Who will be the At-large Selections

[jajensen09]

13 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

No, it is a comparison among wrestlers. This powerpoint does a partial job of explaining it starting on page 7:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/wrestling/d1/men/D1MWR_SelectionsProcess.pdf

 

Is there a new pri and coaches poll that comes out before Wednesday?

[1032004]

The quality win criteria for seeding is based on national qualifiers right?  Interesting IMO that Vito has a few wins over some bubble guys that could impact his seeding if they don’t get at larges.  One being Leiphart of F&M who earned an allocation but might not qualify.  Also Kade Moore and Julian Farber.

[Wrestleknownothing]

15 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The quality win criteria for seeding is based on national qualifiers right?  Interesting IMO that Vito has a few wins over some bubble guys that could impact his seeding if they don’t get at larges.  One being Leiphart of F&M who earned an allocation but might not qualify.  Also Kade Moore and Julian Farber.

Correct, they first determine the at-large and then use wins against the other 32 in the field as the definition of quality wins.

There is also a weighting scheme for quality wins. For example, a win over someone with a 90% win %, or a top 5 in CR or RPI counts twice as much as a win over someone with a 70% win %, or 11-15 in CR or RPI.

[Wrestleknownothing]

23 minutes ago, jajensen09 said:

Is there a new pri and coaches poll that comes out before Wednesday?

Yes, but I am not sure when it is released, before or with the seeding.

[Wrestleknownothing]

From the NCAA Championship webinar:

So we get the field sometime today and the seeding starting at 8 ET tomorrow.

 

[bracketbuster]

54 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

From the NCAA Championship webinar:

So we get the field sometime today and the seeding starting at 8 ET tomorrow.

 

I know you are just copying this but I am curious to know how the wrestling committee can begin selections (at-large bids) before the coaches ranking portal closes.

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 minutes ago, bracketbuster said:

I know you are just copying this but I am curious to know how the wrestling committee can begin selections (at-large bids) before the coaches ranking portal closes.

Good point. This is such a complicated process (perhaps overly so), that I can see them wanting to get a jump on it with the previous CR, and then updating the results when the new CR is ready. But just guessing.

[gimpeltf]

36 minutes ago, bracketbuster said:

I know you are just copying this but I am curious to know how the wrestling committee can begin selections (at-large bids) before the coaches ranking portal closes.

I assume that since the Coaches Ranking isn't the only factor they can begin figuring out who qualifies without final ranking details.

[jdalu75]

16 hours ago, CraigOR said:

A wrestler must have participated in at least two matches in his respective conference or qualifying tournament in order to be considered for at-large selection to the championships.

I guess we'll find out later today whether three seconds' worth of defaults counts as participation.

Edited March 12 by jdalu75

[BigRedFan]

5 minutes ago, jdalu75 said:

I guess we'll find out later today whether three seconds' worth of defaults counts as participation.

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

[SetonHallPirate]

Just now, BigRedFan said:

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

My understanding was that having wrestlers being required to wrestle two matches to their natural conclusion didn't make it through Competitive Safeguards.

That being said, what would stop an injured wrestler from simply falling backwards at the start of the match and letting the opponent pin him twice?

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

I think it addressed having to only take one loss. With the new rule you have to take two. Not a problem for an undefeated wrestler, but an issue for someone on the bubble.

Based on what @gimpeltf said in an earlier thread (and feel free to set me straight here, Gimp) the committee could allow the 2 injury default wrestler to be considered as having participated if they deemed he would be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament, or say he did not participate if they feel he would not be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament (call it the Suriano Clause). 

If that is accurate, then Starocci seems to fit in the former category based on what we have learned about his not wrestling at B1G. 

I just think this is a grey area when some want it to be black and white.

[jajensen09]

28 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

The rule change was  to help with tournaments, cklv, big 10s etc. Wrestlers would just injury default out and it wouldn't get held against their record. Now they can't do that without taking Ls.

Edited March 12 by jajensen09

[ionel]

32 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

That being said, what would stop an injured wrestler from simply falling backwards at the start of the match and letting the opponent pin him twice?

Double Pinfall!!    

does Wkn know?  

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

12 minutes ago, jajensen09 said:

The rule change was  to help with tournaments, cklv, big 10s etc. Wrestlers would just injury default out and it wouldn't get held against their record. Now they can't do that without taking Ls.

I believe he is referring to the criteria change specific to conference tournaments. Which I do not think is a rule. Whereas what you are referring to is a rule change. Hence the confusion.

[killdozer]

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

[jajensen09]

22 minutes ago, killdozer said:

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

Seems like Bubba has 2 as well. Also flo now has bubba ranked 18th. Will see if coaches poll follows 

[gimpeltf]

I think it addressed having to only take one loss. With the new rule you have to take two. Not a problem for an undefeated wrestler, but an issue for someone on the bubble.
Based on what [mention=42]gimpeltf[/mention] said in an earlier thread (and feel free to set me straight here, Gimp) the committee could allow the 2 injury default wrestler to be considered as having participated if they deemed he would be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament, or say he did not participate if they feel he would not be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament (call it the Suriano Clause). 
If that is accurate, then Starocci seems to fit in the former category based on what we have learned about his not wrestling at B1G. 
I just think this is a grey area when some want it to be black and white.

The zoom was somewhat vague as you suggest. It was said that defaulting twice didn't mean you would automatically be accepted and that the committee would take two defaults into account when deciding and that someone doing that would be doing so at their own risk (paraphrasing).
BTW, I suddenly can't seem to post on the online forum. I'm on Tapatalk here. In the last few hours I suddenly got email notifications from Tapatalk about this post of yours for example which I never got earlier and never asked for. Any ideas? (Anyone not just wkn)

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[PortaJohn]

1 minute ago, gimpeltf said:

BTW, I suddenly can't seem to post on the online forum.

Had the same issue but now the online forum is up and running for me

[gimpeltf]

1 minute ago, PortaJohn said:

Had the same issue but now the online forum is up and running for me

Me too now. Weird.

[Wrestleknownothing]

24 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Me too now. Weird.

Earlier I got a message saying the site was being updated. Perhaps it had something to do with that.

[jajensen09]

1 hour ago, killdozer said:

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

Bubba also has a common opponent over wask

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, killdozer said:

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

How did you come up with the name Killdozer? Are you from Granby ,Colorado?

[TylerDurden]

One would have to imagine that Cael and Co., asked for and received some clarification prior to making the Starocci/B1G decision, right? 

The NCAA committees have been known to provide clarifications about the process to the conferences/schools that aren't made public. Perhaps this issue is one of those times. 

[killdozer]

Actually, Wask has three wins against the field. 

The name Killdozer is from an 80's/90's Noise Rock band from Madison WI (I am not from there) that was on Touch and Go Records. 

They are featured as the closing credits song in the Movie "Old School)