Would removing winning % as seeding criteria reduce ducking?

[1032004]

Have to think that (and maybe RPI) is a big reason why VT didn’t send out Mullen against Hendrickson.

Why even have winning % as a criteria?  It’s also rewarding guys who have a weak schedule even without ducking.

[Pish]

I don't think winning % is part of seeding criteria.  I know it's part of the allocations criteria.

 

[maligned]

32 minutes ago, Pish said:

I don't think winning % is part of seeding criteria.  I know it's part of the allocations criteria.

 

 

Selection criteria and seeding criteria:

• Head-to-head competition: 25%
• Quality wins: 20%
• Coaches ranking: 15%
• Results against common opponents: 10%
• RPI (Ratings Percentage Index): 10%
• Win Percentage: 10%
• Qualifying event placement: 10%

With RPI, you benefit much more than you're hurt from wrestling a very high win percentage guy like Hendrickson (75% of RPI is opponents' results). But you're obviously hurt by the win percentage damage. In most cases, it makes sense to wrestle the big matches, though, because those quality wins matter so much (wins over guys who earned an allocation). Against a guy like Hendrickson where you'll almost certainly lose, it's about a wash. Against anyone even slightly beatable, you have to chase those quality wins.

Edited Friday at 02:28 PM by maligned

[1032004]

3 minutes ago, maligned said:

 

 

Selection criteria and seeding criteria:

• Head-to-head competition: 25%
• Quality wins: 20%
• Coaches ranking: 15%
• Results against common opponents: 10%
• RPI (Ratings Percentage Index): 10%
• Win Percentage: 10%
• Qualifying event placement: 10%

With RPI, you benefit much more than you're hurt from wrestling a very high win percentage guy like Hendrickson (75% of RPI is opponents' results). But you're obviously hurt by the win percentage damage. In most cases, it makes sense to wrestle the big matches, though, because those quality wins matter so much (wins over guys who earned an allocation). Against a guy like Hendrickson where you'll almost certainly lose it's about a wash. Against anyone even slightly beatable, you have to chase those quality wins.

OK so keep RPI, get rid of winning percentage 

[ionel]

2 hours ago, Pish said:

I don't think winning % is part of seeding criteria.  I know it's part of the allocations criteria.

 

Increase win percentage weight but link it directly to the team's weight class.  So whoever qualifies for post season gets the win percentage from the team not an individual.  There's other factors for the individual.  You want to duck a match then live with the outcome your back has on the win percentage.  It'd work the other way too, your wrestler needs a break and there's a soft opponent next dual, plug in the backup give starter a break and still retain a good win percentage.  

[JeanGuy]

Is ducking really that big of an issue?  How many potential top end matches don't happen in a season? The bigger issue seems to be how teams view the right number of matches for their guys. Mostly across the board guys are wrestling a lot fewer matches than in the past. It would be interesting to see the entries of Midlands and the Southern Scuffle now versus say 2000.

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, JeanGuy said:

Is ducking really that big of an issue?  How many potential top end matches don't happen in a season? The bigger issue seems to be how teams view the right number of matches for their guys. Mostly across the board guys are wrestling a lot fewer matches than in the past. It would be interesting to see the entries of Midlands and the Southern Scuffle now versus say 2000.

It will be complained about at least 83 times this year.   

[BruceyB]

3 hours ago, JeanGuy said:

Is ducking really that big of an issue?  How many potential top end matches don't happen in a season? The bigger issue seems to be how teams view the right number of matches for their guys. Mostly across the board guys are wrestling a lot fewer matches than in the past. It would be interesting to see the entries of Midlands and the Southern Scuffle now versus say 2000.

Julian Ramirez beat David Carr early last season, then when the two teams met for a dual later in the season, Ramirez (along with just about the rest of Cornell's team) sat out to prevent hurting their seeds in March. This ended up with Ramirez getting the 3 seed and Carr the 4 last year. KOT should have had a clear path to the finals, and Carr and Mesenbrink should have wrestled in the Semis to get there. Just one very blatant example. But if you look back, that was supposed to be an awesome dual to watch, and then when the lineups were announced, Cornell benched everyone that was going to be in an exciting matchup.

It's just brutal for the sport when there is an exciting matchup scheduled, and leading up there is all of this speculation and build-up, and then the guy doesn't show last minute. 

[PencilNeck]

I think wrestlers mostly duck these days because video of meets is so easy and available in the current era. Top athletes don’t want opponents to have the luxury of studying recent tape in preparation for postseason matchups.

 

of course as the stud sitting on the sidelines that means you won’t have as much tape of yourself to study in your own prep, so it’s a little short sighted, but there are trade offs to everything.

[ionel]

4 hours ago, PencilNeck said:

I think wrestlers mostly duck these days because video of meets is so easy and available in the current era. Top athletes don’t want opponents to have the luxury of studying recent tape in preparation for postseason matchups.

 

That's been going on a long time before ducking.