MassWrestling.com
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Guests: 11, Members: 0 ...

most ever online: 859
Members: 10010
Newest: G. Krupp
Support MassWrestling. Click a link!











Forums
MassWrestling.com :: Forums :: New England Wrestling

2013-14 New England Tournament  Go to page  1 2 3 4 [5] 6
NABC
Mon Mar 10 2014, 11:49AM
Registered Member #907
Joined: Thu Dec 23 2004, 03:04PM
Posts: 519
[quote]
Who was the last VT3 New England champ? (I'm just curious)

Also, here's a link to the Caldwell vs. Metcalf championship match. [link] The flip happens around 10:50
[/quote1394470092]
In 2005 - I believe a VT3 won NEs at 140 (Beat B. Murray along the way). Not sure if anyone since. Had trouble verifying / finding 2005 NE results.
SpadleCradle
Mon Mar 10 2014, 11:54AM
Registered Member #9487
Joined: Thu Dec 17 2009, 10:36PM
Posts: 189
Paul Lambert, Randolph VT 2005 New England Champion
w1nbyp1n
Mon Mar 10 2014, 12:02PM
Registered Member #11536
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2012, 10:38AM
Posts: 280
Any finals vids?
nhwrstlfan
Mon Mar 10 2014, 01:54PM
Registered Member #1828
Joined: Thu Mar 03 2005, 04:32PM
Posts: 89
I had Webb running at 3 seconds. Not a huge fan of stalling but he had a point to give, wasn't close to being the only one that did it, and capped off a great career for a kid who was a 4 year heavyweight. Anybody who underestimates the importance of a good stance and position should watch this kid wrestle.
coachskp
Mon Mar 10 2014, 02:09PM
Registered Member #847
Joined: Wed Dec 15 2004, 11:37AM
Posts: 912
New England "team' scores by State qualifier
MA1 back on top after a year of second -
MA2 the only team not a 1 in the top 7
CT4 with a strong showing this year outscoring CT2 and CT3 as well as MA3
1 MA1 272.0
2 CT1 224
3 VT1 159
4 RI1 148
5 MA2 146
6 NH1 142.5
7 ME1 108.5
8 CT4 102
9 MA3 99
10 CT3 95
11 CT2 93.5
12 NH3 73
13 NH2 72
14 MA4 70
15 RI2 52
16 ME2 52
17 MA6 50
18 MA5 47.5
19 RI3 26
20 ME3 24
21 VT2 17
22 VT3 6

Overall I think CT performed stronger than the rest of NE - with a higher %of overall qualifiers vs % of medals won


% of qualifiers vs % of overall medals won

% of Qualifiers % of medals % differential
CT 18 29 +11
MA 27 30 +3
ME 14 14 0
RI 14 10 -4
VT 14 10 -4
NH 14 6 -8

coachskp
Mon Mar 10 2014, 02:19PM
Registered Member #847
Joined: Wed Dec 15 2004, 11:37AM
Posts: 912
as far as Team Scores are concerned...
MAU 1st - brought 13 kids
5 did not score
5 placed
3 did not place and scored 14 points (4 of those were for wins after the bye in the first round)
they were all VT1
a MAU placed 6th as the VT2
Danbury lost by 13 and brought 5 and all placed top 4

I think the answer to the problem every one has that MAU has an advantage by bringing so many to the tournament (while true) is that the rest of VT needs to get better so they cant send so many kids. I think that realistically if CT sent 6 there is little guarantee that Danbury would have brought anyone else, much less enough to score another 15 points - You cant raise yourself up by dragging others down -
Just my thoughts
Medic5392
Mon Mar 10 2014, 02:35PM
Registered Member #6539
Joined: Tue Dec 11 2007, 04:11PM
Posts: 847
coachskp wrote ...

