I’m guessing he thinks 11 is too “high”, as in, should be a top 10 seed.
I think Casey will be 8 or 9, though I almost prefer he be 11.
NCAA Seeding Discussion
- Thread starter enisthemenace
- Start date
I think Casey will be 8 or 9, though I almost prefer he be 11.
I agree, if Hamiti doesn't gas out he beats Mess imo. Carr won't gas out and will counter Mess well. Mess is really good and will give KOT fits next year, but I think he is a year away.
I think Echemendia is going to get the 5 or 6. That would likely mean a QF match against either Ryan Jack or Real Woods. Sign me up for either of those.
I think had he won conference he would’ve been around 6 or 7. A runner up he would’ve been around 8/9. I think 11/12 range is fitting based on his season but we will see. The 10/11 seed would be nice
There are 8 wrestlers I see that will get seeded ahead of Casey so highest I think he goes is 9. The EIWA champion lost to our backup 141 so that would be disappointing to get seeded behind him but would also put Casey on the bottom half so that’s not really a bad thing
thanks for the breakdown. Is there anywhere that says what is used in a tie?
Unless there is something specifically says they use H2H, I think committee gets to apply common sense. I truly can’t imagine anyone thinking that it is the best for the weight to put O’Toole and Carr on the same side.
This is why I’ve been saying David to the 3. If they are within the same range then you have an argument. David’s argument would be that Ramirez didn’t wrestle the dual and 3 previous trips to the NCAA have resulted in 2 finals. Again they don’t take that into account per se, but it’s a common sense statement. We will find out but I don’t believe it’s out of the question David ends up at 3
I can’t find anything that does, but finding much info at all is hard to come by. can infer that is the tiebreaker based on them using that in prior year seeding when guys are tied.
completely agree regarding KOT and Carr being seperated, the process does allow for the seeding committee to intervene. I just don’t think they will in carr/Ramirez when there is a H2H match.
IF they were to count the dual meet where Ramirez ducked towards H2H, that would swing things in Carr’s favor. I’d actually like to see that change in the future, you should not reward guys for not wrestling.
At 133, Fix will likely be the 1 seed and Crookham the 2 seed. Both undefeated and Lehigh & Oklahoma state dualed this year. In the dual Crookham made the walk, fix didn’t. Crookham should clearly be the 1 to me but it would take committee intervention.
100% agree here.
Fix will get the 1 seed, and he shouldn’t, IMO. Do I think Crookham is better than Fix? I don’t know, and it’s because Fix didn’t wrestle. That should be a factor. As it should when evaluating Carr/Ramirez.
I just don’t think it will, in either case.
When the matrix comes out tied, the committee has to intervene. They could go simple and say “H2H”, but they could also factor in the duck and just common sense who they know is better. My hope is common sense will prevail in a tie scenario, but we will see.
No point in having humans at all if we just let analytics decide everything. Hopefully the committee does their job and use their brains to think
The problem with the logic is that Ramirez already gets credit for the head2head so head be getting credit for that twice. He got credit for it once and they still come out tied. Then the committee should intervene and use logic and outside factors
A good example of proof that head to head isn't always factored in as heavily, look at WVU's 184lb Dennis Robin vs Campbell's Caleb Hopkins. Dennis Robin whooped him 16-2 early this year. Robin arguably had a better year, if not comparable, but Hopkins got the at-large bid over Robin.
Yeah…but a H2H win is usually pretty logical.
I understand the argument both ways. I believe Carr should be the 3, however, the data used favors Ramirez, albeit very slightly.
One of the main reasons I started this thread
What data? Because the analysis by @HGoat1 shows that it is a 50/50 tie, not in favor of RamirezYeah…but a H2H win is usually pretty logical.
I understand the argument both ways. I believe Carr should be the 3, however, the data used favors Ramirez, albeit very slightly.
One of the main reasons I started this thread
A tie in the matrix is typically broken by H2H, if H2H exists.
It’s why I’m advocating for MFF in H2H’s being counted as a loss in the matrix. If it were there, Carr would then be the 3.
If the 2nd H2H would have happened, I doubt we’d be having this discussion. Either Ramirez wins and is clearly ahead with two H2H wins (plus better W/L), or Carr would be ahead in the matrix.
Typically must mean not all the time, and if there is no specific criteria then it is completely up to the coaches to break the tie.
This can be true and still not always be the case. That’s why there is a committee and they most certainly care more about the top 3 or 4 seeds and getting those correct.
This is why the MFF is such ********, and needs to be accounted for.
I agree with both of you, by the way. I hope you realize that.
