Alces Alces Gigas Posted March 6 Posted March 6 Is that policy a good idea? Is it fair to the rest of the bracket? Do the pre-seeds stand? I'm not talking about (only) the 133lb situation but the idea in general. Can a coach gain an advantage by entering late and assuring the 14th seed? What if the late entry was the clear best kid in the bracket? Is it the right thing to do to his first round opponent?
Pinnacle Posted March 6 Posted March 6 57 minutes ago, Alces Alces Gigas said: Is that policy a good idea? Is it fair to the rest of the bracket? Do the pre-seeds stand? I'm not talking about (only) the 133lb situation but the idea in general. Can a coach gain an advantage by entering late and assuring the 14th seed? What if the late entry was the clear best kid in the bracket? Is it the right thing to do to his first round opponent? Part of wrestling is having a brain. If your coach forgets this rule then you are at a true disadvantage. 2 1
JVStateChamp Posted March 6 Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Alces Alces Gigas said: Is that policy a good idea? Is it fair to the rest of the bracket? Do the pre-seeds stand? I'm not talking about (only) the 133lb situation but the idea in general. Can a coach gain an advantage by entering late and assuring the 14th seed? What if the late entry was the clear best kid in the bracket? Is it the right thing to do to his first round opponent? How hard is it to enter the correct wrestler at the designated time? If there is a late entry should the tournament even accept it? I believe the idea is that the conference wants to get the names of the entries in so that they can begin the seeding procedures and release brackets/seeds in a timely manner. The thought is that the late entry automatically gets the last seed which they are more likely to take a first-round loss. If they allow late entries and reseed the whole weight class brackets would be changing more frequently causing even more confusion over how wrestler "C" got seeded over wrestler "A" and so on
Corby Posted March 6 Posted March 6 Big 10 deadline was Feb 25 the last day of the season . That's 8 days before seeds are announced and 13 days before competition. Seems a bit much. The Thursday after the season ends should be plenty of time. With seeds being released Monday. 1
Pinnacle Posted March 6 Posted March 6 31 minutes ago, Corby said: Big 10 deadline was Feb 25 the last day of the season . That's 8 days before seeds are announced and 13 days before competition. Seems a bit much. The Thursday after the season ends should be plenty of time. With seeds being released Monday. Move the date and the non brained might move the wrestle-off late entry. Sometimes you just can't fix coaches who don't read the rules.
Idaho Posted March 6 Posted March 6 14 seed faces the 3rd seed in round 1..... theoretically the 3rd seed gets bounced to the consolation in the semis. Obviously sometimes there is little difference between 2/3 and the 3 could possibly make the finals. But if you cant' beat the guy who was fighting for a starting spot to begin with, I am not confident there is a good argument that he would have beat #6 and #2 as well. On the flip side, if your guy is that good to knock off #3 first round, why was there even discussion of not putting him in the tournament when he could have gotten a high seed? If you go the conspiracy route of , I will hold out my #1 PSU guy and put him in late so he can face Iowa's #3 seed first round and knock him out early getting more team points, I could see that being a detriment. I dont' see Cael ever doing that. Tom....? However, we play this seeding game all season with ducking opponents. At the end of the day, if you sub your backup in , they deserve #14. There has to be a cut-off, and as others have mentioned, Brands has done this two years in a row. He's either real dum or really, really dumb. Sponsored by INTERMAT
ionel Posted March 6 Posted March 6 2 hours ago, Alces Alces Gigas said: Is that policy a good idea? Is it fair to the rest of the bracket? Do the pre-seeds stand? You are asking the wrong questions? The question is why did this happen to Iowa and why did Nelson miss the meeting? 1 2 .