as far as Team Scores are concerned...
MAU 1st - brought 13 kids
5 did not score
5 placed
3 did not place and scored 14 points (4 of those were for wins after the bye in the first round)
they were all VT1
a MAU placed 6th as the VT2
Danbury lost by 13 and brought 5 and all placed top 4

I think the answer to the problem every one has that MAU has an advantage by bringing so many to the tournament (while true) is that the rest of VT needs to get better so they cant send so many kids. I think that realistically if CT sent 6 there is little guarantee that Danbury would have brought anyone else, much less enough to score another 15 points - You cant raise yourself up by dragging others down -
Just my thoughts


I agree, especially since a VT3 might just have a bad day, get caught, etc..just like any other states #3 and should get the chance to compete.

What is your reasoning for being against increasing the numbers though? 6 for CT and 8 for MA? What is the harm?
coachskp
Mon Mar 10 2014, 02:44PM
Registered Member #847
Joined: Wed Dec 15 2004, 11:37AM
Posts: 912
Medic5392 wrote ...

coachskp wrote ...

as far as Team Scores are concerned...
MAU 1st - brought 13 kids
5 did not score
5 placed
3 did not place and scored 14 points (4 of those were for wins after the bye in the first round)
they were all VT1
a MAU placed 6th as the VT2
Danbury lost by 13 and brought 5 and all placed top 4

I think the answer to the problem every one has that MAU has an advantage by bringing so many to the tournament (while true) is that the rest of VT needs to get better so they cant send so many kids. I think that realistically if CT sent 6 there is little guarantee that Danbury would have brought anyone else, much less enough to score another 15 points - You cant raise yourself up by dragging others down -
Just my thoughts


I agree, especially since a VT3 might just have a bad day, get caught, etc..just like any other states #3 and should get the chance to compete.

What is your reasoning for being against increasing the numbers though? 6 for CT and 8 for MA? What is the harm?


No harm in it - I just think that it reduces the overall competitiveness of the tournament. My opposition to that is greatly reduced now that there is full DE - prior to that there was too great a chance of a kid getting caught and then that kid loses his next match and you were out

I also don't like having 8 mats because there is so much good wrestling to see and with 8 mats - as a fan - you end up missing a lot - I realize that is not going to change because there is only so much you can do starting at 5:00 in the evening on Day 1 and the qrtrs on 2 mats would take 4 hours
NotNorwood
Mon Mar 10 2014, 03:15PM
Registered Member #12132
Joined: Fri Apr 27 2012, 10:20PM
Posts: 139
jmachinder wrote ...

Worth noting that one of Monserrat's two losses was avenged.


Monserrat's only losses were against Conor Kirkgard of New Milford, CT and Zack Bridson of Timberlane, NH
dnowa
Mon Mar 10 2014, 03:17PM
Registered Member #4263
Joined: Tue Aug 22 2006, 09:45AM
Posts: 119
I still favor simple expansion to include MA7 and CT5, with reasons (other than competitive balance shows deserving) being that you would need to WIN your qualifying state match to get into NE, and it creates a 24 man bracket--which maintains full round of byes in consis (which changes if more than 24). I also usually figure "state scoring" along with coachskp but have not had the time to figure out each state's top scorer in each wt to determine which "state" wins (as sometimes CT4 or MA3 would outscore CT1 or MA1, for instance), but guessing would easily be MA, for although CT had some deep weights, also had some weights without a medalist, which is rare.
coachskp
Mon Mar 10 2014, 03:28PM
Registered Member #847
Joined: Wed Dec 15 2004, 11:37AM
Posts: 912
dnowa wrote ...

I still favor simple expansion to include MA7 and CT5, with reasons (other than competitive balance shows deserving) being that you would need to WIN your qualifying state match to get into NE, and it creates a 24 man bracket--which maintains full round of byes in consis (which changes if more than 24). I also usually figure "state scoring" along with coachskp but have not had the time to figure out each state's top scorer in each wt to determine which "state" wins (as sometimes CT4 or MA3 would outscore CT1 or MA1, for instance), but guessing would easily be MA, for although CT had some deep weights, also had some weights without a medalist, which is rare.

