Hot take: Flo rankings are better than intermat

[1032004]

Willie has been ranting saying that people that use flo rankings are “casuals.” But I like that they have a pretty defined process and overall I feel like they make more sense than Intermat although to be honest, there’s generally not too many differences.

The main thing that stuck out to me was PJ Duke prior to the Lehigh dual. Flo had him at 29, one ahead of Burgess of Buffalo who he beat.  Intermat had him at 15.  If you’re not going purely on NCAA results, he should have started the season number 1 after beating the defending champ in freestyle. 15 made no sense.
 

[Pinnacle]

29 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Willie has been ranting saying that people that use flo rankings are “casuals.” But I like that they have a pretty defined process and overall I feel like they make more sense than Intermat although to be honest, there’s generally not too many differences.

The main thing that stuck out to me was PJ Duke prior to the Lehigh dual. Flo had him at 29, one ahead of Burgess of Buffalo who he beat.  Intermat had him at 15.  If you’re not going purely on NCAA results, he should have started the season number 1 after beating the defending champ in freestyle. 15 made no sense.
 

 

The fact that all of these "rankers" willfully ignore loads of known data points make them cannon fodder. They all knew that guys like Spencer Lee, Yianni D., Jason Nolf, Kyle Snyder and J'Den Cox were going to be at the top by February, so why start them unranked? It is even worse when they start them ranked, but just at the bottom. If they have no results, leave them unranked even though you know better, or rank them like they do in every other sport.

Nobody involved in wrestling does not know on November 1 each year the names of certain freshman that are going to be in the top 3 very quickly. Every other sport ranks guys based on known data, except this one.  

[Dark Energy]

Have a process, be transparent, be consistent.   Then let the masses decide which to go with.  The real problem is inconsistency.  
 

Sounds like people also want a year end prediction ranking, informed by HS, freestyle, and college accomplishments.  That is super interesting to me.  Wish some service would put this out.  Maybe just go top 10 by weight.  This would be a tremendously brave thing to put out there because there are tons of people that will throw arrows and sludge when predictions are wrong.

[1032004]

14 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

 

The fact that all of these "rankers" willfully ignore loads of known data points make them cannon fodder. They all knew that guys like Spencer Lee, Yianni D., Jason Nolf, Kyle Snyder and J'Den Cox were going to be at the top by February, so why start them unranked? It is even worse when they start them ranked, but just at the bottom. If they have no results, leave them unranked even though you know better, or rank them like they do in every other sport.

Nobody involved in wrestling does not know on November 1 each year the names of certain freshman that are going to be in the top 3 very quickly. Every other sport ranks guys based on known data, except this one.  

What other NCAA sport is ranked based on individual matchups and not times like track or swimming?  Or are you talking about something like basketball teams being ranked based on individual freshmen coming in?

The debate is what counts as relevant data though?  I suppose you could count high school folkstyle results, but I can see the argument for not counting freestyle since it technically is a different sport.

I don’t think Flo ranks anyone at the bottom without it being based on NCAA results. These days most of the guys either have results as redshirts or have entered NCAA tournaments as highschoolers.

 

[1032004]

11 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

Have a process, be transparent, be consistent.   Then let the masses decide which to go with.  The real problem is inconsistency.  
 

Sounds like people also want a year end prediction ranking, informed by HS, freestyle, and college accomplishments.  That is super interesting to me.  Wish some service would put this out.  Maybe just go top 10 by weight.  This would be a tremendously brave thing to put out there because there are tons of people that will throw arrows and sludge when predictions are wrong.

Who are you talking about with your first paragraph? Flo is pretty consistent IMO.

to your second paragraph, Willie does “crystal ball rankings“ which is basically what you’re describing.  I believe others like BEG do as well 

 

[alex1fly]

And the Coaches poll is what determines Nationals seeds right? So maybe Intermat rankings are for casuals too.

[maligned]

Flo does things that aren't intuitive.

Example: #24 Carroll picks up wins over #11 Lanosga and #5 Ghadiali. He previously lost to #15 Mullen. 

Flo moves Mullen up a bit and Lanosga down a bit and puts Carroll between them (and drops Ghadiali one slot to 6). Now Mullen is 12, Carroll 13, Lanosga 15. 

Problem: Thats exactly where they would be WITHOUT Carroll's major over Ghadiali. You're entirely disregarding a huge result because you're distracted by thinking you need to slot Carroll behind Mullen.

In fact, the mathematically predictive (and logical) place to put someone who's beaten 6 and lost to 12 is the mid-point between them. Think of one match deserving a 5 rating and the other deserving a 13. Average is 9. That would be intuitive.

InterMat got the principle right. Ghadiali's down to 8, Mullen 14, Carroll between at 10. 

