nhs67 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 2 hours ago, Dogbone said: I get he is undefeated at 149 but he will still be behind the 3 B1Gs guys on quality wins, coaches ranking, and RPI. The B1G runner up will probably get higher quality wins at the B1G tournament than he will get winning the B12 tourney. He will have winning% and higher place at the conference, which might put him above the B1G 3rd place finisher. The B1G runner-up could have to beat D'Emilo/Webster and one of the the other 3 to make the finals. I don't see the eye test of beating Realbuto justify jumping the B1G runner-up. As far as quality wins go, Johnson could gain quite a few at B12s as well. Writing him off because he is in the B12 isn't really that valid. Right now it looks like the B12 is sitting at ~7 AQ and the B1G at ~8 AQ and the determination for Quality Win is a win over someone earning the conference an AQ. Mind you, the B1G does have more Top 4 ranked gents, they just don't have more Top 30 ranked gents, which is the approximate criteria. "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
nhs67 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 2 hours ago, BruceyB said: I think that is where the coaches ability to slightly shift a seed would probably come into play. I would be shocked if they allowed all of them to be on one side. They have let the B1G guys be on one side many times without adjusting. "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
BruceyB Posted February 13 Posted February 13 5 hours ago, nhs67 said: They have let the B1G guys be on one side many times without adjusting. 3 ranked in the top 4? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instances.
nhs67 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 8 hours ago, BruceyB said: 3 ranked in the top 4? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instances. I can't, either. There have been many instances where the 1, 4, 5 are all B1G or 2, 3, 6 but I don't think they were 2, 3, 4 (or three in the Top 4, for that matter). 1 "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
nhs67 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 On top of Johnson, there are two others who could potentially have two of three criteria over the 2nd/3rd (potential) placers in the B1G and that is Whalen of Princeton and Lamer of Cal Poly. Even if 2nd/3rd (potential) B1G were to be ranked ahead in Coaches Rank, they would be starting with a 5% disadvantage against any of those three. CR - 15% W% - 10% Conference Placement - 10% The other side of it is that even though they might be ranked 2-4 (in that order), I would not be surprised to see them put Johnson or Whalen or Lamer at the the 3/4/5 because of winning their conference tournament. It seems like they have rewarded Champions for things like that in the past, haven't they? I don't think that would happen, but something to consider. Their aim (this season) might be to reward conference champions, when it comes to separation (moving up and down in the bracket). "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 9 hours ago, BruceyB said: 3 ranked in the top 4? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instances. 2023 125 had Lee #1, Cronin #3, Ramos #4 285 had Parris #1, Kerkvliet #3, Cassioppi #4 It happens most years at one or two weights. But my favorite is 2017 165. The top 4 were all B1G. Martinez, Massa, Joseph, and Jordan. But I do not think we will see that again because they now use the selection criteria as the seeding criteria. Edited February 13 by Wrestleknownothing Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 13 Posted February 13 43 minutes ago, nhs67 said: On top of Johnson, there are two others who could potentially have two of three criteria over the 2nd/3rd (potential) placers in the B1G and that is Whalen of Princeton and Lamer of Cal Poly. Even if 2nd/3rd (potential) B1G were to be ranked ahead in Coaches Rank, they would be starting with a 5% disadvantage against any of those three. CR - 15% W% - 10% Conference Placement - 10% The other side of it is that even though they might be ranked 2-4 (in that order), I would not be surprised to see them put Johnson or Whalen or Lamer at the the 3/4/5 because of winning their conference tournament. It seems like they have rewarded Champions for things like that in the past, haven't they? I don't think that would happen, but something to consider. Their aim (this season) might be to reward conference champions, when it comes to separation (moving up and down in the bracket). CR is down to 10% and conference placement is up to 15% Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Gus Posted February 13 Posted February 13 18 hours ago, VakAttack said: Actually, not directly. I feel like this comes up every year. The seeding matrix used at the NCAAs does not directly take into account the losses other than in win/loss percentage and RPI, and those are both overall low pieces of the ranking matrix. Factors in the NCAA seeding matrix Head-to-head competition: 25% of the total score Quality wins: 20% of the total score Coaches' rankings: 15% of the total score Results against common opponents: 10% of the total score RPI (Ratings Percentage Index): 10% of the total score Qualifying event placement: 10% of the total score Win %: 10% of the total score Who you lose to is also factored into Head-to-head, results against common opponents, and coaches ranking. So in addition to two that you listed (RPI and win %), 5 of the 7 categories are affected to who you lose to.
Gus Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, nhs67 said: On top of Johnson, there are two others who could potentially have two of three criteria over the 2nd/3rd (potential) placers in the B1G and that is Whalen of Princeton and Lamer of Cal Poly. Even if 2nd/3rd (potential) B1G were to be ranked ahead in Coaches Rank, they would be starting with a 5% disadvantage against any of those three. CR - 15% W% - 10% Conference Placement - 10% The other side of it is that even though they might be ranked 2-4 (in that order), I would not be surprised to see them put Johnson or Whalen or Lamer at the the 3/4/5 because of winning their conference tournament. It seems like they have rewarded Champions for things like that in the past, haven't they? I don't think that would happen, but something to consider. Their aim (this season) might be to reward conference champions, when it comes to separation (moving up and down in the bracket). What claim would Whalen have? He does not even posses a top 20 win.