I will throw together and see what it says - I have done that in the past
Lowell76
Mon Mar 10 2014, 03:39PM
Registered Member #4333
Joined: Sun Sep 24 2006, 09:32AM
Posts: 155
I agree with Medic that you need to have at least top three from each state. It is possible to have the two best at a weight coming from the same state and those actually being 1 and 3 rather than 1 and 2. I believe another enhancement to address the concern over seeding by formula rather than by individuals would be to wrestle for a true 2nd. In any event I think the tournament was run well and the venue was good. Providence is an excellent host city.
Agatch22
Mon Mar 10 2014, 06:22PM
Registered Member #5260
Joined: Sat Jan 27 2007, 10:59PM
Posts: 80
I agree with not adding anymore (CT 5, MA7) the sense of entitlement gets diinished a bit by watering down the classes. I understand the calling for, as far as number of schools vs spots allowed for CT, and MA vs NH, ME, VT, RI % but I don't see it improving the field. Why do they run on 8 mats? RI runs states on 6 mats, and we have 22 per class. We start at 5 and run through the 1/4's, next day wrestle backs and semi's, that night medal round. Providence is a great spot, besides the parking, it's very spacious inside, and they do an excellent job of keeping people off the mats and behind the ropes ; )

Medic5392
Mon Mar 10 2014, 07:03PM
Registered Member #6539
Joined: Tue Dec 11 2007, 04:11PM
Posts: 847
Agatch22 wrote ...

I agree with not adding anymore (CT 5, MA7) the sense of entitlement gets diinished a bit by watering down the classes. I understand the calling for, as far as number of schools vs spots allowed for CT, and MA vs NH, ME, VT, RI % but I don't see it improving the field. Why do they run on 8 mats? RI runs states on 6 mats, and we have 22 per class. We start at 5 and run through the 1/4's, next day wrestle backs and semi's, that night medal round. Providence is a great spot, besides the parking, it's very spacious inside, and they do an excellent job of keeping people off the mats and behind the ropes ; )





Totally disagree, for a few reasons.

One, MA already has a top 8 and that is out of 150+ Schools, it would simply allow those kids to progress and also allow a team from MA or CT to have a better chance. Even a few points in a tournament like that are crucial, so little things matter.

Two, there is no sense of "entitlement", not sure how that word even enters into this conversation when a kid has to place in their respective All States.

Three, there is no real watering down of the quality of wrestling by adding 2-4 more kids, one could argue that same POV in regard to the ME3 and VT3 being included. I do not think it is a negative in anyway to the quality of the tournament, nor do I think the ME3, RI3, VT3 are a negative.

Fourth, just getting to compete in a tournament like that is an eye opener and that kind of experience is invaluable and matters in the long run. It makes a difference for a kid and should not be discounted as an advantage.

That being said, there are some legitimate concerns in the area of time & mat space. The NCAAs manage to do it, we are not the NCAA's, but as a logistical problem it can be done one way or another in the right setting.
A possible solution is to perhaps hold it centrally in the same venue every year and in one that is also a large venue?

The other concern about the brackets is real, but not sure if the byes are that big of a deal. 24? 26? 28? I do not know.

I would still say that MA7 & MA8 with CT5 & CT6 would be a gross benefit in terms of participation, opportunity for kids, opportunity for MA and CT teams and overall fairness.
Carlascooz
Mon Mar 10 2014, 07:55PM
Registered Member #11519
Joined: Sun Jan 22 2012, 09:43PM
Posts: 254
I agree w/ Medic. MA has about 5 times the population of NH and 10 times the population of VT. So MA should get more than 2 times as many qualifiers.

Maybe top 3 from each divisional state PLUS any All-State place winner should qualify for NEs. I realize that could put a different # of qualifiers at each weight.

