Seed & Allocation Discussion

[nhs67]

23 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

It would never happen and would sow a lot of chaos (which I love) but I'd love to see random draw be implemented but implement it for only a couple, random weights 

Could just seed top 4 and have to lose to a finalist to make the consis.

Also, you might have to wrestle four times to your opponents once in your consi finals.

Also, also, there are two third placers in this dumb scenario.

[Husker_Du]

anyone with a pulse earns one unless they don't have the match count. 

[BruceyB]

20 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Rankings are subject even though they claim not to be.

And choosing one would be problematic. They often differ in important ways.

And taking an average of many has problems too. How do you deal with a situation where one ranking has a wrestler included and another does not, like we saw with Teemer at various points?

The nice things about the rules based method is it becomes clear what a wrestler needs to do to qualify or earn an allocation. The same cannot be said about rankings.

There should be common sense included in allocations as well. I think it's wrong to punish the B1G 157 pound weight-class because Jacori Teemer didn't meet criteria for an allocation. As SHP stated, someone is a victim and going to have to hope for an at-large when they should have qualified through an allocated placement.

Guys like Teemer, Crookham, O'Toole etc. have no concern over meeting criteria to earn an allocation for their conference, because they are going to qualify regardless. If you're going to "punish" not meeting allocation criteria, it should effect the guilty wrestler, not the weight class at conferences.

[Wrestleknownothing]

14 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

There should be common sense included in allocations as well. I think it's wrong to punish the B1G 157 pound weight-class because Jacori Teemer didn't meet criteria for an allocation. As SHP stated, someone is a victim and going to have to hope for an at-large when they should have qualified through an allocated placement.

Guys like Teemer, Crookham, O'Toole etc. have no concern over meeting criteria to earn an allocation for their conference, because they are going to qualify regardless. If you're going to "punish" not meeting allocation criteria, it should effect the guilty wrestler, not the weight class at conferences.

Will they qualify regardless? Crookham and O'Toole might not even be able to wrestle. And there was question that Teemer could too.

As for common sense, in 2023 year they added a number of subjective considerations to address these kinds of situations for at large selections.

Edited Friday at 09:11 PM by Wrestleknownothing

[BruceyB]

20 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Will they qualify regardless? Crookham and O'Toole might not even be able to wrestle. And there was question that Teemer could too.

As for common sense, in 2023 year they added a number of subjective considerations to address these kinds of situations for at large selections.

I don't see how Crookham or O'Toole could be looked at any differently than Starocci last year. No one knew whether Starocci could wrestle going into NCAAs and they still gave him an at-large. The same with Suriano his freshman year where he actually took the allocation and didn't compete. 

I am unfamiliar with the subjective considerations, but if they were implemented to rectify the thievery of earned allocations, I suppose that's good enough for me.

[Wrestleknownothing]

55 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I don't see how Crookham or O'Toole could be looked at any differently than Starocci last year. No one knew whether Starocci could wrestle going into NCAAs and they still gave him an at-large. The same with Suriano his freshman year where he actually took the allocation and didn't compete. 

I am unfamiliar with the subjective considerations, but if they were implemented to rectify the thievery of earned allocations, I suppose that's good enough for me.

Yeah, the right thing to do would have been to post the criteria when I referenced them.

Here you go:

• Bad losses (Under .500% win percentage).
• Outside the top 30 Coaches Rank and/or top 30 RPI.
• Conference champion. (I assume this refers to regular season, as the conference tournament champ gets the AQ)
• 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).

I assume that last one was meant to address the Suriano situation. Last year they obviously felt that Starocci/Sanderson was telling the truth when he said he could go.

[SetonHallPirate]

10 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

anyone with a pulse earns one unless they don't have the match count. 

If you have the RPI, you certainly have a better shot of hitting the threshold than the other two. If you're relying on both the CR and Winning Percentage, especially in the Big Ten, you better be a top 10-15 wrestler. (there are other conferences where this threshold is lower due to strength-of-schedule being weaker)

[Idaho]

16 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

If you have the RPI, you certainly have a better shot of hitting the threshold than the other two. If you're relying on both the CR and Winning Percentage, especially in the Big Ten, you better be a top 10-15 wrestler. (there are other conferences where this threshold is lower due to strength-of-schedule being weaker)

In your list on page 1, you have the Pac 12 with several weights earning more than one allocation...however I believe the Pac-12 only gets a champion this year and the rest go into at-large. I am sure they will get some of those at-large, like at 197, but I am pretty sure they only get their champs this year. 

[SetonHallPirate]

1 hour ago, Idaho said:

In your list on page 1, you have the Pac 12 with several weights earning more than one allocation...however I believe the Pac-12 only gets a champion this year and the rest go into at-large. I am sure they will get some of those at-large, like at 197, but I am pretty sure they only get their champs this year. 

Nope...they're treated like every other conference.

I'm old enough to remember the year the Big 12 got no allocated (or automatic) wrestlers at all for the NCAA Championships, and every single wrestler in the conference had to go through the at-large pool. Even Alex Dieringer had to be awarded an at-large that year...I'm sure that discussion didn't take very long at all.

[Idaho]

14 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

Nope...they're treated like every other conference.

I'm old enough to remember the year the Big 12 got no allocated (or automatic) wrestlers at all for the NCAA Championships, and every single wrestler in the conference had to go through the at-large pool. Even Alex Dieringer had to be awarded an at-large that year...I'm sure that discussion didn't take very long at all.

