Jump to content

bracketbuster

Members
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bracketbuster

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They will have a final coaches ranking that takes into account all of the conference tournament results. However, that is typically released the same day as at-larges are announced along with the bracket so it kind of gets lost in the shuffle.
  2. Went through and updated all of the pages with individual records from every conference except the Big 10 and Big 12.
  3. Don't know how much this is worth but here are excerpts from the CSU Bakersfield release. Stanford release just said Woods placed second and their was no mention one way or the other about NCAAs Corvallis, Ore. – Dominic Ducharme rode out the clock in overtime to capture the Pac-12 Championship at 184 and advance to the NCAA Tournament for the second time in his career. Angelo Martinoni finished third at 141 and awaits a decision on whether that placement will be good enough for him to join Ducharme at the National Tournament in St. Louis, next month. Martinoni could still grab the Pac-12's second allocation at 141, over Woods, who competed just three times today, his only action this season, but that decision has not yet been announced. Martinoni has wrestled five matches this season, one more than the NCAA announced threshold of four. Ducharme, and potentially one or two more `Runners, will represent CSUB at the NCAA Championships in St. Louis on Mar. 18-21.
  4. I started this spreadsheet this weekend. It is broken down into four sheets which I will try to explain below. AT-LARGE SPREADSHEET At-Larges needed All of these guys were in the second coaches ranking and not yet qualified for their conference. The ones in green and yellow are all Big 12 and Big 10 kids. The kids in green are projected by coaches rank to get a spot at the conference tournament. The kids in yellow are not projected to place high enough by coaches rank to get a spot on conference weekend. Kids in white need an at-large and have finished their conference tournament. In column A, I numbered all of the projected at-large kids (yellow + white cells) by how many at-larges there are at each weight. I know the rankings will change and coaches ranking is not the only factor but it gives you an idea of just how safe a guy might and might not be. Bids stolen table just shows how many unranked kids from the coaches poll secured bids at their conference qualifying tournament. I left Big 10 and Big 12 at the total allocations for now. Qualified: all the kids who are qualified for the NCAA Tournament so far Out and replaced: Guys in the coaches ranking that were replaced at the conference tournament and therefore ineligible for at-large consideration. Other At-Larges: This is just a list of guys I put together who had good records/results and might be in consideration for at-large who I thought might be just outside the top 33. This is by no means a scientific list and I have no idea if all of them meet two of the criteria to qualify for at-large. Not wanted to put some other names in the discussion. If you see anybody I missed, feel free to mention them and I can add them to the list.
  5. Vs. Willits of Oregon State I believe.
  6. Since I am not finding anything on the true seconds on track and don't have the PAC 12 network, anybody with the 4 true second results it would be greatly appreciated.
  7. Who is going to wrestle him? National qualifiers aren't going to risk injury or just default and put another loss on their record. Guys in at-large contention aren't going to want the pool to shrink even more. Guys that are done with the season aren't going to want to make weight anymore. And it can't be a teammate.
  8. I believe somebody mentioned that teams have until next Sunday to get the minimum matches. The discussion came up with American in the EIWA thread. I believe it was @SetonHallPirate who is way more informed than I. The other thing that makes that seem realistic is that Stanford's coaches were locked out of the school account and now use the SaveStanfordWrestling account. So it is not just some intern posting that Woods is going to NCAAs I would have to believe.
  9. Did they wrestle the true second yet?
  10. Hats off to both teams for an incredible battle. App State 5-1 in the finals to get back in the race. The dual was also incredible. Anybody sneezing at the SoCon is missing out on some quality wrestling.
  11. Sorry, do you agree with me or what is online? Honestly, I would rather I am wrong and they are not giving the team's bad information/potentially awarding the team trophy to the wrong team if it would come to that down the line.
  12. APP State takes the lead. 165: The Citadel vs. Chattanooga 174: #1 Murphy (CAMP) vs. #2 Flitz (APP) 197: #1 Kober (CAMP) vs. #3 Andrew (UTC) App State can almost end it with a win at 174. Flitz lost 5-4 in the dual during the regular season. Kober beat Andrew 4-3 in the dual in the regular season.
  13. I only notice this because of my interactive brackets and double checking my formulas but I am pretty sure track is getting the team score wrong at PAC 12s unless they changed the way they are scoring from the traditional rules. I just looked at Arizona State right now as an example: https://www.trackwrestling.com/predefinedtournaments/TeamPointsDetail.jsp?TIM=1614562144329&twSessionId=xqjdctdfuw&teamId=988564140 It looks like they are giving everybody with a bye a bonus point for that quarterfinal bye and crediting them with an advancement point even if they don't win the next round. 125: Courtney does not have any bonus points (activity points) in his matches and is credited for 1 133: McGee should not have gotten an advancement point for his first round bye since he lost the next round 141: Chlebove looks correct 149: Crooks looks correct 157: Teemer looks correct 165: Valencia has no bonus points in his matches and is credited for for 1 174: Munoz only has one pin but is listed at 3 bonus points 184: Belshay should not have gotten an advancement point for the first round since he lost in the semis. 197: Norfleet: 2.5 bonus when he should have 1.5 285: Schultz 2 bonus when he should have just 1. I have think it should be ASU 111, Oregon State 106 (5 behind), Stanford 103 (8 behind) Online it is listed Arizona State 118, Oregon State 113 (5 behind), Stanford 108.5 (9.5 behind) Was just curious if somebody knew better than if I might be overlooking something and because it looks like this is a tighter team race then was to be expected.
×
×
  • Create New...