Keck should not have done the all-star classic

[MLB9]

5 minutes ago, dragit said:

Not sure why.  Starocci and McEnelly have already wrestled.  Wouldn't it be better to have Keck and Mc wrestle each other for the first time, then whoever wins (is better) gets to wrestle the 4x champ?  

Absolutely, it’s set up as a 1a vs. 2b and 1b vs. 2a cross-conference. Less familiarity and very ideal for fans, not sure what the problem is.

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Fletcher said:

Keckeisen won his conference too. He has no control over the difficulty level and that shouldn't be held against him.

Speaking of "undisputed" conference difficulty, how many wins does McEnelly (#2 B10) have over Plott (#2B12)?

What do you mean “wins”?

If we’re talking seeding, McEnelly has winning % and Plott has RPI which cancel each other out.   H2H and common opponents are N/A, and conference finish is equal.

Looks like McEnelly has coaches rank (barely), but I assume your question is why is that, but nonetheless, seeding would still come down to quality wins regardless

[RockLobster]

18 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

Of course you're right - beating one phenomenal athlete is exactly the same as beating two.

I've given up sarcasm for Lent. So I'm not going your route.

I do agree with you that there is an All Star bias. But what you're describing is an easier vs harder path that doesn't have much merit when all factors are considered.

[Wrestleknownothing]

55 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

Attached is from Matt Valenti. See slide 8. Doesn't reference past NCAA performance. Also doesn't say a 4 timer "doesn't need to be questioned".

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

Starocci won the matrix calc vs Keckeisen.

So why would Keckeisen be the #1 seed?

H2H 12.5 - 12.5

QW 15 - 5

Conf  7.5 - 7.5

CR 15 - 0

CO 10 - 10

W% 10 - 10

RPI 0 - 10

Add it all up and Starocci gets 70 and Keckeisen gets 50.

[Fletcher]

12 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Starocci won the matrix calc vs Keckeisen.

So why would Keckeisen be the #1 seed?

H2H 12.5 - 12.5

QW 15 - 5

Conf  7.5 - 7.5

CR 15 - 0

CO 10 - 10

W% 10 - 10

RPI 0 - 10

Add it all up and Starocci gets 70 and Keckeisen gets 50.

Bring us back to the title of the thread.

[Wrestleknownothing]

15 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

Bring us back to the title of the thread.

How?

[Tyler]

3 hours ago, Fletcher said:

Starocci-McEnelly semi and Starocci-Keck final would have been better.

I truly feel like Parker will beat Max worse than Carter did. I want to see the Max vs PK

[RockLobster]

1 hour ago, Fletcher said:

Bring us back to the title of the thread.

OK. 

Keck gets the #2 seed regardless of the All Star match results. That didn't have any impact.

Per the OP, should he have done the AS match?

Meh - let either of them wrestle early season if they want. Or not. A win does get bias toward you with the fans, a loss turns the bias around. It's not really a big deal either way. Particularly when the match ends in regulation 1-1, and it has to go to SV. 

[BruceyB]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Starocci won the matrix calc vs Keckeisen.

So why would Keckeisen be the #1 seed?

H2H 12.5 - 12.5

QW 15 - 5

Conf  7.5 - 7.5

CR 15 - 0

CO 10 - 10

W% 10 - 10

RPI 0 - 10

Add it all up and Starocci gets 70 and Keckeisen gets 50.

Because haters want to watch Starocci wrestle the most difficult path. That is the only reason.

Edit: I do wonder if Keck won the all-star would he have been the #1 seed? It may have actually been more advantageous for him to take a short in an unofficial match than to rely purely on his schedule to secure the #1 seed.

Edited March 13 by BruceyB

[dragit]

2 hours ago, Fletcher said:

Bring us back to the title of the thread.

Glad to. 

The title is "Keck should not have done the all-star classic," which is wrong.

As amply documented above, wrestling the exhibition did not harm Keck's seed.  Starocci earned the top seed by the criteria.

Then the question becomes would Keck have been better off next week if he hadn't wrestled Starocci in the exhibition.  I can't see how.  Participating in the exhibition and not getting injured doing so got him the best competition possible for the season, which can only help.

And he also got to wrestle the guy with 4 titles who wrestles a very cagey, discrete style designed around the folkstyle rules.  I would think that it would be advantageous for Keck to not be seeing this for the first time on the sport's biggest stage next week, and to have had several months to think about and plan strategies around how to manage the match and break through just once, that once being when it matters most.

[1032004]

4 hours ago, BruceyB said:

 

Edit: I do wonder if Keck won the all-star would he have been the #1 seed? It may have actually been more advantageous for him to take a short in an unofficial match than to rely purely on his schedule to secure the #1 seed.

100% yes, if he beat Starocci at the all-star he would be ranked (and thus seeded) higher than him.  But pretty sure most (maybe all, definitely Flo which lets you see the old versions) ranking services had Starocci higher even before the All-Star, and we know a lot of coaches use the ranking services as a guide; so wrestling the All-Star did not hurt Keckeisen 

Edited March 13 by 1032004

[lu_alum]

OK. 
Keck gets the #2 seed regardless of the All Star match results. That didn't have any impact.
Per the OP, should he have done the AS match?
Meh - let either of them wrestle early season if they want. Or not. A win does get bias toward you with the fans, a loss turns the bias around. It's not really a big deal either way. Particularly when the match ends in regulation 1-1, and it has to go to SV. 

All Star (and prior year performances) don’t count for Win Pct, RPI, H2H, Quality Opponents. However, right or wrong, All Star (and prior years) influence the Coaches’ Rank.

