How in gods holy name are Ramos and Bartlett still ranked #1 after taking loses in the B1Gs?

[Bardamu911]

the disrespect to Luke L and Brock H is brutal. Anyway, to quote Sil from the Sopranos, "I've said my piece." 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, Bardamu911 said:

the disrespect to Luke L and Brock H is brutal. Anyway, to quote Sil from the Sopranos, "I've said my piece." 

I hope to see only conference champs considered for the #1 seed.

[PortaJohn]

Did the coaches rankings come out already?  Bratlett @ #1 wouldn't be that shocking

[Husker_Du]

i don't hate it. they had great seasons and just 1 loss.

i think seeds could be a different story though.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Barr at #3 ahead of undefeated Ferarri.

Kerk is still #2 against two undefeated wrestlers in Pindrickson and Trephan.

[Truzzcat]

Flow moved Luke from 8 to 1 which I don't understand, and Luke is probably my pick for NCAA's I don't think a head to head result should jump you 8 spots when you have a loss to 10 and 18. In the case of Hardy, he is 0-2 against Happel this season 0-4 over the last two so I just don't see justifying 1 for him. 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Just now, Truzzcat said:

Flow moved Luke from 8 to 1 which I don't understand, and Luke is probably my pick for NCAA's I don't think a head to head result should jump you 8 spots when you have a loss to 10 and 18. In the case of Hardy, he is 0-2 against Happel this season 0-4 over the last two so I just don't see justifying 1 for him. 

He also has a head to head loss to Bartlett this season.

[bnwtwg]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Barr at #3 ahead of undefeated Ferarri.

Barr has a higher PIN rating and we all know that's what is most important

[Kevin]

Not sure how Lilledahl is ranked below Ramos after convincingly beating him this past weekend.  Not saying he should be #1 but he beat him soundly.  Beau I can see when he beat Hardy h2h.

Can Intermat provide some reasoning behind their rankings?

[Kevin]

2 hours ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Barr at #3 ahead of undefeated Ferarri.

Kerk is still #2 against two undefeated wrestlers in Pindrickson and Trephan.

Barr wrestled a much tougher schedule than Ferrrari.  Beat current #1 Cardenas during season, took previous #1 Buchanan into SV.  Who has AJ wrestled?

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Not sure how Lilledahl is ranked below Ramos after convincingly beating him this past weekend.  Not saying he should be #1 but he beat him soundly.  Beau I can see when he beat Hardy h2h.

Can Intermat provide some reasoning behind their rankings?

And this breaks with their precedence all season. When a lower ranked wrestler within striking distance, beat a higher ranked wrestler, they had the winning wrestler taking the ranking spot of the losing wrestler.

[maligned]

18 hours ago, Bardamu911 said:

the disrespect to Luke L and Brock H is brutal. Anyway, to quote Sil from the Sopranos, "I've said my piece." 

 

15 hours ago, Kevin said:

Not sure how Lilledahl is ranked below Ramos after convincingly beating him this past weekend.  Not saying he should be #1 but he beat him soundly.  Beau I can see when he beat Hardy h2h.

Can Intermat provide some reasoning behind their rankings?

In any other sport's rankings or standings, the team or the guy with the best overall results is higher.

Only in wrestling do we put freak-out emphasis on the thing we saw 5 minutes ago, assuming that must be the "actual" truth, rather than only a piece of the puzzle. 

 

Bartlett/Hardy is a definite no-brainer:

Head-to-head: Bartlett 1-0, Hardy 0-1

vs. Top 20: Bartlett 8-1, Hardy 8-3

 

Ramos/Lilledahl is trickier:

Head-to-head: Lilledahl 1-0, Ramos 0-1

vs. Top 20: Ramos 9-1 (4 bonus wins, 1 bonus loss), Lilledahl 6-2 (3 bonus wins, 1 bonus loss)

 

In true standings, head-to-heads and common opponent transitive W/L's are equal because you've earned just as much and they are just as predictive (only if all else is equal do you then weigh head-to-head more). Above, head-to-head and Vombaur round-robin cancel each other out in the Bartlett/Hardy discussion. Same for head-to-head and the McCrone round-robin in Ramos/Lilledahl. Take those results away, and we're left with an undefeated wrestler up against a wrestler with losses in both cases.

We're not trying to figure out the linear heavyweight champ here. It's rankings based on all inputs.

