Section 9 Duals – Semis and Finals

Semifinals:

Minisink Valley 55 NFA 24
Monroe Woodbury 62 Valley Central 15

order cialis

Finals:

Monroe Woodbury 33 Minisink Valley 32  (criteria 8 wins to 7) … MW D1 Champs!!
Highland 65 Onteora 12 ….Highland D2 Champs!!!

Results (spreadsheet with tabs at bottom for all results)

 

This entry was posted in 2013 - 2014 Results. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Section 9 Duals – Semis and Finals

  1. Scott C. says:

    Can someone help me understand why S9 D1 schools can host an actual dual meet tournament with 8 schools, while the D2 “tournament” only invites 2 schools? This is blatant inequity to D2 athletes. I’d like to know who makes these decisions, and how to change this? I feel the same type of inequity exists with how the sectional tournaments are run with wrestle backs. Both D1 and D2 wrestlers should be treated fairly when it comes to opportunities.
    Am I off-base here, or misunderstanding the situation?
    Can someone help me navigate this?

  2. Eric c says:

    Scott, cost is something that needs to be considered when discussing the dual meet championships. It’s tough to have teams wrestle a dual meet where half the matches are forfeits. It’s the reason why d2 meets are scheduled as tri meets, too many forfeits. Onteora is a well established program yet forfeited 4 weights, highland might be the only school in d2 that can fill most weights. Milbrook folded their program.

    As for sectionals and wrestle backs, there are 16 man brackets in d1, 8 man brackets in d2. The losers in the round of 16 don’t advance in d1, losers in round of 8 don’t advance in d2. It’s pretty equal, it’s been almost 10 years since the split but division 2 south of Albany sec 9, 1, 8, 11 is very weak compared to their d1 counterparts. It’s why the slight bias in most of those sections. I’ve seen kids who have wrestled their whole lives, win 100+ matches yet never get to states in d1, yet kids in d2 with losing records get a bye to the section finals and go to states with 5-20 records. It’s not fair, but life isn’t. Sometimes things are unfair to your advantage and sometimes things are unfair and hurt you. It kinda evens out. Hope this helps.

  3. Scott C. says:

    I agree with all that you have stated, Eric. My only issue is that, if we want our collective S9 to improve, we need to provide the same opportunities (number of matches and competition) for both size schools. This isn’t about making it to ‘states,’ but making section 9 better overall. One way to do this is to wrestle more matches, even if the near term doesn’t seem appropriate because of full teams, forfeits, etc. Improving S9 requires all (coaches, athletic directors, parents, etc) involved to move forward with the best interest of S9 wrestling at the forefront, and short-changing small schools doesn’t help. My gut feeling is that S9 small schools is slowly, and incrementally improving…and in the future the distinction won’t be so obvious. Thanks for your thoughts.

  4. Eric c says:

    Scott, what you failed to take into account is that there were d1 schools who didnt wrestle in the section 9 duals, Kingston, goshen, and Monticello. What you are upset about is one or two matches over the course of a 30-50 match season. Does one match outweight the transportation costs, referee costs, and overall lost time? Coaches or AD’s controll most of the schedule for what’s best for their team, section 9 controls about 3-5% of a teams number of matches during the season. (Sec 9 duals & sectionals). Teams will get better when the kids make the decision to wrestle in the off season, that’s where you can get an extra 50 matches in. No need to nit pick about 2-3 matches.

  5. Gianni says:

    Eric – It seems as if you’ve acknowledged that a disparity exists. I’m sure most would.

    It is more about the big picture. Yes, any kid who puts in a full off season will benefit greatly. That is across the board.

    It seems that you are making it an ‘us versus them’ (d1 vs. d2) thing. I think the point that Scott C is making is that Section 9 needs to provide opportunity for ALL section 9 wrestlers. You mentioned that Millbrook folded their program. I would venture to guess that we will see more Section 9 D2 schools fold if something is not done to build the name of wrestling in the area. Is allowing more d2 teams into the section 9 dual meet tournament the answer…of course not. But it is one step in a positive direction.

    Questions:

    Does Section 9 Wrestling have a chairman for D1 and D2 or is it just one for the entirety of the section?

    Is the poor performance of D2 in Section 9 being addressed by a greater committee of individuals?

    Does the responsibility fall on D2 coaches? athletic directors? section 9 wrestling committee?

    Why can’t the Section 9 duals include both D1 and D2? Yes there is a great disparity in talent at this time. However, as far as I’m concerned….exposure to higher levels of wrestling creates better wresters and greater depth in an area (section). If we continue to allow d2 to put itself in the corner and compete against themselves and do what they have done over the past ten years…we can expect the same dismal results on the state level. Again….I’m not playing the blame game. I’m advocating for change!

    Since the split of D1 and D2 (approx. 10 years ago?) it seems that the smaller schools have been in a steady decline. I can say that around my time (in the mid to late nineties); there were teams like Rondout, New Paltz, Saugerties (I know they are D1 now) that consistently put up solid teams. Did they win the section 9 tournament…NO….but they banged heads with many of the top teams and beat several of the current d1 schools. I think ALL schools benefitted from seeing eachother more often. Now we can’t change the d1/d2 format (I wish we could!); but obviously section nine needs to go to the drawing board. Should a kid with a “5-20″ record go to states…..ABSOLUTELY NOT (just to be clear….in the past few years I don’t think that has been the case).

    I don’t think the answer is to just go with the flow.

  6. Eric c says:

    While many think d2 has had a decline, I’m going against the grain and saying there has been a rise in d2. Burke, tri-valley, tuxedo, Chester, elders-fallsburg, highland all have teams now that didnt a decade ago. It is not easy to start from scratch with no tradition, I find it amazing what highland has been able to do in such a short time. Image d2 with just new paltz, red hook, rondout valley, ellenville, and onteora.

    Again I believe cost is one of the bigger issues, I also don’t believe having Chester wrestle Monroe Woodbury would help anyone. I actually believe a 90-0 shutout would hurt the smaller schools. This is the toughest sport to get kids to come out for. Imagine being a coach and saying to a 9th grader who’s never wrestled, come out for wrestling you are going to get your butt kicked for 2 years, lose every Saturday from dec-feb, have to watch your weight, and maybe by the time your a junior you will be decent. It’s so much easier to play call of duty at home.

    I also believe but don’t quote me on this, sec 9 allows the d2 varsity wrestler to enter the jv sectionals. This is a huge step in the right direction, give kids the ability to compete against the larger schools, but not get destroyed.

    As for seeing competition, teams are aloud 6 tournaments to enter during the season. If a coach wants to they could enter in the toughest or easiest tournaments that they choose. The burden falls on the coach, not section 9. I don’t think we can fully judge d2 for almost another 15-20 years. Wrestling is a niche sport that most do because dad, uncles, big brothers did. You need to see where the next generation is.

    FYI all sections have 1 chair person for d1 & d2, Sec 7 doesn’t have any large schools, and the Catholics don’t have any small schools.

  7. vin says:

    highlands schedule has them going to 5 tmts all hosted by d1 schools.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>