Iowa got shafted in the NCAA seeding

[scourge165]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Think about that for a second. The post I was responding to said that the Big 10 gets screwed by wrestling each other, but Brooks' lose was a non-conference match.

I've thought about it as long as I care to. I was responding to your statement that you don't think ANYONE has any problem with Parker Keckeisen as the #1 seed.

Well...I do. 2X defending Champ, won the B1Gs when Keckeisen was a Sr in HS as a True Freshmen. He's got 3 losses in his career. Keckeisen and Hidlay ALSO have losses this year. No good reason for Brooks to NOT be the #1 seed. 

There's very little common sense used in these seedings. @PortaJohn follows up by saying because he "only" Wrestled X number of matches, he was seeded where he should have been...despite being the best in his weight and probably top 3 pound for pound. So he knows it's stupid as well. He's saying it right there. He's proven he's the best at this weight.

Look at Brooks matches this year? They're mostly top 20 except for Iowa(not his fault), should have been, Wisconsin...and 2 of his first 3 vs Lock Haven and...someone else.

Keckeisen has 6 total. So in fewer matches Wrestling in the B1G, Brooks has more quality wins. And a lot of Keckeisen's big wins are over B1G Wrestlers in much closer matches.  

[MPhillips]

Stupid or not. It's the formula at hand.

[Mr. PeanutButter]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Ironic that you say you can't look at one situation and then look at one situation.

I am not looking at one situation. I am looking at the totality of all situations. And when you do that you see that Big 10 wrestlers get seeded higher in spite of their loses.

 

They should be seeded even higher. And wrestlers in weaker conferences should be seeded even lower. There are nonsense seeds in every bracket because of a seeding formula that is overly complicated. Get rid of conference placement (and, possibly, win % too) and just seed based on a wrestler's record and his opponent's record. 

[Royalfan]

Conference championship or not having weight in seeding is asinine. 

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, scourge165 said:

I've thought about it as long as I care to. I was responding to your statement that you don't think ANYONE has any problem with Parker Keckeisen as the #1 seed.

Well...I do. 2X defending Champ, won the B1Gs when Keckeisen was a Sr in HS as a True Freshmen. He's got 3 losses in his career. Keckeisen and Hidlay ALSO have losses this year. No good reason for Brooks to NOT be the #1 seed. 

There's very little common sense used in these seedings. @PortaJohn follows up by saying because he "only" Wrestled X number of matches, he was seeded where he should have been...despite being the best in his weight and probably top 3 pound for pound. So he knows it's stupid as well. He's saying it right there. He's proven he's the best at this weight.

Look at Brooks matches this year? They're mostly top 20 except for Iowa(not his fault), should have been, Wisconsin...and 2 of his first 3 vs Lock Haven and...someone else.

Keckeisen has 6 total. So in fewer matches Wrestling in the B1G, Brooks has more quality wins. And a lot of Keckeisen's big wins are over B1G Wrestlers in much closer matches.  

It's pretty simple. 

1) Keck & Hidlay split with Keck having the most recent win 

2) Keck beat Coleman 

3) AB had a lapse in judgement and lost to Coleman

4) AB gets the #3 seed

5) It's wrong but the formula doesn't account prior year results nor the All Star Classic

6) AB is still the best wrestler in the weight but they can only seed based on the results they have for this year

7) If Brooks and Hidlay meet in the semis and the refs do their jobs Hidlay will get stalled out of the match 

[MPhillips]

23 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

It's pretty simple. 

It really is.

[Jamie_Taco]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Ironic that you say you can't look at one situation and then look at one situation.

I am not looking at one situation. I am looking at the totality of all situations. And when you do that you see that Big 10 wrestlers get seeded higher in spite of their loses.

 

I think you need to look up the definition of irony because you aren't using it correctly: Is Ironic The Most Abused Word In English?

Either way, I literally took the first weight. Do you think Orine gets the 5 seed at 133 wrestling a BT schedule? How about Henson at 149? Think he's only losing 3 times wrestling Sasso, Gomez, Yahya, Murin, Van Ness, etc? I don't

 

[CHROMEBIRD]

The seeding formula sucks. Askren is right that there needs to be a common sense committee so we're not so beholden to an algorithm that doesn't necessarily do the sport any favors.

[ionel]

Iowa should wrestle the tournament under protest. 

[scourge165]

3 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

The seeding formula sucks. Askren is right that there needs to be a common sense committee so we're not so beholden to an algorithm that doesn't necessarily do the sport any favors.

That's really what it comes down to. Just basic common sense. Yianni was the #2 seed this past weekend.

