Is Seeding All 32 at NCAA Tourny Panning Out for the Best?

[Offthemat]

Would it put more emphasis on dual matches and reduce conference tournament MFFs if only the finalists from each tournament were seeded and the others were drawn?

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Would it put more emphasis on dual matches and reduce conference tournament MFFs if only the finalists from each tournament were seeded and the others were drawn?

It might increase the MFFs.

If you have a binary outcome (top 2 are seeded, the rest are not) then none of the consolation matches matter for seeding purposes and should all be skipped, not just the placement matches. The only wrestlers who will want to wrestle a consolation match are those who think they may be on the bubble.

You would also see a lot of conference championship matches forfeited because the initial goal of gaining a seed has been achieved. Of course, most of the first place matches will still be wrestled to improve their seed.

[nhs67]

I think conference champions should all be seeded first then go through the rest.

Yes I know that would mean seeding the MAC and SOCON champ ahead of two of the three best heavies in the land.

[Offthemat]

 

15 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It might increase the MFFs.

If you have a binary outcome (top 2 are seeded, the rest are not) then none of the consolation matches matter for seeding purposes and should all be skipped, not just the placement matches. The only wrestlers who will want to wrestle a consolation match are those who think they may be on the bubble.

You would also see a lot of conference championship matches forfeited because the initial goal of gaining a seed has been achieved. Of course, most of the first place matches will still be wrestled to improve their seed.

Good point. 

 

9 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I think conference champions should all be seeded first then go through the rest.

Yes I know that would mean seeding the MAC and SOCON champ ahead of two of the three best heavies in the land.

This is the main thought I had, but it doesn’t do much for the dual matches.  A conference dual championship?  Just can’t come up with a reasonable solution for emphasizing duals more. 
 

That would still be okay to give the easier path to the champions; might make recruiting better for smaller conferences.  

Edited February 8, 2023 by Offthemat

[Idaho]

9 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I think conference champions should all be seeded first then go through the rest.

Yes I know that would mean seeding the MAC and SOCON champ ahead of two of the three best heavies in the land.

I think we should have the top 6 Big 10 and the top 2 Big 12 in the same quarter with no cross bracketing to the consolation. 

[Offthemat]

10 minutes ago, Idaho said:

I think we should have the top 6 Big 10 and the top 2 Big 12 in the same quarter with no cross bracketing to the consolation. 

So a possible #1 Big12 vs #3 Big12 final.

[Idaho]

13 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

So a possible #1 Big12 vs #3 Big12 final.

Yes... or a #6 Big 10 vs  #4 Pac 12 Final .... tickets on sale now. 

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, Idaho said:

Yes... or a #6 Big 10 vs  #4 Pac 12 Final .... tickets on sale now. 

At a discount?

[Offthemat]

If it has no effect on seeding at Nationals, would fewer wrestlers duck duals and consolation matches?  Don’t most wrestlers want to wrestle?

[nhs67]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

 

Good point. 

 

This is the main thought I had, but it doesn’t do much for the dual matches.  A conference dual championship?  Just can’t come up with a reasonable solution for emphasizing duals more. 
 

That would still be okay to give the easier path to the champions; might make recruiting better for smaller conferences.  

As far as duals go, when it comes to conferences you seed the weight.

Only use results from the in-conference duals.  Establish some sort of criteria if dual record is tied such as:

- H2H of wrestlers entered (current season only)

- Overall Winning Percentage (current season only - D1 and same weight)

- Coaches Rank

[Offthemat]

25 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

As far as duals go, when it comes to conferences you seed the weight.

Only use results from the in-conference duals.  Establish some sort of criteria if dual record is tied such as:

- H2H of wrestlers entered (current season only)

- Overall Winning Percentage (current season only - D1 and same weight)

- Coaches Rank

I like that.  

[Formally140]

I liked Mirikitanis proposal of “ranking” events like what golf does 

[Eagle26]

It might increase the MFFs.
If you have a binary outcome (top 2 are seeded, the rest are not) then none of the consolation matches matter for seeding purposes and should all be skipped, not just the placement matches. The only wrestlers who will want to wrestle a consolation match are those who think they may be on the bubble.
You would also see a lot of conference championship matches forfeited because the initial goal of gaining a seed has been achieved. Of course, most of the first place matches will still be wrestled to improve their seed.

Good point. What if you made it top 3 or vary based on conferences or by weight class (like a certain percentage of the auto qualifiers)?

[Wrestleknownothing]

17 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:

Good point. What if you made it top 3 or vary based on conferences or by weight class (like a certain percentage of the auto qualifiers)?

After reading @nhs67's idea where he references win percentage it got me thinking about another way to approach it. Rather than focus on percentages, what if we focused on totals? And what if we created more scarcity? Things that are scarce are more valuable, even if sometimes the scarcity is artificial.

