cowcards

I'd bet it's something along the lines of "I would've used it, but _____ happened and I couldn't. I should get a 5th year too just like everyone else."

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.

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.

Everything = all criteria Else = not al the criteria In this instance, else is being defined to say all the criteria that is not h2h or conference finish. I don't think hardy will be ahead in the RPI or the coaches. Thus, everything else is equal or very close. h2h > conference finish

I think I could agree with you on that one. Wouldn't have thought so when I asked.

That's fine. I get the sentiment. Just different opinions. I have a hypothetical for you though because I'm super curious now. Let's say Vombaur won big10s instead. Who do you seed #1 for nationals?

Not because the h2h is weighted so heavily (25%). The other 75% is what I meant as equal. I can say it this way, when all else is equal, h2h outweighs conference finish.

When all things are equal or close, reward the guy who wrestled a tougher schedule. But Bartlett has the h2h against Hardy. If they wouldn't have wrestled each other, I would say Hardy should be the #1 due to the schedule. But since they did, it outweighs the one loss Bartlett took at conference.

The ranks I am providing is where I think they will be after this weekend and not prior to the conference tournaments. Bartlett is 3-0 against the guys that are #2 & #3 in the country. He doesn't have as much of the depth of wins, but he has quality. His loss is to the #5. Hardy is 5-0 vs. #2, #4, #5. His losses are to #1, #6, #8. The difference is the h2h loss and loss to #8. The 2 extra wins against the top-5 don't outweigh those for me. He beat the 2 guys that he is in contention with for the #1 seed and has 1 less loss (Happel and Vombaur cancel each other out). I don't know what I put before, you've convinced me that Hardy should be the #2 instead of Mendez, which I think I had the other way around before.

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.

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

If you overweight the conference tournaments, you are going to end up with teams wrestling even worse schedules. Why go to any tournament or wrestle any dual unless you are going to win. Get to the 15 match minimum with 15 wins and then roll the dice at conferences. Why should Bartlett wrestle Mendez/Hardy at any point other than the conference tournament if Hardy's 1 win overrules the other wins he has.

Mendez will still be ahead in RPI, common opponents, winning %. If he stays ahead in coaches, which I wouldn't be surprised, he will end up higher. Happel probably has Hardy beat in the seeding criteria comparing the 2 depending on what the RPI/Coaches do.

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.

Didn't say that at all... You said Hardy won a tournament that Mendez was in. I just told you a tournament that Mendez won that Hardy was in. They didn't get to wrestle because Hardy didn't make it to the finals. Mendez has lost to the #1 x2 and Hardy. Hardy has lost to the #1, #7, #8. Those are not the same quality of losses. Close though.

Starocci should be ranked ahead of Keck until he loses.

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?

That is actually hilarious. Plott has 1 loss vs. a non-Keck opponent and 3 to Keck. By beating Plott so many times he has damaged his QW points. But if you want to do them all... Keck: Plot - 4.5 Brenot - .5 Heeg - .5 Robin - .5 Berge - 4.5 Olszko - .5 Allred - 3 Bockman - 2 Hawks - 1 Total = 17 Carter: McNelly - 6 Smith - 3 Washington - 1 Ruth - 2 Rogotzke - .5 Bullock - .5 Cartagena-Walsh - 2 Allred - 3 Hawks - 1 Ebert - .5 Wills - .5 Hoose - .5 Total = 21.5 You guys have proved me wrong on the QW. I'm also baffled there isn't some sort of multiplier for multiple wins vs. guys. That wins against Cartegena-Walsh, Allred, & Smith (No AA's) is seen as better than 3 wins against Plott (2, 6, 6 NCAA). Or said another way, you're better off beating 3 guys ranked 10th-15th than 1 guy ranked #2.

Mendez won a bracket that Hardy took 3rd in during the year. At least Mendez lost to the top seed in the country when taking 4th.

So to be clear, we are discounting the rest of the season when determining seeding? That's fine if so, but it's going to only cause coaches to weaken their schedule as much as possible and dodge more matches than they do.

Because he has losses to Jamison (who Mendez beat) and Happel. While good losses as they will both be top-8 seeds, they are still losses that Mendez doesn't have.

I don't know you're getting at with these... If you replace the coaches rank with the RPI you get this: Keck: #2 x3 #5 x 2 #6 x2 #15 x1 by fall #22 x1 by (MD 17-4) #24 x 2 Carter: #4 x1 #10 x2 #15 x1 by major #14 x1 #16 x1 #22 x1 by MD (10-1) #25 x11 Keck still comes out on top and actually looks even better. The 2 matchups that are the same wouldn't count towards quality wins, they would count towards common opponents. The only metric that is in favor of Starocci is the coaches rank. RPI, Common Opponents, Quality wins are in favor of Keck. Win %, H2H, Tourney finish are even.

The coaches might due to recency bias, but they shouldn't. RPI will still have Mendez ahead.

His losses to Happel, Jamison, and Bartlett aren't taken into consideration? Bartlett is going to come out on the formula ahead of Hardy. He may come out ahead of Mendez due to the H2H and conference finish criteria, but Mendez will be ahead in the ranks, common opponents, win %, and at least even with quality wins.

The RPI is going to favor Keckeisen. It's going to come down to Quality Wins (Last coaches rank). Keck: #3 x3 #5 x2 #6 x1 by fall #10 x 2 #11 x1 by (MD 17-4) Carter: #4 x1 #6 x1 by major #9 x2 #11 x 1 by MD (10-1) Keck clearly has more and better wins. He also has a better result against the Allred. I do agree that the committee won't change the order of whatever the calculation comes out with. Just think it will be Keck.