Jimmy Cinnabon Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (edited) https://www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/files/24_D1Men_Ranking1_Top33[99].pdf Penn State only has 4 wrestlers in the ranking and 0 ranked #1. 125 Ayala 131 Crookham 141 Woods 149 Lovett 157 Franek 165 O'Toole 174 Ruth 184 Keckeisen 197 Hidlay HWT Hendrickson Edited January 22 by Jimmy Cinnabon
jchapman Posted January 22 Posted January 22 When did the coaches turn in these rankings? Just looking at 125, they have Ayala over Ramos, Caleb Smith at 7 and McKee at 18. Were these rankings due before this weekend, or were the coaches so busy with their own teams this weekend that they just did not consider any recent results? Craig Henning got screwed in the 2007 NCAA Finals.
Gage Posted January 22 Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, jchapman said: When did the coaches turn in these rankings? Just looking at 125, they have Ayala over Ramos, Caleb Smith at 7 and McKee at 18. Were these rankings due before this weekend, or were the coaches so busy with their own teams this weekend that they just did not consider any recent results? Also, no Blockhus in the top 33? Has the 8 matches to be qualified, and just beat Robb and Franek? Must have been done before the duals Friday. 1
poorwrestler Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Also, no Blockhus in the top 33? Has the 8 matches to be qualified, and just beat Robb and Franek? Must have been done before the duals Friday. Several gophers left off weirdly. Tyler Wells is 9-2 with wins over #12 and #13, and only losses to #12 and #14. I would think he’d be at least in the top 25 but I’m also biased. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wrestleknownothing Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Crooham, Woods, Lovett, O'Toole, and Keckeisen were unanimous choices. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Wrestleknownothing Posted January 22 Posted January 22 At 141 the top 5 were unanimous Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
nhs67 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 These rankings are trash in so many areas... "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
Jimmy Cinnabon Posted January 22 Author Posted January 22 Based on these rankings Iowa has to be the favorite for the team title.
jchapman Posted January 22 Posted January 22 11 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said: Based on these rankings Iowa has to be the favorite for the team title. And there it is! Nice display of restraint, you waited 46 minutes into the topic this time. 3 Craig Henning got screwed in the 2007 NCAA Finals.
Hammerlock3 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Do these rankings have any purpose? or is there just some dork at the NCAA who suggested doing coaches rankings and now everyone is too lazy to fire him? I could see them mattering in team sports. "Half measures are a coward's form of insanity."
Wrestleknownothing Posted January 22 Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said: Do these rankings have any purpose? or is there just some dork at the NCAA who suggested doing coaches rankings and now everyone is too lazy to fire him? I could see them mattering in team sports. I will not stand idly by while you besmirch the good name of dorks. I said good day, sir. 1 1 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Wrestleknownothing Posted January 22 Posted January 22 And sorry Jimmy. Iowa does worse in these rankings. The new King of the NCAAs belongs to....Your Missouri Tigers Good news for PSU as they cling to top 10. Sanderson's job is safe for another year. 1 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Hammerlock3 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: I will not stand idly by while you besmirch the good name of dorks. I said good day, sir. my bad, surely we're all a bit dorky on here. "Half measures are a coward's form of insanity."
Caveira Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Did psu wrestle the required amount of matches to be included? 1
Gantry Posted January 22 Posted January 22 13 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said: Do these rankings have any purpose? or is there just some dork at the NCAA who suggested doing coaches rankings and now everyone is too lazy to fire him? I could see them mattering in team sports. Aren't these the rankings used to determine seeds and qualifiers?
Hammerlock3 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 1 minute ago, Gantry said: Aren't these the rankings used to determine seeds and qualifiers? idk thats what i'm asking. Right not you could have any three random forum contributors could do better. "Half measures are a coward's form of insanity."
Gantry Posted January 22 Posted January 22 I'm almost positive that these are the rankings that determine seeds and qualifiers, I should have just said that instead of making it a question. 1
Caveira Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Just now, Gantry said: I'm almost positive that these are the rankings that determine seeds and qualifiers, I should have just said that instead of making it a question. They are. They get better over time. You need like 8 or 10 matches to qualify no? Remember last year a coach or two forgot to send theirs in and they were whacked the first few times as well.
Hammerlock3 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 1 minute ago, Gantry said: I'm almost positive that these are the rankings that determine seeds and qualifiers, I should have just said that instead of making it a question. well as a caveat to that, obviously thats all post conference. I'd be curious to see the these pre conference and see if they make more sense. "Half measures are a coward's form of insanity."
Gantry Posted January 22 Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, Caveira said: They are. They get better over time. You need like 8 or 10 matches to qualify no? Remember last year a coach or two forgot to send theirs in and they were whacked the first few times as well. I do remember them getting better but we're still at this weird spot where nobody thinks it a good idea the coaches to the rankings that matter. The coaches themselves don't think it's a good idea, I'm almost positive one of the rankings services offered to do it, etc. Why we continue to have it this way is confusing...
OMW Posted January 22 Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said: Based on these rankings Iowa has to be the favorite for the team title. makes total sense
Husker_Du Posted January 22 Posted January 22 the NCAA sets the coaches rankings up for failure and criticism. 1) they were turned in last friday and not released until after an enormous batch of results 2) you have to have 8 matches to get ranked 3) the coaches have to designate the correct 'starter' or you can't vote for them. so this is the crap we get. 1 TBD
Wrestleknownothing Posted January 22 Posted January 22 6 minutes ago, Husker_Du said: the NCAA sets the coaches rankings up for failure and criticism. 1) they were turned in last friday and not released until after an enormous batch of results 2) you have to have 8 matches to get ranked 3) the coaches have to designate the correct 'starter' or you can't vote for them. so this is the crap we get. Many points of failure, so they made a point to fail many times. Personally I love them. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
ionel Posted January 22 Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said: Crooham, Wooks, Lovekk, O'Tooke, and Keckeisken were unanimous choices. ftfy 1 .
Sophie Sharp Ocean Township, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Alvernia (Women) Projected Weight: 124, 131
Olivia Davis Monte Vista, California Class of 2025 Committed to William Jewell (Women) Projected Weight: 145
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now