I understand how the ridiculous way we seed works...and I have a problem with it. I don't see where that is conflicting. 

When everyone can plainly state they KNOW Brooks is the best in the weight and he's the 3 seed when 3 guys have 1 loss, it's silly. He lost to a guy that Keck beat. I don't care. He's beaten Keck and he's...again, won multiple National Titles at this weight. 

[MPhillips]

5 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

there needs to be a common sense committee

Imagine that train wreck.

[Offthemat]

It might have been worse last year.  A 10 and a 15 seed made it to the finals. 

[Mr. PeanutButter]

21 minutes ago, ionel said:

Iowa should wrestle the tournament under protest. 

You really think this whole conversation is about Iowa? No one here is complaining about Iowa's seed, that has been established numerous times. You're usually sharper than this

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It might have been worse last year.  A 10 and a 15 seed made it to the finals. 

That shouldn't be allowed. 

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

You really think this whole conversation is about Iowa? No one here is complaining about Iowa's seed, that has been established numerous times. You're usually sharper than this

Sorry ... thought we were on topic ... my bad. 

[jmoney]

On 3/9/2023 at 10:16 AM, Mr. PeanutButter said:

They're not the best seeds but they're ok. 

I wish they would do away with conference placement as a criteria. Or at least reduce its weight in the matrix. I do not understand why some goon who wrestles cans all year should be seeded higher than, let's say, a returning finalist who took a couple losses to the #1 guy (not referring to this year, just posing a hypothetical)

I may be totally off here, but I think the number of matches you’ve won at Nationals, quarterfinals, and prior All American status should count for 20% of your rating. I know it’s not about the past but the past is way more predictive than your conference performance. If conference tourneys are so important they should just replace Midlands with them. So people can wrestle mid year hope for the best and heal recover for nationals. 

[CHROMEBIRD]

23 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Imagine that train wreck.

I'd rather have an imperfect system that does the sport good than one that doesn't. The algorithm right now rewards ducking, penalizes conference strength, and sets up brackets with conference matches that we've already seen during the season. Even if a committe doesn't get the seeding right, it could fix some of these basic flaws in the formula.

[Offthemat]

22 minutes ago, ionel said:

That shouldn't be allowed. 

I don’t know what these kids today are thinking. 

[scourge165]

17 minutes ago, jmoney said:

I may be totally off here, but I think the number of matches you’ve won at Nationals, quarterfinals, and prior All American status should count for 20% of your rating. I know it’s not about the past but the past is way more predictive than your conference performance. If conference tourneys are so important they should just replace Midlands with them. So people can wrestle mid year hope for the best and heal recover for nationals. 

I don't think you're off at all. 

This seems like it's sensitive subject, but again...just want to point out the absurdity of seeding Yianni #2 in his own conference.

I can't wait for Carter Starocci to be a 4X defending National Champ...coming off an Olympic Gold. He injury defaults a match after turning an ankle early in the year and ends up...as a #4 seed because we've banned rationale thought from the seeding process!

[scourge165]

34 minutes ago, ionel said:

That shouldn't be allowed. 

A 6th year Sr who was Wrestling in his first NCAA Tournament and a Soph who went 1-2 the previous year with a SV win over the 28 seed.

I...yeah, I can't spot the difference between that and Aaron Brooks as the 3 seed!

[bnwtwg]

1 hour ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

Askren is right that there needs to be a common sense committee

Ironic because Ben Askren would absolutely not be a fan of pretty much any opinion that a Common Sense Committee would put forward.

[ionel]

2 hours ago, MPhillips said:

Stupid or not. It's the formula at hand.

Stop that!

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 hours ago, Jamie_Taco said:

I think you need to look up the definition of irony because you aren't using it correctly: Is Ironic The Most Abused Word In English?

Either way, I literally took the first weight. Do you think Orine gets the 5 seed at 133 wrestling a BT schedule? How about Henson at 149? Think he's only losing 3 times wrestling Sasso, Gomez, Yahya, Murin, Van Ness, etc? I don't

 

The irony keeps piling up. Not only did I use ironic correctly, but you incorrectly posted an article about the incorrect use of irony. Are you starting to see the irony? I doubt it.

[PortaJohn]

19 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The irony keeps piling up. Not only did I use ironic correctly, but you incorrectly posted an article about the incorrect use of irony. Are you starting to see the irony? I doubt it.

It's like rain on your wedding day.  It's a free ride when you've already paid.  It's the good advice that you just didn't take And who would've thought... it figures

Edited March 12, 2023 by PortaJohn

[Formally140]

Imagine not just favoring the top 5%