nhs67 Posted March 6 Posted March 6 What makes this horrendously stupid is that the change was basically due to the other wrestler being injured. Brands didn't want to do a wrestle-off between the two while Schriever was considerably hindered by injury. The NCAA is supposed to be a proponent for safety are they not? So penalize Schriever, potentially, for being forced to wrestle with a lingering injury... possibly permanently injuring him (no clue the details or how bad it could have been, but theoretically speaking I am not incorrect). Add it to the long list of stupid things. The B1G needs to get their shit together if they're going to leave the NCAA with the SEC. Hopefully they keep wrestling when they do. 1 "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
jchapman Posted March 6 Posted March 6 1 hour ago, nhs67 said: What makes this horrendously stupid is that the change was basically due to the other wrestler being injured. Brands didn't want to do a wrestle-off between the two while Schriever was considerably hindered by injury. The NCAA is supposed to be a proponent for safety are they not? So penalize Schriever, potentially, for being forced to wrestle with a lingering injury... possibly permanently injuring him (no clue the details or how bad it could have been, but theoretically speaking I am not incorrect). Add it to the long list of stupid things. The B1G needs to get their shit together if they're going to leave the NCAA with the SEC. Hopefully they keep wrestling when they do. There is no rule that says there has to be a wrestle off. Brands decides who is entered into the B1G Tournament. He is choosing to hold a wrestle off to help him make the decision. 1 Craig Henning got screwed in the 2007 NCAA Finals.
NormMacDonald Posted March 6 Posted March 6 It wouldn’t take much to reseed the bracket and it would make it more fair to the other wrestlers. I say reseed it but they’d has to be a punishment to the coach. Maybe a loss of team points for the tourney. So you start off the day at -3 or something. 1
Dogbone Posted March 6 Posted March 6 Is a great rule, probably not, but it is a rule and one that is not that hard for every other coach to follow. If Iowa wants to wait to determine their starters that is their choice but that doesn't mean the entire conference should change. I get they may have wanted to wait to see if a healthy Schriever was better than Teske but I don't know why you wouldn't just submit Teske as the entry since there was questions around Schriever. 1
Wrestleknownothing Posted March 6 Posted March 6 33 minutes ago, NormMacDonald said: It wouldn’t take much to reseed the bracket and it would make it more fair to the other wrestlers. I say reseed it but they’d has to be a punishment to the coach. Maybe a loss of team points for the tourney. So you start off the day at -3 or something. I like the points penalty idea. It only hurts the team breaking the rule. There are no unintended consequence penalties imposed on others. 1 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Alces Alces Gigas Posted March 6 Author Posted March 6 Looks like many of you are not seeing the bigger picture. My concern is how rule can screw up a bracket. Lets say the best kid in the Big 10 gets placed in the 14th spot by this rule, is it right to have him beat the 3 seed 1st round? And then the 2 seed in the semi finals? I for one don't feel it is right to screw over the bracket to right some wrong committed by a coaching staff
ionel Posted March 6 Posted March 6 1 hour ago, NormMacDonald said: It wouldn’t take much to reseed the bracket and it would make it more fair to the other wrestlers. I say reseed it but they’d has to be a punishment to the coach. Maybe a loss of team points for the tourney. So you start off the day at -3 or something. How do you know its more fair? What about reseeding 174, we all saw the #1 get injured, he could still win it but also likely to ID why should the 4 or 5 seed be so lucky? Maybe we penalize the coach/team for not informing all that he intends to ID before the brackets are seeded? .
NormMacDonald Posted March 6 Posted March 6 23 minutes ago, ionel said: How do you know its more fair? What about reseeding 174, we all saw the #1 get injured, he could still win it but also likely to ID why should the 4 or 5 seed be so lucky? Maybe we penalize the coach/team for not informing all that he intends to ID before the brackets are seeded? It would make it more fair because guys would be seeded appropriately instead of having a guy that should be seeded top 3 being 14. I was addressing the topic of changing wrestlers post seeding not ID. So I’m not sure where that is coming from.
jchapman Posted March 6 Posted March 6 In all seriousness, they should just have Willie seed and re-seed the brackets. It would never happen, and I understand why there needs to be a set of rules to follow. But, common sense needs to prevail in individual cases like this, and how can all coaches agree on what constitutes common sense? If there was one guy that was respected by all, it might actually work out better than a set of rules. 1 Craig Henning got screwed in the 2007 NCAA Finals.
