Post season reflection on tournaments

[[email protected]]

So now that time has passed and we all had a few days to unwind after the season, I started to reflect on my first season as a girls head coach. There are a lot of positive things that I have seen and a few things that I believe that need to be addressed.
Positives:
the amount of girls wrestling in california! The numbers keep growing! I have been a boys Varsity coach for about 5 years now. When I first started as a coach in the Central Coast Section the girls programs were not as dominant as the boys. The girls were still wrestling in duel meets against boys in the boys weight classes but then had thier own qualifying tournaments for state.
Negatives:
There are a few things I wish to address, but unaware of how to voice my concerns, so Im just going to leave one here. The Area 1 and 2 tournament held at Golden Valley. The tournament itself wasn't run bad. But the venue is too small to hold all the teams and fans in the gym. 6 mats were run but starting at 9am and not finishing till after 9pm due to just the amount of wrestlers and teams were there was too much. I know we switched to a 1 day tournament, but I think it should of been two days, or keep area 1 and area 2 at different locations. If the split up into divisions, how would allocations work. Im not sure on the fix, but something needs to be done. The second Negative would have to be the allocation of state qualifiers. To have only 4 come out of the Central section when most Central section wrestlers placed is kinda ridiculous. There were some Central section wrestlers who in previous tournaments beat multiple state qualifiers from other sections but was not able to get an allocation. I hope that the committee looks into reallocation of the qualifiers for next year.

thanks for listening, would love to hear some ideas.

[HallmeyerDaniel]

Talk to your league rep. That's how changes get pushed up the ladder.

I totally agree about the Area meets. They need to be in separate places. They probably need a third event, if they want to keep the same format, and run it in one day. Postseason tournaments only allow 6 matches in a day, so any bracket larger than 16 presents the potential for a kid to match out in the conso semis. It happened at the D4 Boys, and it was a mess. Plus, a 2-day weigh in helps the kids get prepared for Masters and State. Running a 16-bracket over 2 days means later weigh-ins, and getting out early on both days. What's not to like?

My current opinion is that they should align the girls and boys for all postseason events. The qualifiers will be different, but both boys and girls could run their 16-brackets over 2 days and get the job done without a lot of fuss. That way there's no split travel, and the teams all get to be together all the way to state. Families might have a boy and a girl and have to decide which one to watch. Why not keep them together? Same for coaches. More important is the refs. With fewer tournaments running, we won't need as many, so the quality will be better at all events.

Masters can handle running the boys and girls side by side. It would be nice to get an arena, but I doubt CIF will spring for that. Just alternate one round of boys and one round of girls. Boys wrestle quarters on Saturday morning, and girls start with semis. It's not rocket science. Saturday will be a longer day, and there may not be much of a break for the finals, but I think the tradeoff is worth it. Run the finals on 2 mats just like at state.

As for qualifiers, there's a formula for that, just like with the boys. CIF looks at past performance in earning medals, and adjusts the allocation accordingly. Southern Section has been going crazy in the medals the last few years, but they are already maxed out, until the bracket gets bigger. No section can have more than 1/4 of the bracket. Central has had a good couple seasons, and we're probably due to get another slot, but that means they have to take it from somewhere else that is underperforming their allotment.

[Rmaldonado]

This information is according to calwrestling.com

Looking at placings versus allocations by section:

SS 42 placers 37.50% of all placers 25.00% of qualifiers

SJ 16 placers 14.29% of all placers 18.75% of qualifiers

CS 20 placers 17.86% of all placers 12.50% of qualifiers

CC 15 placers 13.39% of all placers 12.50% of qualifiers

NC 4 placers 3.57% of all placers 12.50% of qualifiers

SD 7 placers 6.25% of all placers 9.38% of qualifiers

LA 4 placers 3.57% of all placers 6.25% of qualifiers

NS 4 placers 3.57% of all placers 3.13% of qualifiers


Another interesting thing:

SS had 42.86% of the champs (6) and 42.86% of finalists (12)

SJ had 21.43% of the champs (3) and 21.43% of finalists (6)

CS had 21.43% of the champs (3) and 17.86% of finalists (5)

CC had 14.29% of the champs (2) and 10.71% of finalists (3)

NC had 0% of the champs (0) and 0% of finalists (0)

SD had 0% of the champs (0) and 0% of finalists (0)

LA had 0% of the champs (0) and 7.14% of finalists (2)

NS had 0% of the champs (0) and 0% of finalists (0)

[Ablanchard]

Made some corrections, its time to consider giving another spot to the Central Section. They have definetly earned it

Looking at placings versus allocations by section:

SS 42 placers 37.50% of all placers 37.50% of their section qualifiers

SJ 19 placers 16.96% of all placers 22.62% of their section qualifiers

CS 21 placers 18.75% of all placers 37.50% of their section qualifiers

CC 11 placers 9.82% of all placers 19.64% of their section qualifiers

NC 4 placers 3.57% of all placers 7.14% of their section qualifiers

SD 8 placers 7.14% of all placers 19.05% of their section qualifiers

LA 4 placers 3.57% of all placers 14.29% of their section qualifiers

NS 4 placers 3.57% of all placers 28.57% of their section qualifiers


Another interesting thing:

SS had 42.86% of the champs (6) and 42.86% of finalists (12)

SJ had 21.43% of the champs (3) and 21.43% of finalists (6)

CS had 28.57% of the champs (4) and 21.43% of finalists (6)

CC had 7.14% of the champs (1) and 7.14% of finalists (2)

NC had 0% of the champs (0) and 0% of finalists (0)

SD had 0% of the champs (0) and 0% of finalists (0)

LA had 0% of the champs (0) and 7.14% of finalists (2)

NS had 0% of the champs (0) and 0% of finalists (0)

[gman]

how do you only have one scale at the Area meet to check their weight. There were some girls who missed weight cause they couldn't check it on time. ALso if you can't start on time then you shouldn't host it . Two schools could host the area meet or just make it a 32man backet only. Seeding should be open to coaches. You pre seed and then make changes as needed. The CS had a lot on the podium. CIF should expand to a 32man bracket.