NCAA Seeding Discussion

[crablegs]

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.

I get where you’re coming from. I think there is definitely a good shot the committee goes with the H2H result as the tiebreaker.

My bone is when someone says it’s because the criteria favors Ramirez. It doesn’t. The matrix is tied, and our knowledge there is no defined tiebreaker criteria.

 

[CyCloneRastlinG]

I don’t remember recent years where the committee did a horrible deliberate job of not separating the best wrestlers to opposite sides. Any examples?

 

[HGoat1]

I don’t remember recent years where the committee did a horrible deliberate job of not separating the best wrestlers to opposite sides. Any examples?

They do a good job for the most part, but the most recent example i can think of that they made a bad seeding decision based on the matrix was last year at 184. Brooks beat Keckeisen at all star classic which doesn’t count on official record. Keckeisen and Hidlay split during the year. So Keckeisen had 1 L to Hidlay, Brooks had 1 L to Coleman (that was awesome), Hidlay had 1 L to Keckeisen.

Those 3 were the clear top tier entering the tournament and Brooks the clear favorite being a couple time returning champ and multiple wins over both in years past. I think most people would agree that it should have been:
1 Brooks
2 Keckeisen or Hidlay
3 Keckeisen or Hidlay

Instead the matrix spit out:
1 Keckeisen
2 Hidlay
3 Brooks

and that is how it was seeded.

I guess you could argue they all 3 have one loss and Brooks had the worst one, but this is a situation where I think the committee should have stepped in for common sense and did not.

apples and oranges to Carr/Ramirez situation but you get the point.

 

[CyCloneRastlinG]

They do a good job for the most part, but the most recent example i can think of that they made a bad seeding decision based on the matrix was last year at 184. Brooks beat Keckeisen at all star classic which doesn’t count on official record. Keckeisen and Hidlay split during the year. So Keckeisen had 1 L to Hidlay, Brooks had 1 L to Coleman (that was awesome), Hidlay had 1 L to Keckeisen.

Those 3 were the clear top tier entering the tournament and Brooks the clear favorite being a couple time returning champ and multiple wins over both in years past. I think most people would agree that it should have been:
1 Brooks
2 Keckeisen or Hidlay
3 Keckeisen or Hidlay

Instead the matrix spit out:
1 Keckeisen
2 Hidlay
3 Brooks

and that is how it was seeded.

I guess you could argue they all 3 have one loss and Brooks had the worst one, but this is a situation where I think the committee should have stepped in for common sense and did not.

apples and oranges to Carr/Ramirez situation but you get the point.

I agree but like you said - all 3 had 1 loss and Brooks loss was the worst of the bunch while the other 2 avenged theirs. The big difference was (I am pretty sure) that Keck and Brooks weren’t within the 3 point range on the matrix formula so there was nothing to be argued. They can only look to intervene when they are within 3 points.

 

[buf87]

Pyles on Flo is saying losses don't matter, it is quality wins. And past year results don't matter.

I think quality wins are important (Example Zerban of UNC, undefeated coming in to Big 12 and didn't earn a berth), but to not take losses into account is stupid.

 

[enisthemenace]

Pyles on Flo is saying losses don't matter, it is quality wins. And past year results don't matter.

I think quality wins are important (Example Zerban of UNC, undefeated coming in to Big 12 and didn't earn a berth), but to not take losses into account is stupid.

Losses are (kind of) accounted for, but in terms of winning percentage and the RPI calculation.

 

[JM4CY]

Win over Watters WV helps. He wrestled Michigan Iowa and Oklahoma state back ups beat Abas and Zargo. Lost to Parco D’emilio and Jordan Williams. Beat Oklahoma twice. I think he will be in the 10-13 range. You think too high or too low?

In my head I think he’s destined to outperform his seed if it’s that low but that could be my cardinal and gold glasses showing some.

 

[JM4CY]

Pyles on Flo is saying losses don't matter, it is quality wins. And past year results don't matter.

I think quality wins are important (Example Zerban of UNC, undefeated coming in to Big 12 and didn't earn a berth), but to not take losses into account is stupid.

Good thing Pyles is kind of a moron.

 

[HGoat1]

I think Swiderski will be somewhere 7-10

He finished 8th in coaches rank and 4th in RPI, he’s in good shape.

 

[JM4CY]

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 NEED an AE vs Woods rematch. That one still sticks in my craw.

 

[CyCloneRastlinG]

The countdown is on, one hour to go!

 

[buf87]

Losses are (kind of) accounted for, but in terms of winning percentage and the RPI calculation.

True. But aren’t quality wins also

 

[enisthemenace]

True. But aren’t quality wins also

Yeah…quality wins is definitely a component.

 

[crablegs]

Anyone seeing a video link yet?

 

[theshadow]

 

[crablegs]

Yonger - 2, Carr - 4. Ae - 5


Casey and frost - 8

Chittum 14.

No favors for ISU

 

[theshadow]

 

[theshadow]

 

[crablegs]

Can’t believe Yonger’s that’s some BS.

 

[theshadow]