MPhillips Posted March 6 Posted March 6 6 minutes ago, NormMacDonald said: It would make it more fair because guys would be seeded appropriately instead of having a guy that should be seeded top 3 being 14. I was addressing the topic of changing wrestlers post seeding not ID. So I’m not sure where that is coming from. Ionel knows what you meant. It's just Ionel... 1 .
ionel Posted March 6 Posted March 6 7 minutes ago, NormMacDonald said: It would make it more fair because guys would be seeded appropriately instead of having a guy that should be seeded top 3 being 14. I was addressing the topic of changing wrestlers post seeding not ID. So I’m not sure where that is coming from. Obviously any time wrestlers don't finish exactly as seeded then they were inappropriately seeded. Isn't it the same as not announcing intent to ID until after seeding? The #1 seed is going to waste that draw and we've seen it before. .
ionel Posted March 6 Posted March 6 (edited) 5 minutes ago, MPhillips said: Ionel knows what you meant. It's just Ionel... ... hey now ... I've just gotta be me! Edited March 6 by ionel .
NormMacDonald Posted March 6 Posted March 6 12 minutes ago, ionel said: Obviously any time wrestlers don't finish exactly as seeded then they were inappropriately seeded. Isn't it the same as not announcing intent to ID until after seeding? The #1 seed is going to waste that draw and we've seen it before. Seeded appropriately and wrestling to seed aren’t the same thing. I’ve not thought about what to do when IDing an entire tournament. It’s a different scenario than what I’m talking about.
ionel Posted March 6 Posted March 6 6 minutes ago, NormMacDonald said: Seeded appropriately and wrestling to seed aren’t the same thing. I’ve not thought about what to do when IDing an entire tournament. It’s a different scenario than what I’m talking about. But we have rules for a reason, at some point that's just the way it is. We can't expect all the coaches to change their schedule and re vote on seeding just because one guy forgot the deadline. How many times should we re-seed. What about (yes Wkn whataboutism) do overs on top/bottom choice, or brick throws how long can a coach let it lay there and still go back and pick it up? .
Dogbone Posted March 6 Posted March 6 2 hours ago, Alces Alces Gigas said: Looks like many of you are not seeing the bigger picture. My concern is how rule can screw up a bracket. Lets say the best kid in the Big 10 gets placed in the 14th spot by this rule, is it right to have him beat the 3 seed 1st round? And then the 2 seed in the semi finals? I for one don't feel it is right to screw over the bracket to right some wrong committed by a coaching staff It is not fair or "right" but not everything in life is fair. If coaches start to manipulate the rule then they will change it like they did with MFF counting as loses now. It was being manipulated so they made a change. Even if Aaron Brooks is seeding 14th, who really suffers in a qualifier that is sending 7 or 8 guys? Sure the runner up would be different but 2nd and 3rd seeds would still qualify for NCAAs. The 2 seed would still only lose to Brooks (wouldn't hurt his NCAA seed) and the 2 and 3 seeds would just meet in the 3rd place match instead of the semis.
1032004 Posted March 6 Posted March 6 9 hours ago, Corby said: Big 10 deadline was Feb 25 the last day of the season . That's 8 days before seeds are announced and 13 days before competition. Seems a bit much. The Thursday after the season ends should be plenty of time. With seeds being released Monday. This seems like a fair compromise. There should be a deadline. But it probably doesn’t need to be as far in advance as it currently is
AgaveMaria Posted March 7 Posted March 7 10 hours ago, ionel said: You are asking the wrong questions? The question is why did this happen to Iowa and why did Nelson miss the meeting? You don't understand. Daylight Savings time is coming and the Terrible Two are confused. Spring back.. fall ahead.. winding their watches and setting them. Great responsibilities tax their minds. ” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.
William Ward Moorehead, North Dakota Class of 2026 Committed to North Dakota State Projected Weight: 197, 285
Max Wirnsberger Warrior Run, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to California Baptist Projected Weight: 141
Mason Wagner Faith Christian Academy, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to Little Rock Projected Weight: 149
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