Tacit acknowledgement that the coaches' rankings are crap?

[Wrestleknownothing]

 

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Wouldn’t say that…if that were the case, the coaches’ ranking would be eliminated entirely. It’s more them trying to make the conference championships more important, to reduce the medical forfeits and defaults that often take place there.

[Wrestleknownothing]

41 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

Wouldn’t say that…if that were the case, the coaches’ ranking would be eliminated entirely. It’s more them trying to make the conference championships more important, to reduce the medical forfeits and defaults that often take place there.

But there are two sides to the coin. The five percent could have come from another category, but it didn't. It came from the category that was the source of some embarassment this past season.

[SetonHallPirate]

15 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

But there are two sides to the coin. The five percent could have come from another category, but it didn't. It came from the category that was the source of some embarassment this past season.

CR was also 5% more than anything else other than head-to-head or quality wins. (when CR was initially bumped from 10% to 15%, it totally replaced "match count")

[Idaho]

19 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

Wouldn’t say that…if that were the case, the coaches’ ranking would be eliminated entirely. It’s more them trying to make the conference championships more important, to reduce the medical forfeits and defaults that often take place there.

Will the coaches rankings now be more accurate with the minimum matches being two? If I recall, some guys were left out of rankings because of matches wrestled, not because they did not deserve to be there. 

[ionel]

I'm not believing this thread till @PortaJohn weighs in.   

[PortaJohn]

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

I'm not believing this thread till @PortaJohn weighs in.   

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 hours ago, Idaho said:

Will the coaches rankings now be more accurate with the minimum matches being two? If I recall, some guys were left out of rankings because of matches wrestled, not because they did not deserve to be there. 

There was also the week that RBY, Diakomihalis, and Kerkvliet were each left off one ballot even though they had enough matches.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[SetonHallPirate]

5 hours ago, Idaho said:

Will the coaches rankings now be more accurate with the minimum matches being two? If I recall, some guys were left out of rankings because of matches wrestled, not because they did not deserve to be there. 

The minimum number of matches for the CR hasn’t changed. This was the minimum participation requirement at the conference championships to be eligible for an at-large.

[nhs67]

10 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

The minimum number of matches for the CR hasn’t changed. This was the minimum participation requirement at the conference championships to be eligible for an at-large.

In this case, then reducing the Coaches rank AND instilling some sort of fail-safe of 'disregard' if someone forgets an Arugau or Stalrocci for having too few matches.  Meaning that one doesn't get used, at all, for any purpose of CR if there are kids dismissed in the final one simply because the coach (or whomever TF he has do it) was too lazy to make sure the clear #1, at that time, was missed.

[bracketbuster]

Thanks for sharing this. Couple thoughts that I had and others might know the answer to.

Conference Placements: Are all conferences considered equal in terms of placements for that 15% category. For example does 1st in ACC = 1st in Big 12 = 1st Big 10 = 1st EIWA, etc. Also the Big Ten typically has most qualifiers at each weight so for if one conference qualifies 8 at a weight and another qualifies 3, the third place kid would get more points than the 8th place finisher? Having said that, there are many other factors that can offset that.

Minimum matches at conference tournaments: From the wording to me, it sounds like MFF would not count. However, the argument could be made if the new rule passes that a wrestler comes into the tournament 20-0, wins a match and defaults down to sixth and doesn't auto qualify. If the rule passes, he needs to take a loss for that semifinal default and so is their an argument that he did technically wrestle twice since his record after the tournament would now be 21-1. Probably should be cleared up before the issue arises.

Along those same lines, would a wrestler be able to take the mat in that same semifinal and run for two seconds and then default just to make sure he is eligible for at-large?

Final scenario. Say a wrestler comes into the tournament as the #1 kid in the country. Gets slammed and gets a concussion in his first match. He wins but then has to medically forfeit out. If that conference doesn't take enough people at that weight to the spot he defaults to, his season is over.

Pre-allocations: It is just crazy to me that they thought about bumping out the allocation criteria to either 20-20-80% or 25-25-75%. That would seem to give even less incentive to wrestle in the regular season if you are right around that top 20 mark since you can't be afford to take those potential losses. Thankfully, in my opinion, that did not pass. It would also like they said kill the number of kids who qualify from the smaller conferences. @SetonHallPirate probably has the answer to how that would have broken down by weight class this year.

[SetonHallPirate]

1 hour ago, bracketbuster said:

Thanks for sharing this. Couple thoughts that I had and others might know the answer to.

Conference Placements: Are all conferences considered equal in terms of placements for that 15% category. For example does 1st in ACC = 1st in Big 12 = 1st Big 10 = 1st EIWA, etc. Also the Big Ten typically has most qualifiers at each weight so for if one conference qualifies 8 at a weight and another qualifies 3, the third place kid would get more points than the 8th place finisher? Having said that, there are many other factors that can offset that.

Minimum matches at conference tournaments: From the wording to me, it sounds like MFF would not count. However, the argument could be made if the new rule passes that a wrestler comes into the tournament 20-0, wins a match and defaults down to sixth and doesn't auto qualify. If the rule passes, he needs to take a loss for that semifinal default and so is their an argument that he did technically wrestle twice since his record after the tournament would now be 21-1. Probably should be cleared up before the issue arises.

Along those same lines, would a wrestler be able to take the mat in that same semifinal and run for two seconds and then default just to make sure he is eligible for at-large?

Final scenario. Say a wrestler comes into the tournament as the #1 kid in the country. Gets slammed and gets a concussion in his first match. He wins but then has to medically forfeit out. If that conference doesn't take enough people at that weight to the spot he defaults to, his season is over.

Pre-allocations: It is just crazy to me that they thought about bumping out the allocation criteria to either 20-20-80% or 25-25-75%. That would seem to give even less incentive to wrestle in the regular season if you are right around that top 20 mark since you can't be afford to take those potential losses. Thankfully, in my opinion, that did not pass. It would also like they said kill the number of kids who qualify from the smaller conferences. @SetonHallPirate probably has the answer to how that would have broken down by weight class this year.

My understanding for conference placements is that for at-large selection, wrestlers are either one-spot away or not, and the only other time the 15% comes into play is between conference foes. For seeding, conference champions are above everybody else, and otherwise, they are only compared, again, between conference foes.

Am curious as to how concussions or skin check failures would affect the minimum matches at conference tournaments. As far as the two-second injury default, that's still in-play, but the wrestler will now need to do it twice, and take both losses.

The bumping of the allocation criteria wouldn't really affect the balance between larger conferences and smaller conferences that badly, but what it would do is bring A LOT more of those bids to the at-large pool instead of being pre-allocated.