Hmmm.... They are on a 2 year waiver for only having 4 teams... this happened a few years ago before Little Rock joined and they only got the champs and everyone else went into the at-large.  I am hearing the same for this year. 

[SetonHallPirate]

32 minutes ago, Idaho said:

Hmmm.... They are on a 2 year waiver for only having 4 teams... this happened a few years ago before Little Rock joined and they only got the champs and everyone else went into the at-large.  I am hearing the same for this year. 

Literally none of what you just said is true:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/article/2018-02-22/ncaa-wrestling-qualifier-allocations-2018-championships-coaches

And the waiver is only for one year, not two.

[1032004]

On 2/14/2025 at 4:40 PM, BruceyB said:

I don't see how Crookham or O'Toole could be looked at any differently than Starocci last year. No one knew whether Starocci could wrestle going into NCAAs and they still gave him an at-large. The same with Suriano his freshman year where he actually took the allocation and didn't compete. 

I am unfamiliar with the subjective considerations, but if they were implemented to rectify the thievery of earned allocations, I suppose that's good enough for me.

Well now you’re talking at-larges, which is different than allocations.  I agree with you that the system really just punishes the fringe qualifiers, but I’m not sure there’s a better way, I wouldn’t do it just based off rankings.

[1032004]

On 2/14/2025 at 5:40 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

Yeah, the right thing to do would have been to post the criteria when I referenced them.

Here you go:

• Bad losses (Under .500% win percentage).
• Outside the top 30 Coaches Rank and/or top 30 RPI.
• Conference champion. (I assume this refers to regular season, as the conference tournament champ gets the AQ)
• 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).

I assume that last one was meant to address the Suriano situation. Last year they obviously felt that Starocci/Sanderson was telling the truth when he said he could go.

What’s a regular season conference champion?  That can’t exist in a conference like the B10 where they don’t wrestle everyone.  And even in the small conferences you probably can’t consider anyone a “regular season conference champion” unless they actually wrestled all the other teams’ starters

Edited Sunday at 03:23 AM by 1032004

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

What’s a regular season conference champion?  That can’t exist in a conference like the B10 where they don’t wrestle everyone.  And even in the small conferences you probably can’t consider anyone a “regular season conference champion” unless they actually wrestled all the other teams’ starters

Ya got me. But this was listed under at large criteria. So it can't be conference tourney champ, because those guys are auto qualifiers.

[Idaho]

2 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

Literally none of what you just said is true:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/article/2018-02-22/ncaa-wrestling-qualifier-allocations-2018-championships-coaches

And the waiver is only for one year, not two.

So the waiver is only one year this time? Did they change that?  Last time it was for two years - 2018 and 2019 they had only 5 teams - Little Rock joined in Fall of 2019. 

https://ualr.edu/news-archive/2019/05/24/wrestling/

"The Pac-12 Conference dropped from six members to five after Boise State discontinued its wrestling program after the 2017 season. While the NCAA requires a conference to have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport to be eligible for automatic qualification in the NCAA Championships, it does provide a two-year transition period to allow for a conference to secure a sixth member."

Does the conference only getting a champ come into play after the waiver/transition period is over or do they not get any qualifiers? Or how does that work? 

 

Edited Sunday at 04:53 AM by Idaho

[SetonHallPirate]

2 hours ago, Idaho said:

So the waiver is only one year this time? Did they change that?  Last time it was for two years - 2018 and 2019 they had only 5 teams - Little Rock joined in Fall of 2019. 

https://ualr.edu/news-archive/2019/05/24/wrestling/

"The Pac-12 Conference dropped from six members to five after Boise State discontinued its wrestling program after the 2017 season. While the NCAA requires a conference to have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport to be eligible for automatic qualification in the NCAA Championships, it does provide a two-year transition period to allow for a conference to secure a sixth member."

Does the conference only getting a champ come into play after the waiver/transition period is over or do they not get any qualifiers? Or how does that work? 

 

There's never been anything about only getting the champ. The only time that was ever a going concern was in 2021, when a wrestler had to either have four matches prior to (or including) the conference tournament, or had to win their conference (not just earn an allocated spot). Remember Real Woods came in second in the Pac-12 that year, but didn't have enough matches until he wrestled an extra match later on that allowed him to be in the at-large pool.

As far as the transition period, that's only that the conference is eligible for it, not that they automatically get it. Imagine if, in that sport that makes the NCAA (not the institutions) most of their money, Oregon State and Washington State simply played a one-game playoff in March, and the winner went to the tournament? That would be ridiculous.

What you may remember was in 2015, the Big 12 had no automatic or allocated bids at all, and all 40 wrestlers participating in the championships had to go into the at-large pool. It was that summer that Air Force, North Dakota State, Northern Colorado, South Dakota State, Utah Valley, and Wyoming joined the Big 12 as wrestling affiliates.

[666]

On 2/14/2025 at 8:27 PM, Mr. PeanutButter said:

It would never happen and would sow a lot of chaos (which I love) but I'd love to see random draw be implemented but implement it for only a couple, random weights 

The first 16 should be seeded and then the other wrestlers should be randomly bracketed against the top 16 seeds. Why double the process of seeding, especially on minutiae between lower-ranked guys?