How to rank 2-4 at 149

[1032004]

The ole ranker’s delight

Parco beat Lovett

Lovett beat SVN

SVN beat Parco

Only other loss between the 3 is Lovett losing to #1 Henson

 

I guess it won’t matter in a few weeks with the B10 tournament, but will be interesting to see what the ranking services do here

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

If Lovett has two losses now it is easy.

1. Henson (undefeated defending champ)

2. SVN (1 loss to Lovett but h2h over Parco)

3. Parco (1 loss to SVN  but h2h over Lovett)

4. Lovett (2 losses)

Edited 13 hours ago by Jimmy Cinnabon

[nhs67]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The ole ranker’s delight

Parco beat Lovett

Lovett beat SVN

SVN beat Parco

Only other loss between the 3 is Lovett losing to #1 Henson

 

I guess it won’t matter in a few weeks with the B10 tournament, but will be interesting to see what the ranking services do here

For seeding purposes, you really have three options...

Option 1:
- Eliminate Lovett due to having an additional loss (albeit not in-conference), and place him at the '3'
- SVN > Parco due to H2H
- 1 SVN, 2 Parco, 3 Lovett

Option 2:
- Eliminate Parco because he has not won via Major, but has lost via Major
- Lovett > SVN due to H2H
- 1 Lovett, 2 SVN, 3 Parco

Option 3
- Parco won the last match between the three
- Lovett > SVN due to H2H
- 1 Parco, 2 Lovett, 3 SVN

It is difficult for me to ignore that two of them have one (1) loss and one has two (2) losses.  It is also difficult for me to not reward the method of victory/loss.  Imagine the old MFS scoring brackets.
SVN, 4-1, 1-4, 5 points
Lovett 4-1, 1-3, 5 points
Parco 3-1, 1-4, 4 points
Lovett > SVN due to H2H

1 - Lovett
2 - SVN
3 - Parco
^ How I want it based off my own reasoning.  I think it will be SVN, Parco, Lovett, though, based off my initial reasoning.

[Dogbone]

I don't think I follow the logic in penalizing the guy who has wrestled a tougher schedule and was the only one to wrestle Henson, but it really only matters how they seed it at B1Gs and I don't have a clue how that will go.

[1032004]

2 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

For seeding purposes, you really have three options...

Option 1:
- Eliminate Lovett due to having an additional loss (albeit not in-conference), and place him at the '3'
- SVN > Parco due to H2H
- 1 SVN, 2 Parco, 3 Lovett

Option 2:
- Eliminate Parco because he has not won via Major, but has lost via Major
- Lovett > SVN due to H2H
- 1 Lovett, 2 SVN, 3 Parco

Option 3
- Parco won the last match between the three
- Lovett > SVN due to H2H
- 1 Parco, 2 Lovett, 3 SVN

It is difficult for me to ignore that two of them have one (1) loss and one has two (2) losses.  It is also difficult for me to not reward the method of victory/loss.  Imagine the old MFS scoring brackets.
SVN, 4-1, 1-4, 5 points
Lovett 4-1, 1-3, 5 points
Parco 3-1, 1-4, 4 points
Lovett > SVN due to H2H

1 - Lovett
2 - SVN
3 - Parco
^ How I want it based off my own reasoning.  I think it will be SVN, Parco, Lovett, though, based off my initial reasoning.

I don’t think Lovett’s loss to the #1 is relevant.

If it were me I’d base it off of the rest of their wins.

Lovett has beaten McNeil, Realbuto, Echemendia, Alvarez, Roberts, Gilcher

Parco has beaten McNeil, Abas, Echemendia, Webster, D’Emilio, Willochell

SVN has beaten Williams, Clark, Willochell, Gilcher, Miller

 

I think Parco has the best resume of wins followed by Lovett

[VakAttack]

33 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I don’t think Lovett’s loss to the #1 is relevant.

If it were me I’d base it off of the rest of their wins.

Lovett has beaten McNeil, Realbuto, Echemendia, Alvarez, Roberts, Gilcher

Parco has beaten McNeil, Abas, Echemendia, Webster, D’Emilio, Willochell

SVN has beaten Williams, Clark, Willochell, Gilcher, Miller

 

I think Parco has the best resume of wins followed by Lovett

I didn't realize SVN's resume was that week.  Before you put that out, I think I leaned SVN, Parco, Lovett.  Now?