[Dark Energy]

37 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Who are you talking about with your first paragraph? Flo is pretty consistent IMO.

to your second paragraph, Willie does “crystal ball rankings“ which is basically what you’re describing.  I believe others like BEG do as well 

 

I didn’t meant to imply any issue with Flo.  They actually are saying this is what they are trying to do.  I can’t say I’ve studied it enough to say they are doing a great job here.  But my ‘casual’ review suggests they seem to be doing at least a pretty good job.  

I’ll try to check out the crystal ball rankings.  I used to pay, but cancelled.  Hoping can get in front of paywall.  

[happyvalet]

31 minutes ago, maligned said:

Flo does things that aren't intuitive.

Example: #24 Carroll picks up wins over #11 Lanosga and #5 Ghadiali. He previously lost to #15 Mullen. 

Flo moves Mullen up a bit and Lanosga down a bit and puts Carroll between them (and drops Ghadiali one slot to 6). Now Mullen is 12, Carroll 13, Lanosga 15. 

Problem: Thats exactly where they would be WITHOUT Carroll's major over Ghadiali. You're entirely disregarding a huge result because you're distracted by thinking you need to slot Carroll behind Mullen.

In fact, the mathematically predictive (and logical) place to put someone who's beaten 6 and lost to 12 is the mid-point between them. Think of one match deserving a 5 rating and the other deserving a 13. Average is 9. That would be intuitive.

InterMat got the principle right. Ghadiali's down to 8, Mullen 14, Carroll between at 10. 

It does make sense to move Mullen up as his W against Carroll is now more valuable, but yeah I agree Carroll should be higher/should be ahead of Mullen.

Intermat has some dumb ranking decisions though like Facundo at 16. I'm not sure what principle justifies that 

[Pinnacle]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

What other NCAA sport is ranked based on individual matchups and not times like track or swimming?  Or are you talking about something like basketball teams being ranked based on individual freshmen coming in?

The debate is what counts as relevant data though?  I suppose you could count high school folkstyle results, but I can see the argument for not counting freestyle since it technically is a different sport.

I don’t think Flo ranks anyone at the bottom without it being based on NCAA results. These days most of the guys either have results as redshirts or have entered NCAA tournaments as highschoolers.

 

Your basketball team analogy is the comp I am talking about. 

I know they don't count freestyle results, but they do see them and they know they are there. Kozak even said on FRL when this issue came up that he was thinking of Duke with a large lead late and the other guy inj def out of the match. Well why was he thinking of Duke as opposed to any other random freshman? Because Duke is a known commodity.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2025 by Pinnacle

[maligned]

16 minutes ago, happyvalet said:

 

Intermat has some dumb ranking decisions though like Facundo at 16. I'm not sure what principle justifies that 

He's 14 now, but you're right that it's strange. Losses to 2,3,4; win over 8. But ranked 14? 

[Dark Energy]

Can’t find crystal ball on Intermat.  Guessing it is a MatScouts / Rokfin thing.  Has been a bit.  Don’t have pw.  Let my subscription lapse.  Oh well.  

[maligned]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

What other NCAA sport is ranked based on individual matchups and not times like track or swimming?  Or are you talking about something like basketball teams being ranked based on individual freshmen coming in?

The debate is what counts as relevant data though?  I suppose you could count high school folkstyle results, but I can see the argument for not counting freestyle since it technically is a different sport.

I don’t think Flo ranks anyone at the bottom without it being based on NCAA results. These days most of the guys either have results as redshirts or have entered NCAA tournaments as highschoolers.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

your basketball team analogy is the comp I am talking about. 

I agree with pinnacle. Not considering all-star classic results or ignoring freshmen resumes early in the year is silly. High school rankings include freshmen based on prior results, why can't college? All team sports' rankings try to make a guess at freshman impact on team performance. Why can't wrestling rankings do the same in individual lists. Adjust as needed when the results come in.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

You can't go on freestyle results.  Remember Carter Young's freestyle run before his true freshman season?  He would have been ranked very high.  That wasn't too long ago.

Let them earn it during the season, the more wrestling that occurs, the higher guys will move up.  It isn't that big a deal.  Process + transparency are paramount.

[happyvalet]

13 minutes ago, maligned said:

I agree with pinnacle. Not considering all-star classic results or ignoring freshmen resumes early in the year is silly. High school rankings include freshmen based on prior results, why can't college? All team sports' rankings try to make a guess at freshman impact on team performance. Why can't wrestling rankings do the same in individual lists. Adjust as needed when the results come in.

Agreed. I get their choice to make a principled ranking system that they feel is more easily defended, but maybe they should also have an opinion ranking as well. JD did his version of crystal ball a while back, he could just update it periodically 

https://www.flowrestling.org/rankings/14149599-2025-26-ncaa-wrestling-championship-prediction-rankings/54786-133-ryan-crookham

[Pinnacle]

15 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

You can't go on freestyle results.  Remember Carter Young's freestyle run before his true freshman season?  He would have been ranked very high.  That wasn't too long ago.