To that end:

1. Only seed the top X. For argument's sake let's say the top 16. [Create more scarcity]

2. Have the same qualifying criteria as we currently do. Conference allocations, conference tournament results determining who gets the allocated spots, etc. [Allows for wrestlers facing extenuating circumstances during the season to still qualify at the end of the season]

3. But to be seeded you need a minimum number of wins (or perhaps matches). If you fail on the minimum then you still qualify, but you may not get a seed. [Replace percentage with sum creating incentives to wrestle more]

4. If not enough qualified wrestlers have the minimum to fill all 16 slots, then rank the remaining wrestlers by the number of wins (matches) and fill the remaining seeds from the list, top to bottom. For example, say only 13 qualified wrestlers have enough wins (matches), they earn the top 13 seeds. Seeds 14, 15, and 16 are then filled with the next three qualified wrestlers with the most wins (matches). Of course, a tie breaker would need to be determined. Here I might lean to a random draw. The benefit of making it random is that it is not game-able. The only way to avoid being subject to the randomness is to wrestle more matches. [Decrease gamification]

The win (match) minimum could be wins (matches) in conference matches if you want to promote more dual participation. Or not, if you do not care if they come via Dresser-style last chance opens. Or maybe it is a two tier system where first dual wins (matches) count first and then tournament wins (matches) count next.

[Offthemat]

My proposed formula works like this:

Seeding at conference tournaments are based on conference duals only. 
If wrestler A appears in 5 duals and wins all, and wrestler B wrestles 3 matches and wins 1, whichever wrestler enters the tournament is seeded based on a 6-2 record.  
If there are two wrestlers with identical records and no head to head match to go on, the wrestler from the team with the better conference record seeds ahead of the other.  
 

Putting emphasis on individual and team performance in duals for conference tournament seeding may help to reduce ducking.  In the end, it’ll still boil down to coaches and wrestlers. 

[Elevator]

11 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

My proposed formula works like this:

Seeding at conference tournaments are based on conference duals only. 
If wrestler A appears in 5 duals and wins all, and wrestler B wrestles 3 matches and wins 1, whichever wrestler enters the tournament is seeded based on a 6-2 record.  
If there are two wrestlers with identical records and no head to head match to go on, the wrestler from the team with the better conference record seeds ahead of the other.  
 

Putting emphasis on individual and team performance in duals for conference tournament seeding may help to reduce ducking.  In the end, it’ll still boil down to coaches and wrestlers. 

Not all conferences have conference duals - EIWA has steady Ivy duals within EIWA and after that is it somewhat random.  

Also, medical forfeits are not all bad for the sport, even it they can be abused to duck a seeding risk.  It is a rough sport and having wrestlers rest for some duals and heal from injury should not be penalized even if there are some disappointments and imperfections.

[Offthemat]

For NCAAs, definitely seed conference champs above any 3rd place finishers, maybe 2nd.  

[PortaJohn]

15 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

For NCAAs, definitely seed conference champs above any 3rd place finishers, maybe 2nd.  

 

So you'd seed Wyatt Hendrickson over potentially Parris, Kerk, or Cassioppi? Same question to you @nhs67...Essentially we're punishing wrestlers for competing against tougher competition.  Isn't that the complete opposite of what we so often proclaim wrestling to be about.  

Edited February 8, 2023 by PortaJohn

[Offthemat]

22 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

 

So you'd seed Wyatt Hendrickson over potentially Parris, Kerk, or Cassioppi? Same question to you @nhs67...Essentially we're punishing wrestlers for competing against tougher competition.  Isn't that the complete opposite of what we so often proclaim wrestling to be about.  

Yes.  I would reward the conference champs of every conference.  3rd place? Not so much.  It might be a draw for some of the lesser conferences recruiting.  
 

I agree that wrestling is a tough sport and I think coaches are doing what they can to prevent injuries.  John Smith recently talked about the point where takedowns are called having an effect on injuries.  So, just like other sports, injuries and lineups during conference competition has an affect on conference championships.  Thereby increasing the importance of team performance while remaining an individual sport.  If you’re skipping matches because they don’t matter, with this, that would change.  
 

 

[PortaJohn]

9 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

54 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

 

Yes.  I would reward the conference champs of every conference.

Because there are 7 conferences.  Hypothetically in your scenario  for this year you could have a (8)Kerk vs (9)Cassioppi wrestle in the round of 16 followed by the winner taking on (1) Parris in the Quarters.  This would make a mockery of the NCAA tournament.  

[Red Blades]

Does anyone else think - the system works pretty well the way it is? 

[Offthemat]

Would it make that much difference at what point the losers enter consolations. 

[PortaJohn]

12 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Would it make that much difference at what point the losers enter consolations. 

Absolutely it would.  Team score implications.  Fringe AA wrestlers getting knocked out in wrestle backs because they're actually wrestling a 1/2/or 3 seed, the top wrestlers knocking each other out in early rounds instead of battling it out in the semi's with a chance to win it all. 

[Bigbrog]

31 minutes ago, Red Blades said:

Does anyone else think - the system works pretty well the way it is? 

YES!!

[ionel]

36 minutes ago, Red Blades said:

Does anyone else think - the system works pretty well the way it is? 

Yes but wish it were 32 and not 33 and I'd be fine with going back to seed 16 drawn the others in at random if it would simplify RPI and decrease the duck incentive.