Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
State Tournament Awards
#1
6A
Most Falls in Least Time: 152 John Austin Jones (Thompson), 3 falls in 3:04
Best Match: 138 Mark Garlington (Hoover) d. Cody Albarado (Thompson), 3-1 in 2OT
Most Outstanding Wrestler: 113 Brian White (Opelika)


5A
Most Falls in Least Time: 113 Titus Worthen (Scottsboro), 3 falls in 4:53
Best Match: 195 Deven Sullivan (Muscle Shoals) d. Trey Fields (Arab), 12-11
Most Outstanding Wrestler: 126 Brandon Womack (Scottsboro)


1A-4A
Most Falls in Least Time: 195 Cody Self (Susan Moore), 3 falls in 5:41
Best Match: 152 Brian Shockley (Leeds) d. Dalton Carroll (Walter Wellborn), 5-4
Most Outstanding Wrestler: 220 Dillan Campbell (Oak Grove)
First issue......"Most Falls in Least Time" Award......

I disagree with how the AHSAA presents this award. They insist (either a bad decision or based on bad advice?) that it go to a Champion only. By definition alone, this award in 6A should have gone to Damian Love (Stanhope Elmore) with 4 falls in 4:48. This isn't an award that is subjective, objective, or voted on by coaches or a panel (i.e., Central Board of Control). This is based on results only. Check the Statistics sheet on the results page at the TrackWrestling site. No problem with the 5A and 1A-4A. Those two were Champs, but they met the criteria to earn both (title & award).

Absolutely no disrespect to John Austin Jones. He very well earned his state title and should enjoy it. He has added his name to a list that can't be erased. Much respect to him for that. My issue is with the AHSAA not even knowing what this MFiLT is supposed to be for. It is not supposed to be limited to only go to a Champion with the most falls in the least time. It is supposed to go to the individual, regardless of place finish, who has achieved the maximum results at the very heart of the sport of wrestling....the art of pinning your opponent.

If you disagree, you either have never wrestled or don't know much about wrestling.

My backup argument is for anyone with an opposing view to look at how the NCAA DI's award the Gorriaran Award. I have not researched the NFHS view of it, but I would think if it's good enough for the NCAA DI's, then it should be reason enough for the AHSAA.
#2
Maybe they should write in Champions only. I have no problem with it going to the champions considering the kids in consolations have more opportunities for falls wrestling more matches.
#3
Second issue....."Best Match"......

This is more of a non-issue, but it is voted on by all coaches which makes it become completely subjective. Arguments can be made for and against several matches. Example: 6A could have gone (in my opinion) to 120, 138, 145, 170, 195, or 220. It does not always have to go to an OT (or 2OT) match, but those are usually in the running for a reason. I think I'm pretty objective, but I may have gone with 120. Bostany was a few inches or seconds away from the win. And at 138, I feel bad for Cody Albarado (and Glen), but there was a major miss on the officiating. I'm not downing the officials, they do a job that most (including me) aren't willing or able to do, but if Albarado had won after an obvious non-call escape, that would have been terrible. Granted, I was watching all mats and could have missed something, but I'm pretty sure I know an escape, with complete separation, when I see one (along with everyone in my Section...which was neither Hoover's nor Thompson's). I don't know how it was missed at all, but especially with 2 officials on the mat. Some calls can be missed, but that one in particular was inexcusable. Congrats to both Garlington & Albarado though on a hard fought match there. Albarado made the finals and should be proud of that when many thought he wouldn't make it there.

In 5A, could have been 145, 160, 195, or 285. I would probably have voted for 160.
(02-19-2012, 12:37 PM)bigdogw Wrote: Maybe they should write in Champions only. I have no problem with it going to the champions considering the kids in consolations have more opportunities for falls wrestling more matches.

Agree. If they change the wording of the award title/criteria, I'm all good with it, although I still think it's absolutely absurd that we have 2 classes with only an 8-man bracket for a State Championship. I don't fault the kids, I fault the system. I realize consolation matches provide more opportunities, but let's say we have a pinning technician who "gets caught" and loses 1 match. Sucks for him, but that's part of it, and that's why we lace 'em up. However, the fact that he is able to win more by pin than any other, champs or cons, should be rewarded, in my opinion. Again, NCAA DI's = they're fine with the format by definition. Furthermore, Gable. He lost to Owings, but still pinned his way through a more-than-8-man-bracket in the shortest time to get it in 1970 without being the champion. Good enough reason/argument for me.
#4
I think it should be one tournament in Alabama. Do we really ave enough teams/kids to have 3?
#5
(02-19-2012, 12:45 PM)BamaGrappler Wrote: Agree. If they change the wording of the award title/criteria, I'm all good with it, although I still think it's absolutely absurd that we have 2 classes with only an 8-man bracket for a State Championship. I don't fault the kids, I fault the system. I realize consolation matches provide more opportunities, but let's say we have a pinning technician who "gets caught" and loses 1 match. Sucks for him, but that's part of it, and that's why we lace 'em up. However, the fact that he is able to win more by pin than any other, champs or cons, should be rewarded, in my opinion. Again, NCAA DI's = they're fine with the format by definition. Furthermore, Gable. He lost to Owings, but still pinned his way through a more-than-8-man-bracket in the shortest time to get it in 1970 without being the champion. Good enough reason/argument for me.