Agatch22
Mon Mar 10 2014, 08:09PM
Registered Member #5260
Joined: Sat Jan 27 2007, 10:59PM
Posts: 80
Medic5392 wrote ...

Agatch22 wrote ...

I agree with not adding anymore (CT 5, MA7) the sense of entitlement gets diinished a bit by watering down the classes. I understand the calling for, as far as number of schools vs spots allowed for CT, and MA vs NH, ME, VT, RI % but I don't see it improving the field. Why do they run on 8 mats? RI runs states on 6 mats, and we have 22 per class. We start at 5 and run through the 1/4's, next day wrestle backs and semi's, that night medal round. Providence is a great spot, besides the parking, it's very spacious inside, and they do an excellent job of keeping people off the mats and behind the ropes ; )





Totally disagree, for a few reasons.

One, MA already has a top 8 and that is out of 150+ Schools, it would simply allow those kids to progress and also allow a team from MA or CT to have a better chance. Even a few points in a tournament like that are crucial, so little things matter.

Two, there is no sense of "entitlement", not sure how that word even enters into this conversation when a kid has to place in their respective All States.

Three, there is no real watering down of the quality of wrestling by adding 2-4 more kids, one could argue that same POV in regard to the ME3 and VT3 being included. I do not think it is a negative in anyway to the quality of the tournament, nor do I think the ME3, RI3, VT3 are a negative.

Fourth, just getting to compete in a tournament like that is an eye opener and that kind of experience is invaluable and matters in the long run. It makes a difference for a kid and should not be discounted as an advantage.

That being said, there are some legitimate concerns in the area of time & mat space. The NCAAs manage to do it, we are not the NCAA's, but as a logistical problem it can be done one way or another in the right setting.
A possible solution is to perhaps hold it centrally in the same venue every year and in one that is also a large venue?

The other concern about the brackets is real, but not sure if the byes are that big of a deal. 24? 26? 28? I do not know.

I would still say that MA7 & MA8 with CT5 & CT6 would be a gross benefit in terms of participation, opportunity for kids, opportunity for MA and CT teams and overall fairness.



To have a better chance? MA and CT already pull the most medals, and MAU clearly won the NE's with it's VT1's so a 5/6 & 7/8 are not gonna help them 2 states anymore as the MA 5/6 didn't pull much medal this year. Yes I believe the small state 3's are crucial as the 2 best could be on the same side. My "sense of entitlment" is in regard to the integretity of the NE's. Adding a few more doesn't matter for time wise, but I think it matters the prestigness of the tourny. Again my thoughts on it. Yes MA is the top team for placing in NE's most years, and it's due to the large pool of wrestlers, but will a CT 5/6, MA 7/8 really place at NE's already having 3 losses at the open, possibly, as MA does but again a larger pool then CT as well. And Im def not a fan of adding extra spots so wrestlers can get the experience. As far as fairness I'm guessing your refering to the %'s again, and while I understand the cocept, I still disagree. But we can agree to disagree.
Medic5392
Mon Mar 10 2014, 09:04PM
Registered Member #6539
Joined: Tue Dec 11 2007, 04:11PM
Posts: 847
Agatch, I am gonna keep this short and sweet before my Windows 8 crashes again.

One, the MA and CT Teams are at a huge dis-advantage and MA 5/6 have scored pretty high some years. Even a few points for your team at that level matter.

Two, "entitlement",- “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”. A spot earned is not a spot you are entitled to.

Three, if MA and CT were better just due to their numbers then by that logic ME, NH and RI should all be far better than VT as well due to their numbers. MA and CT are better due to quality overall and depth of that quality.

Four, adding extra spots is not "so wrestlers can get the experience", the point is that experience such as that is a huge advantage, acting as though it is not is not being honest or realistic.

Fifth, prestige is for the placers, there is no loss of prestige by adding wrestlers who only gain notice if they place. This is not like watering down standards for selection to a good school, team, in the military or a job, the top 6 place at New Englands or they don't.

