Wild Cards

[SocraTease]

27 minutes ago, RandolphTJones said:

Who are the top names to not qualify?

 

[ScarletKnight]

Everyone in the ACC at 125 made it then. 

[Mike]

Ivies getting 4 at 157 is atrocious

[Fletcher]

39 minutes ago, RandolphTJones said:

Who are the top names to not qualify?

TJ Stewart at VTech - ACC champ and AA last season.

[Wrestleknownothing]

There is definitely missing information in that document. Here is what I have learned and what I still guess at. I have asked around for clarification on some of this, but I don't always get it.

See below in red

30 minutes ago, Nightcrawler said:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/wrestling/d1/men/D1MWR_SelectionsProcess.pdf
 

Anyone else find this to appear to be really clear, but then just more confusing as you go? I looked through yesterday to see who might make it in at some weights, and it just legitimately got trickier as I went. 
For example, page 8 lists the criteria and it seems clear. Except the “hey wait, what about people with no head to head matches? Is 25% of their criteria at zero?” Yes, both guys get a zero. They sometimes refer to percentages in the matrix and sometimes points, but it is really points.

Then, 9 & 10 give solid clarifying information, and page 11 gives like, a solid breakdown of how points get allocated. Then page 12 is unrelated, and page 13 gives examples of a round robin style comparison of wrestlers A, B, and C and how they earn or don’t earn points.

Can anyone shed more light on this process? From pages 11 and 13 I’m lead to believe they basically do a massive round robin of all the people that could be up for a spot, but that seems unrealistic. Really unrealistic. That is my understanding too. Someone has to produce the quality win scores for every wrestler to do this. You would also need a customized version of wrestlestat to do the head to head analysis (maybe they have this or built this).

The splits on page 11 are not defined. For example, when are QW split 15/5 versus 10/10?

On page 14 are the three ways to define a QW tier ORs? Or are they ANDs. Feels like ORs given the last category has .000 for win %.

One thing I have been told by a very reliable source is that if you beat someone two, or more, times, it only counts once in QW.

I don’t take issue with the vast majority of choices, but I want to try to see what I’m missing on some of them. Or even why some that I predicted came out to be correct. 

It is not clear to me if the subjective criteria apply to the at-large process and the seeding, or just the seeding.

Thanks in advance to anyone. And uh, if you start going through this, have headache meds handy. 

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

TJ Stewart at VTech - ACC champ and AA last season.

He had a tough season at 12-12

[Nightcrawler]

55 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

There is definitely missing information in that document. Here is what I have learned and what I still guess at. I have asked around for clarification on some of this, but I don't always get it.

See below in red

 

Thank you for that. It definitely helps out with some, but yeah, it’s like they took crucial pages out so no one could actually figure the selections out with certainty ahead of time.

I mean, I look at 125 and I believe Molton is the “best” guy out based on the last coaches rankings and RPI rankings. So, I just quickly look at him vs Sotelo - if he can’t beat the alternate then it stands to reason he wouldn’t be in the top 4 either.

Now, this was “quick” for me because I downloaded the data for 125 yesterday (along with two other weights), so here’s how this goes:
- 1. No head to head
- 2. Quality wins: 3 each. Molton beats Lorenzo (2), Farmer (3), Roller (2). Sotelo beats Milani (1), Gallagher (3), Moran (3). Basing those points on opponent win %, since chart isn’t clear how to decide to rank opponents. They end up tied at 7 points for quality wins so they split the total at 10 each.
- 3. Coaches Poll: Molton at 20, Sotelo at 25, so I did the point split since they’re close
- 4. RPI: Molton at 25, Sotelo unranked.
- 5. Conference Finish: Molton 3rd, Sotelo 5th. Both 2 places out, so I took higher place.
- 6. Common Opponent: Sotelo beat Camacho, Molton lost to Camacho. That’s it.
- 7. Winning Percentage: Molton at 0.6923, Sotelo at 0.6667.

