Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

174

Recommended Posts

And Nickal lost to Andy McCulley, a solid but unspectacular wrestler from Wyoming, in his last 5 matches, so...

 

And in his last 5 matches, Gilman got decked by a guy with 14 losses.

 

Point is:  last year's over.  If you don't think Nickal has the resume to be top 5, fine.  Then rank him, say, 10th -- but put Epperly below him, because the clearly better wrestler won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the rules, but the rankers saw the match. It happened, and they must have noticed it because Epperly leap frogged over Crutchmer after it happened. 

 

Oct 27:

Crutchmer 2nd

Epperly 3rd

 

November 3

Epperly 2nd

Crutchmer 3rd

 

Nothing happened EXCEPT that Epperly beat Crutchmer at NWCA in a match rankers are supposed to, by rule, ignore. Do you think they ignored that match? The rankings above say they did not. 

I agree it counts some, that's why I said it doesn't count the same.  They definitely made the switch based on an all-star match with experimental rules that was decided by an interlocking fingers call.  Now that Epperly lost and will have to be dropped, my guess is they pretend Crutchmer didn't lose to him.  Especially after Crutchmer beat Meyer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creativity aside, you're just misrepresenting my opinions.  It's not a youth asterisk.  His youth is a factor because it means he hasn't had the time to develop a resume worthy of being a top 3 ranked wrestler.  It's a function of his youth, but it's not "rank him low because he's young".  Resume's are built up over time, last season still counts.  If it didn't, there wouldn't be preseason rankings.

 

Nah, it's just debate. And you can have the 'not Top-3 yet' point, b/c preseason rankings (in any sport really) are so flawed & yawny.

 

It's the fact that you'd continue to rank Epperly above Nickal that's the worst of the assertions. You say last season still counts and I say for how long? What's the magic number of This Year matches that need to occur before Last Year matches fade into place behind it?

 

And at what price? At the devaluation of the head-to-head matches this year?

 

That's my biggest beef. We're taking a H2H win, a fairly dominant one, and chipping away it with a bunch of but buts around the edges--including bringing in results from a time when the winning wrestler didn't even have a chance to compete. It's hilarious.

 

And it makes for poor debate strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bo Nickal very much could have compiled results.  In fact, he did, losing to Andy McCulley from Wyoming (a long w/ a close loss to Matt Brown and 13 wins over middling competition).  And Joey McKenna did, too, taking 3rd at the Midlands while beating Josh Dziewa, before getting his win this season over Evan Henderson.  That's how Nolf obtained a higher ranking coming into the season, based off his results from last year.

 

Hell, they even make the same argument for Gulibon, even though I didn't agree with their application.  They say his high quality wins at 133 (Taylor, Clark, Richards, etc.) are better than anybody's wins at 141 because the weight is better/deeper at 133.  So they include some subjectivity about the value/depth of a weight class, but it's still about quality of wins.

Edited by VakAttack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you were placing a bet on would would win in a match, Nickal versus everyone in college wrestling, who wins? if Nickal would lose to anyone in a hypothetical, those guys should be ranked ahead of him. if Nickal wins, he goes ahead of them. that's how all rankings should go. Bayesian probabilities using all available information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing happened EXCEPT that Epperly beat Crutchmer at NWCA in a match rankers are supposed to, by rule, ignore. Do you think they ignored that match? The rankings above say they did not. 

 

Can you cite where this rule is stated?  I admit I'm not well versed in the rule book, but I'm pretty sure there are no rules governing rankings.

 

For seeding prposes at NCAA's, however, it is clear that the All Star match never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what is HIS resume? Against 174's, not 157's?

 

Who here that howled in derision at Jimmy Gulibon's pre season ranking based solely on the merits of wins in a lower weight class wants to justify Brian Realbuto's #2 ranking at 174?

 

Disclaimer: Rankings are like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder. It is whatever you want it to be.

The only person that I'm aware of is blaise butler, he beat him two seasons ago at 157 in an overtime match but I would be willing to bet that butler gets him if they meat up at this weight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realbuto is a 2x AA and a Finalist from last season.  That resume is legit.  He still has to prove himself at 174, but noone else at 174 has a comparable resume(especially at 174) so he gets the benefit of the doubt until he goes head to head with someone in the top 10............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you cite where this rule is stated?  I admit I'm not well versed in the rule book, but I'm pretty sure there are no rules governing rankings.