VakAttack Posted February 13 Posted February 13 3 minutes ago, Gus said: Who you lose to is also factored into Head-to-head, results against common opponents, and coaches ranking. So in addition to two that you listed (RPI and win %), 5 of the 7 categories are affected to who you lose to. Even if I accept your argument (I don't but for arguments sake) It's still indirect. The only thing that is directly included is quality wins, and they are all weighted equally. For example, Keegan O'Toole's win over Levi Haines is treated the same as Dean Hamiti's win over, like, Jared Simma.
Gus Posted February 13 Posted February 13 2 minutes ago, VakAttack said: Even if I accept your argument (I don't but for arguments sake) It's still indirect. The only thing that is directly included is quality wins, and they are all weighted equally. For example, Keegan O'Toole's win over Levi Haines is treated the same as Dean Hamiti's win over, like, Jared Simma. Whether it is direct or indirect makes no difference if it is still influencing seeding. The facts of objective reality are that it does matter who you lose to for purpose of seeding. Who you beat is of greater emphasis under the current seeding criteria but to act that it does not matter who you lose to is to ignore that 5 of the 7 seeding criteria are affected (whether directly or indirectly maketh no difference to me) by losses.
PortaJohn Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, pokemonster said: Caleb Henson is spanking every single one of them. No, I get you're doing silly talk but that's not happening. He's taken losses to both Lovett and SVN in the past. He very well can win it but it will be a dog fight 1 I Don't Agree With What I Posted
BruceyB Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said: It happens most years at one or two weights. Sorry, I was referring to 3 B1G wrestlers ranked in the top 4 and all three being placed on the same half of the bracket at NCAAs. Typically if they are ranked that high and finish 1, 2, 3 at B10s then they'll get split up.
Dogbone Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 17 hours ago, nhs67 said: As far as quality wins go, Johnson could gain quite a few at B12s as well. Writing him off because he is in the B12 isn't really that valid. Right now it looks like the B12 is sitting at ~7 AQ and the B1G at ~8 AQ and the determination for Quality Win is a win over someone earning the conference an AQ. Mind you, the B1G does have more Top 4 ranked gents, they just don't have more Top 30 ranked gents, which is the approximate criteria. I am only questioning his ability to jump the B1G runner up and get the 3 seed. He isn't currently above the top 3 B1G guys in QW, RPI or CR. Even if the bracket has more top 30 guys, with the bracket format, Johnson will only get 2 or 3 more QW. depending on his QF match. The B1G runner up will probably get 2 as well and finish above another top 4 ranked wrestler. Edited February 13 by Dogbone
nhs67 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said: CR is down to 10% and conference placement is up to 15% Which makes it even more... 25% - 10% in favor, already, of the aforementioned three (providing they win out, which is unlikely all three do). "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
nhs67 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Gus said: What claim would Whalen have? He does not even posses a top 20 win. Top 20 wins don't matter. Top ~28 wins matter (gents who earn AQ). I am not saying he has a claim. I am saying by the time seeding comes, he might, providing he wins out and wins his conference title. Winning Percentage and Conference Title account for 25% of seeding criteria. Coaches rank is 10%. They "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
nhs67 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 20 minutes ago, Dogbone said: I am only questioning his ability to jump the B1G runner up and get the 3 seed. He isn't currently above the top 3 B1G guys in QW, RPI or CR. Even if the bracket has more top 30 guys, with the bracket format, Johnson will only get 2 or 3 more QW. depending on his QF match. The B1G runner up will probably get 2 as well and finish above another top 4 ranked wrestler. If you take Top ~30, then they both actually have six (6) QW. QW is dictated by earning your conference an allocation (which is typically Top 27-29, I think?). It makes no difference if it is #5 or #25 for that. Both might get maybe two (2) at conferences, but keep in mind that QW only counts once per wrestler. So, were Parco to defeat Lovett again, he doesn't earn a 'new' QW. That could be a wash, or Johnson could also win that one outright. "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
VakAttack Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gus said: Whether it is direct or indirect makes no difference if it is still influencing seeding. The facts of objective reality are that it does matter who you lose to for purpose of seeding. Who you beat is of greater emphasis under the current seeding criteria but to act that it does not matter who you lose to is to ignore that 5 of the 7 seeding criteria are affected (whether directly or indirectly maketh no difference to me) by losses. EDIT: this came out too assholey. I'll just agree to disagree. Edited February 13 by VakAttack
