NCAA #1 seeds

[jajensen09]

11 hours ago, SocraTease said:

I can't see any scenario where Keckheisen gets #1 over Starocci.

What kind of schedule did Trephen have?  Can't imagine his wins are as good as Kerkviliet.

I also don't like Ramos over Llilledahl, especially since LL just majored him.  Fresh in folks minds.

Kharchala at #4 is weak.  But there is a big drop off after the first 3

Mendez won't be over hardy or hapel. 

 

[cowcards]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Starocci v Keckeisen:

• 25 H2H is N/A.
• 20 Quality wins is going to be real close between Starocci and Keckeisen. It will come down to how their opponents are ranked in the final coaches' poll as they both have a lot of QW's. 
• 15 Tournament finish is a push
• 10 Coaches' rank probably favors Starocci
• 10 common opponents is a push
• 10 win percentage is a push
• 10 RPI favors Starocci

So I think Starocci wins the formula and I do not see the committee reversing that.

 

The RPI is going to favor Keckeisen.

It's going to come down to Quality Wins (Last coaches rank).

Keck:
#3 x3
#5 x2
#6 x1 by fall
#10 x 2
#11 x1 by (MD 17-4)

Carter:
#4 x1
#6 x1 by major
#9 x2
#11 x 1 by MD (10-1)

Keck clearly has more and better wins. He also has a better result against the Allred. I do agree that the committee won't change the order of whatever the calculation comes out with. Just think it will be Keck. 

[Elevator]

hopefully for the sake of the fans, we get to see Keck v McEnelly in one semi and Plott v. Starocci in the other

[Chas2105]

1 hour ago, cowcards said:

The RPI is going to favor Keckeisen.

It's going to come down to Quality Wins (Last coaches rank).

Keck:
#3 x3
#5 x2
#6 x1 by fall
#10 x 2
#11 x1 by (MD 17-4)

Carter:
#4 x1
#6 x1 by major
#9 x2
#11 x 1 by MD (10-1)

Keck clearly has more and better wins. He also has a better result against the Allred. I do agree that the committee won't change the order of whatever the calculation comes out with. Just think it will be Keck. 

Quality wins only count once for each wrestler and how the match was won isn't a factor. There is a formula based on win %, coaches rank and RPI. The RPI ranking I used is Wrestlestat's, so it may not be 100% correct. Shumate probably won't count since he is 197. Starocci currently should be ahead in quality wins.

Rec Win % CR RPI Pts

Plott 18-4 0.818 3 2 4.5

Berge 26-5 0.838 6 5 4.5

Bockman 14-7 0.667 5 10 2

Brenot 20-15 0.571 24 30 0.5

Shumate 18-14 0.562 16 26 0.5

 

McEnelly 20-1 0.952 4 4 6

Ruth 14-7 0.667 14 12 2

Smith 20-7 0.741 10 9 3

Washington 13-8 0.619 27 28 0.5

Cartegena-Walsh 21-10 0.677 16 16 2

Edited 8 hours ago by Chas2105

[cowcards]

16 minutes ago, Chas2105 said:

Quality wins only count once for each wrestler and how the match was won isn't a factor. There is a formula based on win %, coaches rank and RPI. The RPI ranking I used is Wrestlestat's, so it may not be 100% correct. Shumate probably won't count since he is 197. Starocci currently should be ahead in quality wins.

Rec Win % CR RPI Pts

Plott 18-4 0.818 3 2 4.5

Berge 26-5 0.838 6 5 4.5

Bockman 14-7 0.667 5 10 2

Brenot 20-15 0.571 24 30 0.5

Shumate 18-14 0.562 16 26 0.5

 

McEnelly 20-1 0.952 4 4 6

Ruth 14-7 0.667 14 12 2

Smith 20-7 0.741 10 9 3

Washington 13-8 0.619 27 28 0.5

Cartegena-Walsh 21-10 0.677 16 16 2

I don't know you're getting at with these...

If you replace the coaches rank with the RPI you get this:

Keck:
#2 x3
#5 x 2
#6 x2
#15 x1 by fall
#22 x1 by (MD 17-4)
#24 x 2

Carter:
#4 x1
#10 x2
#15 x1 by major
#14 x1
#16 x1
#22 x1 by MD (10-1)
#25 x11

Keck still comes out on top and actually looks even better. The 2 matchups that are the same wouldn't count towards quality wins, they would count towards common opponents.

The only metric that is in favor of Starocci is the coaches rank.
RPI, Common Opponents, Quality wins are in favor of Keck.
Win %, H2H, Tourney finish are even.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, cowcards said:

The RPI is going to favor Keckeisen.

It's going to come down to Quality Wins (Last coaches rank).

Keck:
#3 x3
#5 x2
#6 x1 by fall
#10 x 2
#11 x1 by (MD 17-4)

Carter:
#4 x1
#6 x1 by major
#9 x2
#11 x 1 by MD (10-1)

Keck clearly has more and better wins. He also has a better result against the Allred. I do agree that the committee won't change the order of whatever the calculation comes out with. Just think it will be Keck. 

