the Regional meeting had his manager fill out the scorebook based on the weigh-in sheets. There ended up being a JV kid in that spot.

So, I ended up calling the other coach and the Regional tournament manager and we ended up redrawing the weight on Friday. No harm, no foul, but if common opponent was not a factor, this kind of crap wouldn't have happened.

I once saw a 1-8 kid (was injured most of the year) get top seed at regionals, a heckuva massage job by his coach. He ended up winning the regional and placing at state. Had he been drawn in it never would have happened.