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 13 Posted February 13 3 minutes ago, nhs67 said: Top 20 wins don't matter. Top ~28 wins matter (gents who earn AQ). I am not saying he has a claim. I am saying by the time seeding comes, he might, providing he wins out and wins his conference title. Winning Percentage and Conference Title account for 25% of seeding criteria. Coaches rank is 10%. They At the risk of being that guy again....quality wins were redefined in 2017 to be a win over anyone in the field. So it isn't enough to earn an allocation for the conference, you have to earn one of the spots too. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
nhs67 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 Just now, Wrestleknownothing said: At the risk of being that guy again....quality wins were redefined in 2017 to be a win over anyone in the field. So it isn't enough to earn an allocation for the conference, you have to earn one of the spots too. Ah, cool. That only helps Johnson, as his SoS is likely to be less, but he should have as many, if not more, Top 33 wins. "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 13 Posted February 13 20 hours ago, VakAttack said: Actually, not directly. I feel like this comes up every year. The seeding matrix used at the NCAAs does not directly take into account the losses other than in win/loss percentage and RPI, and those are both overall low pieces of the ranking matrix. Factors in the NCAA seeding matrix Head-to-head competition: 25% of the total score Quality wins: 20% of the total score Coaches' rankings: 15% of the total score Results against common opponents: 10% of the total score RPI (Ratings Percentage Index): 10% of the total score Qualifying event placement: 10% of the total score Win %: 10% of the total score Bad Losses was added as a subjective criteria in 2023. SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS (Added in 2023) • Bad losses (Under .500% win percentage). • Outside the top 30 Coaches Rank and/or top 30 RPI. • Conference champion. • Performance in last five matches (including conference tournament). • Number of injury default or medical forfeit wins/losses. • Best quality win. • Wrestler availability (Injured or medically unable to compete). Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
1032004 Posted February 13 Author Posted February 13 (edited) 3 hours ago, nhs67 said: On top of Johnson, there are two others who could potentially have two of three criteria over the 2nd/3rd (potential) placers in the B1G and that is Whalen of Princeton and Lamer of Cal Poly. Even if 2nd/3rd (potential) B1G were to be ranked ahead in Coaches Rank, they would be starting with a 5% disadvantage against any of those three. CR - 15% W% - 10% Conference Placement - 10% The other side of it is that even though they might be ranked 2-4 (in that order), I would not be surprised to see them put Johnson or Whalen or Lamer at the the 3/4/5 because of winning their conference tournament. It seems like they have rewarded Champions for things like that in the past, haven't they? I don't think that would happen, but something to consider. Their aim (this season) might be to reward conference champions, when it comes to separation (moving up and down in the bracket). I think Johnson if he wins out will almost certainly be seeded above at least the B10 3rd. The question is probably will he be seeded 3 or 4 (may have a shot at 2?) and will any others be seeded above the B10 3rd. I’m thinking no but not confident, which would not put all the B10 guys on the same side. . Edited February 13 by 1032004
Dogbone Posted February 13 Posted February 13 19 minutes ago, nhs67 said: If you take Top ~30, then they both actually have six (6) QW. QW is dictated by earning your conference an allocation (which is typically Top 27-29, I think?). It makes no difference if it is #5 or #25 for that. Both might get maybe two (2) at conferences, but keep in mind that QW only counts once per wrestler. So, were Parco to defeat Lovett again, he doesn't earn a 'new' QW. That could be a wash, or Johnson could also win that one outright. Parco still has Cartella and Young. Johnson just has Realbuto as far as QW left ( I also don't know how PJ would have 6 QW at 149). Assuming both win out, Parco will have 8 and Johnson will have 7 entering conferences. Even if QW is a tie, the coaches rank would need punish the B1G runner up for losing the #2 guy and reward someone without a top 10 win. NCAA seeding has been bizarre before so I will admit it could happen and shouldn't be written off, but it seems unlikely to me.
1032004 Posted February 13 Author Posted February 13 2 minutes ago, Dogbone said: Parco still has Cartella and Young. Johnson just has Realbuto as far as QW left ( I also don't know how PJ would have 6 QW at 149). Assuming both win out, Parco will have 8 and Johnson will have 7 entering conferences. Even if QW is a tie, the coaches rank would need punish the B1G runner up for losing the #2 guy and reward someone without a top 10 win. NCAA seeding has been bizarre before so I will admit it could happen and shouldn't be written off, but it seems unlikely to me. Yup, anything can happen, last year they seeded a guy that had 2 losses to Benny Baker at EIWA’s 4 spots ahead of the 3x defending national champ 1 1
Lisa Pastoriza Wyoming Seminary, Arizona Class of 2025 Committed to Tiffin (Women) Projected Weight: 103
Nyvaeh Wendt Mason County Central, Michigan Class of 2025 Committed to Siena Heights (Women) Projected Weight: 131
Giada Cucchiara Platte County, Missouri Class of 2025 Committed to Baker (Women) Projected Weight: 138
Sophia Marshall Rosewood, North Carolina Class of 2025 Committed to Mount Olive (Women) Projected Weight: 207
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