Josh Barr will dominate AJ Ferrari

[1032004]

On 12/11/2024 at 9:25 PM, Caveira said:

How many of the psu faithful griped last year around NCAAs.  
 

If I remember Cstar defaulted twice at big 10s and people couldn’t fathom that he carried those losses.   They couldn’t fathom they should be counted as losses.   They cried he should be the #1 seed.  Were you one of those psu faithful?   I don’t remember honestly.     

IIRC, Penn State fans didn’t care because they still expected him to win.  Mekhi Lewis was the one that got screwed by that.

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

IIRC, Penn State fans didn’t care because they still expected him to win.  Mekhi Lewis was the one that got screwed by that.

Did Lewis get screwed? Best case scenario he finishes second last year instead of fourth. I think what happened is we found out he was third or fourth best last year, not second best.

[Caveira]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

IIRC, Penn State fans didn’t care because they still expected him to win.  Mekhi Lewis was the one that got screwed by that.

there are a few fans complaining.   Ironically it looks like you pointed this out in the thread.  Cstar was 1 match from rpi…. And shouldn’t have ducked Griffith     One guy @TylerDurden claims his defaults at big are in fact not losses.  

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

there are a few fans complaining.   Ironically it looks like you pointed this out in the thread.  Cstar was 1 match from rpi…. And shouldn’t have ducked Griffith     One guy @TylerDurden claims his defaults at big are in fact not losses.  

Could be wrong but I don’t think it was PSU fans complaining. I’m not one, and I did acknowledge the poster that replied to my comment about Starocci ducking Griffith that Starocci didn’t care.  My main argument there was that Starocci should have been the 4 or 5 even based on his resume including the default losses.

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Could be wrong but I don’t think it was PSU fans complaining. I’m not one, and I did acknowledge the poster that replied to my comment about Starocci ducking Griffith that Starocci didn’t care.  My main argument there was that Starocci should have been the 4 or 5 even based on his resume including the default losses.

Maybe I just wrongly think all folks arguing for Cstar are psu fans lol 

[AgaveMaria]

On 12/11/2024 at 12:39 PM, nhs67 said:

There are many matches in which the other person has more points at the end and the other guy gets his hand raised.

It can happen when someone loses via Pinfellery or Injury as well.

The match isn't complete until it is complete and a hand is raised.  The stamp of victory is the hand raise.

"pinfellery"? Win by PIN.

Like this - when behind 14-5.

 

[ionel]

On 12/11/2024 at 11:39 AM, nhs67 said:

There are many matches in which the other person has more points at the end and the other guy gets his hand raised.

It can happen when someone loses via Pinfellery or Injury as well.

The match isn't complete until it is complete and a hand is raised.  The stamp of victory is the hand raise.

you've been drinking the knownothing sauce haven't you?  

[1032004]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Did Lewis get screwed? Best case scenario he finishes second last year instead of fourth. I think what happened is we found out he was third or fourth best last year, not second best.

In hindsight based on the results, you’re correct.  

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that Welsh lucked out due to it.   Based on the rest of the seeding, Griffith didn’t really get screwed since if Starocci was seeded 1-5 Griffith still would have had to wrestle Starocci before the finals.

But if Starocci was the 1 (which isn’t what I was arguing in that thread), then Lewis would have been the 2 and would have had a better chance to make the finals.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

In hindsight based on the results, you’re correct.  

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that Welsh lucked out due to it.   Based on the rest of the seeding, Griffith didn’t really get screwed since if Starocci was seeded 1-5 Griffith still would have had to wrestle Starocci before the finals.

But if Starocci was the 1 (which isn’t what I was arguing in that thread), then Lewis would have been the 2 and would have had a better chance to make the finals.

 

Agreed

[TylerDurden]

4 hours ago, Caveira said:

there are a few fans complaining.   Ironically it looks like you pointed this out in the thread.  Cstar was 1 match from rpi…. And shouldn’t have ducked Griffith     One guy @TylerDurden claims his defaults at big are in fact not losses.  

I'm not a PSU fan. 

The issue was that they dropped him to the No. 9 seed, which was as asinine now as it was then. It screwed up the entire bracket by punishing him (everyone else) for not wrestling twice (and the missing RPI). 

They didn't need to give him the No. 1 seed, but there wasn't a rational argument for him be the No. 9 even if you act like he wrestled and lost - which is what I said then and is still true today. 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 06:45 PM by TylerDurden

[Hammerlock3]

4 hours ago, TylerDurden said:

I'm not a PSU fan. 

The issue was that they dropped him to the No. 9 seed, which was as asinine now as it was then. It screwed up the entire bracket by punishing him (everyone else) for not wrestling twice (and the missing RPI). 

They didn't need to give him the No. 1 seed, but there wasn't a rational argument for him be the No. 9 even if you act like he wrestled and lost - which is what I said then and is still true today. 