Last, I am guessing you are a VT guy? Hats off to MAU, the team makes New England proud, I mean that, but at the same time the system is hardly fair when less than 25 teams produce 3 entries into the New Englands. If you want the best competition then 2-4 guys who you think won't score points anyway should not be a threat. Let the best compete, there is no more fair a place in the world than the mat.

I understand coachskp's point on time of tournament and logistics, it is a fair point, but other than that there is no real argument against it that I have seen presented.
Mongo
Tue Mar 11 2014, 07:17AM
Registered Member #13257
Joined: Mon Mar 04 2013, 05:43PM
Posts: 32
If memory serves me correct, last year, CT (4 entries) was the highest state total, even bettering MA (6 entries). This year, by the statistics stated earlier, shown below:
MA: 26 placers, 7 champs (31% place)
CT: 24 placers, 2 champs (43% place)
NH: 11 placers, 2 champs (33% place)
RI: 8 placers 1 champ (19% place)
VT: 8 placers 2 champs (19% place)
ME: 6 placers 0 champs (14% place)
Once again, CT was the highest placers by percentage. MA was lower than NH (although I would say statistically "even." These last two years point to a justification to add entries from CT only, and if you do add to MA, then it makes a case for adding a 4th to NH also.
warp57
Tue Mar 11 2014, 07:33AM
Registered Member #1920
Joined: Sun Mar 13 2005, 06:08AM
Posts: 158
The last VT3 to win it as I recall was Paul Lambert from Randolph circa 2004-5ish? Pinned Murray (I think he was from Central Catholic who was the MA1) on the way to the New England title. I think it was around the 135-140 weight class, something like that.
CoachB
Tue Mar 11 2014, 07:39AM
Registered Member #303
Joined: Fri Apr 09 2004, 08:24PM
Posts: 491
warp57 wrote ...

The last VT3 to win it as I recall was Paul Lambert from Randolph circa 2004-5ish? Pinned Murray (I think he was from Central Catholic who was the MA1) on the way to the New England title. I think it was around the 135-140 weight class, something like that.


Beat MA6 in final.
coachskp
Tue Mar 11 2014, 08:32AM
Registered Member #847
Joined: Wed Dec 15 2004, 11:37AM
Posts: 912
Some corrections to my stats
% differential is between the % of overall qualifiers in the tournament and the % of overall medals won

% of Qualifiers % of medals % of qualifiers placing % differential

CT 18 29 43 +11
MA 27 31 31 +4
NH 14 14 29 0
RI 14 10 20 -4
VT 14 10 20 -4
ME 14 7 14 -7
warp57
Tue Mar 11 2014, 09:14AM
Registered Member #1920
Joined: Sun Mar 13 2005, 06:08AM
Posts: 158
The Murray match was early on if I remember correctly. Murray got dragged back in to the tournament and think he also placed.
Medic5392
Tue Mar 11 2014, 10:31AM
Registered Member #6539
Joined: Tue Dec 11 2007, 04:11PM
Posts: 847
Mongo wrote ...

If memory serves me correct, last year, CT (4 entries) was the highest state total, even bettering MA (6 entries). This year, by the statistics stated earlier, shown below:
MA: 26 placers, 7 champs (31% place)
CT: 24 placers, 2 champs (43% place)
NH: 11 placers, 2 champs (33% place)
RI: 8 placers 1 champ (19% place)
VT: 8 placers 2 champs (19% place)
ME: 6 placers 0 champs (14% place)
Once again, CT was the highest placers by percentage. MA was lower than NH (although I would say statistically "even." These last two years point to a justification to add entries from CT only, and if you do add to MA, then it makes a case for adding a 4th to NH also.


Actually, if you do a ten year average I would be willing to bet that MA would be well ahead, CT right on their heals and the rest not so much. Coachskp might be able to post those past stats.