 

 

 

[BruceyB]

5 hours ago, maligned said:

 

In any other sport's rankings or standings, the team or the guy with the best overall results is higher.

Only in wrestling do we put freak-out emphasis on the thing we saw 5 minutes ago, assuming that must be the "actual" truth, rather than only a piece of the puzzle. 

 

Bartlett/Hardy is a definite no-brainer:

Head-to-head: Bartlett 1-0, Hardy 0-1

vs. Top 20: Bartlett 8-1, Hardy 8-3

 

Ramos/Lilledahl is trickier:

Head-to-head: Lilledahl 1-0, Ramos 0-1

vs. Top 20: Ramos 9-1 (4 bonus wins, 1 bonus loss), Lilledahl 6-2 (3 bonus wins, 1 bonus loss)

 

In true standings, head-to-heads and common opponent transitive W/L's are equal because you've earned just as much and they are just as predictive (only if all else is equal do you then weigh head-to-head more). Above, head-to-head and Vombaur round-robin cancel each other out in the Bartlett/Hardy discussion. Same for head-to-head and the McCrone round-robin in Ramos/Lilledahl. Take those results away, and we're left with an undefeated wrestler up against a wrestler with losses in both cases.

We're not trying to figure out the linear heavyweight champ here. It's rankings based on all inputs.

 

 

 

8-1 vs 8-3 is a no brainer? Hardy has wrestled a much more difficult schedule than Bartlett, and it's not Hardy's fault that he didn't get to avenge his loss because Beau lost in the semis. Why are we rewarding Bartlett for losing to someone ranked lower than Hardy by keeping him #1..?

As for 125, you can drop Ramos and limit how high you want to put Lilledahl, but you cannot have Ramos above Lilledahl after getting dominated like that.

[Husker_Du]

was Luke 'within striking distance' ? 

he was 8 with a loss by pin to #18 McCrone two weeks ago.

i'm fine w/ giving Ramos a mulligan.

[Wrestleknownothing]

54 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

8-1 vs 8-3 is a no brainer? Hardy has wrestled a much more difficult schedule than Bartlett, and it's not Hardy's fault that he didn't get to avenge his loss because Beau lost in the semis. Why are we rewarding Bartlett for losing to someone ranked lower than Hardy by keeping him #1..?

As for 125, you can drop Ramos and limit how high you want to put Lilledahl, but you cannot have Ramos above Lilledahl after getting dominated like that.

Hardy is one slot above Bartlett in the NCAA RPI, and one slot below in the WrestleStat RPI. Basically an identical strength of schedule.

Ditto for quality wins. Using slightly imperfect data (current CR) Hardy pips Bartlett by 0.5 (25.5 to 25)

Edited Wednesday at 07:23 PM by Wrestleknownothing

[1032004]

8 hours ago, maligned said:

 

In any other sport's rankings or standings, the team or the guy with the best overall results is higher.

Only in wrestling do we put freak-out emphasis on the thing we saw 5 minutes ago, assuming that must be the "actual" truth, rather than only a piece of the puzzle. 

 

Not sure I agree with this.  Don’t they often talk in college football about how early season losses matter less than late season losses?  If the #1 team was 9-0 and lost to the #4 team that was 7-2 in the conference championship, wouldn’t the team that won the conference championship be ranked higher afterwards?

[Pablo]

56 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Not sure I agree with this.  Don’t they often talk in college football about how early season losses matter less than late season losses?  If the #1 team was 9-0 and lost to the #4 team that was 7-2 in the conference championship, wouldn’t the team that won the conference championship be ranked higher afterwards?

Self-serving side track:  Unfortunately, I don't have enough data to draw any conclusions about this aspect yet.  I've got outcomes for rematches as a function of time, but there's just not enough data to know exactly how much a time lag matters.

[maligned]

5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Not sure I agree with this.  Don’t they often talk in college football about how early season losses matter less than late season losses?  If the #1 team was 9-0 and lost to the #4 team that was 7-2 in the conference championship, wouldn’t the team that won the conference championship be ranked higher afterwards?

Not if they played similar schedules. No.

[666]

On 3/11/2025 at 5:46 PM, Bardamu911 said:

the disrespect to Luke L and Brock H is brutal. Anyway, to quote Sil from the Sopranos, "I've said my piece." 

It doesn't matter. Brock and Luke both got #1 seeds at NCAAs. 

