So we’re going to try to be more transparent this year.
Lots of folks want to SEE our picks — and either breathe a sigh of relief or laugh at them, your mileage may vary — but what we have not done too often is EXPOSE them after the fact.
This year, we’re going to try to do better with that.
So, here’s our “afternoon after” review of 2A-District 3, where we’ll show you what went right, what went wrong, and what went sideways. You decide, as our final sets of district predictions come out tonight at 9 p.m. (ET), whether we know what we’re doing.
And let us know. Because we’re not always sure we know what we’re doing.
Predicted: 1. Fletcher. 2. First Coast. 3. Robert E Lee. 4. Ponte Vedra. 5. Englewood. 6. Westside. 7. Terry Parker. 8. Stanton.
Actual: 1. Fletcher. 2. Ponte Vedra. 3. Englewood. 4. Robert E Lee. 5. First Coast. 6. Westside. 7. Terry Parker. 8. Stanton.
OK. Bookends, we got right. And at the top it’s likely to be Fletcher for the life of this classification; the Senators return nine region qualifiers, three of them as district champs. We got the back three right. However, we let Ponte Vedra’s struggles in duals overall cloud our thinking; they were a better team in IBTs this year, anyway. And Englewood over-performed a little bit as well, while we probably pushed First Coast higher under a first-year HC and Lee probably under-performed as a group some and had injuries some.
Yeah, we got this
132: OK, after the first four weights were all at sixes and sevens (it’s an English phrase, read on below), I was rather happy to get a 4-for-4 at this one and not have to wait too long. We had everybody picked to move on correctly, and in the right order. Huzzah!
170: No huzzah here, as we thought the bracket would have more than three kids, but the bracket’s top three matched the seeding’s top three matched my projected top three. Lewis is only a freshman? Pretty stacked physically for a 9th-grader.
285: Huzzah for finishing on an up note! Four-for-four with the big guys, although I was surprised at the progress the runnerup made between last match with the champ and Thursday night.
Do we got this?
106: How’d we mess up this one? Well, not in terms of the order vis-a-vis each other. We got the right champion. What we messer-uppered here was adding two more kids that had prior experience in this weight that didn’t weigh in. We really thought Stanton’s 6 was a bit of a good surprise this year and thought he’d be here.
152: We got three of the right four positions here, including both finalists. Our projected third did not wrestle, and it’s kind of unfortunate that he did not; he had been Stanton’s best wrestler since they had a district champion back in 2018. The actual third lost to the actual fourth in the quarters, but came back to get the pin in the medal match. Kudos.
160: Right four kids moving on, right champion and right fourth. We went with the senior to reach the final (the seedings went that way, too), but the sophomore has had older brothers defend their shared “island,” and so he performed beyond his third seed.
182: Very similar to 160, in that the second and third were flip-flopped. My projected/actual champ was actually the 3 seed, but I had a feeling. Right fourth. The actual runnerup and third, therefore, never met in this bracket, but the way it shook out seemed to be accurate.
195: Correct four kids were picked to move on, but I didn’t think it would go this way. Big tournament for the actual champ to knock off the top Gateway 2A finisher (and a 2020 state qualifier to boot) and then pin the top seed. So as it turned out, I only had the correct place for the fourth.
220: This one wasn’t too bad, as I had the correct finalists in the correct order, but my projected third did not weigh in Thursday, allowing my projected fourth to slide up to third. It largely held serve except for my third not weighing in.
Yeah, mistakes were made
113: Woof. A dog’s breakfast was made of my picks. My projected champ didn’t weigh in due to injury (is my guess based on action of early February). My runnerup got out, but not as a second. My third did not weigh in (the actual champ, from his school, I had getting out at 120). And my projected fourth was seeded third and pinned the seeded/my second. Prove me wrong.
120: This was only better by degree, in comparison to 113. The finalists were right, but flip-flopped in my picks (I had the freshman beating the senior). My third at this weight wound up winning 113, which was the better move for him, clearly. And my fourth did not weigh in.
126: After having conversation with an assistant coach last night where picks were discussed as being chalk, I’m feeling rather sheepish so far. Yes, the champion was picked correctly, but I had the actual runnerup at 138(Yipes!!!!), my runnerup didn’t weigh in at all, my third was third…at 120 and not here, my projected fourth took third and the actual fourth was in my notes as an alternate…at 138(Sheesh!).
138: Well, the joy at 132 was pretty short-lived. We did have the correct champion, but after that it was a mixed bag. The actual runnerup we had at 132, and not getting out. Our fourth wound up getting third, while our fourth at 145 took fourth here. Our projected runnerup at this weight was at 145, as was our projected third. Both are seniors, so maybe not wanting to cut in final post-season is understandable.
145: So as you might guess, with half our 138 field at this weight, there’d be mistakes made here, too. Got the champion correct. The actual runnerup we had 3rd at 138. Our projected runnerup at this weight did not qualify at 138. The actual third we had making finals at 138, while our projected third was fifth (although he was seeded third). The actual fourth pinned our/seeded third in the quarters, while our projected fourth was fourth…at 138. Calgon, take me away.