NCAA #1 seeds

[BruceyB]

20 minutes ago, cowcards said:

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?

When a loss happens is relevant. But to answer your question, I do think that someone who won their conference tournament should get the #1 seed.. every. single. time. Seeds are not rankings or predictions.

[PortaJohn]

4 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

When a loss happens is relevant. But to answer your question, I do think that someone who won their conference tournament should get the #1 seed.. every. single. time. Seeds are not rankings or predictions.

Overall body of work is a more correct way to seed rather than one tournament.    

[jajensen09]

6 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Overall body of work is a more correct way to seed rather than one tournament.    

Big 10 tournament isn't just any tournament.... 

[BruceyB]

6 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Overall body of work is a more correct way to seed rather than one tournament.    

I'm only talking about securing the #1 seed. Get rid of the qualification tournaments and just send the top 33 ranked wrestlers during the regular season to Nationals if we're going to start selectively ignoring conference results.

[PortaJohn]

5 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I'm only talking about securing the #1 seed. Get rid of the qualification tournaments and just send the top 33 ranked wrestlers during the regular season to Nationals if we're going to start selectively ignoring conference results.

Conference tournament results should matter and not be ignored but they shouldn't be the end all be all in terms of seeding at NCAA's.  Seed them correctly.  Do it right.  

[ionel]

16 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I'm only talking about securing the #1 seed. Get rid of the qualification tournaments and just send the top 33 ranked wrestlers during the regular season to Nationals if we're going to start selectively ignoring conference results.

Why 33?

[BruceyB]

28 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Conference tournament results should matter and not be ignored but they shouldn't be the end all be all in terms of seeding at NCAA's.  Seed them correctly.  Do it right.  

Who has lost at conferences that you would have seeded #1 at NCAAs? Are you just arguing about a fictitious scenario that may occur one day, or.. what are we doing here? 

[BruceyB]

25 minutes ago, ionel said:

Why 33?

Idk. Just a random number that seemed logical.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

Idk. Just a random number that seemed logical.

57?

Edited 16 hours ago by ionel

[cowcards]

47 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I'm only talking about securing the #1 seed. Get rid of the qualification tournaments and just send the top 33 ranked wrestlers during the regular season to Nationals if we're going to start selectively ignoring conference results.

Conference results aren't ignored. If fact, it's a full 10% of the criteria. It also contributes to h2h matchups and winning % and common opponents. It matters quite a bit. But the whole season is the most important. 

[BruceyB]

1 minute ago, cowcards said:

Conference results aren't ignored. If fact, it's a full 10% of the criteria. It also contributes to h2h matchups and winning % and common opponents. It matters quite a bit. But the whole season is the most important. 

See my above question to Portajohn and feel free to give your answer. I'm not trying to be combative, I just can't think of anyone who I thought was robbed of a 1 seed after losing at conferences.

[cowcards]

7 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

See my above question to Portajohn and feel free to give your answer. I'm not trying to be combative, I just can't think of anyone who I thought was robbed of a 1 seed after losing at conferences.

This year, I would say Ramos and Bartlett are clearly 1 seeds for me.

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, BruceyB said:

Who has lost at conferences that you would have seeded #1 at NCAAs? Are you just arguing about a fictitious scenario that may occur one day, or.. what are we doing here? 

I would've put injured Jason Nolf as the #1 seed in 2018.  Heck, I would've put injured Starocci last year as the #1 seed.  I want the tournament seeded correctly.  When done incorrectly it can negatively impact someone's path to the podium.  

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, BruceyB said:

See my above question to Portajohn and feel free to give your answer. I'm not trying to be combative, I just can't think of anyone who I thought was robbed of a 1 seed after losing at conferences.

Brucey, I know this wasn't directed at me but I have never gotten the impression that you're here for combat.  Enjoy you're input on these boards.  

[BruceyB]

35 minutes ago, cowcards said:

This year, I would say Ramos and Bartlett are clearly 1 seeds for me.

Luke Lilledahl doesn't get the 1 seed over the guy he just majored because he has one more loss on the season? That's actually insane.

If Brock Hardy didn't go to CKLV he would be a 19-1 conference champion, and I don't think anyone would question what his seed should be at NCAAs. His losses are to #1, #4, and #5. Bartlett's single Vombaur loss is worse than any of the three that Hardy has this year, and they share their best win respectively against Mendez. You're punishing Hardy for two losses against top 5 opponents that happened 3 months ago, and pardoning Bartlett for losing to the #8 ranked wrestler two days ago.

[BruceyB]

4 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I would've put injured Jason Nolf as the #1 seed in 2018.  Heck, I would've put injured Starocci last year as the #1 seed.  I want the tournament seeded correctly.  When done incorrectly it can negatively impact someone's path to the podium.  

I would say that injuries are separate from actual results from conferences. That being said, I do think if you're too injured to take the mat at conferences, you probably don't deserve the easiest path to the finals. There should be some punishment if you don't participate. Last year with Starocci was definitely egregious though. 

[jajensen09]

2 hours ago, BruceyB said:

I'm only talking about securing the #1 seed. Get rid of the qualification tournaments and just send the top 33 ranked wrestlers during the regular season to Nationals if we're going to start selectively ignoring conference results.

I 100% agree. You give conference allocations for the tournament so of course winning a conference title should carry the most weight

[cowcards]

21 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

Luke Lilledahl doesn't get the 1 seed over the guy he just majored because he has one more loss on the season? That's actually insane.