[666]

On 3/11/2025 at 8:42 PM, Kevin said:

Barr wrestled a much tougher schedule than Ferrrari.  Beat current #1 Cardenas during season, took previous #1 Buchanan into SV.  Who has AJ wrestled?

He beat Little 2-0 last week. 

[1032004]

8 hours ago, maligned said:

Not if they played similar schedules. No.

I’m not a big college football fan, but I found the main example I was probably thinking of (there may be others).  But it technically didn’t involve the conference championship.

2017-2018.  9-2 Auburn, ranked #6 at the time, beats 11-0 and #1 Alabama in the Iron Bowl.  Auburn jumps up to #2 in the CFP rankings, and Alabama dropped to #5.  (So pretty comparable to Lilledahl/Ramos).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_College_Football_Playoff

Edited yesterday at 11:18 AM by 1032004

[maligned]

17 hours ago, BruceyB said:

8-1 vs 8-3 is a no brainer? Hardy has wrestled a much more difficult schedule than Bartlett, and it's not Hardy's fault that he didn't get to avenge his loss because Beau lost in the semis. Why are we rewarding Bartlett for losing to someone ranked lower than Hardy by keeping him #1..?

We knew the seeds would go the way that they did because there's a heavy emphasis on conference championships.

But back to the ranking discussion here:

Bartlett's wins against the seeded field (10-1, 3-1 Top 8, 7-1 Top 16): #1, #3, #3, #13, #14, #15, #15, #23, #27, #28

Loss: #6

Hardy's wins against the seeded field (12-3, 5-3 Top 8, 8-3 Top 16): #3, #4, #4, #6, #6, #12, #14, #15, #21, #28, #29, #31

Losses: #2, #5, #7

Again, if there's no conference championship and recency bias in play, there's no way a blind résumé analysis puts Hardy in front. He wrestled a slightly tougher schedule, but he lost 3 of 8 against the best AND lost the head-to-head. If this were a high school seeding meeting heading into the state series, people would wonder why we're even talking. 

Hardy deserves the #1 seed based on the conference championship biased protocol. But the question of why rankers have Bartlett ahead of Hardy doesn't have a complicated response.

[1032004]

24 minutes ago, maligned said:

We knew the seeds would go the way that they did because there's a heavy emphasis on conference championships.

But back to the ranking discussion here:

Bartlett's wins against the seeded field (10-1, 3-1 Top 8, 7-1 Top 16): #1, #3, #3, #13, #14, #15, #15, #23, #27, #28

Loss: #6

Hardy's wins against the seeded field (12-3, 5-3 Top 8, 8-3 Top 16): #3, #4, #4, #6, #6, #12, #14, #15, #21, #28, #29, #31

Losses: #2, #5, #7

Again, if there's no conference championship and recency bias in play, there's no way a blind résumé analysis puts Hardy in front. He wrestled a slightly tougher schedule, but he lost 3 of 8 against the best AND lost the head-to-head. If this were a high school seeding meeting heading into the state series, people would wonder why we're even talking. 

Hardy deserves the #1 seed based on the conference championship biased protocol. But the question of why rankers have Bartlett ahead of Hardy doesn't have a complicated response.

Why shouldn’t ranking also have a conference championship bias? It’s the second most important tournament of the year.

But you kinda seem to be disregarding tournaments in general.   If the resumes were exactly the same and we’re just talking about CKLV and not the conference, the guy that won the tournament would have a good argument to be ranked higher than the guy that got 3rd, even if they didn’t wrestle.

[bnwtwg]

Everyone should quit worrying about this. Seeds at 125 do not matter this year - you could wrestle this weight 10 times and 16 different wrestlers would be AAs. It's a crapshoot, wide-open weight this year.

Edited yesterday at 01:21 PM by bnwtwg

[maligned]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Why shouldn’t ranking also have a conference championship bias? It’s the second most important tournament of the year.

But you kinda seem to be disregarding tournaments in general.   If the resumes were exactly the same and we’re just talking about CKLV and not the conference, the guy that won the tournament would have a good argument to be ranked higher than the guy that got 3rd, even if they didn’t wrestle.

It's not about disregarding tournaments. It's that rankings and standings consider all matches/games equally, with tiebreaker biases toward head-to-heads first and foremost, then possibly toward recency or specified bigger events. When two guys or teams have one loss versus three losses and the head-to-head is also involved, the 3-loss guy will never be ranked higher because of the principle of weighting all results mostly on the same footing.