No more seeds

[Mr. PeanutButter]

I didn't crunch the numbers on this but it seems to me that ducking accelerated once NCAAs started to seed out to all 33.

I would propose we go back to seeding the top 8 since having no seeds whatsoever doesn't actually incentivize wrestling. 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. Ie, if a team ducks at 133, whatever happens at that weight (a loss, for instance) goes on the record for the weight and is taken into account for seeding purposes. I really like this idea. Call it, the peanut butter rule. Make losses (and wins) really stick. 

 

[Gus]

13 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

I didn't crunch the numbers on this but it seems to me that ducking accelerated once NCAAs started to seed out to all 33.

I would propose we go back to seeding the top 8 since having no seeds whatsoever doesn't actually incentivize wrestling. 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. Ie, if a team ducks at 133, whatever happens at that weight (a loss, for instance) goes on the record for the weight and is taken into account for seeding purposes. I really like this idea. Call it, the peanut butter rule. Make losses (and wins) really stick. 

 

Team success at a weight class for seeding purposes is a brilliant idea. A+

Edited December 20, 2023 by Gus

[Mr. PeanutButter]

1 minute ago, Gus said:

Team success at a team class for seeding purposes is a brilliant idea. A+

Thank you kind sir. I couldn't do it without an A+ breakfast

 

Plot twist: I practice intermittent fasting 

[flyingcement]

3 minutes ago, Gus said:

Team success at a team class for seeding purposes is a brilliant idea. A+

I agree - excellent idea.  Only downside is you have some stud pinning everyone all year - gets seriously injured - and some skimpy backup steps up as the number one seed.  But I think that downside is worth it considering the upsides

[Wrestleknownothing]

I thought this was about getting vasectomies. My bad.

[nhs67]

11 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

I didn't crunch the numbers on this but it seems to me that ducking accelerated once NCAAs started to seed out to all 33.

I would propose we go back to seeding the top 8 since having no seeds whatsoever doesn't actually incentivize wrestling. 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. Ie, if a team ducks at 133, whatever happens at that weight (a loss, for instance) goes on the record for the weight and is taken into account for seeding purposes. I really like this idea. Call it, the peanut butter rule. Make losses (and wins) really stick. 

 

I have advocated for this at the conference level for damn near ever.  You could go back to the late 80s and I would have told you the same thing.

[MPhillips]

I like it as well.

How many of our ideas has the NCAA implemented so far?

[MPhillips]

2 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I thought this was about getting vasectomies. My bad.

You'll say about anything for a laughing reaction wont you...

"The rich get rich, the poor get children."

[1032004]

2 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

I like it as well.

How many of our ideas has the NCAA implemented so far?

 

Out of bounds rule

Danger rule

Three point takedowns

Top man must work for a turn

[ionel]

15 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. 

 

I've said this for years, hasn't happened, prob never gonna happen.

Why do we even have 33 vs just 32?  Its stupid.  I'd compromise say seed 12 but again 8 ... 12 ... never gonna happen.  

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I thought this was about getting vasectomies.

please please ... no one wants another generation of no nothings!

[1032004]

11 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I agree - excellent idea.  Only downside is you have some stud pinning everyone all year - gets seriously injured - and some skimpy backup steps up as the number one seed.  But I think that downside is worth it considering the upsides

Another possible downside is it will disincentivize bumping guys for dual victories.  Not that that happens a lot anyway.

Will also disincentivize getting lesser guys matches in likely blowouts.

But overall I think I like the idea.

[bnwtwg]

1 minute ago, MPhillips said:

You'll say about anything for a laughing reaction wont you...

"The rich get rich, the poor get children."

Lot of ground to make up in order to catch @ionel by EOY. 

[MPhillips]

7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Out of bounds rule

Danger rule

Three point takedowns

Top man must work for a turn

So, four is the answer...

[jchapman]

So it's just record, not the quality of the wins?  

[Mr. PeanutButter]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

I've said this for years, hasn't happened, prob never gonna happen.

Why do we even have 33 vs just 32?  Its stupid.  I'd compromise say seed 12 but again 8 ... 12 ... never gonna happen.  

Did you try giving the idea a funny name

[Gus]

1 hour ago, jchapman said:

So it's just record, not the quality of the wins?  

I think quality of wins would still matter 100%, you would just have to count the losses where a team decided to sit their starter into the equation.

[jchapman]

15 minutes ago, Gus said:

I think quality of wins would still matter 100%, you would just have to count the losses where a team decided to sit their starter into the equation.

So there would still be individual rankings, but the seeding is based only on the result of the team?  So a #1 ranked guy could beat a #2 ranked guy, get hurt, and then his backup gets seeded as though he himself beat the #2 guy?

[Preceptor]

Why not make it a combined formula?  They currently use a formula.  

50%.  School's weight class record

20%.  Head to head.

15%.  Coaches ranking

15%.  RPI

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

Did you try giving the idea a funny name

Why didn't I think of that?  Go for it, it might work.  

[Hillbilly Jim]

Just thinking out loud, but what about keeping seeds and incentivizing wins and quality wins--don't punish losses at all?  Just seed based on who has the most wins weighted for quality.  This way guys will be encouraged to get as many wins as they can--particularly the quality wins--and no downside for losing.  Put in some guardrails for allowable number of matches so guys don't wrestle too much.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Hillbilly Jim said:

Just thinking out loud, but what about keeping seeds and incentivizing wins and quality wins--don't punish losses at all?  Just seed based on who has the most wins weighted for quality.  This way guys will be encouraged to get as many wins as they can--particularly the quality wins--and no downside for losing.  Put in some guardrails for allowable number of matches so guys don't wrestle too much.

I like it but how about 32 man bracket, seed 16 and use you wins only approach? 

[Hillbilly Jim]

If you seed all 32, everyone has continual incentive to wrestle and post wins. 

[Hillbilly Jim]

Imagine the scramble to get in late season open events to make it in the top 32..........

[SetonHallPirate]

4 hours ago, ionel said:

I've said this for years, hasn't happened, prob never gonna happen.

Why do we even have 33 vs just 32?  Its stupid.  I'd compromise say seed 12 but again 8 ... 12 ... never gonna happen.  

A relic from the old pre-2008-09 system…