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

I guess it won’t matter in a few weeks with the B10 tournament, but will be interesting to see what the ranking services do here

Lovett has the best resume of the 3.  I'd rank him 2nd Nationally and seed him first at Bigs.  

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Lovett has the best resume of the 3.  

How so?  

[MLB9]

I hope SVN gets the #3 seed, and an additional match for bonus points, just so Jimmy won’t create a new thread on Penn State collapsing as the R16 is finishing.

[PortaJohn]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

How so?  

Ha! When comparing resumes Parco stacks up pretty well to Lovett's.  I'm revising my answer to, "I have no idea how to rank and seed them at Big's."  

[nhs67]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I don’t think Lovett’s loss to the #1 is relevant.

If it were me I’d base it off of the rest of their wins.

Lovett has beaten McNeil, Realbuto, Echemendia, Alvarez, Roberts, Gilcher

Parco has beaten McNeil, Abas, Echemendia, Webster, D’Emilio, Willochell

SVN has beaten Williams, Clark, Willochell, Gilcher, Miller

 

I think Parco has the best resume of wins followed by Lovett

I also don't think it is relevant that he lost to Henson.

That said, when all three have identical B1G records (for B1G seeding purpsoes), how do you differentiate?  You count other matches.  Only one of them has another loss, even if against a non-B1G opponent.

All I mean, is it could factor in and for seeding purposes at NCAAs, he currently loses the winning percentage criteria to both Parco and SVN.

[nhs67]

Here are their remaining schedules, btw:

SVN:
- D'Emilio, tOSU
- Webster, ILL
- Owen, American

Parco:
- Roberts, Minny
- Cartella, NW
- Young, OSU

Lovett:
- Torres, Indiana
- Ruble, Purdue

[Dogbone]

43 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I also don't think it is relevant that he lost to Henson.

That said, when all three have identical B1G records (for B1G seeding purpsoes), how do you differentiate?  You count other matches.  Only one of them has another loss, even if against a non-B1G opponent.

All I mean, is it could factor in and for seeding purposes at NCAAs, he currently loses the winning percentage criteria to both Parco and SVN.

Agree 100% that the B1G seeding will play a big part in the NCAA seeding.  All 3 could be #1 or #3 at B1G but whoever gets the #1 seed, probably makes the finals and then, even if he losses in the B1G finals, probably gets no worse than the #3 seed at NCAAs (with the 3rd place at B1Gs getting the 4 seed).

If you do bring in non-B1G matches, then I think you have to look at total body of work.   So if you are going to penalize Ridge for the Henson loss, I think you have to credit Parco's body of work over SVN body of work and give Parco the #1.   If you only look at only wins then if probably comes down to Parco or Ridge for the #1 seed. 

[BruceyB]

17 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Agree 100% that the B1G seeding will play a big part in the NCAA seeding.  All 3 could be #1 or #3 at B1G but whoever gets the #1 seed, probably makes the finals and then, even if he losses in the B1G finals, probably gets no worse than the #3 seed at NCAAs (with the 3rd place at B1Gs getting the 4 seed).

If you do bring in non-B1G matches, then I think you have to look at total body of work.   So if you are going to penalize Ridge for the Henson loss, I think you have to credit Parco's body of work over SVN body of work and give Parco the #1.   If you only look at only wins then if probably comes down to Parco or Ridge for the #1 seed. 

I don't know the criteria, but it seems like seeding at B1Gs should be based solely on B1G results. Otherwise what's the point of having a B1G dual schedule? IMO just use B10 records to decide, and if they are tied then you reward who had the most recent big win. Since Parco just beat Ridge, and Ridge was ranked highest at that point of the three, then Parco moves to #2, Ridge 3, SVN 4.

[VakAttack]

Lets get the Seed Master on it.  @Husker_Du?

[MLB9]

1 hour ago, BruceyB said:

I don't know the criteria, but it seems like seeding at B1Gs should be based solely on B1G results. Otherwise what's the point of having a B1G dual schedule? IMO just use B10 records to decide, and if they are tied then you reward who had the most recent big win. Since Parco just beat Ridge, and Ridge was ranked highest at that point of the three, then Parco moves to #2, Ridge 3, SVN 4.

I think bad losses should be a factor. Lovett was the only one that wasn’t majored in the cycle between the three. Tricky though without some well designed protocol and/or very similar conference precedent.