               AM       DS
H2H:      12.5 to 12.5
QW:         10  to  10
CR:          10  to  5
RPI:          10 to  0
Conf. Fin. 10 to 0
Common: 0 to 10
Win %:     10 to 0
TOTALS: 62.5 to 37.5
 

So, I’m still thrown. Don’t see how Sotelo gets a nod ahead of Molton, and there’s a couple more of these that eyeballing, they don’t seem like they would pass muster (but I don’t have that data already pulled). 
I feel like the least they could do is be genuinely fully transparent about the process. Cause this is definitely not transparent!

[jdalu75]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

There is definitely missing information in that document. Here is what I have learned and what I still guess at. I have asked around for clarification on some of this, but I don't always get it.

See below in red

 

Page 7 lists the criteria just to get into the at-large pool.  That's the starting point and it's absolute.

With Page 8, it's more involved than just the criteria shown.  It works the same way as seeding.  Wrestler A is compared to Wrestler B using those seven criteria.  Win a criteria, earn points.  If A and B haven't wrestled, then no one gets the 25 H-H points.  Whoever has the most quality wins gets 20 points.  Whoever has the higher CP ranking gets 15 points.  And so on, then total up the points.  The wrestler with the most points in that comparison earns a point against the whole field.

Then move on to Wrestler A vs Wrestler C; repeat the process, winner earns a point.  A vs D, winner gets a point.  When Wrestler A has been compared against all the others, move on to Wrestler B and compare him to C.  Continue until all the wrestlers have been compared, one at a time, to all the others.  At no time are all the wrestlers compared as a group.  It's all one guy against another guy.  If there are four available at-large berths, the four wrestlers with the most points receive them and the guy in 5th place is the alternate.

A couple of years ago the NCAA came out with subjective criteria, and I believe they just apply to the at-large process.  Here they are (they're not in the slideshow):

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA
The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding
criteria:
● Bad Losses
● Outside the top 30 CR and/or 30 RPI
● Conference Champion
● Performance in last five matches
● Number of Injury default or medical forfeits wins/losses
● Best quality win
● Wrestler availability (injured or medically unable to compete)

I particularly like the "bad losses" criterion.  Years ago when I was sifting through this stuff for the EIWA, it struck me that they rewarded quality wins but didn't penalize clunker losses.  Now they can.  These apply to both at-large selection and seeding criteria (Obviously.  Conference champs aren't in the at-large pool.).

I hope this helps.

 

 

[killdozer]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I'm surprised Conner Harer didn't earn a spot or was at least the alternate at 157. He finished 9th in the Big Ten (one away from an AQ, beat Stampoulos (the alternate), and split against Chumbley at the Big Ten Tournament but beat him in the finals oft he 9th place bracket.

Having Stampoulos over him makes little sense IMO

 

Especially since Stampoulos didn't place at MAC

[jdalu75]

Also, beating a quality wrestler multiple times counts as just a single QW, your source is correct.  I never understood that.  If you beat the same guy twice you get credit for two wins, right?  So why not ....

[Wrestleknownothing]

9 minutes ago, jdalu75 said:

Page 7 lists the criteria just to get into the at-large pool.  That's the starting point and it's absolute.

With Page 8, it's more involved than just the criteria shown.  It works the same way as seeding.  Wrestler A is compared to Wrestler B using those seven criteria.  Win a criteria, earn points.  If A and B haven't wrestled, then no one gets the 25 H-H points.  Whoever has the most quality wins gets 20 points.  Whoever has the higher CP ranking gets 15 points.  And so on, then total up the points.  The wrestler with the most points in that comparison earns a point against the whole field.