Yeah, I looked at the wrong list for RPI. That is Keckeisen's.

QW is a category that can be split. I don't think there is enough separation for one guy getting 20 and the other getting zero. Instead it will likely be either 15/5 or 10/10.

So I think Starocci has 10 (CR), Keckeisen does have 10 (RPI), they split QW 15/5 in one direction or the other. I think Starocci has more QW, but they are close enough that it will come down to the QW points tiering:

I assume those columns are ORs not ANDs. So if the opponent had a 90% win, or top 5 CR, or top 5 RPI, the win is worth 6 QW points.

[Chas2105]

5 minutes ago, cowcards said:

I don't know you're getting at with these...

If you replace the coaches rank with the RPI you get this:

Keck:
#2 x3
#5 x 2
#6 x2
#15 x1 by fall
#22 x1 by (MD 17-4)
#24 x 2

Carter:
#4 x1
#10 x2
#15 x1 by major
#14 x1
#16 x1
#22 x1 by MD (10-1)
#25 x11

Keck still comes out on top and actually looks even better. The 2 matchups that are the same wouldn't count towards quality wins, they would count towards common opponents.

The only metric that is in favor of Starocci is the coaches rank.
RPI, Common Opponents, Quality wins are in favor of Keck.
Win %, H2H, Tourney finish are even.

Using the formula above Plott is 4.5 since he does not have a win $ above .900. Berge is also 4.5, Bockman 2, Brenot .5 and Shumate shouldn't count since a quality win is vs the field and he is 197. This would give Keck 11.5. For Star you have Max at 6, Smith at 3, Ruth and C-W 2 and Washington .5 for a total of 13.5. You don't count the multiple wins vs the same guy.

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, Chas2105 said:

Using the formula above Plott is 4.5 since he does not have a win $ above .900. Berge is also 4.5, Bockman 2, Brenot .5 and Shumate shouldn't count since a quality win is vs the field and he is 197. This would give Keck 11.5. For Star you have Max at 6, Smith at 3, Ruth and C-W 2 and Washington .5 for a total of 13.5. You don't count the multiple wins vs the same guy.

Are you sure about that last part? I have wondered, but I cannot find anything that says one way or the other.

[PortaJohn]

8 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Are you sure about that last part? I have wondered, but I cannot find anything that says one way or the other.

That's how it was explained by Flo a few years back.  

Paging @Jon_Kozak

Edited 7 hours ago by PortaJohn

[Wrestleknownothing]

Ultimately Starocci v Keckeisen may come down to the opinions of these four men.

Big 12 Conference Mark Branch 197

Big 12 Conference Obenson Blanc 197

Big Ten Conference Alex Clemsen 197

Big Ten Conference Chris Bono 197

[Chas2105]

27 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

That's how it was explained by Flo a few years back.  

Paging @Jon_Kozak

That's where I seen it as well.

[Jon_Kozak]

44 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

That's how it was explained by Flo a few years back.  

Paging @Jon_Kozak

Yeah you've got it right

[cowcards]

1 hour ago, Chas2105 said:

Using the formula above Plott is 4.5 since he does not have a win $ above .900. Berge is also 4.5, Bockman 2, Brenot .5 and Shumate shouldn't count since a quality win is vs the field and he is 197. This would give Keck 11.5. For Star you have Max at 6, Smith at 3, Ruth and C-W 2 and Washington .5 for a total of 13.5. You don't count the multiple wins vs the same guy.

That is actually hilarious. Plott has 1 loss vs. a non-Keck opponent and 3 to Keck. By beating Plott so many times he has damaged his QW points.

But if you want to do them all...
Keck:
Plot - 4.5
Brenot - .5
Heeg - .5
Robin - .5
Berge - 4.5
Olszko - .5
Allred - 3
Bockman - 2
Hawks - 1
Total = 17

Carter:
McNelly - 6
Smith - 3
Washington - 1
Ruth - 2
Rogotzke - .5
Bullock - .5
Cartagena-Walsh - 2
Allred - 3
Hawks - 1
Ebert - .5
Wills - .5
Hoose - .5
Total = 21.5

You guys have proved me wrong on the QW. 

I'm also baffled there isn't some sort of multiplier for multiple wins vs. guys. That wins against Cartegena-Walsh, Allred, & Smith (No AA's) is seen as better than 3 wins against Plott (2, 6, 6 NCAA). Or said another way, you're better off beating 3 guys ranked 10th-15th than 1 guy ranked #2.

Edited 6 hours ago by cowcards

[maligned]

9 hours ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

Everyone always says this but humans will human. 

They handle the seeding protocol very robotically. The only element that could bring in previous season bias, if resumes are similar, is Coaches' rank. Everything else is strictly results-based. 

[nhs67]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Ultimately Starocci v Keckeisen may come down to the opinions of these four men.

