Iowa got shafted in the NCAA seeding

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, Jamie_Taco said:

So you want Iowa to wrestle a weaker schedule? If you can't agree that Big Ten teams get screwed by wrestling and beating up on one another during the season, you're lying to yourself.

The idea that the Big 10 broadly gets screwed in seeding does not hold up this year. While the Big 10 1 seeds are all undefeated, I do not think anyone has a problem with 1 lose Yianni Diakomihalis, or to a lesser extent, 1 lose Parker Keckeisen as a 1 seed.

Big 10 2, 3, and 4 seeds have more loses on average than the same seeds from every other conference. And when you compare them to the next most represented conference, the Big12, they have more loses at every seed (where they both have wrestlers) all the way down to the 9 seed.

[fishbane]

5 hours ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Kennedy has Amine 2nd round and then Hamiti if he manages to win that one.

I think a 6 seed is someone generous for Kennedy but you are correct that he was unlucky given those seeded around him.  He has only lost 6 matches in the past two seasons.  One was to Bull, his erstwhile teammate.  One was to David Carr.  The other 4 are all in his quarterfinal bracket at NCAAs (2x Hamiti, 1x Hall, 1x Formato).  So he has a guy that beat him in the first round.  In the second round he has Amine who is a returning AA and an above average 11 seed albeit someone he beat at Big Tens.  Then if he makes it to the Quarters he likely has Hamiti who has defeated him twice, but possibly Peyton Hall who has also defeated him  

[Mr. PeanutButter]

51 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Their nonconference was primarily tomato cans except Iowa State and OkSt. Their only tournament was the F-150 Salute Your Shorts where NINETEEN Hawkeyes made it to the quarters, the runner-up was perrenial wrestling powerhouse Army, and the most exciting moment was a varsity starter pinning his backup in 30 seconds and telling his coaches that he deserved it.

So yeah, weak out of conference schedule + middling B1G results = appropriate seeding where they don't get the benefit of the Hawkeye doubt

Show me a team that definitely had a tougher slate than Iowa. Don't mince my words, I'm not saying Iowa had the toughest schedule, but they weren't feeding on cans all year either 

[bnwtwg]

25 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

Show me a team that definitely had a tougher slate than Iowa. Don't mince my words, I'm not saying Iowa had the toughest schedule, but they weren't feeding on cans all year either 

Iowa did not wrestle a tough out-of-conference schedule.

Iowa individuals did not perform particularly well in-conference.

Iowa individuals did not perform particularly well at the conference tournament.

Therefore, Iowa got lower than desired seeds.

[mspart]

5 hours ago, Perry said:

They got what they deserved honestly. Seeds could have been worse. There is no easy draw at 165 or 197, so Kennedy and Warner were always going to have their hands full to aa. 

Everyone has their hands full to AA.   That's the point. 

mspart

Edited March 9, 2023 by mspart

[Mr. PeanutButter]

43 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Iowa did not wrestle a tough out-of-conference schedule.

Iowa individuals did not perform particularly well in-conference.

Iowa individuals did not perform particularly well at the conference tournament.

Therefore, Iowa got lower than desired seeds.

Although this particular Pastry thread is fixated on Iowa (to maximize the juice), my concerns are not with Iowa's seeds. They got what they earned. I think the seeding criteria is a little wonky though and unjustly rewards those with light schedules and punishes wrestlers with tougher schedules. Call it B1G (and Big 12 for that matter) bias if you want but once the dust settles I will bet my bottom doge coin that the result will be the same as it is every year: those that were gifted good seeds on account of wrestling in weaker conferences will fail to meet their seeds (relative to the competition) while good wrestlers from the tougher conferences rise to the top. Caleb Smith is not placing top 5 at 125 this year

[bnwtwg]

19 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

Although this particular Pastry thread is fixated on Iowa (to maximize the juice), my concerns are not with Iowa's seeds. They got what they earned. I think the seeding criteria is a little wonky though and unjustly rewards those with light schedules and punishes wrestlers with tougher schedules. Call it B1G (and Big 12 for that matter) bias if you want but once the dust settles I will bet my bottom doge coin that the result will be the same as it is every year: those that were gifted good seeds on account of wrestling in weaker conferences will fail to meet their seeds (relative to the competition) while good wrestlers from the tougher conferences rise to the top. Caleb Smith is not placing top 5 at 125 this year

Call me Mr. Jelly because I 100% agree with everything you just said.

[bnwtwg]

20 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

those that were gifted good seeds on account of wrestling in weaker conferences will fail to meet their seeds

Are we still calling this the Mizzou Seeding Special or did we have to move on since they consistently produce AAs, NCAA champs, and world champs nowadays?

[Idaho]

5 hours ago, Jamie_Taco said:

If you can't agree that Big Ten teams get screwed by wrestling and beating up on one another during the season, you're lying to yourself.

Now that's a narrative you don't hear often... we got screwed by having to wrestle in the best competition in the best conference. But I guess if you lead all conferences in MEDFFT and no-shows maybe it's not the case anymore. 

[Crotalus]

12 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

Are we still calling this the Mizzou Seeding Special or did we have to move on since they consistently produce AAs, NCAA champs, and world champs nowadays?

They were doing all of this things just as consistently while people were complaining about their high seeds. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

18 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The idea that the Big 10 broadly gets screwed in seeding does not hold up this year. While the Big 10 1 seeds are all undefeated, I do not think anyone has a problem with 1 lose Yianni Diakomihalis, or to a lesser extent, 1 lose Parker Keckeisen as a 1 seed.

 

Although I don't have a problem with Parker as the #1, I think many do.  This is probably the #1 most complained about seed.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

18 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

Iowa did not wrestle a tough out-of-conference schedule. 

Was it significantly worse than Penn States?  Just having Oklahoma State on there means quite a bit.

Iowa individuals did not perform particularly well in-conference.

Odd comment.  Well enough to be seeded fairly high and be an obvious second place team based on their seeds.

Iowa individuals did not perform particularly well at the conference tournament.

Huh?  They took second.

Therefore, Iowa got lower than desired seeds.

I don't have an issue with your conclusion.  Your evidence is lacking.

 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

19 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

Their nonconference was primarily tomato cans except Iowa State and OkSt. Their only tournament was the F-150 Salute Your Shorts where NINETEEN Hawkeyes made it to the quarters, the runner-up was perrenial wrestling powerhouse Army, and the most exciting moment was a varsity starter pinning his backup in 30 seconds and telling his coaches that he deserved it.

So yeah, weak out of conference schedule + middling B1G results = appropriate seeding where they don't get the benefit of the Hawkeye doubt

I have a problem with this.

And 2nd place in B1G is literally not "middling."

You may have some issues.

[bnwtwg]

Performing well on the backside at the conference tourney does not make for glorious natty seeds. They had two champions, both expected and both seeded #1 at NCAAs as expected. A great similar example of the "the whole is greater than the sum of all parts" would be Minnesota winning a team title without a single national champ. So congrats on 2nd in the Big Ten, and good luck with the fair NCAA seeds. I hope you have superior results of your Friday than diagnosing the mental health of an idiot behind a keyboard.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

24 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Performing well on the backside at the conference tourney does not make for glorious natty seeds. They had two champions, both expected and both seeded #1 at NCAAs as expected. A great similar example of the "the whole is greater than the sum of all parts" would be Minnesota winning a team title without a single national champ. So congrats on 2nd in the Big Ten, and good luck with the fair NCAA seeds. I hope you have superior results of your Friday than diagnosing the mental health of an idiot behind a keyboard.

Yes.  You have achieved what you intended to achieve.  Congrats on that.

My issue has never been with Iowa seeds, and I am not sure why I am being congratulated on Iowa's B1G performance.  I was almost 700 miles away in Raleigh (and I didn't wrestle.) My issue is with your flawed reasoning and the insult levied at the military.

My Wolfpack has decent seeds, although Hidlay looks to be in a lot of trouble.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[Gus]

Iowa's seeds were all relatively as expected and fair. This tournament seems to get tougher and have more parity every year. That might be a result of the free years given to the COVID group. There are 3-4 top guys at most weights that are seniors this year that would have typically left the field after last season. Remove the group of hammers below from the field and it probably looks much more in line with past NCAA tournaments.

125 - Spencer, Cronin, Courney, Cardinale

133 - RBY, McGee, Phillipi

141 - Hart

149 - Yahya, Millner, Murin, Zapf

157 - AOC, Humphries, Gfeller

165 - Monday

174 - Labriola, Smith, O'Reilly, Romero

184 - Coleman, Romero, Finesilver, Bolen

197 - Nino, Dean, Laird, Warner

HWT - Parris, Schuyler, Hilger, Orndorff

[mspart]

If you are going to win, you have to beat everyone there put before you.   There is only one person that can do that per bracket.   I believe Rob Rohn was seeded 8th and pinned his way through the tourney beating Josh Lambrecht in the final with a massive cement mixer.  It was a hail mary shot because he was getting worked hard, but it worked. 

He just beat everyone placed in front of him.   That really is a great story. 

mspart

[lightweight]

I don't usually believe in omens, but this seems just too much for mere coincidence:

Today's (Friday March 10) New York Times crossword puzzle had the following clue:

18 Across: It has a higher population of pigs than people (4 letters)

Now, I didn't know this one off the top of my head, but after I got a few of the Down clues I realized that it started with the letter "I" and ended with the letter "A".

(Spoiler alert: don't look below if you don't want to know the answer to this four letter state in the US Midwest that starts with the letter "I" and ends with the letter "A" and is where they grow a lot of corn and, despite growing a lot of corn they apparently have trouble with seeding.)

|

|

|

|

|

Answer: look in Saturday's paper for the answer, they always print the entire grid the next day.  

[scourge165]

On 3/9/2023 at 1:41 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

The idea that the Big 10 broadly gets screwed in seeding does not hold up this year. While the Big 10 1 seeds are all undefeated, I do not think anyone has a problem with 1 lose Yianni Diakomihalis, or to a lesser extent, 1 lose Parker Keckeisen as a 1 seed.

I have zero problem with Yianni, but a little problem with Parker Keckeisen getting the #1 over Brooks. More like a mild disagreement, but it seemed like a bit silly to seed Brooks 3rd behind two guys he's beaten evertime because of a early season loss to Coleman. But if he's the guy we all think he is, it won't matter. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I have zero problem with Yianni, but a little problem with Parker Keckeisen getting the #1 over Brooks. More like a mild disagreement, but it seemed like a bit silly to seed Brooks 3rd behind two guys he's beaten evertime because of a early season loss to Coleman. But if he's the guy we all think he is, it won't matter. 

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.

[PortaJohn]

7 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I have zero problem with Yianni, but a little problem with Parker Keckeisen getting the #1 over Brooks. More like a mild disagreement, but it seemed like a bit silly to seed Brooks 3rd behind two guys he's beaten evertime because of a early season loss to Coleman. But if he's the guy we all think he is, it won't matter. 

 

2 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.

AB got exactly what he deserved.  He didn't wrestle a full schedule & I hope moving forward Cael sends the guys back to a decent tournament.  I'm on board with Cael not over-wrestling his guys during the season.  Regardless of the fact AB is the best in the weight class and probably in the top 3 p4p, he only wrestled 13 matches including Bigs.  The #3 seed is on him.  

[D3 for LU]

15 hours ago, mspart said:

If you are going to win, you have to beat everyone there put before you.   There is only one person that can do that per bracket.   I believe Rob Rohn was seeded 8th and pinned his way through the tourney beating Josh Lambrecht in the final with a massive cement mixer.  It was a hail mary shot because he was getting worked hard, but it worked. 

He just beat everyone placed in front of him.   That really is a great story. 

mspart

Oh. I definitely agree here (as do all B&W fans across the land! )

D3

[Jamie_Taco]

18 hours ago, Gus said:

Iowa's seeds were all relatively as expected and fair. This tournament seems to get tougher and have more parity every year. That might be a result of the free years given to the COVID group. There are 3-4 top guys at most weights that are seniors this year that would have typically left the field after last season. Remove the group of hammers below from the field and it probably looks much more in line with past NCAA tournaments.

125 - Spencer, Cronin, Courney, Cardinale

133 - RBY, McGee, Phillipi

141 - Hart

149 - Yahya, Millner, Murin, Zapf

157 - AOC, Humphries, Gfeller

165 - Monday

174 - Labriola, Smith, O'Reilly, Romero

184 - Coleman, Romero, Finesilver, Bolen

197 - Nino, Dean, Laird, Warner

HWT - Parris, Schuyler, Hilger, Orndorff

Why are people taking this as only Iowa getting screwed by the BT schedule? It's the entire conference, and the FRL crew talking about this in depth this week.

It's real and I can't help but LOL at the morons suggesting Big Ten teams make their non-conference schedule even harder. That's some logic right there!

[Jamie_Taco]

3 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.

You can't look at one situation and apply that to every bracket.

Hell, let's just take a look at the first weight. Do you really think guys like Stevo and Caleb Smith would be the 5 and 6 seeds had they wrestled a big ten schedule with Spencer, Cronin, Ramos, McKee, etc? I certainly don't.

You can find examples of these types of seeds in nearly every bracket, hence the "Big Ten beats each other up and affects their seedings" argument. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Jamie_Taco said:

You can't look at one situation and apply that to every bracket.

Hell, let's just take a look at the first weight. Do you really think guys like Stevo and Caleb Smith would be the 5 and 6 seeds had they wrestled a big ten schedule with Spencer, Cronin, Ramos, McKee, etc? I certainly don't.

You can find examples of these types of seeds in nearly every bracket, hence the "Big Ten beats each other up and affects their seedings" argument. 

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.