Then move on to Wrestler A vs Wrestler C; repeat the process, winner earns a point.  A vs D, winner gets a point.  When Wrestler A has been compared against all the others, move on to Wrestler B and compare him to C.  Continue until all the wrestlers have been compared, one at a time, to all the others.  At no time are all the wrestlers compared as a group.  It's all one guy against another guy.  If there are four available at-large berths, the four wrestlers with the most points receive them and the guy in 5th place is the alternate.

A couple of years ago the NCAA came out with subjective criteria, and I believe they just apply to the at-large process.  Here they are (they're not in the slideshow):

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA
The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding
criteria:
● Bad Losses
● Outside the top 30 CR and/or 30 RPI
● Conference Champion
● Performance in last five matches
● Number of Injury default or medical forfeits wins/losses
● Best quality win
● Wrestler availability (injured or medically unable to compete)

I particularly like the "bad losses" criterion.  Years ago when I was sifting through this stuff for the EIWA, it struck me that they rewarded quality wins but didn't penalize clunker losses.  Now they can.  These apply to both at-large selection and seeding criteria (Obviously.  Conference champs aren't in the at-large pool.).

I hope this helps.

 

 

I don't think you have the QW quite right.  You say whoever has the most wins gets 20. The doc lists the possible splits as 20/0, 15/5, or 10/10 (and it is a weighted sum rather than a straight sum). What are the criteria for applying one of those splits?

The reason I think the subjective criteria applies to the seeding is that it includes conference champion. That would be a non-factor for the at-large pool. Now the other criteria may be used for the at-large pool, but the presence of Conference Champion suggests that, at a minimum, they is used for seeding.

The subjective criteria are included in this version (the current version):

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/wrestling/d1/men/2023-24D1MWR_SelectionsProcess.pdf

[Nightcrawler]

17 minutes ago, jdalu75 said:

Page 7 lists the criteria just to get into the at-large pool.  That's the starting point and it's absolute.

With Page 8, it's more involved than just the criteria shown.  It works the same way as seeding.  Wrestler A is compared to Wrestler B using those seven criteria.  Win a criteria, earn points.  If A and B haven't wrestled, then no one gets the 25 H-H points.  Whoever has the most quality wins gets 20 points.  Whoever has the higher CP ranking gets 15 points.  And so on, then total up the points.  The wrestler with the most points in that comparison earns a point against the whole field.

Then move on to Wrestler A vs Wrestler C; repeat the process, winner earns a point.  A vs D, winner gets a point.  When Wrestler A has been compared against all the others, move on to Wrestler B and compare him to C.  Continue until all the wrestlers have been compared, one at a time, to all the others.  At no time are all the wrestlers compared as a group.  It's all one guy against another guy.  If there are four available at-large berths, the four wrestlers with the most points receive them and the guy in 5th place is the alternate.

A couple of years ago the NCAA came out with subjective criteria, and I believe they just apply to the at-large process.  Here they are (they're not in the slideshow):

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA
The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding
criteria:
● Bad Losses
● Outside the top 30 CR and/or 30 RPI
● Conference Champion
● Performance in last five matches
● Number of Injury default or medical forfeits wins/losses
● Best quality win
● Wrestler availability (injured or medically unable to compete)

I particularly like the "bad losses" criterion.  Years ago when I was sifting through this stuff for the EIWA, it struck me that they rewarded quality wins but didn't penalize clunker losses.  Now they can.  These apply to both at-large selection and seeding criteria (Obviously.  Conference champs aren't in the at-large pool.).

I hope this helps.

 

 

Appreciate some of the clarity.

Still some questions but a part of me really wants to go through and do this for each matchup… except I’m more curious about some at 157 and 184, and those would be a heckuva lot of “matches” to score out!

[Wrestleknownothing]

18 minutes ago, Nightcrawler said:

Appreciate some of the clarity.

Still some questions but a part of me really wants to go through and do this for each matchup… except I’m more curious about some at 157 and 184, and those would be a heckuva lot of “matches” to score out!

And to do it right you need the same data the NCAA used. It won't be released until tomorrow.