Regardless, Starocci was ranked higher than Keck in the various ranking services before the All Star bout. The decision to participate in the All Star is moot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

National titles from previous years and All-Star matches technically do not count, but where do we think coaches get the starting points for their rankings at the beginning of the season?

[1032004]

2 hours ago, lu_alum said:

All Star (and prior year performances) don’t count for Win Pct, RPI, H2H, Quality Opponents. However, right or wrong, All Star (and prior years) influence the Coaches’ Rank.

Regardless, Starocci was ranked higher than Keck in the various ranking services before the All Star bout. The decision to participate in the All Star is moot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup 

[Fletcher]

9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

How?

Sorry - mistyped. Meant to say "which brings us back to the title of the thread."

Sounds like everyone disagrees with me and thinks Keck would be #2 even if he didn't do the all-star match. That may be true, but it's unfair that no consideration is given to the fact that Keck is defending the weight class title while Carter is moving up into his weight class and challenging.

That is all.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Just now, Fletcher said:

Sorry - mistyped. Meant to say "which brings us back to the title of the thread."

Sounds like everyone disagrees with me and thinks Keck would be #2 even if he didn't do the all-star match. That may be true, but it's unfair that no consideration is given to the fact that Keck is defending the weight class title while Carter is moving up into his weight class and challenging.

That is all.

I mean, they've shown the math using the actual seeding criteria, so the premise of your thread has been objectively proven incorrect.  So while you think it's "unfair" according to the agreed seeding criteria this is the only "fair" result.

It sounds like your actual beef is with the seeding criteria.  It sounds like you want to add a component that takes into account previous year results and whether someone was in the weight class the previous year.

[1032004]

8 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

Sorry - mistyped. Meant to say "which brings us back to the title of the thread."

Sounds like everyone disagrees with me and thinks Keck would be #2 even if he didn't do the all-star match. That may be true, but it's unfair that no consideration is given to the fact that Keck is defending the weight class title while Carter is moving up into his weight class and challenging.

That is all.

Maybe but that’s a different conversation.  That’s where the subjective aspect of rankings comes in

[Richferg]

1 hour ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

National titles from previous years and All-Star matches technically do not count, but where do we think coaches get the starting points for their rankings at the beginning of the season?

If anyone remembers back to Mark Hall and Zahid Valencia in their sophomore years?  Hall was the defending champion and undefeated Big10 champion, but got ranked and seeded behind Valencia who was 3rd in the NCAA the previous year, and the undefeated PAC 10 champion. The only difference was Valencia won the All Star match up. 

[Fletcher]

22 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

I mean, they've shown the math using the actual seeding criteria, so the premise of your thread has been objectively proven incorrect.  So while you think it's "unfair" according to the agreed seeding criteria this is the only "fair" result.

It sounds like your actual beef is with the seeding criteria.  It sounds like you want to add a component that takes into account previous year results and whether someone was in the weight class the previous year.

Not quite.

Ranking is a significant criteria. The all-star match influences ranking when it shouldn't, but apparently moving up a weight doesn't influence ranking when it should.

[Pinnacle]

3 hours ago, lu_alum said:

All Star (and prior year performances) don’t count for Win Pct, RPI, H2H, Quality Opponents. However, right or wrong, All Star (and prior years) influence the Coaches’ Rank.

Regardless, Starocci was ranked higher than Keck in the various ranking services before the All Star bout. The decision to participate in the All Star is moot.

 

Agree.

Keck should simply be honored they asked him to wrestle in the event. It should carry some prestige to it. Aren't we still trying to grow the sport and all? 

[Pinnacle]

17 minutes ago, Richferg said:

If anyone remembers back to Mark Hall and Zahid Valencia in their sophomore years?  Hall was the defending champion and undefeated Big10 champion, but got ranked and seeded behind Valencia who was 3rd in the NCAA the previous year, and the undefeated PAC 10 champion. The only difference was Valencia won the All Star match up. 

And I don't think there were too many complainers. Zahid and Hall were going to get back to the finals again anyway, and then the better man was going to win. Its hardly a big deal. 

[1032004]

45 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

but apparently moving up a weight doesn't influence ranking when it should.

Now you’re just making things up.  I’m sure it’s a factor in general like in situations where the resumes are close, but most people are going to rank a 4x champ bumping up higher than a 1x champ from the same weight 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

48 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

Not quite.

Ranking is a significant criteria. The all-star match influences ranking when it shouldn't, but apparently moving up a weight doesn't influence ranking when it should.

Why should moving up a weight influence ranking?  Did Starocci show that he is a less dominant wrestler at 184 than he was last year at 174?  Did he not show by beating Keck head to head at the All-Star match that him moving up didn't hinder his performance?

 

Using your logic, if last year's 197 pound champion moved down to 184 would he deserved to be ranked higher than Keck because he is naturally the bigger person?

[Dogbone]

Imagine telling an NCAA champ, "Don't wrestle because we are worried you might lose and then the path to the finals will be harder"

[ionel]

13 hours ago, ionel said:

What weight was Carter last year? 

 

12 hours ago, ionel said:

At what weight? 

So no one knows what weight Starocci wrestled last year?  Well I looked it up and if WS is correct he wrestled down at 174.  Thats right he hasn't yet won a single title at 184.  Moreover, last year he didn't beat either of the top 2 places who dominated the rest of the field.  He also didn't beat either of those two this year at 184. He did beat 2 freshmen.  So why is he seeded #1 you ask ... because it doesn't make any sense.

Here's how they should be seeded:

1 Keckeisen 2 Starocci 3 Plott 4 McEnelly 

Now doesn't that look better cause Keck gets McE and Star gets Plott as it should be. 

But alas we will have to deal with this crap the seeding committee pulled on us.  This weight is about matchups and the semis, even though they messed it up seeding doesn't really matter.