 

For seeding prposes at NCAA's, however, it is clear that the All Star match never happened.

 

 

 

I am not the one saying there is a rule, boconnell said there is a rule and that the rule is that Crutchmer's loss at NWCA doesn't count for rankings. I believe he is referring to the idea that NWCA doesn't count for "seedings" and that he has confused that fact with "rankings". This noted, I showed him that the rankers did in fact use the NWCA results in their rankings that came out after NWCA. In other words, those matches counted in so far as rankings are concerned.  

 

Rankings are WHATEVER anyone doing the rankings wants them to be. For all intents and purposes there really are no rules. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only person that I'm aware of is blaise butler, he beat him two seasons ago at 157 in an overtime match but I would be willing to bet that butler gets him if they meat up at this weight

 

 

That is a win at 157, not a win at 174. The fact that the guy later moved to 174 doesn't make the win at 174. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The All-Star rule does not apply to rankings by independent ranking services, e.g. Flo. Rankings and seedlings are not the same. For seeding purposes, as well as official record bookkeeping, the All-Star cannot be considered. However, any ranking service sets its own criteria for ranking, and as some have noted, the All-Star results absolutely get factored. To say otherwise is factually incorrect. The importance placed on All-Star results by ranking service X or Y or Z can be debated, but the notion that there's a hard and fast rule against the event for all rankings in general is false.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me in the camp that thinks Realbuto's ranking is not well deserved. 2 weight class jump. Big difference. Plus, he couldn't even take down Riddick and nearly lost at the end of the match. Riddick is not a top 10 guy in the weight class. I'm pulling for Realbuto but a number 2 ranking is too high in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nickal ranked 9th by Flo.

 

 

You were right. 

 

In related Flo rankings news, Kevin jack is the new #1 at 141. at 125 Nico falls to #4, Moisey is 5th, Ronnie Bresser only moves to 9th after beating Moisey. At 157 Nolf is now #3 while Brascetta is #4.

 

In the team rankings they rewarded Iowa for their win over Oklahoma State by vaulting the Cowboys over them. The former rankings had Iowa #2 and Okie State 3rd, they are now Okie State #2 and Iowa 3rd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were right. 

 

In related Flo rankings news, Kevin jack is the new #1 at 141. at 125 Nico falls to #4, Moisey is 5th, Ronnie Bresser only moves to 9th after beating Moisey. At 157 Nolf is now #3 while Brascetta is #4.

 

In the team rankings they rewarded Iowa for their win over Oklahoma State by vaulting the Cowboys over them. The former rankings had Iowa #2 and Okie State 3rd, they are now Okie State #2 and Iowa 3rd. 

Tbar, CP explained how Ok State jumped over Iowa.  It is all based on the individual rankings and how many team points they would score at Nationals.  Heil and Crutchmer moved up in the rankings to give Ok st more points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbar, CP explained how Ok State jumped over Iowa.  It is all based on the individual rankings and how many team points they would score at Nationals.  Heil and Crutchmer moved up in the rankings to give Ok st more points.

 

 

I figured that was the case from a pure mathematical perspective, although my own eyes tell me that by virtue of Chance's and Rogers' struggles at their perspective weights plus Klimara and Collica being handled somewhat easily they got farther away rather than closer to winning it. But Chance's ranking did not change nor did Jordan Rogers, so math wise I guess it makes sense. Though I would believe Iowa fans probably came away from that dual feeling a lot better about where they stand than Oklahoma State fans. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that was a dual meet.  Dual meets are totally irrelivant to determining the team championship.

 

 

 

Yeah, I get that. As I alluded to above, there are four weight classes where after that dual meet an Iowa fan might bolster, if not raise, their confidence level while the exact opposite could be true from an Oklahoma State perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's holding Iowa back in the tournament strength is they currently have 4 weight classes without a ranked wrestler and Brooks is still ranked outside the top 8. They definitely have some room for improvement although 141, 157 and 165 could be troublesome for the longterm. 

Edited by Flying-Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's holding Iowa back in the tournament strength is they currently have 4 weight classes without a ranked wrestler and Brooks is still ranked outside the top 8. They definitely have some room for improvement although 141, 157 and 165 could be troublesome for the longterm. 

 

 

F-T, you are 100% right on this and none of those three weights were resolved for the better against Oklahoma State, but this could have been said last week as well when they had Iowa #2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...