[Warm Up Champ]

3 hours ago, killdozer said:

I agree. I considered him. But I thought his limited schedule would hold him back. I was wrong. (as I said 20% of the time)

Quote

All good.  Just throwing some love to the Beavs!

 

[jdalu75]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I don't think you have the QW quite right.  You say whoever has the most wins gets 20. The doc lists the possible splits as 20/0, 15/5, or 10/10 (and it is a weighted sum rather than a straight sum). What are the criteria for applying one of those splits?

The reason I think the subjective criteria applies to the seeding is that it includes conference champion. That would be a non-factor for the at-large pool. Now the other criteria may be used for the at-large pool, but the presence of Conference Champion suggests that, at a minimum, they is used for seeding.

The subjective criteria are included in this version (the current version):

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/wrestling/d1/men/2023-24D1MWR_SelectionsProcess.pdf

A document you really need to see is this one, beginning with Pg 13:

  https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/wrestling/d1/men/2024-25D1MWR_PreChampsManual.pdf

In the PreChampionships Manual, the Subjective Criteria section (pg 13) has this sentence:  "The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding criteria:"  So yes, it's not just seeding.

I see the split in the Quality Wins criterion, and I agree they can be split.  But they don't show what's needed for the split.  Regardless, if the two wrestlers tie then they split the points, otherwise the guy who gets more QW points get more comparison points.

 

One table that's definitely worth looking at is on Pg. 6 of the Slideshow.  This is the only place I've ever seen the actual RPI calculation results shown.  Normally all we see are the rankings.  It's from the 125 class in, I think, 2016.  The RPI column shows the results, which range from about 0.55 to 0.699, rounded to five decimals.  The result is 0.55167 for the 27th rank, 0.55162 for the 28th rank.  That's a difference of 0.00005; if an error is made anywhere in the data entry, a match that should have been included wasn't (like if a default in a November tournament is instead entered as a forfeit), the change in an RPI will be as much as 0.005.  I ran some trial hand calculations a few years ago and found I could easily shift the guy ranked 8th to 4th, or vice versa.  It probably doesn't matter much for the top 10; but how about for the guy ranked 29th, the guy who didn't make the field?

Edited 17 hours ago by jdalu75

[jdalu75]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And to do it right you need the same data the NCAA used. It won't be released until tomorrow.

I predict lots of angst and gnashing of teeth.

[RandolphTJones]

16 hours ago, Fletcher said:

TJ Stewart at VTech - ACC champ and AA last season.

Maybe HEW.

[Fletcher]

40 minutes ago, RandolphTJones said:

Maybe HEW.

I sure hope not - he's definitely got some skills. Only one in the VTech lineup not to qualify.

[Winners Circle]

1 minute ago, Fletcher said:

I sure hope not - he's definitely got some skills. Only one in the VTech lineup not to qualify.

Pretty young too to be HEW.

[Warm Up Champ]

27 minutes ago, Winners Circle said:

Pretty young too to be HEW.

Not to say this is the case with Stewart but there are a lot of guys coming out of HS that already don't have much tread left on the tire....  

[Winners Circle]

1 minute ago, Warm Up Champ said:

Not to say this is the case with Stewart but there are a lot of guys coming out of HS that already don't have much tread left on the tire....  

I think it depends on the kid. No HS kid has wrestled more than Bassett, Forrest, Knox, Seidel, Raneys, etc. and they don't seem to be HEW. 

[RandolphTJones]

1 hour ago, Winners Circle said:

Pretty young too to be HEW.

I wouldn't place "HEW" on age. Kids dad coulda got him into wrestling at like 4 years old. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

24 minutes ago, RandolphTJones said:

I wouldn't place "HEW" on age. Kids dad coulda got him into wrestling at like 4 years old. 

I think a lot of it is about enjoying the sport.  Also, weight cutting seems to be the #1 risk factor for HEW.