 

 

what was the obvious solution? 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

what was the obvious solution? 

The #5 seed lost twice at the EIWA tournament to Benny Baker.  There was no universe where Starocci should have been seeded lower than 5.

[Hammerlock3]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The #5 seed lost twice at the EIWA tournament to Benny Baker.  There was no universe where Starocci should have been seeded lower than 5.

hold on dumb response

Edited Sunday at 12:37 AM by Hammerlock3

[Hammerlock3]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The #5 seed lost twice at the EIWA tournament to Benny Baker.  There was no universe where Starocci should have been seeded lower than 5.

honest question, won't respond, what do you think was the factor that dropped him down to 9?

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Hammerlock3 said:

thats not an answer

I’m not really sure what the question was, since I don’t see any comments about an “obvious solution” unless I missed them.  But even with the 2 injury default losses, Starocci shouldn’t have been seeded lower than 5.

[Hammerlock3]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I’m not really sure what the question was, since I don’t see any comments about an “obvious solution” unless I missed them.  But even with the 2 injury default losses, Starocci shouldn’t have been seeded lower than 5.

look up i tried to retract that 

[Caveira]

34 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

look up i tried to retract that 

When you inj default the last two bouts in the conf tourney who knows if you can even go.  Shouldn’t you be penalized “more” for that than real ish losses?    Not trolling real question.  How to handle injuries.  Like what’s his nuts drilling down stairs.  He didn’t suit up at NCAAs did he?

[1032004]

49 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

honest question, won't respond, what do you think was the factor that dropped him down to 9?

Conference finish.  They rewarded Adam Kemp, who had 3 losses, for winning 2 matches to win the Pac 12, and Wolak, who had 4 losses, for winning the EIWA.  And also put Welsh ahead of Starocci for taking 3rd at B10’s despite 4 losses including a H2H loss to Starocci.

Edit: But even Nomad who is supposedly an expert on the seeding matrix called Starocci’s one of the 2 most surprising seeds in the whole field 

Edited Sunday at 01:28 AM by 1032004

[nhs67]

9 hours ago, ionel said:

you've been drinking the knownothing sauce haven't you?  

Always.

[nhs67]

31 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Conference finish.  They rewarded Adam Kemp, who had 3 losses, for winning 2 matches to win the Pac 12, and Wolak, who had 4 losses, for winning the EIWA.  And also put Welsh ahead of Starocci for taking 3rd at B10’s despite 4 losses including a H2H loss to Starocci.

Edit: But even Nomad who is supposedly an expert on the seeding matrix called Starocci’s one of the 2 most surprising seeds in the whole field 

The reason for this is that it is written that the committee can step in and say 'WAIT.  This is wrong.'

There is a limit to movement, though, right?  Like two up or down, MAX?

Also, if Cael had no issue with him at the 9, maybe they didn't even try to contest it?  Is that a thing?

[ionel]

32 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

  And also put Welsh ahead of Starocci for taking 3rd at B10’s despite 4 losses including a H2H loss to Starocci.

 

But did Welsh lose to an injured Starocci and who finished higher at b10s? 

[1032004]

16 minutes ago, ionel said:

But did Welsh lose to an injured Starocci and who finished higher at b10s? 

Whether or not he was injured doesn’t matter in the seedings.  And yes, Welsh finished higher, that’s literally what I just said was the reason he got seeded higher at NCAA’s.  But according to Nomad he had Starocci ahead of Welsh in the matrix going into B10’s and assuming Starocci would default out, so not sure what really changed.  Looking at the metrics in the old Flo article explaining it, at worst Starocci would have had 50% against Welsh (Head to head + coaches ranking + winning %).  And you’d think a tie would go to the 3x defending champ.

Edited Sunday at 02:18 AM by 1032004

[1032004]

19 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

The reason for this is that it is written that the committee can step in and say 'WAIT.  This is wrong.'

There is a limit to movement, though, right?  Like two up or down, MAX?

Also, if Cael had no issue with him at the 9, maybe they didn't even try to contest it?  Is that a thing?

I thought by Nomad saying that he was saying he was surprised by the seed based only on his calculation of the matrix.

Could be wrong but I don’t think it’s the team’s coach that can contest it, but would depend on the coaches on the committee for that particular weight.  I believe it was noted that Damion Hahn (Devos) was one of the ones for 174.

[nhs67]

16 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I thought by Nomad saying that he was saying he was surprised by the seed based only on his calculation of the matrix.

Could be wrong but I don’t think it’s the team’s coach that can contest it, but would depend on the coaches on the committee for that particular weight.  I believe it was noted that Damion Hahn (Devos) was one of the ones for 174.

Well Starocci didn't have RPI either, so he lost to every wrestler in that regard of the matrix.

[MPhillips]

Ferrari takes injury time for a pulled hammy(catch his breath). Then thirty seconds later gets a pin and does the splits...