If Brock Hardy didn't go to CKLV he would be a 19-1 conference champion, and I don't think anyone would question what his seed should be at NCAAs. His losses are to #1, #4, and #5. Bartlett's single Vombaur loss is worse than any of the three that Hardy has this year, and they share their best win respectively against Mendez. You're punishing Hardy for two losses against top 5 opponents that happened 3 months ago, and pardoning Bartlett for losing to the #8 ranked wrestler two days ago.

Because his 2 losses are to guys not in the top-12, yes. Absolutely. Ramos also beat one of them. 

But Brock Hardy did to go CKLV and lost 2x to guys that are going to be behind Vombaur in both the RPI and Coaches ranks. I'm punishing Hardy for 2 losses that are worse than Bartlett's 1 loss. Yes. Absolutely. 

[nhs67]

10 hours ago, cowcards said:

Because his 2 losses are to guys not in the top-12, yes. Absolutely. Ramos also beat one of them. 

But Brock Hardy did to go CKLV and lost 2x to guys that are going to be behind Vombaur in both the RPI and Coaches ranks. I'm punishing Hardy for 2 losses that are worse than Bartlett's 1 loss. Yes. Absolutely. 

Why would Vombaur be ahead of Happel?  Happel was #4 in the last CR and Vombaur was #8.  Beating #1 and losing to #5 doesn't mean you jump #4.  Happel took care of business and didn't lose at a weight in which he beat #6 (right after #6 beat #2).  Vombaur had a loss.

Also, per wrestlestat's RPI (which isn't the same as the actual RPI), Happel jumped Vombaur.  Happel is now #5 in RPI and Vombaur is #7.

So let's go full-Nomad on this...

Running the QW without doing every wrestler, they appear VERY close in that department as well.

Even if you give Vombaur the RPI and Rank, he is still losing 47.5 - 32.5 and with QW being either 10-10 or 15-5, Happel wins this even IF you gift him RPI and CR (which is it very likely he will not get both and quite possible he will not get either).

EDIT:  Forgive me if I am off on who is/was getting compared.  There are a lot of streams flowing in this thread.

Edited 5 hours ago by nhs67

[Truzzcat]

125 Ramos (I think he gets the edge because of lukes two losses aging pretty poorly after confrences however if Luke gets it I will not be upset at all being the confrence champ)

133 Byrd

141 Bartlett ( I have been all over the place with this. I dont think you can give it to hardy he lost to Happel twice, but I definitely dont think Happel can get it with losses to Tagg and Schwartz)

149 Henson

157 Kasak

165 Mesenbrink

174 KOT

184 Starocci

197 Cardenas (I feel like his quality of competition should out-weigh Aj not having a loss)

HWT Steveson

[cowcards]

1 hour ago, nhs67 said:

Why would Vombaur be ahead of Happel?  Happel was #4 in the last CR and Vombaur was #8.  Beating #1 and losing to #5 doesn't mean you jump #4.  Happel took care of business and didn't lose at a weight in which he beat #6 (right after #6 beat #2).  Vombaur had a loss.

Also, per wrestlestat's RPI (which isn't the same as the actual RPI), Happel jumped Vombaur.  Happel is now #5 in RPI and Vombaur is #7.

So let's go full-Nomad on this...

Running the QW without doing every wrestler, they appear VERY close in that department as well.

Even if you give Vombaur the RPI and Rank, he is still losing 47.5 - 32.5 and with QW being either 10-10 or 15-5, Happel wins this even IF you gift him RPI and CR (which is it very likely he will not get both and quite possible he will not get either).

EDIT:  Forgive me if I am off on who is/was getting compared.  There are a lot of streams flowing in this thread.

We were still comparing Hardy and Bartlett. But Vombaur should jump Happel due to the win over Bartlett. While Happel did nothing wrong this weekend, he does have losses to Tagg & Schwartz. Vombaur's worse loss is to Koderhandt. Vombaur didn't have the win he needed to be ahead of Happel until he beat Bartlett. 

Edited 3 hours ago by cowcards

[Dogbone]

11 hours ago, cowcards said:

But Brock Hardy did to go CKLV and lost 2x to guys that are going to be behind Vombaur in both the RPI and Coaches ranks. I'm punishing Hardy for 2 losses that are worse than Bartlett's 1 loss. Yes. Absolutely. 

I understand this argument, but it is a 100% an argument that encourages teams to avoid any meaningful competition and I disagree with the impact it creates. 

If you want to encourage teams to wrestle tougher schedules then you need to be more lenient when they lose in those tough schedules or teams will just wrestle as little as possible. 

I am guessing Cael has already figured this out and that is why PSU wrestles a softer schedule than they did 10 years ago.   It sucks for the sport.  

[cowcards]

33 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

I understand this argument, but it is a 100% an argument that encourages teams to avoid any meaningful competition and I disagree with the impact it creates. 

If you want to encourage teams to wrestle tougher schedules then you need to be more lenient when they lose in those tough schedules or teams will just wrestle as little as possible. 

I am guessing Cael has already figured this out and that is why PSU wrestles a softer schedule than they did 10 years ago.   It sucks for the sport.  

I don't disagree with you at all. The tougher the schedule, the more leniency you should get. I, personally, wish Hardy would get the 1 seed because of the schedule he wrestled. I don't think he will with the current seeding criteria. 

I would institute something where, when comparing two wrestlers, you look at the same number of ranked matches and drop any losses for the wrestler who wrestled more of them. I'm sure that was confusing, so let's look at Hardy and Bartlett. 

Bartlett has 4 matches with a 3-1 record against top-10 guys. 
Hardy has 8 matches and is 5-3.

Hardy is then able to throw out up to 4 matches, not including h2h, to equal Bartlett. Of course, he would only want to throw out the 2 losses to make his record 5-1 against top-10, with the single loss to Bartlett.

That's a resume I would say should be seeded #1.