Let them earn it during the season, the more wrestling that occurs, the higher guys will move up.  It isn't that big a deal.  Process + transparency are paramount.

 

Carter Young had one good freestyle event where he came in 3rd at the trials, but he did not have a similar folk resume. There is a difference between Carter Young and, say, PJ Duke. Duke has both a folk and freestyle resume and both are a lot better than Carter Young's freestyle but not as good folkstyle resume. These differences can be accounted for with simple common sense. 

[maligned]

20 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

You can't go on freestyle results.  Remember Carter Young's freestyle run before his true freshman season?  He would have been ranked very high.  That wasn't too long ago.

Let them earn it during the season, the more wrestling that occurs, the higher guys will move up.  It isn't that big a deal.  Process + transparency are paramount.

We can definitely include freestyle results to a certain point. History shows us that offseason freestyle results correlate very well with in-season college performance. The predictive capacity is slightly diminished for incoming freshmen, but there's still a powerful enough correlation to help make better guesses in preseason rankings than the big rankers do now. 

[Pinnacle]

1 minute ago, maligned said:

We can definitely include freestyle results to a certain point. History shows us that offseason freestyle results correlate very well with in-season college performance. The predictive capacity is slightly diminished for incoming freshmen, but there's still a powerful enough correlation to help make better guesses in preseason rankings than the big rankers do now. 

 

Exactly. And to not use freestyle because we can identify the Carter Young's of the world is silly given we can identify 10x as many guys who rocket UP the rankings for every Carter Young that would plumet in the rankings. 

 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

8 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

 

Exactly. And to not use freestyle because we can identify the Carter Young's of the world is silly given we can identify 10x as many guys who rocket UP the rankings for every Carter Young that would plumet in the rankings. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, maligned said:

We can definitely include freestyle results to a certain point. History shows us that offseason freestyle results correlate very well with in-season college performance. The predictive capacity is slightly diminished for incoming freshmen, but there's still a powerful enough correlation to help make better guesses in preseason rankings than the big rankers do now. 

You both prefer more of a "crystal ball" situation, clearly.

Keep in mind that this "incoming freshman being our top senior level guys" is kind of a new thing.

Devil's advocate: If there was no Blaze and Ono was PSU's only option at 133, should he be #1?

Edited December 10, 2025 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[Pinnacle]

2 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

You both prefer more of a "crystal ball" situation clearly.

Keep in mind that this "incoming freshman being our top senior level guys" is kind of a new thing.

Devil's advocate: If there was no Blaze and Ono was PSU's only option at 133, should he be #1?

 

If in the mind of the given ranker, then sure, Ono would be #1. It is up to who is doing the rankings. If Ono loses he would drop, same as Ohio State football dropped this week. Remember, they were ranked above Indiana based purely on historical reputation, and dropped when Indiana beat them. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

4 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

 

If in the mind of the given ranker, then sure, Ono would be #1. It is up to who is doing the rankings. If Ono loses he would drop, same as Ohio State football dropped this week. Remember, they were ranked above Indiana based purely on historical reputation, and dropped when Indiana beat them. 

Had Ohio State played games of American football before?  That quite is a bit different.  They also had an entire regular season...

Also: were they ranked #1 all season, or did they start at #3 and have to beat someone?

Edited December 10, 2025 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[happyvalet]

If you're making an algorithm-based ranking, freestyle results should be (weakly) weighted for sure. If you're manually making rankings, it gets messy pretty quickly. 

[Pinnacle]

21 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Had Ohio State played games of American football before?  That quite is a bit different.  They also had an entire regular season...

Also: were they ranked #1 all season, or did they start at #3 and have to beat someone?

Yes, they played football before, but so did Indiana. Ohio State wasn't ranked #1 because they had played football before, it was because in the minds of the rankers when the Buckeyes ascended to #1 after the first week of games they were playing football better. That was a subjective thing. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by Pinnacle

[Pinnacle]

20 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

 

You both prefer more of a "crystal ball" situation clearly.

Keep in mind that this "incoming freshman being our top senior level guys" is kind of a new thing.

Devil's advocate: If there was no Blaze and Ono was PSU's only option at 133, should he be #1?

Here is another Devil's advocate. If Spencer Lee had eligibility for the 2024-2025 wrestling year for Iowa, should he have been ranked #1. He had prior folk resume and was our Olympic rep. 

 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

9 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

Yes, they played football before, but so did Indiana. Why was Ohio State ranked above another team that plays the exact same sport when both are unbeaten? Because of historical bias i.e. subjectivity. 

They had a roster that was considered superior and superior resources, plus a stronger finish in the same league last year.  Additionally, this was something voted on by dozens of people and Ohio State beat competition that was regarded as superior.

And I'm a Cignetti fan.  Watched his Elon team beat JMU, was very impressed.  Was very happy when he ended upm at JMU and loved the job he did for the Dukes.

Edited December 10, 2025 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken