Hodge Finalists announced

[Idaho]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

Parris is not a fast runner, thus Alirez wins!  

4.76 40 in high school and the 67 yard touchdown run looks decent....Obviously bigger now, but I'm guessing he can hold his own. 

https://www.hudl.com/profile/4158110/Mason-Parris

[scribers]

Criteria this year...

1. Yanni

2. see #1

[CHROMEBIRD]

Alirez gets extra credit for his post match interview at NCAAs

[Dogbone]

First the Hodge gives out 2 trophys in the same year and now all 10 champs are finalist?!?! Hodge is getting softer.  What's next, a non champ gets nominated?  I mean Carr was 2-1 vs O'Toole, you could argue he a better year.

ONLY KIDDING.  (But I do think the 10 finalist is dumb).

 

 

[ionel]

32 minutes ago, Idaho said:

4.76 40 in high school and the 67 yard touchdown run looks decent....Obviously bigger now, but I'm guessing he can hold his own. 

https://www.hudl.com/profile/4158110/Mason-Parris

Yeah I prob picked the wrong HWT to say is slow.  However, I'm still willing to make an avatar bet with Fly or any Spud poster that Alirez could beat him at 100 to 400 m right now, problem is no way to prove it.  But if you or Fly are willing to take the bet and concede, I'm willing to find a good image.   

[ionel]

33 minutes ago, scribers said:

Criteria this year...

1. Yanni

2. see #1

who?

[Dark Energy]

1 hour ago, scribers said:

Criteria this year...

1. Yanni

2. see #1

Oof.  You too with the bad spelling?

[flyingcement]

"Hodge Finalists announced"

The finalists: a list of all ten champions (lol)

[Idaho]

If he wins....

[skandar]

Past accomplishments is no longer a hodge criteria so that should eliminate Yianni.

 

 

[CHROMEBIRD]

8 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

"Hodge Finalists announced"

The finalists: a list of all ten champions (lol)

I don't understand why they did this. Isn't the finalist pool usually around 5 or so candidates?

[ionel]

1 minute ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I don't understand why they did this. Isn't the finalist pool usually around 5 or so candidates?

Maybe there will be 5 Hodge winners this year, we had 2 so ...

[WrestlingRasta]

There were four world champs, a world silver, and a world bronze in the heavyweight bracket this year, all but one of them in the big ten. The way the ladder has rotated the previous three years under Gable, it’s very possible this bracket has three NCAA champs heading in…..if not for Gable. When it comes to comparing level of competition, give me a Junior world champ over NCAA any day of the week, and twice on wrestling days. 
 

Parris wrestled more matches than anyone else, in that weight, ran the gauntlet unscathed, and had more falls (always a big criteria) than anyone else. Beat more all Americans. Bonused more qualifiers and all Americans. At the weight with the deepest level of accomplishment. 

[Sublime607]

In no way should fan vote be a factor for the Hodge.

[headshuck]

Agreed

[nhs67]

Fan vote is going to hurt Starocci.

Two Penn State gents on the docket.

[Eagle26]

I agree with others that it is really dumb that all 10 champs are “finalists”. They never had more than a few before. I doubt that the fan vote has much of an impact, but just another factor for the committee to look at. 
 

I will say I thought it was clearly a two horse race between Yianni and Parris, but I would have guessed Parris to have the highest bonus percentage. Alirez and AOC make it a little more up in the air since they are higher bonus %. Still, Parris leads with pins and tougher competition IMO so I’d still put it between him and Yianni. I never liked the idea of them giving it to someone with a loss so my vote is Parris. Certainly, everyone with a loss who is not a 4x national champ should be eliminated as a “finalist”. Just depends how heavy they weigh 4x national champ (that’s kinda a big deal), so I won’t be disappointed if they give it to Yianni.

[CHROMEBIRD]

The thing that kills me is how they keep calling it the Hodge Award criteria when they are actually just loose guidelines. The voters haven't strictly followed the criteria for years, they're more like suggestions.

