2023 NCAA seeding discussion

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

Out of bounds

Thats what Wit want folks to think, he's been throw'n on the edge OB all season, now that its the big dance he's gonna throw em back in bounds, he is crafty that one. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

14 hours ago, Holtfan said:

Dean/Allred rematch in the 2nd round, winner likely to get Bonnacc....however you spell it....in the quarters

It is spelled "Nino."

[1032004]

1 hour ago, bnwtwg said:

But not as robust as Cassioppi. Please don't make me defend Iowa... the fact that they outrecruit Poeta and I have to defend the IL guys makes me sick to my stomach.

Schuyler (8), Davison 2x (9), Hilger (11), Orndorff (16), Doucet (20), McDermott (24), and Goldin (27).

So seems pretty comparable and Hendrickson has a win over the highest seeded guy between the two of them (although that guy may be over-seeded).

I could see the argument for Kerk over him due to him beating Cass, but I don't think Cass has a great argument over him unless you're going back to last year results.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

On this and some other boards, I am seeing complaints about seeds of past champs, and other notables.  It is almost as if people don't know that Griffith has multiple losses, Dean has multiple losses, and Brooks has a loss and really not a lot of matches. 

"They are trying to bury Sugar Shane in the brackets! It is a plan to give Carr a loss so that O'Toole can win.  It is by design"

"Who are the idiots who put Brooks in at #3?"

"Dean will win.  Penn State shows up at Nationals.  Dumb to make him a low seed when you know PSUs record at NCAAs."

I have seen variations off of all of these.  My head hurts.

[1032004]

I think Brooks is the main legitimate complaint since there is no one undefeated.   They really should make the All-Star match count.

[MPhillips]

7 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

On this and some other boards, I am seeing complaints about seeds of past champs

This one always surprises me.

[lu_alum]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I think Brooks is the main legitimate complaint since there is no one undefeated.   They really should make the All-Star match count.

Here's my take on the top four at 184:

Brooks’ seed at 184 is perfectly reasonable. Let’s begin with the understanding that only the current season’s resume (documented on an ISRF) counts toward seeding (being a two-time champ doesn’t matter, with the exception of how it may influence coaches when they complete their ranking sheets). Four one-loss conference champs in the bracket.

Brooks is behind #1 Keckeisen* because Keckeisen beat a common opponent (#5 Coleman) twice, while Brooks lost to the #5. Hidlay, whose only loss is to the #1 (with whom he split two bouts), is probably ahead of Brooks at the #2 due to more bouts & Brooks’ lack of RPI. #4 Munoz’ loss is a one-pointer to #13 (Pinto, Nebraska).

Even without a computer, using seven weighted criteria, the top four make perfect sense & would probably have been seeded the same if the old-school seeding meeting method was honestly applied.

[MPhillips]

From Nomad

[Elevator]

14 hours ago, aknipp said:

No discussion on 197?   Dean drops to 9th seed?   That weight is messed up. A lot of talent with not a lot of matches (12-1)   

 

Not certain how it should be seeded but I think its messed up. 

One of the flaws in th seeding system is insufficient love for returning champs and even returning finalists - nuttery that this is not any consideration.  

[Elevator]

8 minutes ago, lu_alum said:

Here's my take on the top four at 184:

Brooks’ seed at 184 is perfectly reasonable. Let’s begin with the understanding that only the current season’s resume (documented on an ISRF) counts toward seeding (being a two-time champ doesn’t matter, with the exception of how it may influence coaches when they complete their ranking sheets). Four one-loss conference champs in the bracket.

Brooks is behind #1 Keckeisen* because Keckeisen beat a common opponent (#5 Coleman) twice, while Brooks lost to the #5. Hidlay, whose only loss is to the #1 (with whom he split two bouts), is probably ahead of Brooks at the #2 due to more bouts & Brooks’ lack of RPI. #4 Munoz’ loss is a one-pointer to #13 (Pinto, Nebraska).

Even without a computer, using seven weighted criteria, the top four make perfect sense & would probably have been seeded the same if the old-school seeding meeting method was honestly applied.

Anyone who understands the sport will acknowledge that prior NCAA titles is a highly relevant fact as to tournment performance in later years.   The only current season assumptions may be in the formula, but it is a deeply flawed assumption. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

4 minutes ago, Elevator said:

One of the flaws in th seeding system is insufficient love for returning champs and even returning finalists - nuttery that this is not any consideration.  

It is though.  It plays into coaches rankings.

[Caveira]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

For example, no pattern to the average number of wins by seed, but a definite pattern to the average number of losses.

Love to see something like YoY avg matches per weight or total. 

[BerniePragle]

3 hours ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

I don't see Dean beating Allred.  Here is why:

1. Allred is much bigger and longer than Dean.

2. Allred is better on his feet than Dean, by a lot.  He took Dean down 3 times.

3. Allred can build a lead from neutral and avoid going on bottom.

 

Allred's game plan is easy.  Score 1 or 2 TDs in the first, don't pick bottom and win the match.