I have to agree with you bama... I always thought of it as first you are honored if your the best in your weight class, then you are additionally honored if you are thought to be the outstanding wrestler (judged by your performance at that tournament only), and finally you can make it a triple crown ONLY if you also had the most pins in the least time (of all the participants in the tournament, not only the weight class Champs). That method made it an extra special honor to win all three since it is statistically easier for a consolation wrestler to end up with more chances for more pins. Also, aside from doing it for the team or simply to vent ones anger at having lost in the championship bracket, it gives an extra incentive for the consolation wrestlers to keep wrestling hard for pins! Big Grin
(02-19-2012, 01:55 PM)bigdogw Wrote: I think it should be one tournament in Alabama. Do we really ave enough teams/kids to have 3?

What I had previously come up with this year (from NWCA online, so I can't guarantee accuracy) was 36 teams and around 518 wrestlers for 1A-4A, 26 teams and 601 wrestlers for 5A, and 37 teams and 1025 wrestlers for 6A (some kids in all groups had 0 records which I guess could have indicated that they quit the team since I think everyone would have gotten to wrestle at least in a tournament). I've long thought that they need to go back to two divisions... we have a certain group of schools that have danced back and forth between 5A and 6A over the years (not as sure about 1A-4A and 5A being the same way), and have been competitive in both. In the next few days, I'll look at this again and see where a possible split point suggestion might seem reasonable.
Gary Litzinger
#6
Am I missing something? Do not laugh. But isn't the only pertinant # the number of teams, not the # of wrestlers. Look at the sectionals and see how many across divisions brought complete teams (I posted the math right after sectionals). Not a high %. Easily could do away with sectionals altogether and have 32 man bracket, 2 or 3 day State tournament for each division OR do away with divisions and do "qualifiers" based on geography feeding into a 16 man bracket. I am afraid "State Qualifier" is losing its swager as a term.
Wish I was smart enough to figure out that cut and paste feature!
Mark Scofield
#7
(02-20-2012, 08:34 AM)MB1976 Wrote: Am I missing something? Do not laugh. But isn't the only pertinant # the number of teams, not the # of wrestlers. Look at the sectionals and see how many across divisions brought complete teams (I posted the math right after sectionals). Not a high %. Easily could do away with sectionals altogether and have 32 man bracket, 2 or 3 day State tournament for each division OR do away with divisions and do "qualifiers" based on geography feeding into a 16 man bracket. I am afraid "State Qualifier" is losing its swager as a term.
Wish I was smart enough to figure out that cut and paste feature!
If you're talking about my numbers, Mark... I was just trying to show some variances in relation to the three divisions as far as participation (the 36 1-4A averages to 14+ per team while the 6A averages almost 28 per team). Might be food for thought for those who want the State to become just one overall tournament. I agree that one of the problems is non-full teams (which is obviously even more of a problem when you average only 14+ per team). But in determining a solution, one has to decide how extreme a fix they feel is warranted. If it's just a question of Sections ending up with wrestlers who get a free pass to State just by weighing in, that can be fixed simply by returning to the two Sectional 6A, except that I'd have them qualify 8 at each rather than the old 4. It wouldn't be perfect, but based on this year's numbers, pairing S1 with S3 and S2 with S4 would have resulted in only 1 wt with 10, 2 with 11 and all the rest 12 or more (and that's out of 28 wt classes for both Sectionals). Another advantage of the 2 Sectionals is no subsequent Seeding needed... even if the best 2 come from the same Sectional, they will automatically be separated (of course, upsets still can mess things up). To me changing to a 32 man bracket may be doable, but I don't see as necessary... and having smaller 'districts' instead of Sectionals also seems to add extra complication that (at least to me) seems unnecessary for finding an adequate fix. Another fix that might work better is going back to 2 divisions, but I think that might be a harder idea to get consensus on (would need 1-4A and 5A input to make that kind of change). Just my thoughts here.
Gary Litzinger
#8
(02-19-2012, 11:53 PM)focus2win Wrote: What I had previously come up with this year (from NWCA online, so I can't guarantee accuracy) was 36 teams and around 518 wrestlers for 1A-4A, 26 teams and 601 wrestlers for 5A, and 37 teams and 1025 wrestlers for 6A (some kids in all groups had 0 records which I guess could have indicated that they quit the team since I think everyone would have gotten to wrestle at least in a tournament). I've long thought that they need to go back to two divisions... we have a certain group of schools that have danced back and forth between 5A and 6A over the years (not as sure about 1A-4A and 5A being the same way), and have been competitive in both. In the next few days, I'll look at this again and see where a possible split point suggestion might seem reasonable.