Also, of the 26 placers MA had 50% were in the finals.
Medic5392
Tue Mar 11 2014, 10:38AM
Registered Member #6539
Joined: Tue Dec 11 2007, 04:11PM
Posts: 847
coachskp wrote ...

Some corrections to my stats
% differential is between the % of overall qualifiers in the tournament and the % of overall medals won

% of Qualifiers % of medals % of qualifiers placing % differential

CT 18 29 43 +11
MA 27 31 31 +4
NH 14 14 29 0
RI 14 10 20 -4
VT 14 10 20 -4
ME 14 7 14 -7




Did someone do the scoring via actual tournament points per state instead of just the medals?
MAU130
Tue Mar 11 2014, 11:25AM
Registered Member #7581
Joined: Thu Mar 06 2008, 06:06PM
Posts: 39
xbmhswrestler wrote ...

Agatch22 wrote ...

xbmhswrestler wrote ...

Didn't like the way the heavyweight match ended. I thought Hourani's (spelling)response was justified somewhat. Why would Webb run like that?


He ran like that cuz he just won New England's, just like some do in the NCAA finals. Was it Burroughs that did the back flip one year? I myself frown upon the unsportsmanship of it, but Hourani's response was far from just. The 1st time he threw Webb into the table should of been a pt and unsportsmanlike, the last time he should of been DQ'd. Not once but twice he shoved/threw Webb into the table, which could of not only injured Webb, but the scorekeepers as well.


Really....so with 15 seconds left in the period Burroughs did a back flip? The first time he got shoved into the desk was obviously unsportsman like. The second time was because he was running around the outside of the mat with 15 seconds left in the match...that's unsportsman like as well. This kid is fantastic..i just didn't think it was necessary to run around the way he did. Great career though.




whoa whoa whoa... okay so me and my father sat down and watched the ending of that match 20x in a row. and i cant wait for that match to be on the internet so you can see. yes jesse circled with around 5 seconds left. when hourani pushed him. the second time. the match was over 00:00 was on the clock. the ref blew his whistle put his hands in the air and jesse stopped moving. hourani charged jesse and tried to hurt him. the end. no justification. hourani should have been thrown out of the tournament and stripped his medal for trying to hurt another wrestler. BUT jesse being jesse and the class act that he is he didnt respond. not just once but twice jesse could have responded and tried to fight back but he just focused on what was at stake and that was the team title and his individual title. So no there wasnt 15 seconds left on the clock and no there wasnt two seconds left on the clock. it was 0000. No justification for a classless act!
Go to page: Go to page  1 2 3 4 [5] 6          << Previous thread | Next thread >>

Jump:     Back to top



Moderators: Mike Atlas, CoachMiller, The Rankings Team, JMode, Shvarts, eoghanjames, Jim Maher, plm_77, jubele135, Hill Billy, psch, tourneygeek, NE_07, Sam Shames, Chicken Wing Coach, New England Rankings, matchamp99, Nuge
Click to see our RSS feeds available -->
Recent Wrestling Boxscores
see all | submit | rss

02/09/2017----------
Barnstable-40
Plymouth North-15
02/08/2017----------
Weymouth-17
Walpole-52
02/08/2017----------
North Attleboro-51
Oliver Ames-12
Newest Posts
Re: Tournament February
Highschool
Posted by Steve Sentes
Aug 19 17 : 09:48

Re: Tournament February
Youth or High School?
Posted by GrayDawg
Aug 18 17 : 20:17

Tournament February
Im looking to start a tournament February 3rd...
Posted by Steve Sentes
Aug 18 17 : 15:38

Doughboy Fall Session
Just a reminder that the upcoming Fall High S...
Posted by LoganDWC
Aug 18 17 : 13:03

Super 32 Registration
FYISuper 32 in Greensboro, NC on Oct 27-29, e...
Posted by CoachDarl
Aug 18 17 : 06:24

Support MassWrestling. Click a link!