For Dean to win he has to beat Allred in takedowns, which is going to be very hard for him.

This all makes sense.  Who is this guy posting under Jimmy's screen name?

[BerniePragle]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I would not discount the planning and adjustments options of the PSU staff/wrestlers.

Dean could not penetrate Allred's defense in their earlier match. And he could not stop Allred's shots. If Dean can find a way to finish/get past Allred's defense then he spends less time defending Allred's shots. I have no idea what that adjustment might be, but I know that PSU has a very good history here.

I am not calling for a Dean win, but I do think that no one should be surprised if he did take the re-match.

AKA, The best defense is a good offense.

[bnwtwg]

49 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So seems pretty comparable and Hendrickson has a win over the highest seeded guy between the two of them (although that guy may be over-seeded).

I could see the argument for Kerk over him due to him beating Cass, but I don't think Cass has a great argument over him unless you're going back to last year results.

Yeah it's definitely not a hill worth dying on. Hopefully Hendrickson shows up this year and puts the haters to bed by finally getting that AA medal.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

The problem is Dean isn't actually that great from neutral.  He's got the left side single leg and that's about it.  Very easy to scout and defend.

[bnwtwg]

1 minute ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

The problem is Dean isn't actually that great from neutral.  He's got the left side single leg and that's about it.  Very easy to scout and defend.

But how does one counter his old-man strength?

[BerniePragle]

3 hours ago, MLB9 said:

It's weird to say, but it wouldn't surprise me based on the recent history of PSU adjustments. But I still can't see it based on what happened Sunday. All great points and I agree with you all you both said. Or at least it sure seemed that way four days ago.

Another landmine I see for PSU is the Haines/Andonian potential quarterfinal. I think I do slightly overrate Andonian, though. 

Agree.  I don't know how you game plan for Andonian.  It did seem like O'Conner had a plan though, but Andonian looked off, rusty.   I'm not gonna be in the kitchen fixing a sandwich when/if that one happens.

[Bigbrog]

First year it is clear they have rewarded "weaker" conferences over the "grind" of a Big ten schedule...I have a feeling Big schools and their wrestlers will make a statement.

[Wrestleknownothing]

39 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Love to see something like YoY avg matches per weight or total. 

Me too. Unfortunately I do not have prior year records. Sorry.

[1032004]

22 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Yeah it's definitely not a hill worth dying on. Hopefully Hendrickson shows up this year and puts the haters to bed by finally getting that AA medal.

Yeah.  I wouldn’t pick him over the top 3 B10 dudes, but I was honestly a little shocked he lost to both Orndorff and Lance at NCAA’s last year.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

21 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

But how does one counter his old-man strength?

It would be harder for 184 pounders to do so.  But Dean is a small and short 197 pounder.  Allred looked to be 2 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier (naturally).

[Show_Me]

4 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

Second best wrestler punished for losing to the best wrestler. I'm a huge Hendrickson stan but wtf he does NOT deserve a top 3 seed with that joke of an Air Force schedule. This is why coaches skip matches and don't put their wrestlers' records at risk.

One thing not being discussed is being a "Conference Champ".  This extra boost is seen in Seeds at almost every weight class.  When 2 wrestlers or a cluster of wrestlers seem comprable, the Conference Champs are getting the higher Seed.

Do I think a Conference Title in the SoCon or Pac 12 is better thaan a Top 2/3 in the Big 10 or Big 12 ?  Of course not.  As long as the "weighting factor" for being a Conference Champ remains, we will continue to see these NCAA Seeds which seem a bit off. 

I ilike rewarding Conf Champs ... but ... perhaps that reward should be slightly reduced.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Show_Me

[1032004]

34 minutes ago, Show_Me said:

One thing not being discussed is being a "Conference Champ".  This extra boost is seen in Seeds at almost every weight class.  When 2 wrestlers or a cluster of wrestlers seem comprable, the Conference Champs are getting the higher Seed.

Do I think a Conference Title in the SoCon or Pac 12 is better thaan a Top 2/3 in the Big 10 or Big 12 ?  Of course not.  As long as the "weighting factor" for being a Conference Champ remains, we will continue to see these NCAA Seeds which seem a bit off. 

I ilike rewarding Conf Champs ... but ... perhaps that reward should be slightly reduced.

To be fair, it is only 10% of the formula...

So how does it work for like 2nd in the Socon vs. 3rd or 4th in the Big Ten?  Does the Socon 2nd get the advantage?

[MPhillips]

25 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So how does it work for like 2nd in the Socon vs. 3rd or 4th in the Big Ten?  Does the Socon 2nd get the advantage?

Socon got two allocations at 133 and 174.