focus2win & bigdogw,
On the State Tournament division/consolidation, I'm with both of you on this one (to an extent). No, we (still) don't have enough teams or wrestlers to have 3 divisions, but the argument is that by cosolidating too much, you lose the potential for growth of programs in the smaller schools. At this point, I'm fine with the 2 division system (6A and 1A-5A) the way it used to be. To me, it seemed more competitive in both divisions then. Since 1992, 5A has been separated from 1A-4A, but we've not seen much of an increase in smaller school programs. I do appreciate those that have come into the fold in the last 10 or so -- case in point, credit to Susan Moore who have been around for what, maybe 10 years now, and just captured their first title....big congrats to them for doing that as that is something they earned, should be proud of, and cannot be erased (being serious here, not sarcastic). However, for every 1 team we've gained, we've lost 1 as well, so it's been almost a break even. I also think Sectionals are pointless as 'qualifiers'. That's so watered down. If they insist on having Sectionals, have them for seeding purposes only, but with no more than we have participating....why 'qualify'? Crap, everyone willing to wrestle should go to State with the low participation numbers we have statewide. On that note (so you know I'm objective and not here bashing small schools), I also think 4 Sectionals in 6A is ridiculous. I've had that conversation with a few 6A coaches, and they seem to agree -- use the Sectional for seeding but not as a limited participant qualifier. A 10-team Sectional with a 5-man bracket at any weight means little in the sense of 'qualifying' to me. Conversely, we've seen on more than one year that the top 5 wrestlers at a given weight all came from the same section.....that would only allow 4 to advance to State. What a shame in the system.

On the re-classifications,
Homewood (last 20 years) = from 5A to 6A to 5A to 6A to 5A (next year)
Scottsboro (last 20 years) = from 6A to 5A
Southside-Gadsden (last 20 years) = from 5A to 6A to 5A
Benjamin Russell (last 20 years) = from 6A to 5A to 6A to 5A (next year)
Hueytown (last 20 years) = from 6A to 5A to 6A (next year)
Wetumpka (last 20 years) = from 6A to 5A to 6A
Sparkman (last 20 years) = from 5A to 6A
Pinson Valley (last 20 years) = from 5A to 6A to 5A
Hartselle (last 18 years) = from 5A to 6A to 5A
Arab (last 15 years) = from 6A to 5A
Oxford (last 15 years) = from 5A to 6A
Walker (last 15 years) = from 6A to 5A
Lee-Huntsville (last 15 years) = from 6A to 5A
Buckhorn (last 12 years) = from 5A to 6A
Walter Wellborn (last 12 years) = from 5A to 4A
Huntsville (last 10 years) = from 6A to 5A to 6A
Gardendale (last 10 years) = from 5A to 6A
Butler (last 10 years) = from 6A to 5A to 4A
Tallassee (last 10 years) = from 4A to 5A
Hayden (last 10 years) = from 4A to 5A
Moody (last 10 years) = from 4A to 5A

(02-19-2012, 11:53 PM)focus2win Wrote: I have to agree with you bama... I always thought of it as first you are honored if your the best in your weight class, then you are additionally honored if you are thought to be the outstanding wrestler (judged by your performance at that tournament only), and finally you can make it a triple crown ONLY if you also had the most pins in the least time (of all the participants in the tournament, not only the weight class Champs). That method made it an extra special honor to win all three since it is statistically easier for a consolation wrestler to end up with more chances for more pins. Also, aside from doing it for the team or simply to vent ones anger at having lost in the championship bracket, it gives an extra incentive for the consolation wrestlers to keep wrestling hard for pins! Big Grin
Much appreciated. Seems you and I are on the same page with the pinning one. Again, nothing against the kids who've taken the MFiLT award home in recent years, but it should be clarified (as bigdogw said) if it's a "champions only" club.

(02-19-2012, 11:53 PM)focus2win Wrote: ... then you are additionally honored if you are thought to be the outstanding wrestler (judged by your performance at that tournament only).....
Glad you mentioned that, which brings up.....

Third issue......"Most Outstanding Wrestler".......

Purely subjective. Highly political. There is debate over whether this is an award for 'this tournament' or 'this season' (since it culminates with the State Tournament) as well as 'most outstanding' as in for his performance independent of the team or his performance (contribution) relative to his team's performance. The debate rolls on. I take nothing away from those who've been awarded. They, at least in a majority opinion of those voting, have earned that distinction. However, as long as it's subjective, opinions will vary greatly. And as bigdogw said, you can't penalize a dominant wrestler because he, due to strategic participation by opponents, finds himself in a relatively unchallenging weight. But is the 'most outstanding' one who dominates through or one who came in as an underdog (cough, cough...Perry....cough) and put it all together at the right time? That takes us again to tournament or season. And it depends on your definition of 'outstanding'. In 1A-4A this year, was Campbell more or less deserving than Shockley who upset the heavily favored 4xer Carroll? That's up to the voters to decide and strictly a matter of majority (voters) opinon.
#9
Thanks for all the re-classification data, Bama. It definitely shows how silly the system can be if you're one of those schools at that 5A/6A border.
Gary Litzinger
#10
I'm with Mr. Scofeild..could someone please explain the cut and paste feature??


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)