Big 12 Conference Mark Branch 197

Big 12 Conference Obenson Blanc 197

Big Ten Conference Alex Clemsen 197

Big Ten Conference Chris Bono 197

Why did you post the 197lbers?

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

Why did you post the 197lbers?

Because I know nothing.

How about these guys instead?

• Big 12 Conference Doug Schwab 184
• Big 12 Conference Kevin Dresser 184
• Big Ten Conference Sean Bormet 184
• Big Ten Conference Tom Ryan 184

The last time around Starocci was unanimous. So either Schwab voted for Starocci to be #1 or Schwab's was the low that was thrown out.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Jon_Kozak said:

Yeah you've got it right

As long as we have you, what is the criteria for deciding whether the QW is split 20/0, 15/5, or 10/10?

[Dogbone]

41 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Because I know nothing.

How about these guys instead?

• Big 12 Conference Doug Schwab 184
• Big 12 Conference Kevin Dresser 184
• Big Ten Conference Sean Bormet 184
• Big Ten Conference Tom Ryan 184

The last time around Starocci was unanimous. So either Schwab voted for Starocci to be #1 or Schwab's was the low that was thrown out.

Before you posted this, I thought no way will any person put Keck above CStar despite what any metrics splits out.

But would Dresser, Bormet and Ryan stick it to PSU if given the chance        That might be the worst draw possible for PSU (not that it matters).

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Before you posted this, I thought no way will any person put Keck above CStar despite what any metrics splits out.

But would Dresser, Bormet and Ryan stick it to PSU if given the chance        That might be the worst draw possible for PSU (not that it matters).

Things that might make you go hmmmm, if they happen.

The last coaches' ranking had Starocci a unanimous #1. That means at least three of Bormet, Dresser, Schwab, and Ryan voted Starocci #1. Since then Starocci and Keckeisen have each wrestled only their three conference tournament matches.

Starocci beat the CR #4 by DEC (SV 8-5), #9 by MD (12-2), and #28 by TF (18-1).

Keckeisen beat the CR #3 by DEC (8-1), #30 by TF (20-5), and Unranked by TF (20-4).

If they reverse the order and make Keckeisen #1 in the next CR, you have to ask yourself based on what new information?

[BruceyB]

19 hours ago, Eagle26 said:

Is it the first 10% or the last?

Maybe I’m wrong but I feel like they rarely give someone a number 1 seed if they don’t win their conference (rightfully so IMO)

I don't think someone should be able to be the #1 seed if they didn't win their qualifying event. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I can't recall a 1 seed that lost at conferences.

[Richferg]

20 hours ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Both studs with concussion issues

Just wondering. I know Kasak went thru concussion protocol, but I am wondering if PSU is just trying protect his laceration. When the match against Cannon was stopped for a few seconds, he reached right for the spot of the laceration. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Richferg

[lu_alum]

4 hours ago, cowcards said:

I don't know you're getting at with these...

If you replace the coaches rank with the RPI you get this:

Keck:
#2 x3
#5 x 2
#6 x2
#15 x1 by fall
#22 x1 by (MD 17-4)
#24 x 2

Carter:
#4 x1
#10 x2
#15 x1 by major
#14 x1
#16 x1
#22 x1 by MD (10-1)
#25 x11

Keck still comes out on top and actually looks even better. The 2 matchups that are the same wouldn't count towards quality wins, they would count towards common opponents.

The only metric that is in favor of Starocci is the coaches rank.
RPI, Common Opponents, Quality wins are in favor of Keck.
Win %, H2H, Tourney finish are even.

Quality Win definition:

[lu_alum]

11 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I don't think someone should be able to be the #1 seed if they didn't win their qualifying event. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I can't recall a 1 seed that lost at conferences.

Looking back to 2017 (when the current criteria was introduced), I didn't see any #1 seeds that took a loss at their qualifying tournament.

[cowcards]

26 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I don't think someone should be able to be the #1 seed if they didn't win their qualifying event. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I can't recall a 1 seed that lost at conferences.

Why not? It's wrestling, losses happen to everyone (but Cael). If everyone else has multiple losses during the season and one guy has 1 a single loss at their conference tournament and beat the other guys, why wouldn't they still deserve it? What happens if there are upsets at each of the conference tournaments? Does someone that won the tournament auto get it because they won, even if they aren't the "best" guy?

[cowcards]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Things that might make you go hmmmm, if they happen.

The last coaches' ranking had Starocci a unanimous #1. That means at least three of Bormet, Dresser, Schwab, and Ryan voted Starocci #1. Since then Starocci and Keckeisen have each wrestled only their three conference tournament matches.

Starocci beat the CR #4 by DEC (SV 8-5), #9 by MD (12-2), and #28 by TF (18-1).

Keckeisen beat the CR #3 by DEC (8-1), #30 by TF (20-5), and Unranked by TF (20-4).

If they reverse the order and make Keckeisen #1 in the next CR, you have to ask yourself based on what new information?

Starocci should be ranked ahead of Keck until he loses.