If the award was actually based on a series of defined criteria and metrics then Hodge winners could be easily determined by an algorithm (not that I want to go there) rather than the subjective whims of the voters.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

There were four world champs, a world silver, and a world bronze in the heavyweight bracket this year, all but one of them in the big ten. The way the ladder has rotated the previous three years under Gable, it’s very possible this bracket has three NCAA champs heading in…..if not for Gable. When it comes to comparing level of competition, give me a Junior world champ over NCAA any day of the week, and twice on wrestling days. 
 

Parris wrestled more matches than anyone else, in that weight, ran the gauntlet unscathed, and had more falls (always a big criteria) than anyone else. Beat more all Americans. Bonused more qualifiers and all Americans. At the weight with the deepest level of accomplishment. 

Pinfalls used to be a big criteria, but are no longer. Gable Steveson won last year with one. Now the focus is on bonus percentage.

[RYou]

I think what you are seeing here is some, I'll call it favoritism for lack of a better term, to include Yanni because of his 4th title.  But, he's got a loss which would ordinarily discount the wrestler if there are undefeated competitors in the mix.  Well, if you include Yanni despite his loss, then you have to include others with a loss, i.e., O'Toole, Brooks, etc.  Ultimately, that shakes out to include all of the 2023. champs.  That kinda spins the criteria a bit from a performance for the year to one that includes career.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

29 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

The thing that kills me is how they keep calling it the Hodge Award criteria when they are actually just loose guidelines. The voters haven't strictly followed the criteria for years, they're more like suggestions.

If the award was actually based on a series of defined criteria and metrics then Hodge winners could be easily determined by an algorithm (not that I want to go there) rather than the subjective whims of the voters.

I've been posting about this for many years now. I agree that it's unnecessarily confusing.

The definition of the word "criteria" does not strictly require a step by step set of metrics for making a decision. That's not what the word means.

The word "criteria" is used to refer to a logical set of steps for deciding things like tiebreakers in wrestling, that is true (and I suspect in other applications.) But that is happenstance for those usage cases. It isn't required for the word to be used.

Every year, I suggest replacing the word "criteria" with something like "factors" or "considerations" and we can avoid much of the confusion that the Hodge creates. (And, also, eliminate numbering the factors - that implies strict order, which isn't actually required, at all.)

If it were actually "criteria" as we use for tiebreakers in wresting, then Parris wins by criteria #1 - game over.

 

[headshuck]

The Hodge was an annual dominance award. Emphasis on pinning. It was a unique award.

Now it’s watered down into a MVP/fan favorite award. I thought ESPN/NCAA was sponsoring that?

[Jason Bryant]

Here's how I came to my conclusion. I didn't include the raw numbers because, well, it's not as pretty. 

[CHROMEBIRD]

8 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I've been posting about this for many years now. I agree that it's unnecessarily confusing.

The definition of the word "criteria" does not strictly require a step by step set of metrics for making a decision. That's not what the word means.

The word "criteria" is used to refer to a logical set of steps for deciding things like tiebreakers in wrestling, that is true (and I suspect in other applications.) But that is happenstance for those usage cases. It isn't required for the word to be used.

Every year, I suggest replacing the word "criteria" with something like "factors" or "considerations" and we can avoid much of the confusion that the Hodge creates. (And, also, eliminate numbering the factors - that implies strict order, which isn't actually required, at all.)

If it were actually "criteria" as we use for tiebreakers in wresting, then Parris wins by criteria #1 - game over.

 

Exactly, they're considerations and not defined criteria. If that's the way the voters like it, that's fine. Just stop calling it "criteria" and making it sound like an objective, quantitatively earned award and not a popularity contest.

[headshuck]

If nobody finishes undefeated with at least a dozen pins, they should award no one.

I guarantee the following year guys will get after it.